So I'm struggling a bit with melee combat, primarily with EOTE but it's set around the Phantom Menace era and players can face Jedi.

The problems I face is 1 difficulty seems too easy to hit someone with and there aren't ways for the players (That I know of) to mitigate how easy it is for a semi-competent enemy to hit them. 1 Melee defence is a sorry excuse against multiple yellow/green die. I feel this on the NPC side of things too but at least they have Adversary 1-3 talents. Still, I feel like the range band difficulty is problematic. There aren't any dueling mechanics or opposed melee checks for example to simulate defending or not. It feels very 'Your turn - My turn' where combatants stand facing each other waiting for their next turn. I know it all seemingly happens in the same time window simultaneously, or close to it (which has it's own issues) but I'm speaking on what it feels like. I can certainly describe the person being attacked as blocking the weapon coming at him, or deflecting it somehow when the attack fails, but it happens very infrequently.

The other issue is a modded blaster often deals the same or more damage than a nice melee weapon and skilled user, at least in my group, which has a wookiee who focuses just on melee combat. That's fine though, one of the advantages of a melee weapon is when it gets up close and personal with a group of ranged targets, especially if they have rifles, it's difficult to shoot into melee and the difficulty is upgraded by 1-2 points.

The issue comes when a melee character closes the distance on a ranged one, attacks, and then on the ranged characters turn, they simply use a maneuver to run away, and their action to shoot at the melee combatant at short range... And so on and so forth. If a melee character closes that distance (during which time they're at a disadvantage) shouldn't they have the advantage when they get close, or a ways of keeping distance with the ranged character rather than watching them run out of melee? Such as an attack of opportunity like in DnD perhaps,for leaving melee. As far as I know I haven't come across any rules which help with things like this.

Am I missing something? Have others dealt with similar problems, have you come up with house rules to deal with this?

Thanks.

26 minutes ago, Brainbilly said:

The problems I face is 1 difficulty seems too easy to hit someone with and there aren't ways for the players (That I know of) to mitigate how easy it is for a semi-competent enemy to hit them.

Melee difficulty is Average( ) , not Easy ( ) . That should help a little bit. Also, characters can always take the Defensive Stance manoeuvre to add to all incoming melee combat checks(Melee, Brawl and Lightsaber). This also adds to their melee combat checks until the end of their next turn, too.

If you want to increase the difficulty of opponent's melee combat checks, look no further than the Side Step talent: for each rank, you may suffer 1 strain to increase the difficulty of all incoming melee combat checks by 1. So if you have 3 ranks you can suffer 3 strain to upgrade the difficulty three times .

30 minutes ago, Brainbilly said:

The other  issue is a modded blaster often deals the same  or more damage than a nice melee weapon and skilled   user  

The mod system is a bit wonky, yeah. And I'm no expert, but I'm sure there are mods you can get for your melee weapons that make them as nasty as a modded blaster.

33 minutes ago, Brainbilly said:

The issue comes when  a melee character closes the distance on a ranged one, attacks, and then on the ranged characters turn, they simply use a maneuver to run away, and their action to shoot at the melee combatant at short range... And so on  and so forth 

At some point the ranged character will run out of room to move and will be stuck in engaged range. That's a great use of threat/despair. Heck, don't forget you can spend 2 threat from an enemies check to take an out-of-turn manoeuvre—use that to get back in melee range!

34 minutes ago, Brainbilly said:

shouldn't  they have the advantage when they get close, or a ways of keeping distance with the ranged character rather than watching them run out of  melee? 

If you want that, look for weapons or talents that let you immobilize your opponent (I'm sure there are some, I just don't have my books handy so can't quote them to you).

36 minutes ago, Brainbilly said:

Such  as an attack of opportunity like in DnD perhaps,for leaving melee. As far as I know I haven't come across any rules which help with things like this.

In D&D, you take the disengage action to not get hit with an opportunity attack, and in SWRPG you take the Disengage manoeuvre to, well, disengage from melee combat. There is no equivalent of an opportunity attack in SWRPG because it adds too much dice rolling and doesn't fit with the source material.

To the action economy question, it is true that a 'cat and mouse' game of moving in and out of engaged range is common between melee and ranged opponents, with each using their maneuver to better position themselves for their own attack. Because rounds are not rigid units of time but rather amorphous narrative periods that could describe seconds on up to minutes, imagine that a character maneuvering back out of engaged range is carefully ducking and twisting away from their opponent to avoid 'attacks of opportunity.' This is in stark contrast to D&D and other games that are focused on five foot squares and specific action lengths. When a Wookiee maneuvers into engaged range and swings her Ryyk blade, she is feinting and lunging, swinging several times as she corners her target. Each opponent is using their free maneuver to position themselves for their attack, meaning they are limiting what else they can do in the round (aiming, using a stim pack, changing weapons, taking cover) unless they spend strain.

Keep in mind that three Advantage can disarm an opponent, and a Despair can cause the acting character to fall prone, both of which eat up maneuvers. There are changes to the environment from Advantage and out-of-turn maneuvers from opponent-generated Threat. Again, each 'action' is really more than just a simple act, rather (informed by advantage, threat, triumph, and despair) encompassing up to a couple of minutes of narrative effect.

As to the dice mechanics:

• The base difficulty of a melee attack is Average , and the base difficulty of a ranged attack in short range is Easy .
• Attacking a target in engaged range with a Ranged (Light) weapon increases the difficulty by one, to Average , and an attack with a Ranged (Heavy) weapon increases it by two, to Hard .
• Firing a ranged weapon into combat where one of your ally's is engaged with your target upgrades the difficulty once, changing a purple Difficulty die to a red Challenge die (by RAW any De spair generated on the check are automatically spent to hit your ally instead of the target).
• Also, if an opponent fires a Ranged weapon while engaged with an opponent, that opponent adds a Boost die to their next attack while still engaged .
• Defense adds one Setback die per rank.

From a percentage standpoint, a difficulty upgrade is slightly better than adding a Setback , while an increase in difficulty is better than both. A positive die is slightly better than its equivalent negative die.

Broadly, combat in FFG's narrative dice system can and should be pretty quick. Most attacks hit hard, and characters and adversaries alike can generally only take two to four hits before going down. Beefy characters with high soak and wound thresholds, and with talents that mitigate damage like Parry and Deflect can last a bit longer, but generally combat is a risky endeavor. A combat that lasts longer than a few rounds (say five to seven) should be the exception, and I try to limit those to climactic encounters that happen once every few sessions.

As a final aside, from my experience, a melee specialist that is well into the Hired Gun: Marauder tree with a fully modded vibro-weapon will be tearing through opponents and shrugging off blaster fire. In fact, I have to tailor encounters to account for my player who runs a melee-focused character, lest the combat end before anyone else gets to do much.

4 hours ago, Brainbilly said:

Am I missing something?

Up front, sort of.

D&D, and it's fantasy relatives, focus on the sword because that's the weapon of the setting, and run tighter timescales and maps. So, there's emphasis on and advantages to Melee that may or may not really exist. Additionally ranged weapons of the setting are usually complicated. Firing, recocking, reloading, and firing a crossbow powerful enough to really hurt someone is a pretty complex move, usually requiring both hands, one foot, and a shuffling of gear. Shooting a Bow and Arrow on the move, while doable, is also not an easy thing, especially for larger bows. That puts you at a disadvantage to someone swinging an axe or sword at you.

By comparison, Star Wars is more of modernesque setting with a cinematic bent. So time is longer (one round is usually about a minute worth of action, not a few seconds) and scaling is larger (the Engaged range band is actually pretty darn big, while not obvious in the Core, later rules make it clear you're talking at least a few meters, sometime more). Also the weapons in common use are easier to use. Moving and firing a semi-automatic slugthrower or blaster is pretty easy, so there's no attack of opportunity or something because you're not doing anything to generate that kind of advantage.

Also, and this is probably the big one, is Parry. It's a talent, and isn't present in EotE core. This allows you to take Strain in exchange for damage reduction. While most prevalent on the Makashi Duelist tree but is present on other trees too, it's not a force talent, so can be used by anyone.

Star Wars is a place where, while some people do carry melee weapons, they aren't exactly the best option depending on your point of view. They can hit hard, but in broad terms you are still carrying a fireaxe to a gunfight, and if the GM didn't design the encounter with that consideration, you may find it a little tough going. Lightsabers of course being the big exception to the rule because of the Reflect talent, and high damage.

Now, that said, melee weapons can work. But in most cases you move in, hit hard, and Crit Crit Crit. If you're looking for a long back and forth duel with some stormtroopers, you're in the wrong game. Even rivals and Nemesis will usually be the classic "a duel usually lasts 2 minutes or less" variety instead of the long drawn out backs and forth (unless you both have ranks in Parry, in which case it may go for a few more minutes).

An easy way to think of it is to invert the trope from fantasy. In fantasy, the ranged guys are often glass cannons, wacking a dude a turn with ranged abilities, and get eaten alive up close since they usually don't have a ton of armor and have a weapon that's complex to use.

In Star Wars the melee guys are your glass cannons. They can charge in and do some serious damage especially with Crits, but without the benefit of distance and cover they aren't going to last long.

5 hours ago, Brainbilly said:

There aren't any dueling mechanics... It feels very 'Your turn - My turn' where combatants stand facing each other waiting for their next turn.

There kinda are, but they are organic and not a unique separate mechanic. If all you and the other guy do are stand still and hit each other with your swords, crit and take boosts... yeah, that's it. If you're moving around and changing the location, if the GM is applying setbacks and boosts based on the player actions and advantages, the duel will start to form. If you aren't taking the sword fight outside and onto the table, don't complain about not getting benefits for being outside and on a table.

This is one of those good and bad things. The game doesn't tell you how to do things, so you're free to run with it. But it also doesn't tell you how to do things, so you have to figure it out for yourself.

One of the things that helped me a bit was actually the vehicle rules, since vehicle combat is actually more like melee than ranged...

5 hours ago, Brainbilly said:

The other issue is a modded blaster often deals the same or more damage than a nice melee weapon and skilled user, at least in my group, which has a wookiee who focuses just on melee combat.

Crit Crit Crit!

Critting is a big deal in this system, and often overlooked in favor of wounds. And for a melee guy, that's vital. Why you think Frenzied attack UPGRADES? So you'll be more likely to Crit. You really want to get nuts? Look at the martial artists tree sometime. With the right talents in the right order a martial artist can land 3 punches, do 3 wounds, inflict 3 crits and totally remove anyone from the fight.

Look at the Augmented Spin barrel compared to Monomolecular and Serrated Edge.

The Spin barrel focuses on doing damage. Damage still has to be calculated, soaked, added to the target, and once you WT a character, they don't have to be dead, just out.

Now, lets look at Monomolecular edge... Decrease the crit rating by one. On Vibroweapons, that usually means a Crit rating of 1. And you can mod it to give you pierce. So, while you may not do a ton of damage, getting a Crit is now super easy. Against a minion, one wound, one crit, and boom done, he's removed from play. So when going up against a minion group, a melee guy should be critting all the time and removing one minion per attack just to crits, and more on top of that due to wounds.

Next lets look at serrated edge. Again we see a bonus to critting, this time vicious. So while not handy against those minions, this is useful against those Rivals and Nemesis. Stacked with Lethal Blows there and the melee guy is the most likely to get a "D-E-D DEAD" crit result.

That ISB agent can come back from exceeding his Wound Threshold, but he won't come back from being killed outright.

8 hours ago, Brainbilly said:

There aren't any dueling mechanics or opposed melee checks for example to simulate defending or not. It feels very 'Your turn - My turn' where combatants stand facing each other waiting for their next turn.

Am I missing something? Have others dealt with similar problems, have you come up with house rules to deal with this?

Thanks.

When first reading through the Edge Core, I too noticed the appearent lack of a melee component. Being new to such narrative games as FFG Star Wars, and having been kind of spoilt by tactical simulation games such as Dungeons and Dragons (with every last 5 foot step and attack of opportunity and second attack at a lower attack bonus mattering), I didn't see the full potential here either. I thought SW had the same "I-go-you-go" as D&D, but with a more flexible initiative structure, because a side got to chooce one of its component characters to act, instead of predetermined participants.

Starfighter combat had all the charm of rolling dice and rolling dice and rolling dice, and then rolling some more dice. Then, after some dice rolling, there was one side with a clear advantage and they got to take a shot. not much there, either. And, not playing on a grid, one of my players totally new to the game as well asked, if the starfighters actually moved at all. Again, spoilt by tactical simulationist games. They have their own charm, they can be narrative, but they have more emphasis on the tactical aspect due to precise movement statistics, and grid rules. Star Wars D20 Saga even had movement statistics printed in 'Squares', no longer in meters or feet.

And somehow, after Age of Rebellion, ithit me. I had seen a couple of games by other people, both on Youtube and live games. This game is as static, or as dynamic as you want it to be. Small additions in the rules open up possibilities. Sentences like: "When it is your turn to act, you get to make one combat check as an action. This is not to say you only make one attack, but there is a single opportunity, an opening in the opponent's defenses to take advantage of." (Not an exact quote, but it is important to keep this in mind.) Skimming through the minion rules, this started to make sense. I make one combat check, and two Stormtroopers drop dead? Ah, narratively, my character keeps the trigger pressed and sends a whole slew of blaster bolts in their general direction. One combat check, enough damage on a minion group, two or more can drop because of the total damage.

Back to melee and duelling. One of my players had made a Force and Destiny character with a lightsaber. You should have seen all the faces at the table, when I narrated most of the duel without ever asking for a combat check. just described the swordsplay of jabbing, stabbing, blocking and deflecting strikes. Running around, and moving through corridors, until the duelists exited the building, the player character jumping on top of a large cargo container. And only then, did I ask for a combat check when the NPC tried to follow. In the narration, this was one of those moments (yes, a high ground moment... ? ) where I asked the player to make a Lightsaber skill combat check, with a Boost die to boo(s)t. The character missed, and I narrated the duel further until the character got a failure on an Athletics check to cross a gap, only to have the NPC take his Lightsaber skill check then and there. A hit, a couple of wounds. Ten minutes of duelling and changing scenery, and still only two combat checks. One by the player, one by me for the NPC. According to initiative, the 'Player Side' had its turn again, and seeing his comrade dangling from a ledge, wounded and all, one of the other characters let rip with his Blaster Rifle, forcing the NPC (also suffering a couple of wounds due to a nasty number of successes and an adcantage or two against him) to withdraw from the edge of the gap. Fifteen minutes in, only three combat checks in the initiative order. But a whole lot of tension, in a good way. They had never had such an evocative and emotional combat in any RPG, as this one. Only three freaking combat checks.

3 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

<snip>

By comparison, Star Wars is more of modernesque setting with a cinematic bent. So time is longer (one round is usually about a minute worth of action, not a few seconds) and scaling is larger (the Engaged range band is actually pretty darn big, while not obvious in the Core, later rules make it clear you're talking at least a few meters, sometime more). Also the weapons in common use are easier to use. Moving and firing a semi-automatic slugthrower or blaster is pretty easy, so there's no attack of opportunity or something because you're not doing anything to generate that kind of advantage.<snip>

Not quite. Engaged range is specifically only as far as you can touch another and/ or directly interact with each other . It is Short range which extends out to several meters.

8 minutes ago, Xcapobl said:

Starfighter combat had all the charm of rolling dice and rolling dice and rolling dice, and then rolling some more dice. Then, after some dice rolling, there was one side with a clear advantage and they got to take a shot.

It had all the charm of rocket tag. Oh, I won initiative--I fire proton torpedoes. I hit, enemy dies.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not quite. Engaged range is specifically only as far as you can touch another and/ or directly interact with each other . It is Short range which extends out to several meters.

Not quite.

The squad and minion grouping rules make Engaged size more clear, squading especially since you're talking over a dozen people. (AoR GM Kit 28) Additionally, in the core it's noted multiple times that Engaged is a status and sub-category of Short. There is not a requirement Engaged characters be "close enough to touch," though they can be. (EotE 208)

Being close enough to interact can also mean within a few steps of each other in much the same way two Starfighters in Close range can be within a few kilometers of each other (EotE 209&239). In the same way Engaged characters can be close enough to interact without being in each other laps. If two people were across a table, or within a few steps, or just close enough to toss something back and forth with ease, that would be sufficient.

In the case of a Melee duel, much like a Starfighter dogfight, you can have a pair of individuals moving about a space without needing to Disengage/Engage provided they stay within a few steps of each other. So if you were swordfighting someone in a dining hall, you could hop up on the table without disengaging, as you would not be making a concerted effort to put significant distance between you and your adversary, just making an effort to gain some high ground.

Unless of course you're into squads and minion groups always taking the Group Hug formation...

26 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

It had all the charm of rocket tag. Oh, I won initiative--I fire proton torpedoes. I hit, enemy dies.

Why I do believe that missiles and torpedoes are vastly undercosted.

A TIE/ln is 50,000c

A Y-wing is 80,000c

A Z-95 is 55,000c

A YT-1300 is 100,000c

So you could easily make torpedoes and missiles be thousands, if not 10,000+ credits each and still be considered economical from a military point of view, but expensive enough that your average smuggler would think before pulling the trigger, and the rebellion wouldn't just fill up every Starfighters magazine before every mission.

3 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

Not quite.

The squad and minion grouping rules make Engaged size more clear, squading especially since you're talking over a dozen people. (AoR GM Kit 28) Additionally, in the core it's noted multiple times that Engaged is a status and sub-category of Short. There is not a requirement Engaged characters be "close enough to touch," though they can be. (EotE 208)

Being close enough to interact can also mean within a few steps of each other in much the same way two Starfighters in Close range can be within a few kilometers of each other (EotE 209&239). In the same way Engaged characters can be close enough to interact without being in each other laps. If two people were across a table, or within a few steps, or just close enough to toss something back and forth with ease, that would be sufficient.

In the case of a Melee duel, much like a Starfighter dogfight, you can have a pair of individuals moving about a space without needing to Disengage/Engage provided they stay within a few steps of each other. So if you were swordfighting someone in a dining hall, you could hop up on the table without disengaging, as you would not be making a concerted effort to put significant distance between you and your adversary, just making an effort to gain some high ground.

Unless of course you're into squads and minion groups always taking the Group Hug formation...

The rules on Engage specifically say you need to be close enough to physically interact with the other person or object. For him or her to be engaged with a door or computer, for example, must be close enough to use it. To quote:

Quote

"Engaged is also used to indicate that a person is close enough to an item to use it". An Artisan needss to be engaged with a security terminal in order to hack it. A Starfighter Ace needs to be engaged with his starfighter in order to board it. A Pathfinder needs to be engaged with a tree if he wants to hide behind it. The Engaged status simply indicates that two things are close enough to directly interact.

In order to use something, you need to be able to touch it. That is Engaged range. So, engaged range is basically out to no more than arm's length , (or as long as your melee weapon can reach) . Can you reach out and touch the target? If so, that's Engaged range. So, we're talking no more than one to two meters distance at most, not several meters. Several meters is Short range. If it is too far for you to reach out and directly interact , but still within several meters, then it is Short Range.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The rules on Engage specifically say you need to be close enough to physically interact with the other person or object. For him or her to be engaged with a door or computer, for example, must be close enough to use it. To quote:

In order to use something, you need to be able to touch it. That is Engaged range. So, engaged range is basically out to no more than arm's length , (or as long as your melee weapon can reach) . Can you reach out and touch the target? If so, that's Engaged range. So, we're talking no more than one to two meters distance at most, not several meters. Several meters is Short range. If it is too far for you to reach out and directly interact , but still within several meters, then it is Short Range.

Engaged can include close enough to touch, but it doesn't have to, and the rules make no statement requiring it. I understand your attempt to apply such a hard interpretation, but it's simply not so. The core doesn't require it, and says, multiple times, it's not really a measured distance, but more of a status within the Short band.

Furthermore, squad rules state in no uncertain terms that a PC or NPC can form up with up to 11 Minions within engaged range. I suppose you can houserule and insist all squads start with a group hug, but I'm not sure how that improves the game or narrative.

10 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

Engaged can include close enough to touch, but it doesn't have to, and the rules make no statement requiring it. I understand your attempt to apply such a hard interpretation, but it's simply not so. The core doesn't require it, and says, multiple times, it's not really a measured distance, but more of a status within the Short band.

Furthermore, squad rules state in no uncertain terms that a PC or NPC can form up with up to 11 Minions within engaged range. I suppose you can houserule and insist all squads start with a group hug, but I'm not sure how that improves the game or narrative.

Yes, each one within arm's reach of another would put them all within engaged range; each engaged with the one next to him or in front or behind him . That wouldn't necessarily put two members on opposite ends of the group engaged with each other, however, unless they were all on a circle, in which case, there is no "end". each member of a squad in formation , is within arm's reach of the guy next to him (I know this because I was in the Army, and had to stand in formation, plenty of times), not shoulder to shoulder, but, rather, outstretched arm with fingers straight, to shoulder. That's Engaged .

The F&D Core rulebook explicitly says that they have to be able to directly interact, and it also says you have to be close enough to actually use an item to be considered engaged with it. In order to use an item, you need to be close enough to reach out and touch it or pick it up. Yes, it is a sub category of Short Range. Specifically, it is where two things are close enough to physically interact, as opposed to several meters away. In other words, Engaged Range is melee range. Melee range is no more than two meters.

11 hours ago, Brainbilly said:

So I'm struggling a bit with melee combat, primarily with EOTE but it's set around the Phantom Menace era and players can face Jedi.

The problems I face is 1 difficulty seems too easy to hit someone with and there aren't ways for the players (That I know of) to mitigate how easy it is for a semi-competent enemy to hit them. 1 Melee defence is a sorry excuse against multiple yellow/green die. I feel this on the NPC side of things too but at least they have Adversary 1-3 talents. Still, I feel like the range band difficulty is problematic. There aren't any dueling mechanics or opposed melee checks for example to simulate defending or not. It feels very 'Your turn - My turn' where combatants stand facing each other waiting for their next turn. I know it all seemingly happens in the same time window simultaneously, or close to it (which has it's own issues) but I'm speaking on what it feels like. I can certainly describe the person being attacked as blocking the weapon coming at him, or deflecting it somehow when the attack fails, but it happens very infrequently.

The other issue is a modded blaster often deals the same or more damage than a nice melee weapon and skilled user, at least in my group, which has a wookiee who focuses just on melee combat. That's fine though, one of the advantages of a melee weapon is when it gets up close and personal with a group of ranged targets, especially if they have rifles, it's difficult to shoot into melee and the difficulty is upgraded by 1-2 points.

The issue comes when a melee character closes the distance on a ranged one, attacks, and then on the ranged characters turn, they simply use a maneuver to run away, and their action to shoot at the melee combatant at short range... And so on and so forth. If a melee character closes that distance (during which time they're at a disadvantage) shouldn't they have the advantage when they get close, or a ways of keeping distance with the ranged character rather than watching them run out of melee? Such as an attack of opportunity like in DnD perhaps,for leaving melee. As far as I know I haven't come across any rules which help with things like this.

Am I missing something? Have others dealt with similar problems, have you come up with house rules to deal with this?

Thanks.

I feel I could have written this post a year ago, as I looked at all those dice and I thought that one Setback was a joke. But when you read in this system how many conditions can give a Setback, and how the GM is justified in making it rain with the black cubes, I feel it begins to feel like its going be less of a turkey shoot.

Guns are Superior

In my opinion, Melee who are non-Jedi really should never openly charge into gunfire unless they have no choice. Because it takes a maneuver just to disengage the melee guy has his advantage when up close, and the Engaged Range penalties to ranged (light) and ranged (heavy) help out a bit, but facing a gun outside of cover isn't a great situation.

I don't have a lot of Jedi in my games, but from what I have seen they are not immune to ranged attacks even with the lightsaber.

Cover is important. The environment should always be a character in the combats and the environment can do it's part to help the side that uses it most advantageously.

Also as for the tree chopping effect, the combat rounds in this game are of indeterminate length and can last up to a minute. If you really feel like the combat is too asynchronous you can try resolving simultaneously, truncating results to fall in the range of simultaneous actions. I don't feel that this is necessary though as the threat and despair that can result in an attack are perfect for making combat seem reactive.

11 hours ago, Brainbilly said:

It feels very 'Your turn - My turn' where combatants stand facing each other waiting for their next turn. I know it all seemingly happens in the same time window simultaneously, or close to it (which has it's own issues) but I'm speaking on what it feels like.

This is a common complaint, and I think it stems from approaching the game in a static fashion and not setting appropriate goals. With other games, like D&D, killing everything in your path is almost a requirement. Here, it's a luxury, because the damage output is relatively high. If your PCs have time to trade more than a couple blows at a time, they don't really have a goal besides killing the opposition. If they are comfortable hanging around long enough to wait for their next turn to take a whack, they aren't really motivated by anything else. I try to treat combat more like a chase because there's always at least one clock ticking. At a minimum, for example, the PCs have to get to the spaceport before the Imperials (or whatever your enemy is) close it down, and standing around trading blows isn't going to achieve that goal.

11 hours ago, Brainbilly said:

The problems I face is 1 difficulty seems too easy to hit someone with and there aren't ways for the players (That I know of) to mitigate how easy it is for a semi-competent enemy to hit them.

This is a bit by design, to keep the game moving. If you go with opposed rolls, the "my turn, your turn" situation is even worse. This way, the PCs are motivated to not stick around just to get hit. That said, there are plenty of abilities that help turn the tables, from Dodge and other similar talents, to Parry to reduce damage, to committing Force dice with the Sense power. There are a lot of ways to enhance defense that aren't apparent when you're starting out.

Thanks all for the helpful advice. I look forward to applying some of this in my next game.

On 9/4/2018 at 2:59 PM, Ghostofman said:

Why I do believe that missiles and torpedoes are vastly undercosted.

A TIE/ln is 50,000c

A Y-wing is 80,000c

A Z-95 is 55,000c

A YT-1300 is 100,000c

So you could easily make torpedoes and missiles be thousands, if not 10,000+ credits each and still be considered economical from a military point of view, but expensive enough that your average smuggler would think before pulling the trigger, and the rebellion wouldn't just fill up every Starfighters magazine before every mission.

The Rebellion has a supply chain, they have their own munitions plants or at least friendly ones they work with. Missile can’t be that hard to make with Star Wars tech, and vast amounts of space to extract minerals.

18 hours ago, Eoen said:

The Rebellion has a supply chain, they have their own munitions plants or at least friendly ones they work with. Missile can’t be that hard to make with Star Wars tech, and vast amounts of space to extract minerals.

Yes and no. While the exact capability of the Rebellion will depend on your interpretation of them, the cost of weapons and logistics will always be a factor. To be honest the Empire has the same issue despite "unlimited" resources.

This is the pain of warheads. In the real world they aren't cheap, but it balances out. A hellfire longbow is something like $125,000 just for the missile, not the costs of getting it somewhere. But even if the logistics costs raise the Hellfire to $1million, it's still economical. An Abrams tank, is $6.2M, and a predator drone is $4M (so logically hostile equivalents are roughly in the price range). So expending $1M in missile and logistics to kill one of those targets still works.

That said, when a combat craft goes on sortie, it carries what it needs, for cost reasons. An Apache does carry a full load of missiles every time it goes out, because of the cost.

And that's the tough part. In an RPG, especially war themed ones, you need to make powerful weapons available. But, you also need to keep them from being go-tos.

2 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

Yes and no. While the exact capability of the Rebellion will depend on your interpretation of them, the cost of weapons and logistics will always be a factor. To be honest the Empire has the same issue despite "unlimited" resources.

This is the pain of warheads. In the real world they aren't cheap, but it balances out. A hellfire longbow is something like $125,000 just for the missile, not the costs of getting it somewhere. But even if the logistics costs raise the Hellfire to $1million, it's still economical. An Abrams tank, is $6.2M, and a predator drone is $4M (so logically hostile equivalents are roughly in the price range). So expending $1M in missile and logistics to kill one of those targets still works.

That said, when a combat craft goes on sortie, it carries what it needs, for cost reasons. An Apache does carry a full load of missiles every time it goes out, because of the cost.

And that's the tough part. In an RPG, especially war themed ones, you need to make powerful weapons available. But, you also need to keep them from being go-tos.

That’s one of the problems I have with RPG’s in the real world weapons are getting easier to use and more powerful at the same time and the cost is going up because of political corruption as much as supply side issues. This is why small insurencies can defeat the United States, one manpad can destroy a $4 million dollar drone, or an anti tank missile a 6 million dollar tank.

While in RPGs you want to keep things fun, and give the crew something to do which makes remotes in Star Wars dumber than current tech for the sake of fun but they’re somehow AI.

Also one credit is worth something like 7 or 8 dollars buying power.

7 hours ago, Eoen said:

Also one credit is worth something like 7 or 8 dollars buying power.

Is it? That depends on what you're buying. A blaster pistol is 400 credits. There's no way that the basic blaster pistol is a $3,000 handgun (here a 1:1.5 or 1:2 ratio is more likely). On the other hand, a light freighter for 120,000 credits is equivalent to a $900,000 aircraft. A light cargo plane (twin-engine, like the Beechcraft King Air line) can often cost in excess of 4x this amount (here a 1:30 ratio is fitting). IOW, the Star Wars pricing schemes are all over the place.

4 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Is it? That depends on what you're buying. A blaster pistol is 400  credits. There's no way that the basic blaster pistol is a $3,000 handgun (here a 1:1.5 or 1:2 ratio is more likely). On the other hand, a light freighter for 120,000 credits is equivalent to a $900,000 aircraft. A light cargo plane (twin-engine, like the Beechcraft King Air line) can often cost in excess of 4x this amount (here a 1:30 ratio is fitting). IOW, the Star Wars pricing schemes are all over the place.

Yeah I know but I was thinking proton torpedoes are 750cr or roughly $6000. A top end handgun sells around $1500-1800, but cheap ones are under $200.

At some point there was a menu available from Dex's diner, complete with prices. Someone took the time to compare it equivalent items from New York (IIRC) diner and arrived at a near 1:1 equivalency (again IIRC) between dollars and credits.

Of course, that only says anything about a diner on coruscant.

2 hours ago, penpenpen said:

At some point there was a menu available from Dex's diner, complete with prices. Someone took the time to compare it equivalent items from New York (IIRC) diner and arrived at a near 1:1 equivalency (again IIRC) between dollars and credits.

Of course, that only says anything about a diner on coruscant.

I'm referring to RPG prices, I barely noticed a working economy in the movies, I'm sure it's there it's just not important for the movies.

Credits are hard to work.

Luke freaks when booking passage for 4 people on a tramp freighter (with emphasis on smuggling) comes out to 2500c a head. At 1:1 Credit:Dollar asking someone to fly you from Palomas to Paris without any passports or government interference, and getting a bill of $2,500 per is pretty darn good.

Luke sells his beat up old sports car for 2,000, and really was supposed to get like a few hundred. Now 1:1 is sounding kinda ok.

A blaster rifle goes for around 900c, again (depending on what state) that's about 1:1.

But then we talk vehicles...

A speeder pickup truck, new, is only 7,000c... Yeah, not gonna get a new F-150 for that.

And starships get worse. A TIE/ln is 50,000c, a light jet fighter like a T-38 is something like $6 million.

21 hours ago, Eoen said:

That’s one of the problems I have with RPG’s in the real world weapons are getting easier to use and more powerful at the same time and the cost is going up because of political corruption as much as supply side    issues. This is why small insurencies  can defeat the United States, one manpad can destroy a  $4 million dollar drone, or an anti tank missile a 6 million dollar tank. 

Play something were weapons don't matter. ?

Then again, spaceships are more not really treated as cutting edge and/or luxury items like aircraft are in our day. I dunno if 17,000 (two up front, 15 on arrival, right?) would cover much more than than the operating costs of a private jet large enough to fit a living room-sized lounge. I think you have to look back to when planes were simpler and cheaper. And it's also worth noting that the Falcon seems to not need any ground crew to speak of, which would cut operating costs way down. Which means more people can afford to operate them, meaning larger production series and lower prices.

So don't think of a TIE like an F-16, but more like a P-40.