Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

It is a declaration of variation in superior hilts.

Wrong. Here is the text AGAIN.

While most lightsabers are austere and utilitarian, some Jedi have been known to personalize their weapons to better suit their tastes and styles. Numerous cosmetic or practical enhancements can be applied to a lightsaber, from rare metals and precious gemstones to customized grips and locking activating switches.

Note that other attachments don't ask you to make a giant leap in logic like you are doing. Here is the next attachment in the CRB:

In the days of the Republic, the Jedi allowed their younglings to train with "training sabers,” non-lethal versions of their famous energy blades. A training lightsaber is almost the same as a standard lightsaber; however, the crystal is replaced with a training emitter. The training emitter creates a blade that is completely non-lethal, and at most can generate a stun shock. A training emitter is a lightsaber crystal.

If FFG wanted to say what you are claiming they wanted to say, they would have said it.

3 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

No it isn’t. The fluff can even be contradictory. If offers options (not exhaustive) for it’s description etc. But it doesn’t confer any mechanical benefits. That’s why the rules are clearly marked in there own section. Imagine the rules lawyer insanity if fluff is binding to the rules. And you still haven’t addressed my central point. The system already supports activation locks in several ways by RAW without Superior Hilt.

I don't have to imagine, I lived it back in 2005 and/or 2006 (when I lived in Buffalo NY and I was the only player [and a sidekick to tramp's GMPC, the one who got superior holt personalization in the conversion] in tramp's campaign), he chained 3 bits of fluff text together to declare that drawing a lightsaber in a bar fight I was losing against a trained martial artist who was therefore armed with a deadly weapon deserved a dark side point. Of course Tramp will claim that I was winning the fight and that the character didn't have the martial arts feat, but he was describing vitality point damage (that he was secretly rolling) against him as misses and his vitality point damage against me as getting a bloody nose black eye etc. So I had no clue I had hit him even once and he made multiple rules mistakes one of which was not giving me attacks of opportunity against him which I knew he should be triggering if he didn't have the martial arts feat and after I had called him on multiple other rules mistakes he said "trust me i know what i am doing." That was the first session, the 10 sessions I lasted were much the same. I can laugh about it now, but at the time it was frustrating as h&ll and I quit the game because I couldn't stay in it and stay tramp's friend. I give him a bit of grief on these boards from time to time but underneath tramp's very THICK CRUSTY exterior over the top literal interpretation of things (once I called him captain obvious and a few minutes later I had to revoke that title because he didn't qualify for that rank) he is one of the most morally upright people (honest, loyal, good hearted) I know. I still send him star wars rpg books for his birthday (in december) and Christmas.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Give me a page number.

1 hour ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Look up spending Advantage and Triumph. Core mechanics. Look up the same in any of the crafting rules.

It’s THE core mechanic of the game to spend Advantage and Triumph to get custom results from checks. Mechanics checks. Crafting checks. Any checks.

You must unlearn what you have learned

I'll just reiterate this. This is the core of the way the game works. It's plainly spelled out in the basic rules. And it's reiterated and re-inforced throughout the core books and the supplemental books. Skill chapters, combat chapters, craft chapters. It's the idea and mechanic the game is built on. Everything else is guidance to it and up to the discretion of the players at the table.

30 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I give him a bit of grief on these boards from time to time but underneath tramp's very THICK CRUSTY exterior over the top literal interpretation of things (once I called him captain obvious and a few minutes later I had to revoke that title because he didn't qualify for that rank) he is one of the most morally upright people (honest, loyal, good hearted) I know. I still send him star wars rpg books for his birthday (in december) and Christmas.

Yes, sometimes he can be very frustrating but he's often very helpful (especially to new players) and I don't think I've ever see him get personal or nasty with anyone despite being the recipient of a lot of incoming fire. I don't think he trolls people but is someone who has a particular view of the game and the setting (which can be at times interesting, helpful or aggravating to others) and doesn't back down - which is his right.

14 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I pretty much stopped repling because this has devolved into petty bickering about how spending adv on building a hilt shouldnt be able to do something that exists in the game already.

You can keep saying this, but that won’t make it true.

44 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

You can keep saying this, but that won’t make it true.

Yeah. Exactly zero people made the argument that " building a hilt shouldnt be able to do something that exists in the game already". I'm pretty sure he was hoping someone would suggest some specific, OP ability he had in mind, and got salty when no one did.

Maybe some kind of quick release belt attachment? Those are pretty common.

Maybe gives +1A to initiative checks? Draw as an incidental once per session? Lets you spend 3A from your initiative check to draw your saber before combat begins?

1 hour ago, TheSapient said:

Yeah. Exactly zero people made the argument that " building a hilt shouldnt be able to do something that exists in the game already". I'm pretty sure he was hoping someone would suggest some specific, OP ability he had in mind, and got salty when no one did.

So when i suggested possibly social chwcks and we have several pages of people arguing back and forth didnt happen. Riiiight.

1 hour ago, TheSapient said:

Yeah. Exactly zero people made the argument that " building a hilt shouldnt be able to do something that exists in the game already". I'm pretty sure he was hoping someone would suggest some specific, OP ability he had in mind, and got salty when no one did.

Given that he "liked" the post where I suggested it, I think he was satisfied with my borrow special embellishment (excepting stealth and resilience) suggestion, and he's "salty" about (your words not mine, I'd say takes exception to) people arguing against that (which is already in the game for armor).

28 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

So when i suggested possibly social chwcks and we have several pages of people arguing back and forth didnt happen. Riiiight.

Some weapons in the game have social effects, yes. In each and every case it has nothing to do with the construction of the weapon. It’s because they are ceremonial and/or symbolic items, aside from being weapons. You don’t get that kind of thing from having a really good outcome from your crafting effort when building a weapon.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

So when i suggested possibly social chwcks and we have several pages of people arguing back and forth didnt happen. Riiiight.

No one has argued that social checks can't be applied be any sort of rule. We've discussed and argued about what makes sense in terms of balance and narrative.

32 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Some weapons in the game have social effects, yes. In each and every case it has nothing to do with the construction of the weapon. It’s because they are ceremonial and/or symbolic items, aside from being weapons. You don’t get that kind of thing from having a really good outcome from your crafting effort when building a weapon.

And crafting can add a ceremonial/symbolic element to the weapon.

3 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

And crafting can add a ceremonial/symbolic element to the weapon.

Honestly, at this point @Daeglan really should say something like

"I think 2 advantage could be spent on NAMEofMOD, which would DESCRIPTIONofEffect. This makes sense because DESCRIPTIONofMOD would reasonably EXPANATIONofEFFECT. I like this because DESCRIPTIONofROLEPLAY"

Example: I think 2 advantage could be spent on Nature Hilt, which would give 1 advantage on charm checks made against Wookies. This makes sense because a hilt made of wood, in the style of Wookie Jedi would reasonably show Wookies a level of respect and would recognize their participation in the greater Galaxy. I like this because my character is deeply concerned with the marginalization of non-human species in the Empire.

36 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

And crafting can add a ceremonial/symbolic element to the weapon.

Yes, but 1) you’d need to have such an element (meaning, something easily recognized for what it is and with a well-known meaning - I’ve asked what could be used as such repeatedly) and 2) that wouldn’t, by convention of the RAW, be handled through Adv on a crafting check (for instance, an electrum finish - regardless of that would qualify as a suitable symbolic element - is something you could deliberately apply to your finished weapon through a separate check or even ask a craftsman to do for you).

14 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Yes, but 1) you’d need to have such an element (meaning, something easily recognized for what it is and with a well-known meaning - I’ve asked what could be used as such repeatedly) and 2) that wouldn’t, by convention of the RAW, be handled through Adv on a crafting check (for instance, an electrum finish - regardless of that would qualify as a suitable symbolic element - is something you could deliberately apply to your finished weapon through a separate check or even ask a craftsman to do for you).

Haven't you been arguing about #1 with people and shooting their suggestions down? Someone comes up with an element (like electrum) and you argue it wouldn't work (or that it isn't universal etc)?

By RAW Advantage can be spent on whatever the table agrees to. Adding an electrum finish after the fact *may* take up a HP depending on the effect socially (for balance purposes) but adding it during the crafting process using Advantage makes it part of the hilt (no HP used up).

18 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Haven't you been arguing about #1 with people and shooting their suggestions down? Someone comes up with an element (like electrum) and you argue it wouldn't work (or that it isn't universal etc)?

By RAW Advantage can be spent on whatever the table agrees to. Adding an electrum finish after the fact *may* take up a HP depending on the effect socially (for balance purposes) but adding it during the crafting process using Advantage makes it part of the hilt (no HP used up).

“Whatever the table agrees to” goes, but it’s not RAW.

What suggestions about symbolic elements have I “shot down”? I’ve explained why I think an electrum finish isn’t suitable, sure (I could have mentioned material cost too, but that would have been too bean countery) but it’s not like there have been a lot of counterarguments. The one canonical example we have of the meaning of an electrum finish is that it indicates a senior member of the High Council. Go for it, if you think that’s a good suggestion.

50 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

“Whatever the table agrees to” goes, but it’s not RAW.

What suggestions about symbolic elements have I “shot down”? I’ve explained why I think an electrum finish isn’t suitable, sure (I could have mentioned material cost too, but that would have been too bean countery) but it’s not like there have been a lot of counterarguments. The one canonical example we have of the meaning of an electrum finish is that it indicates a senior member of the High Council. Go for it, if you think that’s a good suggestion.

If you haven't shot down elements I take your word for it, it was just my impression. I haven't been following that particular back-and-forth in great detail. It seems there's been a lot of bickering about what would confer a social bonus, how much and when. I don't find it outlandish for a player to want to craft an elaborate hilt - maybe with electrum - that conveys status and even mastery of the weapon. It's not a guarantee of a bonus in all situations and may confer negatives in some situations (but this system already supports this idea in it's various "reputation" and Obligation rules) but neither do the other items which confer social bonuses.

How is it not RAW? Interpreting the dice pool is RAW. And anything goes pretty much, by RAW. The "Spending Advantage/Triumph" tables are also not exhaustive and are meant as ideas, suggestions and guides. A player asking "Can I spend X Advantage to do this?" is as RAW as it gets in this game. It's the core mechanic.

In the case of crafting it is done as an afterthought though. If a player wants to purposely create a hilt that will confer social bonuses (like other gear can) the GM (as noted in the hilt crafting rules) sets out the process of acquiring materials and costs for such things, but the crafting rules do support building a hilt with such a quality from the start (and not requiring Advantage to create).

30 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

If you haven't shot down elements I take your word for it, it was just my impression. I haven't been following that particular back-and-forth in great detail. It seems there's been a lot of bickering about what would confer a social bonus, how much and when. I don't find it outlandish for a player to want to craft an elaborate hilt - maybe with electrum - that conveys status and even mastery of the weapon. It's not a guarantee of a bonus in all situations and may confer negatives in some situations (but this system already supports this idea in it's various "reputation" and Obligation rules) but neither do the other items which confer social bonuses.

How is it not RAW? Interpreting the dice pool is RAW. And anything goes pretty much, by RAW. The "Spending Advantage/Triumph" tables are also not exhaustive and are meant as ideas, suggestions and guides. A player asking "Can I spend X Advantage to do this?" is as RAW as it gets in this game. It's the core mechanic.

In the case of crafting it is done as an afterthought though. If a player wants to purposely create a hilt that will confer social bonuses (like other gear can) the GM (as noted in the hilt crafting rules) sets out the process of acquiring materials and costs for such things, but the crafting rules do support building a hilt with such a quality from the start (and not requiring Advantage to create).

Anything goes is not correct. Anything the table agrees on goes is correct. The difference between the two is the main reason we’re even having this thread go on as long as it has - because the latter also implies anything the table agrees doesn’t go, or even anything the table disagrees on, effectively doesn’t go. With respect to this topic, social effects based on the looks of a weapon are iffy to me and more than likely wouldn’t go at my table. Is that “RAW”? I’m not sure that term really applies to something like this.

The uses of Adv on weapons crafting have As Written no such social effects. Other types of gear do. To me, that’s not a coincidence or oversight. So for me, the things actually written in the book support the notion such effects are not in line with weapons (again, making a distinction between weapons in general and symbolic/ceremonial items that also happen to be weapons).

I agree that purposely setting out to create a hilt that confers a social bonus is possible and supported by the crafting rules. However, I think there should still be a plausible rationale for how the hilt does this, and if such a rationale can’t be provided the bonus shouldn’t be allowed. If the hilt is say, crafted using a typical design common among a specific group of Force users some kind of benefit when dealing with them would definitely be an option - but I’d expect some kind of canon to back that up.

13 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Anything goes is not correct. Anything the table agrees on goes is correct. The difference between the two is the main reason we’re even having this thread go on as long as it has - because the latter also implies anything the table agrees doesn’t go, or even anything the table disagrees on, effectively doesn’t go. With respect to this topic, social effects based on the looks of a weapon are iffy to me and more than likely wouldn’t go at my table. Is that “RAW”? I’m not sure that term really applies to something like this.

The uses of Adv on weapons crafting have As Written no such social effects. Other types of gear do. To me, that’s not a coincidence or oversight. So for me, the things actually written in the book support the notion such effects are not in line with weapons (again, making a distinction between weapons in general and symbolic/ceremonial items that also happen to be weapons).

I agree that purposely setting out to create a hilt that confers a social bonus is possible and supported by the crafting rules. However, I think there should still be a plausible rationale for how the hilt does this, and if such a rationale can’t be provided the bonus shouldn’t be allowed. If the hilt is say, crafted using a typical design common among a specific group of Force users some kind of benefit when dealing with them would definitely be an option - but I’d expect some kind of canon to back that up.

Technically "anything goes" is a universal rule for all roleplaying games. I'm also not sure what the real meaningful distinction between "Anything goes is not correct" and "Anything the table agrees on goes is correct. ". The table agreeing on things (or the GM) is the foundational principle for tabletop roleplaying games. GMs can do whatever they want (in any system). But your comment does get at what seems to be the issue.

Yes, As Written no social effects are listed and you interpret that as meaningful and intentional. Fine, you're free to do so. But it is - as you say - your own interpretation (unstated "As Written" in the book). I don't interpret it that way or think it was intentional to exclude such options (seems more likely to me that they wanted the suggested options to focus on the hilt for use as a weapon because those would be more useful and interesting to players). But this is all guessing as to what the designers were thinking which we don't really know (I'd have to go back to the Order66 podcast on this book to see if the devs said anything...). But the rules in general and in specific for these crafting rules follow the core mechanic that you can interpret Advantage/Triumph to do things not explicitly suggested that the GM agrees is allowable/reasonable (this is what I meant by "anything goes"). The system is explicitly flexible. You don't think crafting rules should allow Advantage/Triumph to be used this way then that's cool at your table. Others are free to interpret it their way. Both of these things are RAW.

I'd also agree a plausible rationale should be given (and I think it has with electrum, maybe we disagree on that point) and it can mean the bonus is situational (or even a negative). I personally don't care if something is canon or has canon backing (or legends backing) as long as it fits the feel and aesthetic of the setting and campaign (I'd also disallow "canon" things on the same basis).

On 5/14/2018 at 5:51 PM, nameless ronin said:

Lightsabers aren’t unique because they have some fancy ability. Having 4 to choose from with 1 advantage still wouldn’t really qualify as “unique” by any stretch of the word either. And honestly, if anything annoys me about lightsabers in the RPG it’s actually the myriad different options. In the movies, except for a few mostly aesthetic differences, a lightsaber is a lightsaber is a lightsaber.

The only thing unique about Anakin's lightsaber(s) appears to have been the multi-digit personal ID# he needed to know how many he'd previously lost/broken.

Oh boy,

i had a min maxer in my group who got other party members to use abilities that give a triumph to an allies roll. Ended up with 3 triumphs and ridiculous amounts of advantage.

You could just Homerule something appropriate

6 hours ago, Siuolis said:

Oh boy,

i had a min maxer in my group who got other party members to use abilities that give a triumph to an allies roll. Ended up with 3 triumphs and ridiculous amounts of advantage.

You could just Homerule something appropriate

Just curious about what abilities I'd have to worry about, so what abilities did they use

14 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Just curious about what abilities I'd have to worry about, so what abilities did they use

Elias asking for tips on min maxing... ?️

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Elias asking for tips on min maxing... ?️

smuggler gambler shipwright scientist with unmatched fortune is how I minmax crafting starships

Smuggler gamber padawan survivor artisan with unmatched fortune and a jedi multitool is how I minmax crafting sabers

So it's not like I need any help ?

Add in hotshot to your shipwright for 2 more ranks of second chances... ?