so this conversation came up, say 2 light saber wielders are fighting. One of them has energy bleed on their weapon so they have like lets say stun 5 for the sake of argument. IF the opponent parries the lightsaber attack and soaks all the damage from it would you say that activating the stun quality does it's damage or no?

It's still a hit, so yes.

20 hours ago, MamoruK said:

so this conversation came up, say 2 light saber wielders are fighting. One of them has energy bleed on their weapon so they have like lets say stun 5 for the sake of argument. IF the opponent parries the lightsaber attack and soaks all the damage from it would you say that activating the stun quality does it's damage or no?

I'd rule no, but I respect the opinions of those who rule the other way.

2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'd rule no, but I respect the opinions of those who rule the other way.

Technically to activate a quality you only need a successful check, not a check that does damage. This is one of the disadvantages of relying on parry and high soak. It also makes brawl a very tactical choice with having both the option for disorient and knockdown., even though it has low damage.

4 minutes ago, syrath said:

Technically to activate a quality you only need a successful check, not a check that does damage. This is one of the disadvantages of relying on parry and high soak. It also makes brawl a very tactical choice with having both the option for disorient and knockdown., even though it has low damage.

It also means that the pommel cap attachment can be absurdly effective as its impact somehow bypasses armor that even a lightsaber can't.

3 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

It also means that the pommel cap attachment can be absurdly effective as its impact somehow bypasses armor that even a lightsaber can't.

There are many examplses of things like this in th game, a vanguard -warleader with 4 ranks of supressing fire can cause more damage (to strain) on a miss than they might have done on a hit as long as they have a single advantage, in fact if you can imagine a team of players all firing and missing and doing 16 strain damage in one round on a nemesis just by 4 people missing (since the effect also works on allies)

6 hours ago, syrath said:

Technically to activate a quality you only need a successful check, not a check that does damage. This is one of the disadvantages of relying on parry and high soak. It also makes brawl a very tactical choice with having both the option for disorient and knockdown., even though it has low damage.

If someone straight out parried/reflected an attack that would have done stun damage, I think it doesn't make sense to have them take stun damage.

I think that the reflect rules were written the way they were to disallow them on move force power attacks and force lightning/unleash was was just accidental/collateral damage.

I generally go with what I think was the intent of the rules is over rules as written, which has the added benefit of preempting rules lawyering.

But again that's my opinion, how I roll when I'm running a game, I'm not saying that's how it should be done at everyone's table.

3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

If someone straight out parried/reflected an attack that would have done stun damage, I think it doesn't make sense to have them take stun damage.

The problem is that this severely imbalances the game mechanic. It super-powers Parry and Reflect when you take away legitimate uses of Advantage because of their damage negation. No damage = no crit, but just because you use the Reflect talent on something doesn't mean that it can't affect you at all.

Two instances I can think of off the top of my head from AOtC and TCW:

Anakin, who is awesome at Reflecting, for some reason doesn't reflect Dooku's use of the Unleash power.
Obi-Wan and Ahsoka are both surprised by Cad Bane's little joy buzzer trick. They have Parry; why don't they use it?

Those talents shouldn't be an "I Win" button; they are designed to be mitigating factors.

Also, the Stun quality doesn't deal "stun damage." It causes the target to suffer strain. Big difference. Stun damage deals strain, but strain is not necessarily "stun damage."

2 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

Also, the Stun quality doesn't deal "stun damage." It causes the target to suffer strain. Big difference. Stun damage deals strain, but strain is not necessarily "stun damage."

Sure, but the pommel cap really is a form of damage (even though it's Stun not Stun Damage) because that metal lump isn't really inflicting Strain in any other reasonable way. It's not like Suppressing Fire or Scathing Tirade where the imposed stress works the target down. Or, if it is, it's just idiotic.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Sure, but the pommel cap really is a form of damage (even though it's Stun not Stun Damage) because that metal lump isn't really inflicting Strain in any other reasonable way. It's not like Suppressing Fire or Scathing Tirade where the imposed stress works the target down. Or, if it is, it's just idiotic.

Yes, but with the pommel cap you are giving yourself something to spend Advantage on a success, regardless of damage dealt. Let's say we had the following scenario:

Player: Gifzo the Rodian engages the Inquisitor, and goes for an overhead strike with his lightsaber:

Attacking the Inquisitor : 4eP+1eB+2eC 2 successes, 1 Triumph

Player: that's a hit for 8 damage...

GM: The Inquisitor Parries, and brings you into a saber lock. He avoids getting damaged.

Player: then I'd like to spend the Triumph to activate my Stun 3 quality on my pommel cap. I'll utilize the saber lock to get in close, then I'll quickly tilt my blade away from him, and slam the handle of my saber into his face.

GM: *pushes glasses up* actually, I negated the damage fully, and so even though the Stun quality isn't technically damage, it just doesn't make sense for you to use it on the Inquisitor.

--

That just doesn't sound like fun to me. Why can Advantage/Threat be used to move people around, make things explode, cause a glancing blow to become a serious injury, or disarm opponents; but NOT activate a weapon quality fully within RAW allowances and with full narrative justification?

I don't mind the idea of the pommel cap. What I object to is that it can hurt a guy with high Soak when a swing with a two-handed club cannot. The pommel cap is still a blunt instrument that does it's effect through bashing, yet the system worked it to be an armor-ignoring effect.

I see. Yeah, it's not the most elegant piece of rules. I wouldn't be against a ruling that a target with very high soak (like a huge creature with natural armor) would be resistant to the Stun quality in general. Maybe treat it as ranks in Resolve, or just require more Advantage to pull it off (ala Knockdown for large/sturdy targets).

18 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

I see. Yeah, it's not the most elegant piece of rules. I wouldn't be against a ruling that a target with very high soak (like a huge creature with natural armor) would be resistant to the Stun quality in general. Maybe treat it as ranks in Resolve, or just require more Advantage to pull it off (ala Knockdown for large/sturdy targets).

You can narrate that you are able to use the pommel to strike past the armor, as a result , advantage is harder to roll than success.

5 hours ago, syrath said:

You can narrate that you are able to use the pommel to strike past the armor, as a result , advantage is harder to roll than success.

Why can the pommel do this but the striking head of a baton cannot?

25 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Why can the pommel do this but the striking head of a baton cannot?

Because the striking head could be outfitted with a weighted head and gain the Concussive quality, which could potentially be a lot better than Stun.

57 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Why can the pommel do this but the striking head of a baton cannot?

I think that a lot of the fact that this is a narrative system!

You can argue that it already does this as any weapon that is s capable of causing strain damage is capable of doing this (through just causing stain damage above soak). It is all down to way you narrate it.

You can argue a lot of things that doesn't make sense in the system, why do you have to buy the talent knockdown to be able to knockdown people with a triumph with a melee weapon. Why do you have to buy a talent (fearsome) to be able to cause a fear check in combat , instead of using just coercion.

The pommel is just simply an attachment that for 2 advantage that lets you causes some additonal strain damage that bypasses soak. If this provided damage that didnt bypass soak, there would be little point in having it , there are plenty of other qualities/talents in the game you can point fingers at that dont perhaps make a load of sense applying them in the real world, like partially parrying a single sniper shot. It all comes back to how you narrate it, the rules provide a framework for the results, but it is down to the players and the GMs how to narrate it.you could also argue that the pommel is designed specifically that its used only as a head strike when those advantage come up, and if a stun baton did damage beyond soak that the strike it made was similar.

Disorient and knockdown are similar, you can punch someone for no damage but still knock them down or disorient them for 2 advantage.

13 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

IOW, the "it's narrative" cop-out. It disgusts me how much this excuse for why something that doesn't make a lick of sense "is working as intended" is throw about on these boards. It's like "narrative" is a license for weak mechanics and obliviates the need for something to be reasonable.

Its not a narrative cop out if you want an absolute level of realism try playing Phoenix Command . Mechanically the devs have said that the stun quality causes you to lose strain in addition to the hit itself, it does not require a hit that causes damage, if you want to play it different feel free. Having parry work against it isnt RAW , having soak affect it isnt RAW and narrating it as the fact that you used the two advantage you rolled on your weapon happens to trigger this quality that allows you to do a fixed amount of strain damage could be narrated as you being able to bypass the armor in some way to land a stunning strike in some way.

Soak is the same whether or not you have a helmet on and this stun could be a very specific strike to the head.

Example you strike with a pommel and do 4 strain (I dont have the stats to hand so forgive me if the numbers are wrong)

Now someone using a strain damage weapon hitting someone with 5 soak and doing 9 damage could narrate the exact same strikes saying they used the weapon in a certain way to strike them on their unarmored head to do 4 damage to strain.

Hitting someone witha blunt weapon (cortosis staff etc) you dont even get the option for causing strain damage unless you have stunning blow as a talent. Why dont other characters get this option, that makes even less sense to be honest.

It comes down to a number of factors , it does play off a rock paper scissor mentality that you see in the likes of the Magic the Gathering card game.

Parry is a great ability to have as it can prevent people from landing crits on you, you just need to lower the damage to 0, This provides one means round that , however strain is much easier recovered during combat than wounds are , so from a game balance point of view it provides saber fighters an option thst lets them add stun, but in a one on one fight with a player with precision strike and a Destiny point fuelled strain recovey talent, you could just be fighting to stop the tide.

Given that it causes similar "damage" that shouting does (scathing tirade), suppresing fire can do on a miss (a failed check with one advantage can cause 4 strain bypassing soak), a fear check (one threat on a fear check can be translated to 1 strain for each failure, also bypassing soak). It is hardly comparable to a full blown hit with a melee weapon.

One thing I will add , is that if it exists as a lightsaber attachment. then I dont see why the same thing cannot be applied to a vibrosword, cortosis staff, or any other melee weapon that can do something similar, so I certainly see that a melee equivalent should exist even it is currently not in game just now, but that is easy enough to put together as a custom item.

This is a very weird thread.

So I have studied fencing (Epee, Sabre, Foil, Wood, Vinyl, stone . . . ) and I know a fair bit about historical swords so my first question becomes;

Why would a lightsaber NEED a pommel? Or a pommel cap? The blade is weightless and ergo would NOT benefit from the counterweight provided by a pommel.

And I did have the misfortune to get into a fight were my opponent employed his pommel (yes, he pummeled me) and the effect was not to stun me. It pissed me off and caused a hair line fracture in my radius.

I do agree that I'm much more likely to be stunned by a baton than a sword pommel.

But as a fencer, I PROMISE you that I would NEVER be stunned by a lightsaber pommel . . . Admittedly if we had lightsabers IRL.

HappyDaze, is this what you mean by the "narrative" cop-out? It sounds like this would certainly break MY suspenders of disbelief.

On 8.10.2017 at 10:13 PM, HappyDaze said:

Sure, but the pommel cap really is a form of damage (even though it's Stun not Stun Damage) because that metal lump isn't really inflicting Strain in any other reasonable way. It's not like Suppressing Fire or Scathing Tirade where the imposed stress works the target down. Or, if it is, it's just idiotic.

I don't see the point here. Parring against the blade should protected against an attack which has advantages to use on the stun quality? Congratulations, you have parried my blade and got hit in the face by my grip. Well done Master Jedi. Now as your strain has exceeded your threshold, let me finish you off, before your Padawan joins the fight …

1 hour ago, Mark Caliber said:

This is a very weird thread.

So I have studied fencing (Epee, Sabre, Foil, Wood, Vinyl, stone . . . ) and I know a fair bit about historical swords so my first question becomes;

Why would a lightsaber NEED a pommel? Or a pommel cap? The blade is weightless and ergo would NOT benefit from the counterweight provided by a pommel.

And I did have the misfortune to get into a fight were my opponent employed his pommel (yes, he pummeled me) and the effect was not to stun me. It pissed me off and caused a hair line fracture in my radius.

I do agree that I'm much more likely to be stunned by a baton than a sword pommel.

But as a fencer, I PROMISE you that I would NEVER be stunned by a lightsaber pommel . . . Admittedly if we had lightsabers IRL.

HappyDaze, is this what you mean by the "narrative" cop-out? It sounds like this would certainly break MY suspenders of disbelief.

I would think so , but as I pointed out there are already plenty of instances in the game where comparison with real life doesnt hold true (it's cinematic and if you think cinematic fighting holds true to real life either then it couldn't be further from the truth, example one punch knockouts are nigh impossible).

Any weapon (at least melee) is capable of being used to knock someone down, but in this game you need the knockdown talent or weapon quality before you can. I could go through them all, my experience is with hand to hand Martial Arts and the game doesnt come close to covering the tactics and capabilities of Martial Arts (although having the advantage system helps). Even then the martial arts Ive done all came with rules that wrapped you in cotton wool (even though Ive done full contact, first to a knockout kick boxing), and these dont compare reliably to the hand to hand fighting you would get when fighting for your life, it compares with the cinematic MA though.

So the developers came up with an idea for an attachment , and thought what mechanical benefit can they give it that would be cool and this is what they come up with, it sounds feasible and is something cool that can be given to a lightsaber, but who is to say you couldnt stun someone with a directed hit with a lightsaber that didnt have this attachment, after all this is exactly how Darth Maul took out Master Quigon in TPM. I dont think he had an attachment like this (or did he).

Playing this game doesnt have to be grounded in real life , do you think ships bank like that out of atmosphere with no air resistance. If , as a GM you dont like an item because its unrealistic then feel free but then you should also think about removing how starships move and try and figure out how newtonian physics would work in game. (Mass effect had a brilliant comment of how, if you fire an item in space and miss , its going to keep on travelling until it hits something, could be a millenia or several down the line though.

BTW. The stun quality does strain damage, it does not stun anyway. Keep this in mind.
If you want to stun someone for a moment there is another quality for that. ;-)