This came up with a PC who was a grapnel launcher that does damage but also can ensnare a target.

He wanted to know if he could use the aim maneuver, take 2 setback dice, do no damage, but activate ensnare on a hit without the 2 advantage normally used.

This led to a similar question with Sunder if they don't want to hit the person but want to sunder their weapons (lightsaber wielder here). I ruled first hit caused the first damage step but that 2 advantage were needed to destroy a weapon.

I ruled it could not be used with things like auto-fire, linked, blast, burn, etc which expressly deal wound damage upon a hit, but could be used with things like Stun (active), ensnare, disorient, stagger, etc.

Do you see any problems with allowing this?

No, there are always things that go wrong and right. We don't roll dice to know definitively the outcome. It's a game of chance, let it be a game of chance not the 'auto win' button. Ultimately PCs will advance and it's not going to be hard to gin up a pair of advantages. I assume these are new PCs because a couple Advantages for a weapon effect just isn't that big a hill to climb.

Narratively you can always aim at an item, that's included in the Aim maneuver.

I might. Not a critical injury, but something like Burn, or Stun, or Knockdown, absolutely. I'd try to keep it within the spirit of the aiming rules.

I just started a F&D campaign, and my players wanted to trash their opponent's weapons without hurting them too. I ruled that if they declared an attack on a weapon, that they would deal no damage but could convert extra successes into advantages for the purpose of sunder only (and only if they didn't have enough advantages to begin with). It worked well, allowing them to disarm a pair of minions without killing them. I did not make them take 2 blacks for called shots, mostly because it was melee/lightsaber attacks. If they tried it with a gun I would make them do a called shot.

In general, if they are looking for a non-damaging effect, and choose to pass on damage (ahead of time) to get it to go off, I don't see a big problem with it. In my case, the minions would have been killed, but they disarmed them instead.

Some effects I might have to think about, especially based on what the weapon is. I would say definitely not autofire, burn, blast, guided, or linked. Yes to Ensnare, Concussive, Disorient, Knockdown and Sunder in most cases. Not sure about Active Stun, but maybe yes, probably very item specific. If the effect is from a drug in a dart gun, I would say definitely not. Shock gloves? Probably yes.

If the weapon had multiple special effects, I would make them pick one, and that is the only one they can convert successes for. Looking at the Stokli Spray Sticks.

I don't really see this as an 'auto-win' scenario. It's allowing the PC to accomplish the goal he has in mind along the primary axis of success rather than the secondary axis. Overcoming the two set back dice seems very nearly equivalent to generating two advantages. It puts more choice and creativity in the player's hand IMO.

But I also recognize that this may have follow on consequences that I haven't considered...hence this thread

18 minutes ago, FinarinPanjoro said:

Overcoming the two set back dice seems very nearly equivalent to generating two advantages.

It is , but it is not exactly the same. I agree with 2P51 in that there are some things that should always be up to the dice, but I'm not above giving players a reward equal to the level of risk they take. Or, in the case of a Gunslinger, the XP they've invested to be awesome.

Depends. Maybe yes, maybe no. There might be a problem with talents which remove setback dice. Removing two setback become practically free quality activation.

4 hours ago, kkuja said:

Depends. Maybe yes, maybe no. There might be a problem with talents which remove setback dice. Removing two setback become practically free quality activation.

But that's an ability that people have paid for. One is a once-per-encounter Force talent, and the other is a Gunslinger-only talent specific to the aim maneuver. And in either case it still costs a maneuver. And the GM is always within his rights to increase the Difficulty of certain checks, depending on the effect you're going for. I mean, heck, we're well into house rule/homebrew territory here, anyway

Go for it. be alert in case it becomes a broken thing. But otherwise, no big deal if you and your players find it cool. Remember to allow the opposition* to use those manoeuvres as well.

*I am not calling them the bad guys because, well, if your players are like mine "bad" and "good" are very flexible concepts.