I always liked the concept of counter attacks and using your opponents strength against them, but Shien seemed a little less compared to the other lightsaber forms.

With my recent discoveries of both Padawan and knight specs, how does Shien benefits with the addition of these new specs and Quick Draw, their extra ranks in parry, and the addition of improved parry?

Do these extra talents compensate well enough Shien to become a good lightsaber combat spec?

29 minutes ago, Nheko said:

I always liked the concept of counter attacks and using your opponents strength against them, but Shien seemed a little less compared to the other lightsaber forms.

With my recent discoveries of both Padawan and knight specs, how does Shien benefits with the addition of these new specs and Quick Draw, their extra ranks in parry, and the addition of improved parry?

Do these extra talents compensate well enough Shien to become a good lightsaber combat spec?

If you like the concept of counter attacking you can always go with shien and build ebb / flow to add the necessary disadvantages to proc those counter attacks

Thanks!

I didn’t thought about that before. Where’s Ebb/Flow in the Consular’s source book?

3 minutes ago, Nheko said:

Thanks!

I didn’t thought about that before. Where’s Ebb/Flow in the Consular’s source book?

Disciples of harmony

Thanks.

I honestly think that Shien Expert can stand on it's own pretty well without necessarily needing other specs (beyond boosting up Force Rating that is). Unlike Makashi Duelist and Shii-Cho Knight, you've got defense from ranged attacks (Side Step, Reflect, Improved Reflect, Supreme Reflect) and solid melee chops (Parry and Defensive Stance for defense, Counterattack and Falling Avalanche for offense) without being overly fragile (Ataru Striker's huge drawback) or overly defensive (Soresu Defender).

As has been said, Ebb/Flow is a useful addition since you can not only use it to eventually force opponents to add threats to their combat checks, but just the basic power alone is good for strain recovery. Sense with its defense upgrade is always a solid choice, especially with the Duration and Strength upgrades which when used in tandem with Defensive Stance or Side Step increase the likelihood of your opponent either missing outright or succeeding with enough threat to trigger Improved Reflect.

Now, this is me speaking as a GM, but just because a specialization has been published in an FFG book doesn't mean that the GM of a campaign has to allow a PC to take it. Prime example is the Jedi career and its attendant specializations, which some GMs I've talked to have said that unless a campaign is taking place prior to the events of Episode III is completely off the table for PCs to take, for much the reason that the FFG devs said when Force and Destiny came out, that said PCs aren't Jedi, but rather individuals who've discovered a connection to to the Force, some of whom (those that took a Lightsaber Form spec) have opted to emulate the Jedi.

Thanks Dono, I value your opinion very much.

8 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Prime example is the Jedi career and its attendant specializations, which some GMs I've talked to have said that unless a campaign is taking place prior to the events of Episode III is completely off the table for PCs to take, for much the reason that the FFG devs said when Force and Destiny came out, that said PCs aren't Jedi, but rather individuals who've discovered a connection to to the Force, some of whom (those that took a Lightsaber Form spec) have opted to emulate the Jedi.

I agree that a PC can't take the Jedi career if he / she is created well after the Jedi disappeared. But if the PC finds an Holocron of a Jedi, like in the beginner's kit adventure and it's follow-up, there is no reason to not let him / her choose Jedi's specialisations as out-career specialisations. Could work with a mentor who was a Padawan or Jedi and survived Order 66.

Or if the character simply is an older person like Kanan Jarrus. He could have had the Jedi career (Padawan tree) to start, then added other trees like the universal Padawan Survivor, Jedi (Knight), etc.

I never assume that the newly-made character is in his late teens/early twenties (or non-human equivalent). He could just as easily be a Jedi survivor who has been lying low since the Purges.

If an ot era FS teenager's backstory was they were trained by a survivor of order 66 even a former padawan or even just had a holocron, I'd still let them start in the jedi career.

17 hours ago, WolfRider said:

I agree that a PC can't take the Jedi career if he / she is created well after the Jedi disappeared. But if the PC finds an Holocron of a Jedi, like in the beginner's kit adventure and it's follow-up, there is no reason to not let him / her choose Jedi's specialisations as out-career specialisations. Could work with a mentor who was a Padawan or Jedi and survived Order 66.

Each GM has their different take on what is or isn't allowed. There are certainly GMs who completely disallow everything from Force & Destiny for the PCs, feeling the game works better without them, especially for a grittier style of campaign, and that if there are any Force users, they are most definitely NOT Jedi of any stripe. And they're not wrong for doing so, for the sake of the campaign they want to run. I've also seen remarks that the entire Jedi career from start to finish is a powergamer's fantasy (especially the munchkin tactic of using Quick Path to Power to start in either Knight or General before purchasing Padawan for a very cheap path to Force Rating 3), but that's simply up to one's point of view.

I've spoken with a few different GMs that out-and-out disallow any and all of the Jedi career specs for an assortment of reasons, with a common one being that allowing the quick dip into Padawan to get FR2 and then Knight to get Improved Parry and Improved Reflect fairly easily is too much of a munchkin powergamer move. And frankly, I can see where they're coming from on that stance, since even accounting for the non-career costs to purchase those specs, it's a lot cheaper than it would otherwise be for a lightsaber-focused wannabe Jedi to rack up ranks of Parry/Refect, get the Improved versions, and have Force Rating 3.

Point being, don't assume that just because it's printed in a book and that you might personally allow something in your game that every other GM out there is going to allow that same thing.

I personally hate it when GMs decide that your career is EXACTLY what it says taken by face value and dictates your roleplaying options; I've had conversations with people who've said 'Aggressors and Juyo Berserkers HAVE to be aggressive all the time,' or 'Smugglers ARE smugglers and have to BE smuggling' instead of looking at the careers as sets of specific skills that can be played in myriads of ways.

In RotS/CotR, it even states that the Padawan and Master trees don't have to be formally recognized as such. A Padawan could be a young kid trying to learn everything he can about the Force and the Jedi just because he thinks he might be Force sensitive. A Master could be a cocky know-it-all with delusions of grandeur.

On 2/1/2020 at 6:11 AM, Donovan Morningfire said:

Each GM has their different take on what is or isn't allowed. There are certainly GMs who completely disallow everything from Force & Destiny for the PCs, feeling the game works better without them, especially for a grittier style of campaign, and that if there are any Force users, they are most definitely NOT Jedi of any stripe. And they're not wrong for doing so, for the sake of the campaign they want to run. I've also seen remarks that the entire Jedi career from start to finish is a powergamer's fantasy (especially the munchkin tactic of using Quick Path to Power to start in either Knight or General before purchasing Padawan for a very cheap path to Force Rating 3), but that's simply up to one's point of view.

I've spoken with a few different GMs that out-and-out disallow any and all of the Jedi career specs for an assortment of reasons, with a common one being that allowing the quick dip into Padawan to get FR2 and then Knight to get Improved Parry and Improved Reflect fairly easily is too much of a munchkin powergamer move. And frankly, I can see where they're coming from on that stance, since even accounting for the non-career costs to purchase those specs, it's a lot cheaper than it would otherwise be for a lightsaber-focused wannabe Jedi to rack up ranks of Parry/Refect, get the Improved versions, and have Force Rating 3.

Point being, don't assume that just because it's printed in a book and that you might personally allow something in your game that every other GM out there is going to allow that same thing.

Quick path to power then back tracking to padawan for the quick fr 3 is certainly munchkiny in my book and would get a "really?" from me as GM.

45 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Quick path to power then back tracking to padawan for the quick fr 3 is certainly munchkiny in my book and would be et a "really?" from me as GM.

Yeah, Quick Path is specifically for jumping straight to Knight. Dunno how I'd handle that.

On 2/1/2020 at 10:49 PM, EliasWindrider said:

Quick path to power then back tracking to padawan for the quick fr 3 is certainly munchkiny in my book and would get a "really?" from me as GM.

I work with my players to avoid that very thing.

So I am running a pre clone wars game with the Wife and Daughter. Just starting out. Pathfinder and Sentry. I am not allowing them to purchase Jedi careers as such.

Instead they will be rewarded as story milestones. Such as when the wife passes her final trial and becomes a knight, or the daughter is finally brought ba k to the academy and inducted as a padawan (even though she may already be FR2)

I've allowed the "I'm -NOT- a Jedi" force user in my campaign take the Knight specialization, because it makes narrative sense (I also have some other off house rules, like letting him trade the dedication talent in his primary spec for force rating, because it makes narrative and character sense) and would allow another character to do so if it makes sense.