Hello to all,

I have gathered a group and have run the adventure in the Beginner Game, as well as the In the Shadow of a Black Sun module from Free RPG Day.

One thing that caught my attention was that one of my players, having played the Wookie in the Beginner adventure pointed out that he thought the game's Difficulty for Engaged Melee and Brawl attacks was rather unfair, as it made it much more easier to shoot someone at a short range than to slash them with a vibroblade.

I thought about it and decided to wait and see.

In the Black Sun module, this Difficulty seemed to have been downgraded to that of an Easy check and I ran the game with it.

When my core rulebook was delivered last week, I found myself surprised that it was again at "Two Difficulty die"!

After doing some research on this forum, I found out that the "Easy" check on the Black Sun table had been probably an error, which led me to ask of you:

Is there a reason you see for this Difficulty for being at two die? Is the game deliberate in favoring blaster fights or are melee attacks balanced in any other way?

What are your thoughts? I have zero experience running the Core game or the Beta one and would like to hear if you had trouble with that melee difficulty

Melee in insanely lethal. Crit ratings of 1 is easy to get, plus viscious and pierce.

I think it's a balanced system. In average melee attacks are far more dangerous than a blaster shot.
I had a player with a vibro Axe, he did lots of damage nearly killing big NPC's with one action while he was getting hit by blasters.

That's what I think it works like. Blasters are easier to hit with but melee attacks can be deadlier.

Ans I think the game does tends to a blaster shooting action, it's more in like of smugglers and thief to fight with blasters in Star Wars than gaffi sticks.

From a balance perspective, the question only really matters when comparing melee and ranged in the same fight. A melee character at short range can engage easily, and once he does, any ranged weapon-using opponents will have their difficulties increased and also grant boost die to the melee character. A ranged character at short range is "better off" to some extent because of the lower difficulty, but is also at risk of either being engaged in melee, or being shot at with short range return fire (which will gain just as much increased effectiveness as his own).

From a setting perspective, Star Wars is primarily about two weapons--blasters and lightsabers. Lightsabers are not supposed to be easy to use, and blasters are ranged weapons. So having rules that work well for close-ranged shootouts is a plus.

Plus, melee is harder to hit with at short range. Dodging bullets is pretty **** hard, compared to dodging a sword.

Just look at the famous Indiana Jones fight sequence. (All thanks to Harrison Ford having the runs.)

Now, Engaged is another story, it's equally hard to hit with a pistol in Engaged, and a rifle is worse.

I use a number of diffiulty dice equal to the agility of the target for melee attacks.

I use a number of diffiulty dice equal to the agility of the target for melee attacks.

I have been considering something similar, but won't for now because I want an extended period of play to see how it goes. I'm just used to games where the defender's skill has an impact on the ability to hit. So my idea was more along the lines of:

difficulty of 2 + setback dice equal to (appropriate skill ranks - 2)

But if they flesh out the lightsaber rules, so that we can have iconic back-and-forth lightsaber battles, I probably won't bother with changing it.

I use a number of diffiulty dice equal to the agility of the target for melee attacks.

High Ag is already a VERY attractive thing to have ... if anything make it dependent on highest of melee, coordination or brawl SKILL

I am not playing with min-maxers (not that there is anything wrong with that) so I am to worried about them doing everything they can to get super high agilities (they are only 7 and 11) so it's working fine. They didn't even know much about the rules when they created their characters.

I am not playing with min-maxers (not that there is anything wrong with that) so I am to worried about them doing everything they can to get super high agilities (they are only 7 and 11) so it's working fine. They didn't even know much about the rules when they created their characters.

Whatever works for your group ...go for it if u like just keep in mind you are indirectly punishing characters with low Agility then

Punishing isn't the right word, but it is better o have higher agility. However, I don't have an low agility characters in the game.

The problem I have with high agility giving a harder difficulty to hit people is that it makes 0 sense if that person with 7 agility is wearing heavy armor. And if you start giving penalties based on that, you are just having a bunch of superfluous rules that are bogging down the fast-paced narrative system.

Have you ever played a pseudo-LARP combat game, like SCA or Dagorhir? Or have you ever beat your friends with sticks or lightsabers or other plastic swords? It isn't honestly that hard to hit them somewhere, especially if they aren't taking steps to actively defend against your attacks, either by dodging (Dodge talent) or blocking with shields or weapons (defensive maneuver, Defensive Stance talent, armor defense). Swing fast and quickly enough, and you're probably going to hit them somewhere, even if it isn't a major hit (lots of successes.)

Being agile is one thing. Applying the agility you have towards dodging attacks is another thing entirely, and that thing is the talents you can buy, which at least one of the three defensive talents can be found on any individual tree.

Another issue I have with it is that it makes Agility too important. Ranged combat is arguably more common than melee combat, so keying the stat to both dodging AND shooting is going to make things weird. The beauty of this system is its simplicity. If you are getting hit too much, take steps to NOT get hit. Don't just keep adding on to the rules until you don't.

I probably won't be using armor very much in my game. Having armored heroes running around isn't very Star Wars-y to me. In the movies only the minions wore armor.

I probably won't be using armor very much in my game. Having armored heroes running around isn't very Star Wars-y to me. In the movies only the minions wore armor.

well if u dont have high Brawn ...then armour is kinda heavy

I probably won't be using armor very much in my game. Having armored heroes running around isn't very Star Wars-y to me. In the movies only the minions wore armor.

well if u dont have high Brawn ...then armour is kinda heavy

Not if you stick to Heavy Clothing, Armored Clothing, or Padded Armor. When worn, those don't encumber at all.

Another issue I have with it is that it makes Agility too important. Ranged combat is arguably more common than melee combat, so keying the stat to both dodging AND shooting is going to make things weird. The beauty of this system is its simplicity. If you are getting hit too much, take steps to NOT get hit. Don't just keep adding on to the rules until you don't.

This, very much this.

The d20 versions of Star Wars all ran into the exact same problem, with Dexterity pretty much being king, since most combat was with ranged weapons and the same ability score fed into your defense vs. attacks.

Making the difficulty of a melee attack, or any attack at all, based on Agility is simply going to re-introduce the exact same issue that the d20 systems had.

There's already existing methods to boost your defense vs. melee attacks, and that's before you get into talents.