This has come up a bit in our group: Can a force user "passively" use Enhance to boost Resilience to withstand hazards she is unaware of, such as poison, radiation and disease she isn't aware that she's exposed to?

The wording suggests the use of the power is an active choice:

Quote

When making an Athletics check, the user may roll an Enhance power check as part of the pool.

Force users may choose to use the power to improve their natural abilities,

Force users can employ the power to achieve physical feats not otherwise achievable by other beings,

Emphasis in italics mine.

This language suggests that using Enhance is an active choice, like "I want to run really fast", which kind of runs into a brick wall with resilience. Sure, I guess if you notice that you've been poisoned or whatever, I guess you can focus your power on neutralizing the poison, but before that? I guess poison, radiation and disease can do a lot of damage before you notice any symptoms, but that also brings up the question when you roll that resilience check? When first exposed? When the first symptoms kick in?

Or is the Resilience use of Enhance some sort of "always on" (unless force dice are committed or otherwise unavailable), meaning that Jedi and their ilk tend be highly resistant, if not immune, to diseases poisons etc?

To be fair, if the player knows they're making a test, why wouldn't they use the power?

I read the "may" as allowing the player to not use a power in cases where there might be an actual issue when making a force check (such as an opposing Suppress power altering the difficulty of force checks - in such a case a force user may just be better off not adding the force die and making the check naturally).

Tangential, but I think its related to this discussion:

http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

Requiring a character to "know" they're at risk of ailment XYZ before they "may" add a clear bonus to Resilience that they otherwise can always choose to use with no penalty when making a test strikes me as bad GMing, overly obsessed with avoiding metagaming.

Depends on the story you're telling as far as I am concerned. I have a player in my game that doesn't yet realize she is force sensitive, but has Enhance basic and has been using it in subtle ways. The player actively decides to use the power; the character doesn't know she's using the Force. She just thinks she's lucky.

In Legends novels I've read (like the Darth Bane Trilogy immediately comes to mind), Force Users are described as actively using the Force to kill/filter out disease and poison within them.

It does seem to be a knowing act/Active use.

And given that there is a "Commit Force Die to Raise Brawn by 1" Upgrade to Enhance, I would say you cannot passively use Enhance (Resilience) to do the same thing (commit) until you get that upgrade as that is actually the result/use you're looking for. "Permanent" resistance is a more advanced use.

That said, if a PC is in a situation where they know they could likely be exposed to such pathogens (disease spreading beasts/insects, or were just shot by a dart from an Assassin, etc.), I would say they could absolutely use the Resilience bonus on a check even if they don't know for a fact IC that they've been infected/poisoned.

6 hours ago, Kommissar said:

To be fair, if the player knows they're making a test, why wouldn't they use the power?

If one wants to be nitpicky and RAW:y about it (one generally shouldn't) the rules text addresses the "Force user" which, at least in our group, tends to more often be the character than the player, meaning that it's the character that makes the conscious choice. Then again, nitpickyness is often counterproductive.

6 hours ago, Kommissar said:

I read the "may" as allowing the player to not use a power in cases where there might be an actual issue when making a force check (such as an opposing Suppress power altering the difficulty of force checks - in such a case a force user may just be better off not adding the force die and making the check naturally).

Tangential, but I think its related to this discussion:

http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

Requiring a character to "know" they're at risk of ailment XYZ before they "may" add a clear bonus to Resilience that they otherwise can always choose to use with no penalty when making a test strikes me as bad GMing, overly obsessed with avoiding metagaming.

Oh, there definitely isn't any needless curtailing of metagaming going on, as the players and GM of our group are pretty confident in each other's desire to metagame to improve the narrative, rather than trying to beat the other. There is a near 0% adversarial atmosphere at the table.

This issue is rather based on the consequences for the setting, ie, should Force users with a decent to high FR be near immune to things resisted by resilience (disease, poison). Because if enhance can be used even for "passive" checks, it follows that they should be. Is that a bug or an intended feature?

6 hours ago, emsquared said:

In Legends novels I've read (like the Darth Bane Trilogy immediately comes to mind), Force Users are described as actively using the Force to kill/filter out disease and poison within them.

Would that be Enhance to resist the effects, or Heal to reverse them?

6 hours ago, emsquared said:

It does seem to be a knowing act/Active use.

And given that there is a "Commit Force Die to Raise Brawn by 1" Upgrade to Enhance, I would say you cannot passively use Enhance (Resilience) to do the same thing (commit) until you get that upgrade as that is actually the result/use you're looking for. "Permanent" resistance is a more advanced use.

Interesting and well thought out point. Kudos!

This is one of these situations where I am unsure myself, but here I would say no you wouldnt be able to use enhance in this situation, and my reasoning is this.

So far in this game there are a lot of force abilities that allow you to add force dice to skill checks. What has become clear from previous questions is that trying to use these checks in combination with other talents doesnt work. So for example trying to use the peacekeepers Leadership boosting talent doesn't work with the talents that ask you to make a leadership check, or having the influence control upgrade allow you to apply force dice to the coercion check called for in Scathing Tirade also dowsnt work.

Athough not fully explained this seems to tie back to the description of a combined force check and using force abilities.

Im paraphrasing rather than quoting here, but a force ability, unless otherwise specified requires the use of the character's action. The talents mentioned are also usually action themselves (occasionally manuevers). Since using enhance as a combined check is an action in itself it doesn't work with other talents, nor would it work in a maneuver, example piloting talents that call for piloting checks.

Moving on, you ask to do an action that would normally involve a piloting check, ie flying though dangerous terrain at high speed, you could choose to make a piloting check, or you could choose to use your force ability Enhance:Piloting, in the latter you are using a force power and you are using an action, you aren't actually making a piloting check as your action you are doing an enhance action that calls for a piloting check as part of your force check.

Now if you choose to use a piloting talent or the piloting skill, then that calls for a piloting check, that is your action, therefore you cannot use Enhance as your action as well as you have chosen something else as your action.

Ergo, passive use of Enhance is not really possible. Watch though as some of these force abilities are not combined force checks (example ebb/flow control upgrade actually has a similar ability where instead of adding your force die as a combined check, has you rolling a force die along with your ability check and flat out just adds success/advantage to the roll passively until end of encounter, and this would indeed work, note that the devs have pointed out that this dice doesnt efen generate force points for you to spend, it just soes ita thing)

I hope that made sense.

9 minutes ago, syrath said:

This is one of these situations where I am unsure myself, but here I would say no you wouldnt be able to use enhance in this situation, and my reasoning is this.

So far in this game there are a lot of force abilities that allow you to add force dice to skill checks. What has become clear from previous questions is that trying to use these checks in combination with other talents doesnt work. So for example trying to use the peacekeepers Leadership boosting talent doesn't work with the talents that ask you to make a leadership check, or having the influence control upgrade allow you to apply force dice to the coercion check called for in Scathing Tirade also dowsnt work.

Athough not fully explained this seems to tie back to the description of a combined force check and using force abilities.

Im paraphrasing rather than quoting here, but a force ability, unless otherwise specified requires the use of the character's action. The talents mentioned are also usually action themselves (occasionally manuevers). Since using enhance as a combined check is an action in itself it doesn't work with other talents, nor would it work in a maneuver, example piloting talents that call for piloting checks.

Moving on, you ask to do an action that would normally involve a piloting check, ie flying though dangerous terrain at high speed, you could choose to make a piloting check, or you could choose to use your force ability Enhance:Piloting, in the latter you are using a force power and you are using an action, you aren't actually making a piloting check as your action you are doing an enhance action that calls for a piloting check as part of your force check.

Now if you choose to use a piloting talent or the piloting skill, then that calls for a piloting check, that is your action, therefore you cannot use Enhance as your action as well as you have chosen something else as your action.

Ergo, passive use of Enhance is not really possible. Watch though as some of these force abilities are not combined force checks (example ebb/flow control upgrade actually has a similar ability where instead of adding your force die as a combined check, has you rolling a force die along with your ability check and flat out just adds success/advantage to the roll passively until end of encounter, and this would indeed work, note that the devs have pointed out that this dice doesnt efen generate force points for you to spend, it just soes ita thing)

I hope that made sense.

Well, I'm having trouble seeing many situations where resilience is used as an active action, as it per definition is used to resist and endure, thus making the force power upgrade quite useless.

.

19 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Well, I'm having trouble seeing many situations where resilience is used as an active action, as it per definition is used to resist and endure, thus making the force power upgrade quite useless.

Not really its use to recover from critcal injury (which Ive had to do many times , or to endure harder conditions, example, brave freezing waters , or knowingly walk through poisonous gas , as a GM id also have a PC allow them to roll to negate or reduce the effects of poison/disease if they spend an action to do so. this however is actively resisting the effects, which is a fine line to draw.

So for example a character is poisoned and is completely unaware of the poison they injested, they could passively resist, at the time they become aware there is something wrong, allowing them to more actively resist the poison , if they are conscious after the initial check so could then go on to make a further active check.

As GM though you could have a group in a speeder plunge into freezing waters, and call that those wishing to try and resist the effects of the freezing water could use resilience to stave off the effects for some time, or alternatively they could try a coodination check to land on some wreckage allowing them to stay out the water and avoid its effecfs (failing. causes them to get dunked and suffer full effect as they used the action on other measures, or you could allow then a passive resilience check, if you did the latter then those that spent the action could use enhance and if failed could additionally try a passive check)

The requirement for an active chexk is the right narrative circumstances and an action, IE it is a conscious decision on the character's part to activate his ability.

Edit the commit effect for brawn is the ongoing passive ability that would provide a passive boost to the check in the form of potentially additionally dice or upgradss on the check, Generally it is committ effects that provide passive boosts like this though there are others that add boosts to checks passively, like prescient shot for example (Warleader talent)

.

17 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

duplicate post

2 minutes ago, syrath said:

.

Not really its use to recover from critcal injury (which Ive had to do many times , or to endure harder conditions, example, brave freezing waters , or knowingly walk through poisonous gas , as a GM id also have a PC allow them to roll to negate or reduce the effects of poison/disease if they spend an action to do so. this however is actively resisting the effects, which is a fine line to draw.

So for example a character is poisoned and is completely unaware of the poison they injested, they could passively resist, at the time they become aware there is something wrong, allowing them to more actively resist the poison , if they are conscious after the initial check so could then go on to make a further active check.

As GM though you could have a group in a speeder plunge into freezing waters, and call that those wishing to try and resist the effects of the freezing water could use resilience to stave off the effects for some time, or alternatively they could try a coodination check to land on some wreckage allowing them to stay out the water and avoid its effecfs (failing. causes them to get dunked and suffer full effect as they used the action on other measures, or you could allow then a passive resilience check, if you did the latter then those that spent the action could use enhance and if failed could additionally try a passive check)

The requirement for an active chexk is the right narrative circumstances and an action, IE it is a conscious decision on the character's part to activate his ability.

I can't really see it as an action to not die from poison, heal a critical injury by letting time pass or not to succumb to freezing cold of a snow storm. If the definition is that it requires an action during structured time, the upgrade is pointless, as resilience would barely ever be used that way, at least not doing what is described in the skill description.

Granted, I pretty much agree with the rest of your thoughts, but requiring that it uses an action flies in the face of how it seems resilience is used and nothing in the text about enhance suggests there should be such a change.

18 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

I can't really see it as an action to not die from poison, heal a critical injury by letting time pass or not to succumb to freezing cold of a snow storm. If the definition is that it requires an action during structured time, the upgrade is pointless, as resilience would barely ever be used that way, at least not doing what is described in the skill description.

Granted, I pretty much agree with the rest of your thoughts, but requiring that it uses an action flies in the face of how it seems resilience is used and nothing in the text about enhance suggests there should be such a change.

An action doesnt necessarily require structured time, however the key here is active use not passive use. So if the GM says that the player is aware of the poison as it happens, to me they can actively resist, Similarly to athletics checks these dont have to be made in structured time, but they do require the character to actively do something

Example a player is required to psss a test that needs them to run a 4 minute mile a daunting task with a few upgrades if ever I saw one, so the GM calls for an athletics check. The player is actively running this could be replaced with an enhance athletics force check as the player is actively engaged in this.

Similarly in structured time a player falls from a scaffolding there are a number of factors here, was the fall the result of a player taking his action ie he was climbing when he fell. Then he may not be allowed to use an enhance:coordination check. as it is in structured time, or did it occur during a maneuver and he still had his action available, then the Gm could allow an enhance:coordination roll as he has the time and concentration available to him , whereas in the former example his action was used on climbing, circumstances and naarrative are all important.

What seems to be the important thing here , based on previous dev replies is that a force check requires an active and conscious efforf on behalf of the character, so he could resist feezing temperatures or poison with enhance if he is actively resisting. If however he was unconscious at the time he wouldn't be able to use enhance but would rely on base resilience skill.

Edit to clarify something about structured time scathing tirade requires an action, however there is nothing stopping you using it outside structured time in a social scene in an attempt to wear down the people you are talking with. Similarly force powers (which are called out as always needing an action unless specified) can also be used outside structured time.

10 hours ago, penpenpen said:

This has come up a bit in our group: Can a force user "passively" use Enhance to boost Resilience to withstand hazards she is unaware of, such as poison, radiation and disease she isn't aware that she's exposed to?

The wording suggests the use of the power is an active choice:

Emphasis in italics mine.

This language suggests that using Enhance is an active choice, like "I want to run really fast", which kind of runs into a brick wall with resilience. Sure, I guess if you notice that you've been poisoned or whatever, I guess you can focus your power on neutralizing the poison, but before that? I guess poison, radiation and disease can do a lot of damage before you notice any symptoms, but that also brings up the question when you roll that resilience check? When first exposed? When the first symptoms kick in?

Or is the Resilience use of Enhance some sort of "always on" (unless force dice are committed or otherwise unavailable), meaning that Jedi and their ilk tend be highly resistant, if not immune, to diseases poisons etc?

So this is not a knock on the author of this question at all, because often I get hung up in the wording sometimes too, but I think you are looking at a distinction without a difference. It never would have occurred to me that the wording of this power would require a GM to adjudicate whether a skill check is "passive" or "active" and as such certain Force talents would or would not apply as a result. Further, I tend to think the developers of the game system would not rely on such a subtle wording to imply such an interpretation either. But that is opinion not fact.

I do understand the dissonance of force using characters getting to a certain point where things like poison simply can't affect them because of the mechanics of adding a force pool to a skill check (which can often become a flawed mechanics once players get FR or 3 or more in my opinion). But if testing against poison is a "passive" check where does the line get drawn? Is a piloting check as part of a chase a "passive" check? What about vigilance? That skill is almost always "passive", yet Farsight has a control upgrade to allow your force pool to skill checks with that skill.

Just food for thought, again not knocking the post or the question, just providing my own opinions.

25 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

So this is not a knock on the author of this question at all, because often I get hung up in the wording sometimes too, but I think you are looking at a distinction without a difference. It never would have occurred to me that the wording of this power would require a GM to adjudicate whether a skill check is "passive" or "active" and as such certain Force talents would or would not apply as a result. Further, I tend to think the developers of the game system would not rely on such a subtle wording to imply such an interpretation either. But that is opinion not fact.

I do understand the dissonance of force using characters getting to a certain point where things like poison simply can't affect them because of the mechanics of adding a force pool to a skill check (which can often become a flawed mechanics once players get FR or 3 or more in my opinion). But if testing against poison is a "passive" check where does the line get drawn? Is a piloting check as part of a chase a "passive" check? What about vigilance? That skill is almost always "passive", yet Farsight has a control upgrade to allow your force pool to skill checks with that skill.

Just food for thought, again not knocking the post or the question, just providing my own opinions.

I understand where you are coming from , the farsight example isnt the best example as the wording of it specifically states that it is added to initiative checks it doesnt work like enhance does, moving back to what you say about the wording though, FFG have shown in the past that the wording has been done quite specifically in many cases. One case in point was where I posed a question on the forum previously about the talent Precision Strike which has a second paragraph on it that isnt mentioned in the short description where it states that someone with that talent who defeats a minion or rival they could do so non lethally , although the main part of the talent dealt specifically with brawl/ melee/ or lightsaber weapons the second part of the talent doesnt mention anything. Most people called me stupid for even thinking that this meant that the talent might work with ranged weapons ( I had previously worked towards becoming a judge for Magic thr Gathering where thr exact wording was very important).

Turns out that when checked not only does it work with ranged , it works with anything including being able to adjust narrative deaths, for example being able to toss someone out of a building in such way as to ensure their survival even if doing so would normally be impossible (wording the talent actually uses).

So in my experience FFG are quite specific with their wording when it comes to the rules parts of talents , abilities etc. Something I first learned when I asked a similar question myself when I previously thought that force abilities like enhance and those worded identically to it were passive effects that would apply if you used the skills within other talents, specifically in regards to using the influence control upgrade to add force dice to a Scathing Tirade check. This was followed with questio s for confirmation on the other talents like the piloting ones and the field commander ones as well. None of them benefit from being able to have enhance like effects work alongside them, because they require actions, which really sucks for a Peacekeeper or for many piloting talents.

A lot about this has been said. This topic went pro, contra and then some places. For me there is a very important rule applying to things like this... keep it simple stupid or in short KISS. FFGs SWRPG already strikes me as somewhat bulky for a narrative system, so let's not add overthinking or overinterpreting this. What is actually gained by strongly limiting how enhance can work for resiliance. Is it more fun? Is it really a balancing issue? Is anything really gained by trying to go all GM-Prosecutor on this? I'd say no, it just overcomplicates things and I think this here is overthinking.

Should that not be convincing enough, I shall add that the wording does appear quite simply and clear to me.

Quote

When making an Athletics check, the user may roll an Enhance power check as part of the pool.

Control Upgrade: Enhance can be used with the Resilience skill.

26 minutes ago, syrath said:

So in my experience FFG are quite specific with their wording when it comes to the rules parts of talents , abilities etc.

I'd say their fairly uneven in that regard. I tried dissecting exactly when to apply reflect/parry and that just turned into a big old mess...

FFG's rules writing are a pretty far cry from the clarity needed in such things as tabletop wargames and (I assume) Magic. That's usually fine when it comes to rpg's as you have a GM around to be the final arbiter, and it's not (or shouldn't be) a competitive or adversarial setting. Still, having a GM to smooth things over is no excuse for sloppy rules writing. I'm not saying it's easy though. Personally, when I write rules intended for publishing I try to pass them around with little explanation and have them explain it back to me even before we get to the playtesting or proofreading stage. It's generally a bit time consuming but almost always worth it.

5 minutes ago, [Arkas] said:

What is actually gained by strongly limiting how enhance can work for resiliance. Is it more fun? Is it really a balancing issue? Is anything really gained by trying to go all GM-Prosecutor on this?

I'm not the GM in this particular case, and it's an issue we've bandied a bit back and forth within the group without reaching a clear consensus, so some outside input was needed.

To the GM, it's primarily not even about balance, but of world building. Ie are Jedis (practically) immune to poison etc, and should they be?

1 minute ago, penpenpen said:

To the GM, it's primarily not even about balance, but of world building. Ie are Jedis (practically) immune to poison etc, and should they be?

They are hardly immune though... It can take you quite far if you are wlling to use dark pips, yes. In that case we are not necessarily talking Jedi anyway, not in the long run at least. Additionally, should characters with high brawn, with or with out cybertech be virtually immune to poison? Maybe not and maybe they aren't. I've seen people fail checks in the most unlikely and hilarious ways, and especially so when using the narrative dice. In my eyes this topic is still in the realm nitpicking, busy with overthinking. There is enough fluff to argue either way... and while FFG has been a bit wibbly wobbly with their wording now and again, Enhance does still strike me as pretty straight forward.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

I'd say their fairly uneven in that regard. I tried dissecting exactly when to apply reflect/parry and that just turned into a big old mess...

FFG's rules writing are a pretty far cry from the clarity needed in such things as tabletop wargames and (I assume) Magic. That's usually fine when it comes to rpg's as you have a GM around to be the final arbiter, and it's not (or shouldn't be) a competitive or adversarial setting. Still, having a GM to smooth things over is no excuse for sloppy rules writing. I'm not saying it's easy though. Personally, when I write rules intended for publishing I try to pass them around with little explanation and have them explain it back to me even before we get to the playtesting or proofreading stage. It's generally a bit time consuming but almost always worth it.

I'm not the GM in this particular case, and it's an issue we've bandied a bit back and forth within the group without reaching a clear consensus, so some outside input was needed.

To the GM, it's primarily not even about balance, but of world building. Ie are Jedis (practically) immune to poison etc, and should they be?

They are not at the level of Magic when it comes to applying wording and IMO there are quite often problems with the wording although the maneuver iirc in your example is immediately after the check is resolved and the decision on it is made before you decide to reflecf/parry. So for exampke the GM couldnt decide what to do with threat after you make your decision to parry, but if you want a good example of bad wording have a look at ebb/flow, and if you dont think that is bad enough go listen to the order 66 podcast q&a with Sam Stewart where they discuss that book and it gets even more confusing.

My point was though that the wording isnt as loose as people would think it is, they do attempt to word it specifically, and they do attempt. What I believe is th at both the proof readers and play testers miss that about the game and some of the wording gets through leaving dubiety on some rules. (example ebb/flow has the basic power worded everyone in range and the range upgrade worded all opponents.)

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

I'd say their fairly uneven in that regard. I tried dissecting exactly when to apply reflect/parry and that just turned into a big old mess...

FFG's rules writing are a pretty far cry from the clarity needed in such things as tabletop wargames and (I assume) Magic. That's usually fine when it comes to rpg's as you have a GM around to be the final arbiter, and it's not (or shouldn't be) a competitive or adversarial setting. Still, having a GM to smooth things over is no excuse for sloppy rules writing. I'm not saying it's easy though. Personally, when I write rules intended for publishing I try to pass them around with little explanation and have them explain it back to me even before we get to the playtesting or proofreading stage. It's generally a bit time consuming but almost always worth it.

I'm not the GM in this particular case, and it's an issue we've bandied a bit back and forth within the group without reaching a clear consensus, so some outside input was needed.

To the GM, it's primarily not even about balance, but of world building. Ie are Jedis (practically) immune to poison etc, and should they be?

They are not at the level of Magic when it comes to applying wording and IMO there are quite often problems with the wording although the maneuver iirc in your example is immediately after the check is resolved and the decision on it is made before you decide to reflecf/parry. So for exampke the GM couldnt decide what to do with threat after you make your decision to parry, but if you want a good example of bad wording have a look at ebb/flow, and if you dont think that is bad enough go listen to the order 66 podcast q&a with Sam Stewart where they discuss that book and it gets even more confusing.

My point was though that the wording isnt as loose as people would think it is, they do attempt to word it specifically, and they do attempt. What I believe is th at both the proof readers and play testers miss that about the game and some of the wording gets through leaving dubiety on some rules. (example ebb/flow has the basic power worded everyone in range and the range upgrade worded all opponents.)

I feel like the Force could be willing to help you even if you don’t know it is, your connection to the Force bolstering you. If you roll all dark side and choose not to use them then the Force didn’t come to help you.

You can add Force dice to Vigilance checks when your ambushed even though you don’t know your about to be attacked yet, no one seems to argue with that.

I would say yes, let the players have their fun, let them have more chances of gaining conflict!

Our Lord and Saviour, Sam of the house Stewart, patron saint of exasperated Star Wars gamers, has once again graciously bathed us in his mercy and wisdom.

Quote

Hi Joel,

It should be a passive defense, so you can apply it to checks that you are unware of being exposed to.

Hope this helps!

Sam Stewart

RPG Manager

Fantasy Flight Games

Rules Question:
Hello! Can a Force user use the Resilience upgrade of Enhance to add Force dice to a resilience check to resist a hazard (such as poison, radiation or disease) she is unaware that she has been exposed to? Meaning, is it intended to be an active conscious effort to use for a specific purpose, or is it supposed to represent to be a "passive defense" that is always active unless the Force user chooses not to or the force dice are unavailable for some other reason?

Of course, it's not like we need to take the devs' words as gospel (even though it totally is).

I've always treated Enhance as passive stat booster. Best example for this is Anakin in Episode one. He is obviously enhancing his piloting with the Force. Although he is unaware he is a Force user. Sure you may not know you are infected but your immune system does. And so does the Force.