selderane said:

In the case of lightsaber, it's probably more of a case that anyone attacking a person wielding a glowing energy stick capable of lopping off limbs is going to be wary of leaving themselves too open when making their own close-quarters. Also, swords historically are noted for being a decent balance between defense and offense without outright sucking at either; for instance, the axe is a primarily offensive weapon, ill-suited for parrying incoming attacks but great and hewing through a foe's defenses.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Thanks for the update, that makes a lot more sense.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Good call. I recommend talents (possibly ranked) that a Jedi/Force user can buy to up melee defense when using a saber and to use a saber to deflect and ultimately target enemies with blaster deflections.

Perfect. I'm totally happy with Breach 1.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Question then. If lightsabers are losing the Defensive quality, then what about Vibro-swords, which are still listed as having Defensive 1?

As I noted in response to another poster, if any weapon in the Star Wars setting would be well-suited for defending oneself in melee, it'd be a lightsaber.

If I might make a suggestion, perhaps put the Deflection and Defense qualities back in for Lightsabers, but add a caveat under the Lightsaber's entry in the equipment chapter that only a trained user (i.e. someone with one or more ranks in the Lightsaber skill) can make use of those qualities. Alternatively, require the wielder to have a Force Rating of 1 or better to trigger those qualities, to re-inforce that this is primarily the weapon of an elite group of individuals.

This way, it's still a deadly weapon in the hands of a trained user, but an untrained user (most PCs) aren't going to be quite as fearsome with it.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Those things came to my mind too.

For defensive I can see it for the vibrosword because you can feel its weight. Anyone can use a sword to stop someone from punching you. I think the trick to a lightaber is that it's not natural to use as there is no weight to give it an actual feel. You need to sense its position and speed by other means. The Force helps.

I was thinking about thresholds to activate those qualities too but that's adding new rules. I think the same can be accomplished by requiring talents and Force levels to up defense and deflect. I think the xp cost will help balance Jedi too.

I think perhaps the lightsaber skill could add the defensive quality - something listed under a future lightsaber skill entry. Melee does this to vibroswords by default (one could argue) - on that note some weapon qualities could require skill training, like for example the defensive quality of vibrosword (and the lightsaber) as Donovan points out. This could be added under quality description or weapon description. So with no ranks in Melee, you don't get the defensive 1 from the vibrosword. I can't think of any other qualities that could have the same requirements though… perhaps snap-shot which I can't find any weapon having.

I think deflection should require a force rating of 1 - or perhaps 2 even to require something more than just "mere" force sensitivity but also training to be able to deflect with the weapon (in addition to having a minimum of 1 ranks in the lightsaber skill). This could then incrementally increase with force rating - or "just" through further talents in the upcoming force and destiny book.

Breach might be good to keep, although a Pierce quality of 3 or 4 could probably simulate the same in most circumstances - although I have no preference to either.

About the slughtrowers, increased range should perhaps be added to the rifle, and perhaps the snap-shot quality added to the pistol… the latter requiring a minimum of 1 rank to activate…?

usgrandprix said:

Regardless of whether or not the weapon has any weight (and this has been a point of contention in the fan community for some time as is the weapon giving off heat), the fact of the matter is that if I saw someone power one of those things on and I had no idea what it was or what it was capable of, I'd think twice before moving in where he can touch me with it, and I'm going to be very careful about where that thing is if I do get in close.

Defensive still makes sense to me as a lightsaber trait. Maybe not Defensive 2, but at the very least Defensive 1.

Donovan Morningfire said:

I would agree that Vibro-swords shouldn't have Defensive either. Like you suggest for the Lightsaber skill, I'd like to see it attached to trained use in the Melee skill. I don't see how someone, anyone, untrained in a melee weapon would be adept enough in its usage as to merit the Defensive quality.

But Breach 1, Sunder, Vicious 2 I'm very happy to see on the lightsaber now. Everything else should be an extension of trained skill usage and the Force.

Cyril said:

And if you encounter someone familiar with the weapon, or one like it? Or someone who simply doesn't care?

No, Defensive on the item itself makes no sense. Also, the description for the Defensive quality makes it clear that the ability comes from the nature of the item itself, not your enemy's reaction to it.

Cyril said:

I can see the case for making it Defensive 1. But I think it's equally or more important to make its defensive qualities relative to the user's skill. Obi Wan with a lightsaber should have a defense of like 6 where han solo with a lightsaber should not. LS defense should be a function of skill mainly and some the quality of the weapon.

On a similar note, I do want to see the capabilitiy, with training and the Force, for a very high defense with a saber to reflect the battles in the movies. Lots of blocks and then one good hit basically decides it. I hated in saga how you could take like 4-5 hits from a saber at level 10. Silliness. Maybe lightsabers should be highly defensive against…lightsabers.

Callidon said:

Regarding Autofire, I played (GM'd) Episode I of the Adventure Crates of Krayts", with 3 players, one playing a Han Solo type Smuggler/Scoundrel/Pilot, other a Force User (sense) Bodyguard and the third one a Bounty Hunter/Assassin.

The last character used a blaster rifle with autofire, had level 4 agility, and a sole rank in Heavy Ranged Weapons.

The first ones had Agility 3 and maybe a rank in Light Ranged Weapons. Used a Blaster Pistol each.

The end result was: Smuggler: 2 kills, Bodyguard: 2 Kills, Bounty Hunter: 10 Kills. 2of3 player characters were badly wounded, but suffered no critical hits.

This experience diden't felt wrong or unbalanced. I think the reasons are:

1. The only character that was only shooting the whole engagement was the Bounty Hunter, maybe 6 rounds worth of fighting.

2. The Smuggler started racing towards the ship and later trying to fly her lower towards the narrow canyon, close enough to lower a chain (destiny point spent), and uplift the crates. Spent one or two rounds shooting in between.

3. The Bodyguard remained mostly by the crates, moving them to the ship and when, 2 or 3 rounds from the begining of the engagement, the repolsor sledge was shot and the crate fell, tried first to move it, failed to do so and only then started shooting for only about 3 rounds.

4. All oposition were minions.

5. Narratively speaking, it felt right and proper that the heavy weapon fighter using auto-fire had the most kills. it never felt "unrealistic"

6. and the other characters always had something to do, often thinking and acting out of the box solutions to get out of the fight and secure the main objective, which was to retrieve to crates back to the ship and not to die. In short, everybody had fun.

must test the aoutofire rules again vs. henchmen and nemesis adversaries, but so far they seem fantastic.

I actually really like the idea of lightsabers and vibro-swords having Defensive 1.

Remember, Defensive only applies to melee attacks. And those two weapons (basically, swords…) should be able to be used in that capacity, force-abilities or no. It's just a part of fencing. You're using your sword AS a shield, basically - to block incoming melee blows. This is the FIRST thing a fencer learns.

GM Chris said:

Emphasis mine.

Learning means skill. I have no problem with Defensive being an extension of the Melee or Lightsaber skills. But inherent to the item itself?

Your own definition says no.

Other things regarding week 3 update:

Liked very much the change in Defensive, by which it only applies to melee now.

I can get behind all the changes to the lightsaber. Specially considering that a skilled user can later better employ the defensive and deflect qualities.

I liked the way it was before, but can understand the change. I think it can be argued that these qualities are intrinsic to the weapon, or learned, or both.

For me Damage 10 and crit 1 are now iconic stapples of jedi weapons this game and woulden't want to see anything else statwise. The crit 1 coupled with vicious 2 is dangerous and properly so. The breach quality is cool, too, and that should be mantained or else changed to high level piercing.

Have no strong opinion on snap shot deletion, but I suppose it was not really needed, being somewhat redundant with autoshot and such.

The only thing I am not sure was a good move was the nerfing in some melee weapons, particularly the lower tier ones, like combat knife.

This because I think +1 or +2 damage might not be enough to prevent or mitigate the return of the naked Dwarf (Wookie?) sindrome, where a solid hit with a cutting weapon may not be enough to inflit any damage in an opponent with high brawn and soak values. Even considering that the base damage is at least +1 than the printed one on a hit (which is the minimum net sucesses on a hit).

I just remember I had this "naked dwarf sindrome" concern and when I received the beta, reading the weapon stats I noticed that because the weapon damage was significant higher than normal soak and brawn values. I then became more confident that the problem was solved or at least minimized. But I would be wary to lower that much the damage bonus os weapons such as Combat Knife or Vibro Knife. Remember that, IIRC, there are specialization trees, like Marauder, that can increase a character's soak even further, and that can turn a character almost imune to some weapons, even on a solid hit.

Barring only this concern, I think we had a solid update this week.

Just one more (somewhat unrelated) thing: I was thinking that a lightsaber, being such a elegant, almost weightless and mystic weapon, could use Force Rating instead of Brawn of Agility when determining combat check dice. That way, it would be next to useless to somebody without the skill and/or a Force Rating. What do you think?

selderane said:

If I'm familiar with a lightsaber and what it can do, you can bet your last credit that I'm going to be even more frakking careful around it that Joe the Smuggler (or Steve the Marauder since we're talking about melee combat) who has never seen one. I don't know how well trained the guy is, I'm going to let him posture for a while before trying to get into melee with him.

As for someone who doesn't care? Well, in that case it doesn't matter if it's a lightsaber, a vibro-ax, a heavy repeating blaster, or a starship gun. He's going to charge in, and he's eventually going to come to a messy end.

And let's put aside the rubbish notion of "text rules everything" shall we? Yes, text does rule when it's clarifying a rule or explaining something within the system. It doesn't matter if they're good at fending off incoming attacks because they're designed to do so, because they're challenging or even somewhat scary to attack, or simply because they're sized like the weapon of an anime character and as hard to get around as it is to wield. Defensive is defensive.

OB-1 said:

This was brought up in the other thread, and I think it's a good idea - as a substitution. You still have plenty of examples in the EU (and even in the films) of characters who have very limited or even no connection to the Force still being able to use a lightsaber, and in many cases, use them terrifyingly well. Han is able to activate Luke's and use it to save his life. This is the most limited end of that spectrum. On the other end of the no-Force-mojo spectrum you have General Grievous who dealt death to Jedi on a constant basis in the Clone Wars using their signature weapon.

You also have to account for the Jedi that may not have had a strong connection with the Force, and instead, chose to devote their lives to mastering the art of fighting with a lightsaber. They may have had a bunk Force rating, but they were terrors with the weapon.

Make substituting your Force Rating an option as a higher level Jedi/Force-user talent and I think you're onto something.

Slaunyeh said:

I can think of at least two examples in Return of the Jedi, without having to think too hard. Probably the biggest was Luke chopping the front of a speeder bike on Endor - if that isn't a personal scale weapon ignoring vehicle/starship scale armour I don't know what is! He also used it to cut the binder cuffs off Han, Chewie, etc, although I guess it could be argued that was sunder. I'm sure there are more in the movies, not to mention the numerous books, comics, etc.

Regardless, good to see that Sam has spoken up about it being an error. I'm comfortable with the changes now, although agree with everyone about defensive. Either it should reflect training - in which case neither Vibroblades nor lightsabers should have it, or it is an intrinsic property of "sword type" weapons, in which case both should have it. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but I do believe it should be consistent as both weapons are wielded in very much the same way. Perhaps remove from both as the default, and add a weapon upgrade (cross guard hilt or something) that provides it at level 1? Although, now that I've suggested that, I guess that could explain vibroblades having the defensive property (they usually have a cross-guard hilt) and lightsabers not (there may be some with one, but if there are I've never seen them in canon)…

I believe the Lightsaber should be kept the way it was.

Breach makes complete sense -- and is being put back in.

Defensive on both sword and a lightsaber makes sense with the change to just affecting melee defense. If a person uses a maneuver to put a weapon between them and their opponents, it should be beneficial -- and a lightsaber even more so. It can slice through just about any relatively light material ("light" being anything less than hull plating).

Deflection should remain also, but limit it to the user's Force Rating (not the power Deflection, just its use with the lightsaber). This could account that lightsabers are "tuned" to the Force and even a relatively untrained user might have the Force guide their hand in tense combat moments. Also, by limiting the Deflection rank by the user's Force Rating we have the potential to improve lightsabers through better crystals and what not, but they are only going to benefit you to the point that you can feel the Force.

Leaving Deflection on the lightsaber (but under the above restriction) would allow a scene similar to the scene where Luke deflects the shots from the training remote. With that gone, under the current set of rules, that would not be possible. (There's no "Deflect" in the Froce Exile talent tree -- I know the Sense Power was probably meant to cover that situation, but sometimes, when it's not spelled "D-e-f-l-e-c-t" it doesn't feel like "Star Wars".)

Thanks for the clarifying Sam: the reinstatement of Breach and the removal of Defensive makes a lot more sense to me. I think Breach + Sunder + Vicious 2 does well to represent the dangerous weapon we all know well from the movies.

selderane said:

But some weapons are inherently easier to defend with than others. A sword, for instance, is easier to parry with than, say, an axe (this is actually one of the inherent advantages of the sword as a weapon). So in some cases it makes perfect sense to have the Defensive trait, to reflect that. Now, whether a razor-sharp beam of light is more inherently defensive than something else, I can't say.

gribble said:

I'm pretty sure those speeder bikes used to be character scale, anyway, so I had no issue with that. Now, if he'd cut the front, or a leg, off an AT-AT you'd have a point. Instead he opted to cut open the lock of a whatever hatch and stove a thermal detonator in there.

I'm not really considering fanfic as an unbiased source of how awesome lightsabers/jedi are. The EU is notoriously skewered.

Also, I'm not saying that a lightsaber shouldn't be able to cut through stuff. I just disagree with how much stuff we ever see being cut through effortlessly. Anyway, the topic of Breach was already dealt with. I disagree, but I accept the ruling.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

I posted my thoughts on Blast in the equipment thread, but I can reiterate here.

EldritchFire said:

As for auto-fire, in my (gaming) experience it's used for two things: spray and pray, and burst. Spray and pray is all about covering the area with so much lead (or blaster bolts) that you're bound to hit something. In EotE, that may be done with adding boost dice, maybe?

As for burst fire, that's more what the current rules show: concentrated fire to put multiple shots into one target.

-EF

selderane said:

That's a good point, sir!

My only reply would be that in Star Wars, we never see someone pick up a weapon and have "no idea how to use it". Even a normal person on Earth with no training in fencing can pick up a sword, and get the basic concept of using the heavy piece of forged and folded steel to block an incoming attack. ;-)

But you make a fair point. :-)

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

I posted this in the equipment thread as well, but I'll repeat here:

Another poster said: if someone has the choice to activate Blast…there's always going to be someone that chooses not to. And I could see a scenario where a player lobs a grenade at a foe and chooses to save the adjacent friendly NPC from the grenade's wrath.

To which I replied: I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - grenades are really meant for groups of enemies - if you're going after a single foe there are better weapons to use, so it's not like PCs will use this abusively as the best way to hurt the opponent. I can see then using it as "positioning the grednade just right to get the bad guy but not the ally.

However, I think it'd be interesting to give the GM the option of activating a blast weapon with the same threat cost as the usual advantage cost to activate, for just this situation… in fact, if FFG don't use that as an official rule, I certainly will be in the games I'm GMing…