2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Also, what is GURPS?

<gasp>! <sputter>!!!

Oh lament at the ignorance of this cast off generation!

Repent you foul heathen!

But seriously. GURPS is the acronym for the "Generic Universal Role Playing System" developed by SJ Games www.SJGames.com . . .

You can go pick up a FREE copy of the GURPS lite rules for FREE from their website. GURPS Lite landing page .

I may get some of the history wrong, but GURPS was developed in the late 80's and came into its heyday in the 90's as a well thought out alternative to D&D.

Back in the 80's there were a lot of the thematic RPG's that were being introduced (by the makers of D&D) but the rule sets were all different so you couldn't easily port characters back and forth between the various genres. Steve decided to put together a Generic Universal Role Playing System that would seamlessly allow GM's & Players to hop between genres without any need to alter the character sheets.

The other thing it did well was allowed a GM to pick up ANY gaming supplement and use GURPS as the rule set with minimal modifications.

What resulted was a very good rule set for down to Earth realistic campaigns.

However, I haven't seen a good GURPS treatment for the Star Wars RPG . . . yet.

Probably the important thing to understand about GURPS is that its approach to RPG's was sufficiently novel and innovative to the point that most modern RPG's borrow elements that were originally introduced by SJ Games. (Including FFG's Star Wars).

Okay, thanks! I'll check it out and let you know what I think.

P.S. I know how you feel, that's how I feel when someone says that they haven't watched the Clone Wars.

Just tag certain melee weapons as Agility-based.

Rapiers, foils, dirks, whatever... use Agility instead of Brawn. Done.

To be fair . . .

GURPS is an older system.

But it still checks out.

@Mark Caliber I took a brief look at GURPS, and I don't think that it is really comparable for purposes of determining whether or not to use Agility or Brawn for Melee, because all of its Melee weapons are done with Dexterity, and (as far as I can tell) there aren't really any Brawn skills like there are in AoR. Strength is used for less in GURPS and that is why it is only 10 points to increase your rating in Strength compared to 20 points to increase your rating in Dexterity, which is used for a lot more.

As far as The Force goes, I would suggest adding a characteristic for Force Power, starting at 10 for Force Sensitives, and can then be changed for X price. Then for Force powers I would suggest making custom Advantages and basically having them work like FFG's Force Dice, you make your roll (for example, you get a total of 13) , and then you can spend those to increase your power's effect (typically something like Sense or Foresee). Or you can declare ahead of time how much you want to spend minimum (typically for something like the Move power) i.e. I want to move something at short range, so that costs *1x range band cost* its size is 2 *2x size cost* and I want to move it a distance equal to medium range *2x range band cost* you then roll and if you get enough points, you successfully complete the power. If you get more you can add on to it, and if you get less, you stop at wherever you run out of points. For Light vs. Dark though, I would probably suggest roll a D4 or D6 or something, and that is how many of the points you rolled are Dark Side. They would then be resolved like in FFG.

I would not tell you how to price or balance these things though, as I do not use or know a lot about the system. These are just my basic thoughts on the subject.

I always enjoy this conversation.

When fighting with a small, light, foil like weapon, agility should be the main skill. Well I think melee combat is more about intelligence, knowing when to strike, when to parry, when to deflect, when to block, where to strike, how to strike. Well I think it's more cunning based. You have to feint, counter opposing feints, know how to get around defenses. I think it's more presence based. I fight using my presence to intimidate the enemy into dropping their defenses or revealing a weakness.

In reality, competitive fencers are VERY concerned about strength. They have very specific weight training programs. Some olympic fencers spend as much time lifting weights and doing strength training as they do actually practicing fencing.

The fact of the matter is all of it's important. All of it plays a part. All of it would play a part in every concept of the game.

Someone is good at hacking with high intellect. What if they have a 1 agility and are are as slow as a sloth from zootopia...that typing speed is going to suffer. But what about cunning to navigate the security systems defending the computer, or wisdom from encountering previous hacking attempts on similar systems. That 1 strength 6 agility character is going to get tired of firing that blaster after awhile, even light things start to get heavy when you hold them in an extended way for a long period of time.

Strength plays a major part in melee combat with all melee weapons for the most part (strength to overcome blocks/parries, strength to push past armor, etc). It's easier to have a base rule instead of building out all the variables. There are a few outliers, and if the player makes an impassioned, reasonable argument for using a different skill, I as the GM will allow it. There is no need for formal rules for it. And I wouldn't necessarily make the same decision for every character. It has to make sense for that character and that weapon. But ultimately what matters the most is the skill, not the characteristic. Is the 4 strength 1 agility character going to be better than a 1 strength, 4 agility character? Yes, without a doubt. I'd argue the same is true in real life. But if the 1 strength character has 6 ranks in melee, and the 4 strength character has none...well, that changes things up a bit.

In general a higher strength character is going to be better at melee. In general a higher agility character is going to be better at ranged weapons. If you feel the need to tweak something, have at it.

@kmanweiss Yeah, they all go hand in hand, which makes it really difficult to make "one house rule to rule them all." However, dueling and straight-up attacking are two different things, so that makes it even more confusing. This will get a few people on my case for complicating matters, but for dueling, I'm thinking that if the opponent has a weapon with Defensive 1, you use their ranks in Melee as the difficulty. If they have Defensive 2 you upgrade 2 dice + 1 per additional rank of Defensive. Then you add Boost/Setback to represent the difference in Brawn and Agility: 1 for every 2 points difference in Agility, and 1 for every 1 point difference in Brawn. That way, Brawn 4, Agility 1, no ranks attacking Brawn 1, Agility 4, 5 ranks (Defensive 1 sword) would have a positive pool of GGGGBBB versus PPPPPS. Vice versa, the Positive dice pool would be YGGGGB versus PPSSS (difficulty is average if no skill ranks). What is your opinion on this? As far as the Characteristic for use with Melee, I agree with you largely about the "make a convincing case for it" bit. I've been waffling on this quite a bit.

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

@kmanweiss Yeah, they all go hand in hand, which makes it really difficult to make "one house rule to rule them all." However, dueling and straight-up attacking are two different things, so that makes it even more confusing. This will get a few people on my case for complicating matters, but for dueling, I'm thinking that if the opponent has a weapon with Defensive 1, you use their ranks in Melee as the difficulty. If they have Defensive 2 you upgrade 2 dice + 1 per additional rank of Defensive. Then you add Boost/Setback to represent the difference in Brawn and Agility: 1 for every 2 points difference in Agility, and 1 for every 1 point difference in Brawn. That way, Brawn 4, Agility 1, no ranks attacking Brawn 1, Agility 4, 5 ranks (Defensive 1 sword) would have a positive pool of GGGGBBB versus PPPPPS. Vice versa, the Positive dice pool would be YGGGGB versus PPSSS (difficulty is average if no skill ranks). What is your opinion on this? As far as the Characteristic for use with Melee, I agree with you largely about the "make a convincing case for it" bit. I've been waffling on this quite a bit.

That would slow down combat. There is a reason why the developers set it up so that the difficulty to hit was a static difficulty, and a relatively low one at that. It was to make combat end quickly, preferably no more than three to four rounds, rather than drawing it out over many rounds, as is common with D&D or other more “tactical” RPGs.

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That would slow down combat. There is a reason why the developers set it up so that the difficulty to hit was a static difficulty, and a relatively low one at that. It was to make combat end quickly, preferably no more than three to four rounds, rather than drawing it out over many rounds, as is common with D&D or other more “tactical” RPGs.

I'm thinking more just using it for something dramatic like when Anakin and Obi-Wan dueled Dooku on the Invisible Hand . It also gives the NPC more time to try to escape because it allows them to make a fighting retreat. For normal combat (even most pseudo-duels), I wouldn't use those rules. in something like a lightsaber battle,without the house rules I mentioned, it could very well be a question of "who strikes first" because the battle is likely to end within 2 hits (if you have good lightsabers).

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm thinking more just using it for something dramatic like when Anakin and Obi-Wan dueled Dooku on the Invisible Hand . It also gives the NPC more time to try to escape because it allows them to make a fighting retreat. For normal combat (even most pseudo-duels), I wouldn't use those rules. in something like a lightsaber battle,without the house rules I mentioned, it could very well be a question of "who strikes first" because the battle is likely to end within 2 hits (if you have good lightsabers).

There are dueling rules in i believe the guardian book you can take a look at.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

There are dueling rules in i believe the guardian book you can take a look at.

Okay, thanks. I don't have that book though, so would you please summarize it for me?

The player can suggest, and GM can give, permission to use a stat other than the usual one if the situation is appropriate. So the rule is already there.

Personally I wouldn’t, on game balance reasons, and I would justify it by saying unless you had appropriate special training (read talent) it takes strength to push an object into someone to cause significant damage.

That and that I see Brawn is being for athletic stuff and Agility for hand eye coordination and balance stuff (mainly).

also, remember that applying house rules is a thing you should still do fairly. Just because one PC isn’t going to be a munchkin doesn’t mean another will not, and you have to apply the same rules to both.

IMO Agility doesnt need anymore skills tied to it in this game. If you want a competent melee fighter, you don't need to pump up your brawn, just buy ranks in melee. You end up with 5 dice instead of 6, sure, but it is a much quicker path than trying to get 6 brawn and works with the idea of not having a tank but still being good at melee fighting.

This is a really bad idea.

One of the main criticism of most RPG systems is the "Dex/Agi being too good, God Stat etc", and it is a valid complaint. Every character needs to be a lithe, quick hero, which makes the game less varied and interesting.

FFG have made the deliberate choice to make Melee and Ranged trigger on different Stats (until you work to get a Lightsaber discipline). This increases the utility of Brawn massively, and makes Brawn characters a more valid choice. Even then Brawn is still a less useful Skill stat overall, so Agility is still possibly the best Stat to pump.

Most of your reasoning comes from this idea you have that "fencers are quick and Brawn means slow" which is just untrue. When a person trains in physical fitness they become more coordinated (generally), so many of the fencers I know are massively strong and quick. Brawn essentially represents good physical training, whereas Agility represents nimble hands and a good eye - excellent co-ordination, not tied to physical fitness at all.

If a player wants to play a lithe female marauder as per your earlier example, that's totally fine, and the system supports that. It's your opinion that a lithe marauder would have low Brawn. Search for Valentina Shevchenko a lightweight MMA fighter. She isn't massive, she is probably strong enough to punch a hole in my chest.

The skill used for MMA, if it was a thing in Star Wars, is BRAWL not MELEE. From the beginning the point has been to use Agility as AN OPTION for the melee skill, the brawl skill, for a character with an high Agility and a lower Brawn.

I've used exactly that since 2013 when I started Star Wars FFG with trhe beta of EotE. I never unbalanced the gam. It never broke the game. It always worked fine because it is only an option. Players are not forced to take the option if they don't want to. But if they think it fit better the concept of their character then they can do it.

On a side note, I've been a fencers when I was a teenager. Finished 5th and 3rd in the under 18 French Sabre Championship. After that I've spend 30 years in the French Navy including 10 years in the special forces; I think I've a background that gives me some clue about what real fights in real life are, and what's needed to stay alive. That's why I often let players swap Strength (or the stat that cover the same range) with Agility (or the stat that cover the same range) in RPG when it's possible.

1 hour ago, WolfRider said:

The skill used for MMA, if it was a thing in Star Wars, is BRAWL not MELEE. From the beginning the point has been to use Agility as AN OPTION for the melee skill, the brawl skill, for a character with an high Agility and a lower Brawn.

Missed the point on that one bud. Brawl and Melee are both Brawn based, my example was to show you can be lithe and high Brawn.

The reason the option is bad is that it makes Agility always the better choice. Shooting is already important in the System, if your goal is to discourage melee characters in the name of "muh realism" then mission accomplished. If I can choose between Brawn (5 skills) and Agility (8 skills, now 11) then Agility is already a great choice.

I mean it's your table, you do you fam - but it is taking away from a fundamental positive of the system - a really neat part of the games design. It's the equivalent of insisting 6 second turns into the system, it takes a strength of the ruleset and makes it worse. But hey, if you allow Dex based barbarians, that's your call.

@Spartancfos Something I think you are overlooking about Brawn is that a lot of its benefits are passive, it increases your wound threshold (at the start), It increases your soak, and it increases your damage with Melee and Brawl. One argument for using Agility for, say, a knife fight, is that if you get 5 success because you have a good Agility Melee roll, you could narrate it as "I manage to duck around his swing and stab up into his side, through a gap in his armor" as opposed to "I drive the knife straight through his chest and twist it" which might be 5 success for a good Brawl Melee roll. Now, you could narrate either of those either way for Brawn or Agility, but (at the very least, in my mind), while strength doesn't make you slow, high strength does not seem as dexterous as high Agility (for good reason) so for aiming a strike carefully, Agility makes more sense, while for indiscriminately stabbing, raw strength makes more sense. As for the examples you gave, that person probably has both a high Agility AND a high Brawn.

On 8/9/2019 at 4:03 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

@kmanweiss Yeah, they all go hand in hand, which makes it really difficult to make "one house rule to rule them all." However, dueling and straight-up attacking are two different things, so that makes it even more confusing. This will get a few people on my case for complicating matters, but for dueling, I'm thinking that if the opponent has a weapon with Defensive 1, you use their ranks in Melee as the difficulty. If they have Defensive 2 you upgrade 2 dice + 1 per additional rank of Defensive. Then you add Boost/Setback to represent the difference in Brawn and Agility: 1 for every 2 points difference in Agility, and 1 for every 1 point difference in Brawn. That way, Brawn 4, Agility 1, no ranks attacking Brawn 1, Agility 4, 5 ranks (Defensive 1 sword) would have a positive pool of GGGGBBB versus PPPPPS. Vice versa, the Positive dice pool would be YGGGGB versus PPSSS (difficulty is average if no skill ranks). What is your opinion on this? As far as the Characteristic for use with Melee, I agree with you largely about the "make a convincing case for it" bit. I've been waffling on this quite a bit.

Can we find a way to include thac0 too? LOL

I see where you are going, and it's interesting. I could see some sort of mini-game duel situation where you are competing in a fencing competition that is set up like this. But honestly, outside of maybe a one time event...It's too confusing to bother with. This is where suspension of disbelief comes into play. Things are simplified and balances across the system to work together easily. Does it always make sense, maybe not. But it plays well.

I generally don´t see the reason to change or houserule things which are obviously not broken.

If you allow a single player to use Agility instead of Brawn for let´s say, knife fighting, you need to allow the next player to use Brawn instead of Agility for thrown weapons and grenades (Ranged Light).

So the third player got only Brawn 1 but wants to be a good athlete, so he wants to use Agility instead and I am pretty sure he can find tons of arguments to do so.

It´s a neverending story which will most probably leads to a broken/unbalanced skill system. And only because of some kind of powerplay at the beginning of it all.

16 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

Can we find a way to include thac0 too? LOL

I just created a droid assassin that I am going to be throwing against my players in the next game called TH-C0 or "Thaco"

3 hours ago, Varlie said:

I just created a droid assassin that I am going to be throwing against my players in the next game called TH-C0 or "Thaco"

I'm stealing that. I just wrote an adventure that has an old Separatist tactical droid as a main villain and I didn't have a name for him yet. This will be perfect!

11 hours ago, dreenan said:

If you allow a single player to use Agility instead of Brawn for let´s say, knife fighting, you need to allow the next player to use Brawn instead of Agility for thrown weapons and grenades (Ranged Light).

Yeah, I think that makes sense. It depends on what they are going for, but maybe if the have the "Strong Arm" talent, when they throw for Medium range, they can use Brawn, but gain Inaccurate 1. Not what you were going for, I know, but makes sense.

11 hours ago, dreenan said:

So the third player got only Brawn 1 but wants to be a good athlete, so he wants to use Agility instead and I am pretty sure he can find tons of arguments to do so.

It´s a neverending story which will most probably leads to a broken/unbalanced skill system. And only because of some kind of powerplay at the beginning of it all.

Like I stated earlier (somewhere, I think, maybe), Athletics represents physical training and endurance, so some one with a low Brawn can get a good Athletics, as that represents their physical fitness and training, even if they are not as naturally gifted in that realm as others. Same can be said of Resilience. That said, if he can make a convincing enough argument for it (which I doubt given my previous statement) I would be open to accommodating him. Though it would probably be in certain circumstances, not all the time.

Quote

Like I stated earlier (somewhere, I think, maybe), Athletics represents physical training and endurance, so some one with a low Brawn can get a good Athletics, as that represents their physical fitness and training, even if they are not as naturally gifted in that realm as others. Same can be said of Resilience.

And this very same Argument can be used for the agility for brawn thing with Melee/Brawl. You can be a very skilled Fighter without much brawn. Just buy enough skill ranks and chose the referring talents. No need to switch Stats at all.

Besides, the Athletics example was just that, an example. I am pretty sure that you can make a case for quite a number of skills where it could make sense to switch to another attribute use.

And not forgetting. If you allow a player to use Agility for Melee/Brawl, the character gets an overall huge advantage to other players using his best attribute to more important skills than other chars. So you should restrict some other skill access or skill development to balance this out.

10 hours ago, dreenan said:

And this very same Argument can be used for the agility for brawn thing with Melee/Brawl. You can be a very skilled Fighter without much brawn. Just buy enough skill ranks and chose the referring talents. No need to switch Stats at all.

I see your point, but it is not a direct comparison.

10 hours ago, dreenan said:

Besides, the Athletics example was just that, an example. I am pretty sure that you can make a case for quite a number of skills where it could make sense to switch to another attribute use.

And not forgetting. If you allow a player to use Agility for Melee/Brawl, the character gets an overall huge advantage to other players using his best attribute to more important skills than other chars. So you should restrict some other skill access or skill development to balance this out.

Like I said very early on in this thread, I am a big proponent of switching out characteristics on occasion, but none (bar none) are permanent or in all situations.