I have nothing against the idea of a lightsaber being deadly. I think that's kind of how it should be; many posters above have pointed out the lethality we've seen in established media that lightsabers have. Usually, it's one strike and you're dead. Fighting a Jedi or a Sith /should/ be A Thing. When that mysterious stranger shows up and pulls out a lightsaber, your players *should* sit up and go 'Oh, ****!'

My only concern is that when the third book comes out, it'll pretty much invalidate player choice. This is the real issue with the Wizard vs. Fighter thing that's so hotly contested about D&D. Why would you play a character that is made pretty much pointless by someone else's choice? If your Jedi can kill things way easier than your Bounty Hunter, and then if he can also use Force powers to solve any other problems that exist better than people who have to specialize and give up everything else just to be good at their one thing, then… what's the point of playing anything but a Jedi?

I'm not saying it will happen like that, just that it's a concern. It's also a hard thing to balance with what I said in the first paragraph. Jedi and Sith should be lethal, but balanced in such a way that it doesn't make playing anything but a Jedi seem ridiculous.

But it is a role playing game. If you're playing a Jedi to be good at killing things you are not playing a Jedi or Star Wars for that matter and the other players probably think you should be doing something else, whether they tell you or not. Why design an RPG that goes against it's own setting just because of power gamers?

The system and GM should have strong consequences if you are a Jedi and you are trying to be a bounty hunter or killing indescriminatly. The Jedi should not train you in lightsaber skills and Jedi powers anymore and your skills should weaken or go away. You could lose your character to the dark side. If you use a saber or Jedi powers in the Dark Times you will be hunted down. The GM should demand that you follow the strict Jedi code which takes a lot of venues off the plate where the bounty hunter shines. If you are not a Jedi and you want Force training you need to find someone to train you. And when doe this not get messy?

Game wise I'll bet it will cost Jedi a lot to be good at anything but being a Jedi. Then it's up to the GM to allow players with other skills to be effective. A lot of the times this is starship conflicts. Saber or mind trick do you no good when you are in a dogfight. You'll wish you had piloting and ranged skills then.

Jango v Obi Wan is the model here. Obi Wan never hit Jango. Had he, game over. Jango used the environment, ranged attacks, rocket, disarm, bind, etc. for the stalemate. To me that shows just how tough Jango is. But then we saw what happened to him when he did get hit by a lightsaber.

I agree that the lethality poses problems. I just think the GM can work with that situation or type of player.

usgrandprix said:

[My first post, other than an inquiry about my order on the "ETM" thread:]

AMEN!

usgrandprix said:

[/slow clap]

I agree, dude.

But it ain't a perfect RPG world - and not every player (or GM) is as enlightened as yourself. 12 year-olds will get their hands on this game and play it. Or powergamers who really want to "kill things lots for teh ubersmak". But despite that… it's about fun at the table. And a lot of that comes from players' roles and repesentations within the party.

My number one fear - since before the beta was announced - was that the "new" system wouldn't be able to balance jedi and other characters. But then I thought about that. Should they be balanced ? In Star Wars, Jedi are feared/respected because they are "better" than other characters.

But what does that mean for an RPG? Does it mean that I, as a player who made a Sullustan scoundrel, should just be "okay" with the fact that Jim, who made a Jedi, is just "better than me"? Each player has the right to be the hero in their own story. But how can that happen at the table, when one character type will consistently and frequently outclass the other players?

4th Edition D&D tried to ensure this never happened with "super-balance" between classes. What resulted was a homogenous/silly class separation that turned everyone into a spell-caster (mechanically speaking). Even 4e lovers eventually tired of the system. Saga Edition tried to do it by nerfing lightsabers, making it impossible for a straight-classed Jedi to do anything with an engine or computer, and relying (nicely, IMO) on a codified roleplaying mechanic (Dark Side Points, which would eventually lead to character death) to control over-use of the Force.

So far… I'm having a hard time seeing how a Jedi character will be able to do anything but outshine another party member. Based, of course, off the scant info we have in the beta. But here's what we know:

- Force Use (dedicated builds, especially) can DESTROY things.

- Lightsabers will kill any group of minions outright with a single advantage on a hit (as a crit instantly destroys minions).

- Even non-minion NPCs will be unlikely to stand up to more than one or two hits from a lightsaber.

Now, some of you may be saying, "That's as it should be, GMC." Okay. Then you are okay with one or two PCs in the party outshining the others?

Or does this mean that it's really not viable to have a Jedi in a party of non-jedi? Perhaps that's the reason we're seeing three standalone books?

GM Chris said:

My experience with the 40K line of RPGs tells me this is EXACTLY the reason we're seeing three standalone books. Much as a Space Marine is supposed to be downright better than an acolyte, so should a Jedi be better than a starting smuggler.

Each of the books will be different in tone, but also in power level. Now, should a group be comfortable mixing and matching characters from the different rule books, they can do so.

If they are not comfortable doing so, they can all stick to whichever book appeals to them. I'm certain that someone dead set on a Han Solo-type character using the Force and Destiny book will have some option for doing so in which his natural talent and luck allow him to stand on equal footing, even if its just via a glut of extra starting XP.

Matching a starting xp jedi to a starting xp scoundrel is going to be lopsided by design. A starting Rogue Trader character is a good deal better than a starting Dark Heresy acolyte. Boost the XP, level the playing field and move on. Will it be a perfect surgical balance? Probably not. For the d20 crowd just look at it like a level adjustment for draping class levels on a more powerful <something>.

If players want to abuse the game, there are going to be ways to do it. Whether they purchased Dedication over and over to get all their stats to 6, or pump the gee-wiz out of their force move in order to crush the unbelievers with flying land speeders.

I don't disagree that parts of the system need to be seriously looked at from a " are you really sure you want to do this guys ?" angle.

But a narrative system is a big shift from the past three iterations of star wars d20. There is not going to be a rule forbidding every kind of munchkin power game nonsense, or a bright set of landing lights to educate newcomers on do it right because the rules say to do it right . People that rely on "well the rules don't forbid it so it is legal and therefore intended " are either going to love the abuse they can conduct with this system or they will hate it because there is no mechanical blast shield to hide behind. Some GMs that have never had problems at their table before will have a terrible experience because they will inevitably use the much more open GM fiat capability in EotE to steamroll their players with one-way "storytelling." Others will feel lost and adrift because there "isn't a page for that." I hope that a majority of game groups will just talk it out like human beings and enjoy the shared narrative control, and avoid doing stuff that doesn't mechanically make sense or serve the type of game they are running. Like characters banding together to spend 10,000 credits more effectively (and with a lesesr rarity and sacred cow setting drapery) to obtain a case full of thermal detonators. No need for jedi there…just a whole lot of structural damage and dead bad-guys…and sad GM's shaking their fist at the heavens yelling "why George…why do tactical nukes fit into pockets?!?!!"

All that being said, yeah there are some real eyebrow raisers in the Beta. I enjoy game systems that leave a lot of room to roam for the GM and players, but the rules that do exist need to be clear, well intentioned, and well thought out. Otherwise we'll end up with the 40k line's issue of a slightly improved and modified system for each core game release that will invalidate the current promises of a "seamless" game system.

I guess I'm just still seeing enough in there for everyone to shine, just like in the movies non-Jedi shine. Whether you can pilot, are a princess, have underworld contacts, own a gas mine, speak 50,000 languages, or carry a bowcaster.

Role should always be as important as mechanics if you're going to be considered a traditional RPG. The role of a Jedi is actually quite limiting (more so in Dark Times) and other players don't have to deal with it. Once in a while the GM should take the Jedi's spellbook and place him in a situation where he's already cast all his spells. No match for a trusty blaster and all. "You owe me one for saving your ass in that Death Star trench." And sometimes the Jedi should mop the floor while the thief is hiding in the shadows.

Plus I'm old and used to play the character I rolled so I can have fun with a mechanically weak combat character. We used to walk to and from the dungeon uphill both ways. Just trying to keep a touch of that alive because it's more satisfying and a broader game. Overcome your "weakness." Play your role. Look beyond combat to your character's motivation.

All this and I'd never deny the right of an adolescent to power game as I did with my 17th level paladin with a gold dragon mount when I was 12.

I try to accommodate play styles but I don't like it when the game changes the setting too much. It's a tricky RP setting though.

Bottom line, I'm applauding the direction this game takes for lightsabers. And I agree it will take a bit of work on the GM's and players' parts.

Nabikasu said:

THAT IS WHY THEY ARE DIFFERENT BOOKS IN DIFFERENT GAMES

To put it less angrily - we've got the three different books and the three different power levels for a reason. No arbitrary balance. Sure, Boba Fett is equal to a Bounty Hunter + 4,000xp.

If you want to play Han Solo tooling around with Lando, you play Edge. If you want to play Princess Leia heroically fighting the Empire, you play Rebellion. If you want to play Jedi fighting Sith, you play Power.

To put it another way, if you want to play A New Hope , you play Edge. If you want to play The Empire Strikes Back , you play Rebellion. If you want to play Return of the Jedi , you play Power. It's about narrative focus and overall power level.

One of the biggest problems of WEG, d20, and Saga is that they tried to be all things in one game. It didn't work, at least entirely - Star Wars is pretty big. Splitting it by movie/narrative focus/power level is a way more elegant solution.

GoblynByte said:

I find it funny that a goal, in a Star Wars game, should be to keep lightsabers out of the hands of the players. Why would I play Star Wars, if not to swing a Lightsaber? If I want to play a smuggler, or a crook on the fringes of a society, many settings do that WAY WAY better than Star Wars, which is a high fantasy setting, not a gritty, edgy setting.

Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader are both more appropriate to that genre for me, anyway.

To me, this whole debate would be like trying to make a grimdark game based on Lord of the Rings. Its silly.

Seeten said:

That conversation has already be had on these boards. Many folks don't see Jedi as the focal point of the Star Wars universe. Nobody is saying that Jedi don't belong. Just that they don't always belong mixed with "normal" characters. Many folks believe it is better to do the Jedi justice and play them on the power level that they are in the movies rather than nerf them for the sake of cramming them into the D&D concept of an "adventuring party." Many folks see the non-Jedi aspects of Star Wars to be some of the most defining aspects of the setting and aspects that have been sadly neglected for the past 10 years.

Again, it has to be emphasised that this core book is focused on the time period of the Galactic Civil War when the Jedi themselves are more or less extinct and the Jedi that do exist (other than two notable ecxeptions) are not "true" Jedi in terms of their power. With this core book you can create a character like Luke who is more on par with the power level of the other "normal" main characters. Jedi who are of the power of Jedi with the power level you see in the extended universe material since the prequels will be depicted in the third book (Force and Destiny). If you want to wield a lightsaber like Luke (and have lightsabers be very, very rare LIKE THEY ARE IN THE ORIGINAL MOVIES) then play this game. If you want to play a campaign where Jedi are a dime a dozen and everyone and their uncle has a lightsaber, wait for the third book.

Not to have a big argument, but in the original movies, the PC's had one guy with a lightsaber, and Obi-Wan in the party, and they fought Vader, who also had a Lightsaber, so even in A New Hope, I wouldnt exactly call Lightsabers rare.

PC party in ANH:

Luke - Lightsaber

Leia - Blaster

Han - Blaster

Chewie - Bowcaster

Obi-Wan - Lightsaber

That looks pretty non-rare. The only place Lightsabers are rare is in background material/throw away comments, because the original trilogy is pretty clearly all about dudes with lightsabers(and their buddies) defeating bad dudes with Lightsabers(and their minions).

But, it is also worth noting that no minor characters ever have a lightsaber in the OT. We never see one on the belt of a stormtrooper or bounty hunter. Three of the four lightsabers seen in the movies are from the pre-Imperial Era. The only new lightsaber that appears during the trilogy is Lukes in ROTJ, though I'll grant the movie doesn't explain if he made it or bought it at the Mos Espa Walmart. The novelization of the movie, however, does say he created it and they are not available for purchase.

We also get an idea of its rarity from Luke's reaction - he's completely unaware of what the item is. So, whether they off the market because of difficulty of manufacture or they're just plain not useful if one does not possess force powers, they are certainly not common. (Even before EU comes in.)

Quicksilver said:

I distinctly remember Vader going "I see you picked up a new lightsaber at K-Mart" in RotJ. If Imperial Surplus Depot can sell 50 credit Star Destroyers (okay, so that was a clerical error) I don't see why they wouldn't stock jedi paraphernalia.

Hey, I'm not here to play like, "The right way to do it cop" I just found that the "Lightsabers are ridiculous and should be banned by GMs" comment sounded completely ludicrous and couldn't resist commenting.

This game is also obviously not for me. If I wanted an edgy game in an edgy setting, Star Wars would be the absolute last place on earth I'd think to set the game. I acknowledge that its not Badwrongfun for others to wanna be a party of Cade Skywalkers (sans force sensitivity/lightsaber on his belt) and run around playing intergalactic planetary space pirate Star Wars or whatever, and more power to them.

Seeten said:

Misquoting doesn't do your point any good. I never said they were rediculous and should be banned by the GM. I said that if the GM feels the way the are portrayed in the movie is too powerful for his campaign he should not allow his PCs to have them which, in context of the time period, is perfectly reasonable call since they are very rare.

And your example of the number of lightsabers in the original trilogy is skewed because the "party" you speak of included two of the only three remaining Jedi left in the galaxy. That's an unfair sample.

Slaunyeh said:

You make me snicker. A lot.

I can see and understand the desire to want to balance a demi-jedi in a game that's primarily aimed at creating underworld/fringe type stories. Having them included allows some force-user shenanigans without them utterly dominating every scene.

But at least lightsabers are there for people so inclined. As someone that liked the bounty hunters in star wars more than the jedi, I was disappointed to see that the beta doesn't seem to include some of the more iconic bounty hunter weapons. No wrist-mounted dart of flame weapons, no pack-mounted rockets, etc. The game's entry for flame projectors and missile weapons stat them to be full sized military equipment.

I almost assumed there weren't any Jetpacks until I found an entry for them in the extra equipment section.

The game is going to be "lethal" no matter what. Having listened to the Order 66 session, one of their characters gets utterly destroyed for the simple fact that she didn't get into cover during a fire fight. She got a single action, and then got blasted into unconsciousness in 2 shots.

That really puts the fear of lightsaber's being too strong into perspective--you're not getting out unscathed regardless of what you're up against if you don't do your damnedest to avoid getting hit. And that's very fitting to the setting.

If you're trained with a lightsaber, fighting someone with a lightsaber, you're going to stand a chance. If you're not, then don't get into a fight with someone with a lightsaber! It is totally doable to run away, get into defensive positions, and keep firing from a distance.

redocelot said:

Yeah, I can see that. I mean, a lot of those gadgets can be covered by the weapon/gear modification rules. Which, in a way is what Boba and his ilk really had: jury-rigged gear that they made themselves. But the final book might have more gear. I'd hope, anyway.

usgrandprix said:

The principle problem is that a roleplaying game with dice effectively reduces such things to a cold percentage game.

You say 'I shall fight clever!!!' and then you roll a one and get cut in half on the first turn. This is unlike a video game, where by if you fail to execute your plan and get tagged it was your mistake. Here the dice let you down.

--

Like I say, it doesn't matter how Jedi 'should' work in this game - eventually the system will need to handle the kinds of Jedi Action one can get in the movies and whatnot, and it needs to be considered how it will do this as a fundamental part of its development.

AluminiumWolf said:

This is actually wrong here, though. If a ranged character stays at Long Distance, a melee opponent can't reach you. There are 5 Range bands: Engaged < Close < Medium < Long < Extreme. So, with only getting 2 Maneuvers per turn, most characters just can't go from Long to Engaged before their opponent can move away. So, in this instance, it plays out exactly like it should: Obi-Wan keeps running after Jango, and Jango just keeps backing up and shooting at him.

Yes, they're both taking strain, but then Obi-Wan is also taking actual damage, while Jango is not.

Could Jango roll a bunch of Threats and slip, letting Obi-Wan catch up? Yeah, but the reverse is also true.

It is totally do-able in this system to just not get anywhere close to someone swinging a lightsaber.

It's also worth remembering that this isn't the only system that shows Star Wars to be a truly lethal place: WEG made combat extremely deadly - if you got hit with anything that could smash out that 16 damage excess of your Strength roll, then you're gone. This replicated the universe, and emphasised the point that, whilst combat DOES happen (and should), the best way to fight is the smart way to fight.

I applaud FFG for their work so far, in all aspects of the game that I have currently read. Lightsabers are deadly, and in the right hands will be extremely lethal; this is accurate to the setting, and I thank them for that.

Very well said.

---