I recently started playing Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order and it seems like much of what he does can be accomplished by Bind. Has there been any clarification on what is considered a "target?" Sure you can target a stormtrooper bind him and push/pull him but what about stone pillars etc? It doesn't limit silhouette as far as I can see.

Cal's "pause time" ability could be handled with either Move or Bind, depending on how strong of a Force user you think Cal would be in this game. Not played it, so not sure what he can do Force-wise at the start of the game, but from what I've seen of his history, he'd probably qualify as Force Rating 2, so he'd be eligible to purchase at least the basic Bind power.

I don't have my book handy to check the full wording on Bind, but I don't recall there being any clarification on what constitutes a "target" for the power, only that it's base effect just says the target is immobilized (and thus can't spend maneuvers).

So it's up to the GM probably to decide if that means Bind can stop a moving object from moving (since as you said the power's not limited by silhouette) or if the PC should be using the Move power and would need the corresponding Strength upgrades to affect bigger objects. I can see arguments for both, so again up to the GM to decide what works best for their game.

Doesn't it state "enemy" in the Power description, first?

Maybe it's just me, but as a GM I would never allow one to classify an inanimate object as an enemy. It's an obstacle at best. An enemy is defined by hostile motivations or antagonism. Inanimate objects of course have no such will or sentience.

I realize that parsing language in this way could bring up issues regarding whom the Power may be used on (ie not on an Ally, and what about neutral parties?), but since this is a topic that is defined by the parsing of language from the start, I think that's what we have to do.

The Power, I think, is clearly intended to be used on living things. Move is for either.

Cal (or Kylo Ren's) freezing of inanimate things that are going to hit them/being used as an attack is, I think irrefutably, a narrative flavoring of Force Protect (combined with the "deal damage back to the attacked" upgrade if that's what they choose to do with it).

In FFG for it to be the Move Power, you'd have to be able to use the Power as an OOTI. I don't know of an Upgrade or Talent off the top of my head that does that.

When Cal does it to Stormies, yea, it's either Bind or Move.

emsquared,
The "enemy" bit is in the descriptive fluff sentence of Bind, which isn't always descriptive of what the basic power can accomplish. For instance, the Influence power has the sentence "may attempt to guide, shape, and even twist the thoughts and feelings of others," yet the base power only permits "stress the mind" of the target. Also, how often really is a PC going to be using Bind on an ally outside of plot-specific scenarios?

Looking at Bind, it just says "target" with no further distinction. Trying to say that "target" excludes non-sentient objects is similar to trying to say that "objects" means that Move cannot be used against anything that can move under it's own power.

As for Cal, his "Force pause" in the midst of combat can be chalked up as him generating a boost die to use on his attacks, or the spending of advantage from his combat check to either inflict critical injuries or generate another boost die for his next attack, along with heavy usage of the Draw Closer and Force Assault talents.

There's nothing inconsistent with the "mission statement" of Influence with it's basic Power, and I think you know that. Furthermore, linguistically you're not looking at the accurate analogue - the subject. So I'm rejecting that line of thought.

But, setting that aside, what OP is talking about is a pretty specific set of scenarios right? Inanimate objects.

What Cal does with regards to Stormies can be any number of things. Agreed. I wasn't trying to limit that conceptualization, just define it in the terms the OP was exploring the topic. Powers.

Let's look at the inanimate side though, regarding the Power and you're assertion (Bind can be use on non-living things, and Silhouette is not a restrictive factor, as the Power doesn't address it: if the PC Targets it, Bind can affect it - that is your apparent stance).

1. You don't allow rolls for things that there is no question as to whether it happens or not. So you don't allow a roll to immobilize an immobile/as in not capable of movement Target. Evidence the Power is not meant for inanimate objects.

2. There is no such thing as doing Wounds or Strain to inanimate objects. No rules or mention of it into any book that I'm aware of, it's not something that can happen. More evidence the Power is not meant for inanimate objects.

3. What you've just said, is that at your table, you would allow a character to A.) Bind a planet and stop it from spinning (you're within Short Range of it after all if you're standing on it, you're engaged with your Target) or even from orbiting it's sun, or B.) Bind a Star Destroyer your standing in and stop it from jumping to hyperspace, or C.) maybe even a friggin' Galaxy (what is a Target after all? you're certainly engaged with the Galaxy if you're inside it, and if the Galaxy is your target, welp, you've met the requirements) and stop it from hurtling thru the emptiness of space... any of that and way more, you've just said you would allow characters to do, with 1 Force pip.

First, good luck with that.

Second. No. The mission statement of the Power matters. The preponderance of RAW evidence matters. Common sense matters.

Bind is not intended for inanimate objects. You do not get to move or immobilize anything regardless of Silhouette because you use the Bind Power. Only enemies/living things.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

There's nothing inconsistent with the "mission statement" of Influence with it's basic Power, and I think you know that. Furthermore, linguistically you're not looking at the accurate analogue - the subject. So I'm rejecting that line of thought.

So dismissing an alternate point of view out of hand just because you disagree with it? Yeah, that's a great way to enable a discussion 🙄

As is the case with ALL TTRPGs, it is ultimately up to the GM what they will and won't allow.

You might also want to re-read what I posted instead of dismissing it out of hand. I never said inanimate objects, but rather non- sentient targets, to do things like Cal's locking moving platforms and/or obstacles in place for a brief moment to allow him to pass. Going by clips from the game, it's entirely possibly that Cal is doing minute/trivial amounts of damage to things that he freezes, so a case could be made that Cal is using Bind on those objects to lock them in place just long enough for him to get over/past/through them.

As a GM, I would probably would allow Bind to be used in those instances, but trying to freeze a planet's rotation would get a response of "yeah, good luck with that" from me, since as a living GM and not a mindless program, I can judge things on a case-by-case basis.

You don't want to allow Bind to be used outside of a rather specific wheelhouse at your games? Peachy.

If the OP (or their GM) wants to permit Bind to be used to hold objects in place for a round, then that's equally peachy.

The devs themselves have said that the Force powers were written with a degree of wiggle-room to allow each table to come up with unusual uses of the powers, and to try and not paint themselves into a corner the way WEG and WotC did with keeping Force powers very specific to what they can and can't do. Bind, Move, Influence, and what have you may have been intended for a specific purpose, but they were worded in such a way that they can go outside that specific wheelhouse in the very likely event that future SW media shows Force users doing stuff that nobody's seen before, like Kylo Ren freezing a blaster bolt in mid-shot (plenty of interpretations of how to do that mechanically with no right answer beyond what works for any given table).

Thank you for your input. I was primarily asking if any official rulings have been made. I started down this road by asking on reddit if "Force Slow" could be handled with Move (with creative use of Threat) or Bind. Obviously there is quite a bit of overlap with Bind and Move and either way GM discretion will be needed. Being that I am the only GM I know I am just trying to ration out how Id like these to work in my game.

Except of course I didn't reject it out of hand. I pointed out the fallacies inherent in what you said and invalidated it for those reasons.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Cal is doing minute/trivial amounts of damage to things that he freezes

Those things don't have Wounds or Strain Thresholds, he's not damaging them because there's no mechanism by which he could with that power. Nor can they be Disoriented. All because the Bind Power is not written nor intended to affect such inanimate objects.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

As a GM, I would probably would allow Bind to be used in those instances

Where does it end then?

Bindshould be able to Immobilize a Rancor, by all accounts, Sil 3. Maybe it gets an opposed check, cuz it's a rival or nemesis.

But what about that TIE Fighter buzzing my head, or a Sil 3 tank I've snuck onto? Pilots are Minions? (and inanimate objects don't have a Discipline skill, nor Rival/Nemesis status of course, so no opposed Skill check) One pip and I should be able to freeze them in place.

If Sil 3 is reasonable for a Nemesis living enemy, certainly it's reasonable for a Sil 3 inanimate target?

Or would you really apply mechanics so unevenly?

I doubt you would.

But you might back-pedal and equivocate so that you don't have to admit you're wrong.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

You don't want to allow Bind to be used outside of a rather specific wheelhouse at your games? Peachy.

I'm not saying, ppl shouldn't do what they want.

You could let Influence effect droids for all I care. But overwhelming evidence is that it should not.

And here I am just presenting the overwhelming evidence that Bind is not written, intended, nor supposed to effect an inanimate object.

2 hours ago, JinFaram said:

Thank you for your input. I was primarily asking if any official rulings have been made. I started down this road by asking on reddit if "Force Slow" could be handled with Move (with creative use of Threat) or Bind. Obviously there is quite a bit of overlap with Bind and Move and either way GM discretion will be needed. Being that I am the only GM I know I am just trying to ration out how Id like these to work in my game.

Go with what works best for your campaign and your players, and ignore anything else from emsquared, myself, or anyone else that tries to tell you that you're "doing it wrong."

If you really must have some kind of "official" answer, you can contact FFG's customer service, and hopefully get a response from one of the devs. Granted, that response is going to largely consist of "here's how I'd do it, but go with what works for your table."

So I'm playing a bit of the game, and Cal is very much able to use the game's equivalent of Bind (freezing a target in place) on opponents that are far bigger than Silhouette 1. So going by the mechanics of the game, Bind would very much be allowed on a Silhouette 3 monster, with the damage being largely inconsequential to the creature's wound threshold but stopping it from moving for a round. Something like a Rancor may well get an opposed check, again depending on the GM and how strict or lenient the GM wants to be in the situation.

With regards to Bind and damage dealing, that's assuming Cal (or a PC) is using dark side pips to fuel the power. By itself, the base power does no damage if the PC just uses white pips, which given Cal is probably FR2 he would have little trouble generating at least one white pip on his Force power checks. So he could quite easily freeze something in place via Bind and not have to worry about dealing any damage to the object.

At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if emsquared balked at Cal's wall-running just being a narrative usage of Enhance's Force leap ability to traverse over terrain without penalty, and that he insists that PCs need a specific talent to perform a similar ability.

As for your "well where does it stop?" fallacy, the answer to that is simple: the line gets drawn where the GM and the players agree it gets drawn. As long as there's not an adversarial relationship between the two, the player shouldn't sink into an argumentative fit if the GM says that something is a bridge too far.

As I said emsquared, if you want to be overly literal in your interpretations of things, and your players are on board with that, that's fine.

Other GMs, myself included, prefer to be a bit more liberal and allow the players to do things not explicitly covered in the rules. Some of us GMs have had our fill of the "there are precise rules for everything and NO deviation allowed!" malarky that was mantra of the 3.X and 4e iterations of the d20 system, and don't mind coloring outside the lines if we think it makes for a better story or a cool moment to let the player's character shine.

8 hours ago, emsquared said:

3. What you've just said, is that at your table, you would allow a character to A.) Bind a planet and stop it from spinning (you're within Short Range of it after all if you're standing on it, you're engaged with your Target) or even from orbiting it's sun, or B.) Bind a Star Destroyer your standing in and stop it from jumping to hyperspace, or C.) maybe even a friggin' Galaxy (what is a Target after all? you're certainly engaged with the Galaxy if you're inside it, and if the Galaxy is your target, welp, you've met the requirements) and stop it from hurtling thru the emptiness of space... any of that and way more, you've just said you would allow characters to do, with 1 Force pip.

WTH?

He said nothing of the sort! What kind of lunacy is that. That my friend is a case of putting words into people's mouths.

"So what your saying is..."

*facepalm*

What are you floating above our heads or something? With your "irrefutable" evidence. I haven't seen something so arrogant since I read Tramps arguments.

11 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Other GMs, myself included, prefer to be a bit more liberal and allow the players to do things not explicitly covered in the rules. Some of us GMs have had our fill of the "there are precise rules for everything and NO deviation allowed!" malarky that was mantra of the 3.X and 4e iterations of the d20 system, and don't mind coloring outside the lines if we think it makes for a better story or a cool moment to let the player's character shine.

I have a player in my game that has an Investigator and he was wondering if any Force Powers could help with that. We looked things over and decided that he could take Forsee and that it would work in reverse, allowing him to see in the past (similar to Cal's echo power). By having a little flexibility with the rules, it enhances the fun he has as a player with his character.

13 hours ago, emsquared said:

But you might back-pedal and equivocate so that you don't have to admit you're wrong.

You're talking about a game in which we pretend to be planet princesses and starship cowboys, and you go at people like that? WTF.

For those following along at home, or just tuning in, here's the utter absurdity of what has happened here:

My first post - addressing the OP and their parsing of language; I pointed out that the Power mentions "enemies" explicitly, and the implications of that with regards to it not affecting inanimate objects, like the OP asked about; "pillars etc".

Donavan, for some reason, takes that as a personal affront, addresses me directly, and proceeds to say the description of the Power doesn't matter (still puzzling over that one), and takes a mechanics driven approach.

I proceed to completely dismantle his mechanics argument, by pointing out the absurdity of how the rule as written could interact with non-living things, for one pip, because the Power does not limit Silhouette.

After effectively engaging and countering him on his terms, he gets defensive, back-pedals and pivots his argument away from his previously mechanics-driven approach to; "GMs can do whatever they want."

Great. Yes. We all know that. That doesn't address the OPs question as to what the language as written in the Power means.

I did.

I addressed the language of the Power, as the OP wanted. And how it clearly, explicitly is not intended or written to effect inanimate objects. That made Donavan mad, presumably because he saw it made him demonstrably wrong. And so he came at me. And so I came at him. And here we are.

That's what just happened here.

I addressed the OP, I was engaged for addressing the OP, so I retorted.

I'm the bad guy? That's fine.

Have a good day.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

I'm the bad guy? That's fine.

Well, points for having at least some ability to acknowledge your faults I guess.

58 minutes ago, emsquared said:

For those following along at home, or just tuning in, here's the utter absurdity of what has happened here:

My first post - addressing the OP and their parsing of language; I pointed out that the Power mentions "enemies" explicitly, and the implications of that with regards to it not affecting inanimate objects, like the OP asked about; "pillars etc".

Donavan, for some reason, takes that as a personal affront, addresses me directly, and proceeds to say the description of the Power doesn't matter (still puzzling over that one), and takes a mechanics driven approach.

I proceed to completely dismantle his mechanics argument, by pointing out the absurdity of how the rule as written could interact with non-living things, for one pip, because the Power does not limit Silhouette.

After effectively engaging and countering him on his terms, he gets defensive, back-pedals and pivots his argument away from his previously mechanics-driven approach to; "GMs can do whatever they want."

Great. Yes. We all know that. That doesn't address the OPs question as to what the language as written in the Power means.

I did.

I addressed the language of the Power, as the OP wanted. And how it clearly, explicitly is not intended or written to effect inanimate objects. That made Donavan mad, presumably because he saw it made him demonstrably wrong. And so he came at me. And so I came at him. And here we are.

That's what just happened here.

I addressed the OP, I was engaged for addressing the OP, so I retorted.

I'm the bad guy? That's fine.

Have a good day.

Man, you are seeing things that just simply aren't there. Donovan did not at all come across that way. It seems only you percieved it like that.

You, however, as it evident to everyone here, have an arrogant and confrontational approach to how you say things. And come across as someone who believes their opinion as an immovable matter of fact, and seeks to "dismantle" people's views and opinions.

That kind of attitude just shows you to be a disagreeable and dislikeable person. So yes, in this situation. Your irrefutably.. the bad guy.

Oh man, this whole time, I thought that other thread was this thread.

@JinFaram , here is your answer:

TLDR is:

The word "target" in this Power does NOT include inanimate objects like items, gear, doors, ships, nothing like that. No inanimate objects can be affected by Bind, by RAW and RAI.

On 11/19/2019 at 9:02 AM, CloudyLemonade92 said:

the bad guy.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

The word "target" in this Power does NOT include inanimate objects like items, gear, doors, ships, nothing like that. No inanimate objects can be affected by Bind, by RAW and RAI.

Shame that it also debunks a number of your other claims that you've oh so conveniently "forgotten" making in not only this thread but in others.

My question relating to the Bind power.

For the mastery upgrade - provided you have magnitude upgrades and enough force pips to activate them - can you affect more than one target with a bind power check? Lets say causing critical injuries in three targets if they all fail their respective discipline checks?

10 hours ago, kael123 said:

My question relating to the Bind power.

For the mastery upgrade - provided you have magnitude upgrades and enough force pips to activate them - can you affect more than one target with a bind power check? Lets say causing critical injuries in three targets if they all fail their respective discipline checks?

Yes, as Magnitude upgrades' whole point is to let the power affect more than one person. Provided you've bought all the Magnitude upgrades and have the Force points to activate them, you could affect a whole bunch of targets at once with Bind.

As for how you'd handle the opposed check (since it'd the Force user rolling their Discipline with a difficulty set by the target's Discipline), that's up to the GM. I'd treat as akin to autofire, and use the best Discipline of all the affected targets as the user's difficulty.