I just wanted to see what the community thought about using Bind on inanimate objects, for example :

1. Could I use bind to “Force Crush” a door? Or even something smaller like a padlock, etc.

2. Could I use bind to hold something like a table between me and people shooting at me to gain the benefit of cover in an otherwise open location?

If going with RAW, then no but if looking at Force Powers and the way we see it in movies and tv, then I would lean towards yes, kinda.

First off, Bind causes target to be immobilized, which primarily means unable to perform maneuvers. An inanimate object is already immobilized so now we have to expand it. The best examples in the movies with Bind is Kylo Ren. He easily holds Rey immobile for several minutes while he talks to/threatens her. He is also able to Bind the energy of a blaster bolt in mid flight. So, in canon, we easily see that Bind is not restricted to living beings.

1: crushing a door or a padlock; I wonder if that would be better represented with the Harm Force power although that description does include the limitation "on a living creature". Nothing in the Bind tree indicates that it does any Wounds. the most you can do is cause Strain or move a target away from you so Bind doesn't look like the best option for this. As a GM, I would probably change the Harm power to effect non-living targets for this effect rather than trying to make Bind cause wounds.

2: Cover - I would allow it if the PC has the Control: Move upgrade. Once again, it's probably better represented with the Move Force Power, or even Protect but it could work - just not with the base power.

2 hours ago, Silverburst3 said:

I just wanted to see what the community thought about using Bind on inanimate objects, for example :

1. Could I use bind to “Force Crush” a door? Or even something smaller like a padlock, etc.

2. Could I use bind to hold something like a table between me and people shooting at me to gain the benefit of cover in an otherwise open location?

My first thought is to say no, and that doing a "Force crush" on an inanimate object would be more the realm of the Move power, especially as Bind's damage output is rather lackluster in comparison.

On the second one, that again seems more in the realm of the Move power, with the GM allowing the player to sustain the effect over the course of the round, though I suppose Bind could work under the same GM fiat principle.

Bind can cause 1 wound per Force point spent if using dark side points as the base power, but the power "may not be activated multiple times". Bind can also be used to disorient a target, which seems odd to me. Mastery of Bind allows for critical injury if using dark side points. Does that help at all?

That is a cool idea that Bind was what Kylo used to stop that blaster bolt mid-air.

For "force crushing" objects (or people) I'd suggest Unleash. Mostly it appears as Force Lightning, but it can be destructive in any way you want.

My fairly capable Sith-Sorceress used it quite often to break through sealed doors and stuff.

On 10/18/2019 at 12:32 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

My first thought is to say no, and that doing a "Force crush" on an inanimate object would be more the realm of the Move power, especially as Bind's damage output is rather lackluster in comparison.

On the second one, that again seems more in the realm of the Move power, with the GM allowing the player to sustain the effect over the course of the round, though I suppose Bind could work under the same GM fiat principle.

My reasoning was that per the Core Rulebook, Bind is Force Crush. In the Clone wars tv series we often see Jedi force crush droids (inanimate) so what would stop that from extending to doors? (Also inanimate metal like droid)

The table thing was kind of a stretch, but in the order 66 podcast (episode 107) they say that the rogue one hallway scene when Vader immobilized a rebel trooper against the roof that was using bind. If that’s the case could he have immobilized him in front of himself as a sort of meat shield? And then by extension do the same with an inanimate object per above?

7 hours ago, Silverburst3 said:

My reasoning was that per the Core Rulebook, Bind is Force Crush. In the Clone wars tv series we often see Jedi force crush droids (inanimate) so what would stop that from extending to doors? (Also inanimate metal like droid)

The table thing was kind of a stretch, but in the order 66 podcast (episode 107) they say that the rogue one hallway scene when Vader immobilized a rebel trooper against the roof that was using bind. If that’s the case could he have immobilized him in front of himself as a sort of meat shield? And then by extension do the same with an inanimate object per above?

No, Per RAW, Bind is a Force hold . You pin someone with the Force. The Force Crush, or Force choke, is using the Dark Side while holding them.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, Per RAW, Bind is a Force hold . You pin someone with the Force. The Force Crush, or Force choke, is using the Dark Side while holding them.

yea I wasn’t trying to imply the whole power was only force crush, just that Force Crush does fall under Bind and not Move

being that Bind is a Force Hold (or crush) though how do you feel about the questions I asked above?

So at 4:11 in this clip, Dooku clearly crushes the base of the metal structure, as you see it all going inward from all directions. So crushing something is totally doable, and canon (for people who think that's important for a gaming table).

Now as to which power he used? *shrugs* I mean, Force Move is strong enough to pick up Silhouette 4+ ships without any real significant effort (for a Master), so it's pretty easy to say the power could accomplish the task in question.

As a quick rule for it, using Move that is, I would probably just say that if they have the Move upgraded to allow them to mess with Sil 1 or higher, than can crush an object of equal or lesser size without any real issue. If the object has Hardness, that would increase the Silhouette of the object (for the purposes of this calculation). So like, a small safe that is Sil 1, but is hardened like crazy, they would have more trouble crushing, than say, a wooden crate of the same dimensions.

On 10/18/2019 at 7:11 PM, Silverburst3 said:

1. Could I use bind to “Force Crush” a door? Or even something smaller like a padlock, etc.

2. Could I use bind to hold something like a table between me and people shooting at me to gain the benefit of cover in an otherwise open location?

1. I'd still go for unleash, but bind should work, too. You could assign a soak or armor threshold to the door, that the character using Bind has to overcome. If it's a simple structure maybe 5 soak, if it's heavy and armored maybe up to 20 soak / 2 armor.

2. As you probably don't want to give up your action for the gain of normal cover, I'd treat it as a maneuver to move into cover, but narratively the character is using move to hold the table in place.

On 10/18/2019 at 2:23 PM, Varlie said:

If going with RAW, then no but if looking at Force Powers and the way we see it in movies and tv, then I would lean towards yes, kinda.

I was hoping to get a bit of clarification on this because from what I've seen with the RAW on bind, it only indicates a "target" and nowhere does it specify said target must be living or even animate. On the other hand, when looking at the dark side use of the power, it does specify wound as opposed to hull trauma so there is that. Obviously, using the power on something non-living, or inanimate, would mean that certain aspects of the power would not be applicable (staggering a door would not mean much) but it's been something I've been contemplating.

On 11/27/2019 at 9:05 PM, hexrunner said:

I was hoping to get a bit of clarification on this because from what I've seen with the RAW on bind, it only indicates a "target" and nowhere does it specify said target must be living or even animate. On the other hand, when looking at the dark side use of the power, it does specify wound as opposed to hull trauma so there is that. Obviously, using the power on something non-living, or inanimate, would mean that certain aspects of the power would not be applicable (staggering a door would not mean much) but it's been something I've been contemplating.

Well there is no thematic reason the Force can't but used on inanimate objects, I mean the most common use of the Force is Move, and it's most often used on non-living things. X-wings, lightsaber hilts, droids, nearby crates and fixtures. So I don't see any reason that would prohibit Bind from working on non-living/organic things?

I still think this can be easily handled just by using the damage/silhouette rules for Move, without needing to buy into another power entirely, but that's just me.

At the end of Revenge of the sith Vader crushes a bunch of stuff. I think unleash is a good fit. The thing to remember is the way the powers are written is broad strokes so you can have them fit narratively. Harm is life drain and darkside healing and healing etc. Unleash is force lightning. but it could be other things as well. It could be a freezing blast for example.

On 11/27/2019 at 10:05 PM, hexrunner said:

I was hoping to get a bit of clarification...

Only thing you're going to find here is a bunch of random forum posters giving their two bits' worth.

If you're looking for an official word, you'll need to contact the devs courtesy of FFG's Customer Service e-mail, and even then it's usually a response that is along the lines of "well, here's how we'd do it, but you're free to do whatever in your games."

Like KFFerret said, the Force power rules are (like a number of things in this system) intentionally written so as to provide GMs and players a fair bit of wiggle room. It also helps cover them if a new bit of Star Wars media has a character do something that nobody had ever seen before, such as Kylo Ren freezing a blaster bolt in midair or Luke projecting an illusion of himself across the galaxy, to who knows what Force-based chicanery we'll see when Episode 9 drops in a couple weeks.

Remember, the Force powers are somewhat overlapping, so it's perfectly fine to rule that Force crushing a door can be done with Bind, Move and Unleash. The rules are written flexibly enough for the Force powers to have some versatility without having to sink XP into each and every one of them. Being somewhat liberal in your interpretation of what can be done with Force power (story-wise, not rules-wise) probably wont break the system.

In my opinion, Bind is for use on living things (call it manipulating midichlorians, if you're into that), Move is for use on inanimate objects. That also resolves the "I pick up the stomrtroopers, and I drop the stormtroopers" resolution to combat.

Force push would be using Move to create a wave of, well... force to shove them back. If they are Jedi/Sith, it would either require an Opposed Discipline check or it wouldn't work. My theory on Anakin and Obi-Wan force pushing each other is that they basically force pushed themselves. Sort of like shoving a wall. Their force defenses were strong enough to resist each other, so they pushed themselves back.

5 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

In my opinion, Bind is for use on living things (call it manipulating midichlorians, if you're into that), Move is for use on inanimate objects. That also resolves the "I pick up the stomrtroopers, and I drop the stormtroopers" resolution to combat.

Force push would be using Move to create a wave of, well... force to shove them back. If they are Jedi/Sith, it would either require an Opposed Discipline check or it wouldn't work. My theory on Anakin and Obi-Wan force pushing each other is that they basically force pushed themselves. Sort of like shoving a wall. Their force defenses were strong enough to resist each other, so they pushed themselves back.

Bind can be used on droids.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Bind can be used on droids.

Do you have a source on that? I always considered that to be in line with Move (which is a more common power anyway).

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Do you have a source on that? I always considered that to be in line with Move (which is a more common power anyway).

I think the way the rules are written, you'll have to provide a source that it doesn't. If droids are excluded, it usually says so specifically.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Do you have a source on that? I always considered that to be in line with Move (which is a more common power anyway).

It's right there in RAW, minimally, in one way at least. The Power says specifically that the Power is can target "enemies".

If the droid can actively work against the Force User's interests (the approximate minimum for something to be one's enemy, yea?), then yes, RAW is saying you can use the Power on an enemy droid.

13 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

I think the way the rules are written, you'll have to provide a source that it doesn't. If droids are excluded, it usually says so specifically.

I wasn't saying he had to prove it, I was just asking if there was somewhere where it referenced droids.

1 minute ago, emsquared said:

It's right there in RAW, minimally, in one way at least. The Power says specifically that the Power is can target "enemies".

If the droid can actively work against the Force User's interests (the approximate minimum for something to be one's enemy, yea?), then yes, RAW is saying you can use the Power on an enemy droid.

Yeah, I guess.

If I were to be GMing it, I would probably allow Move to be used on in/animate objects/droids and Bind to be used on organics. Move could be used to propel, but it wouldn't work for picking up and moving around.

It's just what I think makes sense IU. Your mileage may vary.

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I wasn't saying he had to prove it, I was just asking if there was somewhere where it referenced droids.

Yeah, I guess.

If I were to be GMing it, I would probably allow Move to be used on in/animate objects/droids and Bind to be used on organics. Move could be used to propel, but it wouldn't work for picking up and moving around.

It's just what I think makes sense IU. Your mileage may vary.

Well, that's perfectly fine if you want to run it like that. Your table, your rules.

I don't think it's intended like that though, nor that most people read it like that, so you might want to give people a heads up that it's the way you're going to rule it. Better to have that hashed out beforehand than it coming up as a surprise during play.

Yeah, I always go over stuff like that ahead of time.

There are a lot of blurred lines with the force powers.

I think there's only a blurred line here with Move though if you ignore the primary definition of "object" ( : something material that may be perceived by the senses ), and for some reason try to impose a human rights context on the description of the Power.

Yea, right, people aren't objects, we get it... I mean, except of course, they are, factually... physical... objects...

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

It's right there in RAW, minimally, in one way at least. The Power says specifically that the Power is can target "enemies".

The full text of the basic power disagrees with your rather narrow interpretation.

Nowhere in the description of the basic power (pg 286 of F&D core or pg44 of RotS) does it specify "enemies." It just says "targets" which can cover pretty much anything that a character can interact with.

So trying to argue that Bind cannot be used on droids or objects is like trying to argue that Move can't be used on organics simply because the writers used the term "object" in the power's description. When in fact the folks that created the game have said that Move can 100% be used on organics, and have freely allowed players in the con games they've run to do so. Heck, I was at the GenCon where the F&D beta was released, and happened to overhear a "discussion" with one player citing that Move couldn't be used on a living thing citing the "object" part of the power's description, only for the GM to lean over and ask Sam Stewart if that was the case, with Sam replying that the player's interpretation was incorrect. But hey, Sam only helped create the game, so what does he know about it? /sarcasm.