5 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Where is Knockdown?

Sheesh. I'm going to bow out, we're simply not going to agree. All the OP wanted was a Force Push, he can either:

• use the existing Move power with narrative flair and use the dev's over-powered suggestion on an over-powered power,
• trade damage for some kind of weapon quality like Knockdown
• trade more damage for actual movement of the target to a new range band

You know perfectly well that I already provided a quote showing that knocking someone over is entirely within the scope of spending three Advantages. Simply ignoring it doesn't stop it being true.

4 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Like the others, you're not addressing the purpose or value of the Knockdown Talent. But I'm done, knock (down) yourselves out

Edit: one last thought: would you allow Knockdown with a blaster rifle? If not, why not?

Except I have. If you have the talent no negotiation. If you don't you need to make it fit the narrative.

Crit table 6-10, page 225: Bowled over 41- 45 :The target is KNOCKED DOWN and suffers one strain.

Looks like it's an item quality (p 163 of F&D) not a talent, where do you have it as a talent? Also the item quality takes one less advantage to use and any extra advantage allows a step up in silhouette size after one.

So you tell me, what's the purpose of the thing since you can in fact do exactly what the devs claim based off the rules as written as can be seen based off of success advantage, crit, and item quality lists/tables.

Edit: one last thought: would you allow Knockdown with a blaster rifle? If not, why not?

Yes, because if you shoot someone hard enough in a leg or center mass they will fall to the ground, use a large enough round they'll fall down anyway. This is the very definition of being 'knocked down'. Using it as an item quality, I'd have to read through them all, but my guess is many of them are applied to melee weapons. Given if one hits with a melee weapon the victim of the hit is not guaranteed to be knocked down. Likewise it takes a bit to take a standing person and knock them down in close combat.

Alright, this conversation is going hard and fast, so I may miss something as I type this up, but in an effort to attempt to de-escalate the argument, I'm going to explain what I see as Stan and Daeglan's arguments.

The main issue seems to be conflict between three things:

1) The Advantage in Combat table indicating that for [AAA] or [Tr], you can achieve an effect similar to those of a low- to mid-level critical hit. The devs have explained that they believe knocking the target prone is a legitimate example of this;

2) The Knockdown weapon quality, which allows a character to spend [A] + [A]*Sil to knock a character prone (typically [AA], due to most characters being Silhouette 1);

3) The Knockdown talent, which allows a character to spend [Tr] on ANY combat check to knock the target prone.

The main argument being made, which I agree with, is what I'll call "narrative advantage." Both the Knockdown quality and the Knockdown talent have the narrative advantage, either being a trained ability (in the case of the talent), or a natural predication towards knocking things over, i.e. the quality. The Advatage Chart ability lacks this. As an example:

A) The player rolls her attack against her enemy, and rolls a Triumph! She asks the GM, "Can I spend the Triumph to knock him prone? For three Advantage I can mimic a crit, and there's an average critical hit result that knocks someone prone." The GM considers the situation for a moment, then says, "No, I'm not seeing it. You're a small, finesse character with Brawn 2 wielding a stiletto dagger, and he's a hulking Gamorrean brute with Brawn 5 who is well-trained in combat. Rare is the occasion where your character can knock him on his ***. But you can crit him and see if you get lucky!"

B) The player rolls her attack against her enemy, and rolls a Triumph! She tells the GM, "Alright! I'm using my Triumph to activate my Knockdown talent, knocking him prone!" The GM looks and the situation and blinks. "Wow! You're a small, finesse character with Brawn 2 wielding a stiletto dagger, and he's a hulking Gamorrean brute with Brawn 5 who is well-trained in combat! How in the world do you knock him on his ***!" The player then goes on to describe her Black-Widow-esque martial arts moves to drop this hulking Gamorrean, and everyone has an up-roarious time.

The narrative advantage is that the quality and talent are guaranteed to activate, while spending advantage for the standard option is subject to GM rejection if the circumstances of the narrative disallow it.

Now, I can see the problem that the other side of the conversation is having with this: especially in games with liberal GMs, making an option available "under certain circumstances" is often equivalent to "always available," as they don't like saying "No." And if that's you're GMing style, it becomes a choice between making a hard mechanical benefit (the Knockdown quality and Talent) irrelevant (or nearly so), or disallowing the option from the chart. Which is fine, it's just not how the game was written to work. But hey! I'm nothing if not infamous for my own prodigious house-ruling, so there's no problem with that.

If you wanted to take the middle ground, you could establish in advance certain circumstances where this advantage option is potentially open. Maybe you need to be using a weapon that involves a physical impact. Blasters are great, but it's just thermal energy transfer, unlikely to blow someone off their feet, but few grenades have Knockdown, and that's definitely a possibility with an explosion, so that makes sense. And melee (not Melee) weapons, especially heavier ones, are probably okay to consider it on, too.

The only issue with blanket disallowing this option is when we get to the subject of this particular thread, i.e. the Move power. It is obviously intended to be the power used to generate a Force Push, as is so iconic in the movies and shows. And Force pushes often knock targets down. Played as written, the rules allow a character who hits another with Move and generates 3 advantage to ask the GM if they can spend it to knock the target prone. A blanket removal of that option from the game, for whatever reason, makes it appear as though Move is not an effective replicator of that iconic ability.

My personal take would be to require that the Silhouette maximum of the power be above that of the target. In which case, three Advantage could be spent to mimic the Bowled Over crit and knock the target prone. For novice movers, that probably means spending 2 pips on Strength, which for ones with multiple Strength upgrades, only one pip would be needed.

Hopefully I've helped in some small way. I'm unlikely to come back to address comments, as heated arguments of any kind make me uncomfortable, but I'll try.

EDIT: also, another thing to consider: not every conceivable thing that can drop a person from their feet is considered "knocked prone." Because of the length of a round, something that momentarily trips a person up but doesn't interfere with their ability to act does not need to activate the narrative condition of "prone." If someone is shot in the leg and it forces them to their knee, but they are still able to fire and stand up slowly while doing so, their intended actions not intervened with, then they were LITERALLY knocked down for a moment, but not NARRATIVELY inflicted the prone status. Prone is for those moments where the wind is taken out of you and you spend a few seconds just blinking, trying to understand why you're on your back, and have to struggle up. Or maybe someone is right on top of you and you actually have to spend some of your effort defending yourself, which delays your ability to just climb to your feet.

In my opinion, of course.

Also one of the qualities of a brawl attack it knockdown. Which means anyone can do it with a brawl check. Stop acting like being knocked down is some magic thing. All it takes to fix a manuever.

21 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Where is Knockdown?

Sheesh. I'm going to bow out, we're simply not going to agree. All the OP wanted was a Force Push, he can either:

• use the existing Move power with narrative flair and use the dev's over-powered suggestion on an over-powered power,
• trade damage for some kind of weapon quality like Knockdown
• trade more damage for actual movement of the target to a new range band

Don't forget Bind .

For the record, Knockdown talent is NOT in the F&D core book. I broke out my copy of Edge and AoR and sure enough there it is. Interesting. I wonder if this was done intentionally due to force powers. Edge and AoR have the same means of activation.

4 minutes ago, Absol197 said:

but in an effort to attempt to de-escalate the argument

Admirable effort, thanks for taking the time. Perhaps I should have spent the time to say, I get the "narrative advantage", but generally reject it when it intrudes on other abilities. There are far too many other interesting effects, especially injecting story elements, that I usually don't feel the need to entertain what I consider "freebies".

24 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Where is Knockdown?

Sheesh. I'm going to bow out, we're simply not going to agree. All the OP wanted was a Force Push, he can either:

• use the existing Move power with narrative flair and use the dev's over-powered suggestion on an over-powered power,
• trade damage for some kind of weapon quality like Knockdown
• trade more damage for actual movement of the target to a new range band

Over powered? EVERY character has a brawl attack. All brawl attacks have the knockdown quality. It costs a manuever to get out of prone. Or an incidental for some. Stop acting like knockdown is a huge deal.

Which is entirely fair. I myself hate it when Talents that players buy are negated or made irrelevant. I'm just trying to point out why the other side of the argument finds it to be an acceptable solution. As always in RPGs, there is never, ever only a single solution. Each group needs to find their own, so when someone comes in with a question, arguing about the one true answer gets in the way of presenting them with multiple fun options, from which they can pick the one best suited to their group.

A talent that lets you do something with more certainty and for cheaper is not invalidated being being able to do something at a higher cost with less certainty. Being able to do it for the same cost reliably would.

See to me talents represent training. Can an untrained person knock someone down? Yes. Does training make it easier? Yes. I dont see not having talents as necessarilly always baring access. For some things yes. But not all things. Often times a talent just makes things easier.

Double post

4 hours ago, Absol197 said:

Alright, this conversation is going hard and fast, so I may miss something as I type this up, but in an effort to attempt to de-escalate the argument, I'm going to explain what I see as Stan and Daeglan's arguments.

The main issue seems to be conflict between three things:

1) The Advantage in Combat table indicating that for [AAA] or [Tr], you can achieve an effect similar to those of a low- to mid-level critical hit. The devs have explained that they believe knocking the target prone is a legitimate example of this;

2) The Knockdown weapon quality, which allows a character to spend [A] + [A]*Sil to knock a character prone (typically [AA], due to most characters being Silhouette 1);

3) The Knockdown talent, which allows a character to spend [Tr] on ANY combat check to knock the target prone.

Just to call out here, the knockdown talent only allows you to knockdown if you roll a triumph on a MELEE check not any combat check, which is one reason to be reticent about allowing a triumph on any check to knockdown an opponent, since it requires either the knockdown quality on a weapon, or a talent to even do it with a melee weapon without the quality (and for some a 20xp talent at that).

To knockdown an opponent with a ranged weapon , Id be asking for a called shot , since crit styls results are well within the capability of an aim where you take the black dice option. The reason for this is two fold, it gives a justifiable reason to use that part of aim w/o raining on the parade of anyone who has taken the knockdown talent.

This all being said the move power, unlike ranged weapons and most melee weapons , has a primary purpose of moving things around, as a result I dont see why 3 advantage or a triumph on an ability whose primary purpose is movement , can't be spent to knock someone prone.

Edit Knockdown is one of the main reasons I like brawl, the quality allows you to knockdown an opponent for 2 advantage on a succesful check for sil 1 opponents , +1 advantage for each silhouette therafter. The talent requires 1 triumph per silhouette. So Brawling is very effecfive at take downs even if the damage doesnt get through soak. Makes it a very tactical skill.

Knockdown as a talent is not in the F&D core book in version 1.0. Maybe later writings have corrected this, it can either be a weapon talent or a side effect of a critical hit.

3 minutes ago, ASCI Blue said:

Knockdown as a talent is not in the F&D core book in version 1.0. Maybe later writings have corrected this, it can either be a weapon talent or a side effect of a critical hit.

No but it is a talent that exists in the game , it has not been printed in the F&D line yet, but was in the very first FFG star wars book released The Edge of the Empire beta (and subsequent core book). It is a 20xp talent in the Fringer specialization, although it has turned up in one or two other specs, it hasnt been in F&D core, but it wouldnt be surprising if it shows up in the warrior book.

It would be cool if it did. The statement of it being a talent threw me off cause I mostly play F&D. I had to check my other books. It's also in AoR just not sure under what spec.

6 minutes ago, ASCI Blue said:

It would be cool if it did. The statement of it being a talent threw me off cause I mostly play F&D. I had to check my other books. It's also in AoR just not sure under what spec.

One of the reasons I know this is that early on as a GM I was quite lax in what I allowed Triumphs to be used for , so when a player daid that they want to knockdown an opponent with one, I was lkke "sure, why not" , esp since you can be knocked prone as a result of it's polar opposite, the despair. Then I happened to notice the talent the following week, and thought to myself, that it wouldn't be correct to allow someone to knockdown an opponent with a triumph with a ranged weapon, when the Fringer has to buy a 20xp talent that lets them do the same thing for the same cost with only melee weapons.

33 minutes ago, syrath said:

One of the reasons I know this is that early on as a GM I was quite lax in what I allowed Triumphs to be used for , so when a player daid that they want to knockdown an opponent with one, I was lkke "sure, why not" , esp since you can be knocked prone as a result of it's polar opposite, the despair. Then I happened to notice the talent the following week, and thought to myself, that it wouldn't be correct to allow someone to knockdown an opponent with a triumph with a ranged weapon, when the Fringer has to buy a 20xp talent that lets them do the same thing for the same cost with only melee weapons.

Which is why we are saying 3adv or a triumph + the right circumstances...

There are a ton of useless crap talents in the game. Preventing players from doing a reasonable thing like a knockdown with 3 advantages or a triumph does nothing to invalidate the fact that a talent that gives the ability to add force dice to leadership is not as good as a Influence having the ability to add force dice to all social skills. Or the fact that sleight of mind just gives you a bonus on stealth checks and is negated by immunity to the force where there is a talent that gives bonus dice to both stealth and coordination and works on anybody. Lets not forget all the ******* about how Balance is by and large a useless talent that there is a force power that does it better. Or how largely useless mind over matter and other destiny point spending instant strain recovery talents aren't worth the cost to buy them.

Quick House Rule Move ranged attacks have the Knockdown and disorient weapon qualities just like unarmed brawl attacks.

All those in Favor?

I would love to see talents that refine force powers. Like on that gives those qualities to hurl. Or remove setbacks to force checks etc. Stuff that shows rifining of usage beyond the power...

Aye!!!

I feel it should be reasonable to allow a target to get knocked down based on the way the power was used. If you're hurling someone into the ground, they are not going to land on their feet. If you are hurling them straight into the air and watching them drop, again, they aren't going to land on their feet. If you push them straight back into a wall, they would probably still be on their feet unless they become incapacitated from the impact. That said, I would treat this as more of a narrative knockdown and leave the item quality/talent effect/3advantage combat effect of the target requiring a maneuver to stand up for when someone actually activates said quality/talent/combat effect. Would I allow the knockdown combat effect for 3adv or 1 triumph with the Move power? Sure, just like I would allow a crit to happen with a triumph with the Move power.

In this way it doesn't invalidate the item quality/talent/combat effect by saying any Move check can knock someone down without requiring the cost.

A Cathar might land on their feet tho... crafty felines.

33 minutes ago, Decorus said:

There are a ton of useless crap talents in the game. Preventing players from doing a reasonable thing like a knockdown with 3 advantages or a triumph does nothing to invalidate the fact that a talent that gives the ability to add force dice to leadership is not as good as a Influence having the ability to add force dice to all social skills. Or the fact that sleight of mind just gives you a bonus on stealth checks and is negated by immunity to the force where there is a talent that gives bonus dice to both stealth and coordination and works on anybody. Lets not forget all the ******* about how Balance is by and large a useless talent that there is a force power that does it better. Or how largely useless mind over matter and other destiny point spending instant strain recovery talents aren't worth the cost to buy them.

Quick House Rule Move ranged attacks have the Knockdown and disorient weapon qualities just like unarmed brawl attacks.

All those in Favor?

Im not exactly in favor but if it makes sense in the moment , absolutely, so yes I can see the knockdown of 3 adv , as for disorient, why not use advantage to just add a setbsck to your opponent, like you can with most advantage, dont have to go as far as giving disorient when the rules already allow for adding a setback to the next check, anyway.

Note that the three advantage (or a triumph) option allows you to do stuff (like possibly bowl the target over) in lieu of doing damage. Given that, I'd let someone use it to knock the target prone.

I don't think anyone in my games have ever used that option in a fight, though, because doing damage is generally why they made a combat check in the first place.