So I have a group I have been taking through the saga campaign Dawn of Defiance and the they just had a showdown with an Imperial Inquisitor.

During the battle one of the characters used scathing tirade and rolled a triumph. For their triumph they wanted to force the Inquisitor to drop their Lightsaber. I ruled against that since I felt it wasn't in keeping with the talent's focus. Needless to say the player was upset. We eventually compromised on the Inquistor falling prone.

His main point was that a triumph can be spent on an attack to disarm someone, and that it creates a game-changing effect..

I ruled that Scathing Tirade doesn't count as an attack, and that a single Triumph wasn't enough to cause essentially a Jedi Master to throw away his lightsaber during combat.

Looking for how other people might have called the situation.

I'm with you; rolling a Triumph on Scathing Tirade probably shouldn't allow a character to disarm a BBEG.

What I might have done, instead, is allow the next person to attack the Inquisitor to upgrade their check once, increasing the chance that they could disarm him, to represent the Inquisitor being so taken aback.

I disagree.

A single Triumph should be enough to disarm someone (anyone), and a Triumph on a Scathing Tirade should mean that the target is shaking in their boots. It would have made sense for the target to drop a weapon, and as this does no damage to the target, I don't necessarily understand the argument about Scathing Target not being a physical attack.

I would have allowed it.

Incidentally ... did you adapt Dawn of Defiance? I've been working on doing this as I love that campaign. How long did it take you? How's it going? Was it hard to do? And did you do a document write up or are you kind of eye balling it and substituting in alternate stats?

I started off doing a full adaptation starting with the second adventure of the series(we did the first using the saga system and switched when I got the beta book). That was alot of work, and most of it became moot given the difference in tone between the systems, and the fact that my players have a habit of being cold-hearted bastards.

Since then I have switched over to doing a few hours stating out important encounters and winging the rest using the writeups in the back of the book. The biggest areas of difference have been converting gear and wealth, and the obligation system.

I really like the campaign, but in several areas it gets fairly rail-roady which can be difficult to balance with the narrative system(and again my cut-throat hero-in-name-only players). I have switched obligation over to being a mostly group obligation(helping the growing rebellion) and giving each individual rolled an effect based on the current adventure.

Yeah, but how would the Jedi in your party feel if a grand moff Triumphed on a scathing tirade and you were like "lol u drop ur litesaber bcuz ur scared."

Unless they could give me a **** good impression of how they convinced a goddamn inquisitor to drop his lightsaber, or how it happened, then I wouldn't buy it.

Yeah, but how would the Jedi in your party feel if a grand moff Triumphed on a scathing tirade and you were like "lol u drop ur litesaber bcuz ur scared."

Unless they could give me a **** good impression of how they convinced a goddamn inquisitor to drop his lightsaber, or how it happened, then I wouldn't buy it.

I think this is an entirely fair scenario. If you fail a roll, consequences occur.

Moreover, an NPC character is not a PC character, and I don't think a GM would be or should be as attached, or offended by the notion.

And of course there should be a good explanation. This is already recommended in the rules--the player needs to describe what their character is doing. The Triumph and the success should be explained, yes of course.

But my point stands. I don't think there's any reason why a player with a success and Triumph on a Scathing Tirade could not do this.

I would allow the disarm. But with a caveat the player or gm has to describe the action, such as:

You (the player) let out a tirade of so varied and graphic that the inquisitor is momentarily shocked, even more so when a stray blaster bolt from one of your allies knocks the weapon from his hand.

Or

The inquisitor accepts your challenge, throwing away his weapon, gritting his teeth and with a snarl says: "I'll kill you with my bare hands!

The inquisitor accepts your challenge, throwing away his weapon, gritting his teeth and with a snarl says: "I'll kill you with my bare hands!

I could go with that. Otherwise I find the concept of making someone drop their lightsaber by shouting at them kind of ... rules-lawery. I don't think it's the purpose behind Scathing Tirade.

Well coercion(the skill that scathing tirade uses) is a social skill, so I don't believe that table 6-2 is relevant to that particular talent as making an opposed social skill check is clearly not the same as making a combat check. So that particular argument wouldn't fly with me.

That said, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what should happen with a triumphed scathing tirade in the middle of combat, especially against an opponent such as an Imperial Inquisitor. It would highly depend on the circumstances.

One thing to keep in mind is that the hesitation to allow this sort of thing could just be a holdover reaction from playing in the d20 system. NPCs aren't giant bags of HP in EotE, and not every confrontation has to be a 10 round slugfest. Tales of how the Politico scolded the Inquisitor into dropping his lightsaber and forcing him to retreat(or maybe the hired gun then smirked and shot the now unarmed Inquisitor in the face) can be just as entertaining and memorable as the tale of how the party took the Inquisitor down in a battle of attrition won through superior tactics and luck.

If nothing else, that Inquisitor could become a recurring nemesis(who really hates the politico that caused his failure).

The inquisitor accepts your challenge, throwing away his weapon, gritting his teeth and with a snarl says: "I'll kill you with my bare hands!

I could go with that. Otherwise I find the concept of making someone drop their lightsaber by shouting at them kind of ... rules-lawery. I don't think it's the purpose behind Scathing Tirade.

It's not that far fetched. Although it's kinda dark side(and ultimately a failure), Loki's "mewling quim" spiel in The Avengers is kind of what I see as an example of a scathing tirade causing strain.

It's not that far fetched. Although it's kinda dark side(and ultimately a failure), Loki's "mewling quim" spiel in The Avengers is kind of what I see as an example of a scathing tirade causing strain.

Possibly. I just don't think "disarming" makes much sense. It yanks a social skill into the martial realm.

Great scene though. But my interpretation of that scene was that Loki was masterfully played. She appeared to fall to pieces in the hopes Loki would get carried away with his power-lust and reveal something...which he did.

I hadn't really thought about Triumphs against Nemeses and Rivals. I figured one against a Minion would just mean you talked them down and you can count them as incapped. But I think even that shows that I see Scathing Tirade as more of a Stun attack with a different skill than I do a social check.

So in the end, I think I'd have allowed it. Not entirely sure how I'd narrate it, though.

It's not that far fetched. Although it's kinda dark side(and ultimately a failure), Loki's "mewling quim" spiel in The Avengers is kind of what I see as an example of a scathing tirade causing strain.

Possibly. I just don't think "disarming" makes much sense. It yanks a social skill into the martial realm.

Great scene though. But my interpretation of that scene was that Loki was masterfully played. She appeared to fall to pieces in the hopes Loki would get carried away with his power-lust and reveal something...which he did.

Well yeah, if you look at the larger context. I'm just referring to his speech. Granted, if he was trying a Scathing Tirade, he rolled no successes and a despair. But it sure sounded good.

So far I'm thinking I would make the same call again. I think just like combat checks are harder against a nemesis other checks should also be different.

That said against minions or henchman I think it would work fine.

As far as being a holdover from d20 that one doesn't concern me as much. We still talk about our first session in Anima sometimes where the Tao character one-shoted the big bad by rolling like 700 on attack while I crit-fumbled defense.

The thing about Jay Little's game design style is that he approaches it from a "common sense first, rules second" perspective. This may clash with how people coming here from Saga Edition are used to dealing with games (d20 was all about rules for everything). Treating this game like it's an airtight system that can account for everything with rules will lead to headaches. If a rule doesn't make sense, then make a ruling that does.

Obviously people feel differently about how this specific instance should go down, but the answer to everyone is the same:

If it doesn't make sense to you, don't let it happen. You wear the viking hat at the table, not the rulebook.

Yeah, but how would the Jedi in your party feel if a grand moff Triumphed on a scathing tirade and you were like "lol u drop ur litesaber bcuz ur scared."

Unless they could give me a **** good impression of how they convinced a goddamn inquisitor to drop his lightsaber, or how it happened, then I wouldn't buy it.

Prince Humperdinck : First things first, to the death.

Westley : No. To the pain.

Prince Humperdinck : I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.

Westley : I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.

Prince Humperdinck : That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.

Westley : It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.

Prince Humperdinck : And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.

Westley : I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.

Prince Humperdinck : And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.

Westley : WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

Prince Humperdinck : I think you're bluffing.

Westley : It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.

[ slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince ]

Westley : DROP... YOUR... SWORD!

Prince Humperdinck : [ Humperdinck's mouth hangs open, drops sword to floor ]

Yeah, but how would the Jedi in your party feel if a grand moff Triumphed on a scathing tirade and you were like "lol u drop ur litesaber bcuz ur scared."

Unless they could give me a **** good impression of how they convinced a goddamn inquisitor to drop his lightsaber, or how it happened, then I wouldn't buy it.

Prince Humperdinck : First things first, to the death.

Westley : No. To the pain.

Prince Humperdinck : I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.

Westley : I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.

Prince Humperdinck : That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.

Westley : It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.

Prince Humperdinck : And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.

Westley : I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.

Prince Humperdinck : And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.

Westley : WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

Prince Humperdinck : I think you're bluffing.

Westley : It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.

[ slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince ]

Westley : DROP... YOUR... SWORD!

Prince Humperdinck : [ Humperdinck's mouth hangs open, drops sword to floor ]

I love you so much right now.

Given that connotation, I would totally allow it. But Prince Humperdinck is a shithead and a coward. He needed an edge to win. Should that work on a seasoned torturer and 'sith' inquisitor? I'm not so sure.

Like, could you convince Darth Vader to drop his saber using these rules and a lucky triumph? I don't think so. I know I wouldn't do that, unless he rolled despair on something, or you disarmed him with a different check that wrenched his saber from his iron grip.

Like, could you convince Darth Vader to drop his saber using these rules and a lucky triumph? I don't think so. I know I wouldn't do that, unless he rolled despair on something, or you disarmed him with a different check that wrenched his saber from his iron grip.

I get the feeling that by the time F&D rolls around, there will be options for major league BBEG's like Vader that him being disarmed of his lightsaber is the least of your worries...

True. Imagine how much XP he would have in that "Injure" power in your Ways of the Force supplement he would have.

"Don't make me destroy you."

Who needs a lightsaber?

I would have made the player convince me of why he dropped the lightsaber. Frequently my group will devolve a bit into silliness with this and I will have made my point. However, if they come up with something that convinces me and makes sense, then why not?

Given that connotation, I would totally allow it. But Prince Humperdinck is a shithead and a coward. He needed an edge to win. Should that work on a seasoned torturer and 'sith' inquisitor? I'm not so sure.

Like, could you convince Darth Vader to drop his saber using these rules and a lucky triumph? I don't think so. I know I wouldn't do that, unless he rolled despair on something, or you disarmed him with a different check that wrenched his saber from his iron grip.

He was also an excellent swordsman, the greatest huntsman in all the land, and undoubtedly the equivalent of a Nemesis character.

And why is an Emperor's Hand character being equated to Darth Vader now?

Ultimately I think if a player rolls really well, and thinks of a really cool description for what that roll means, and it works, then it would be a major bummer to deny the player doing this just because you think they shouldn't be able to, or because you have too much respect for the badassery of their opponent.

In my opinion, and I realize this is just my opinion, the player needs to feel like her character is the hero of the film, not an extra.

Given this is a narrative system, don't allow mechanical outcomes to fully drive the narrative. Given the example above I would have had the Inquisitor lower his weapon, totally absorbed by the tirade thrown at him. Mechanically he's disarmed, narratively he just lost his composure and is completely focused on that single character.

When it gets back to his turn he spends a maneuver and snaps out of it, reading his weapon (picking up his weapon) again.

So in closing Disarm doesn't have to literally mean disarm and Prone doesn't have to literally equal prone etc.

True. Imagine how much XP he would have in that "Injure" power in your Ways of the Force supplement he would have.

"Don't make me destroy you."

Who needs a lightsaber?

There's a very good reason why he's the page image for that power

He was also an excellent swordsman, the greatest huntsman in all the land, and undoubtedly the equivalent of a Nemesis character.

And why is an Emperor's Hand character being equated to Darth Vader now?

Ultimately I think if a player rolls really well, and thinks of a really cool description for what that roll means, and it works, then it would be a major bummer to deny the player doing this just because you think they shouldn't be able to, or because you have too much respect for the badassery of their opponent.

In my opinion, and I realize this is just my opinion, the player needs to feel like her character is the hero of the film, not an extra.

But if you trivialize the highly-trained, highly-skilled opponents (specifically the strong ones that matter, not the meat they cut through to get to them) by allowing them to drop their weapons because of one lucky roll without a **** good explanation, as to why, you also trivialize the "hero of the film" by making their enemies lame.

If you can describe how talking down to someone is going to make them drop their weapon or go prone, and it makes sense and isn't lame, go for it. But, as Nash said, don't let the mechanics drive the narrative; let the narrative drive the mechanics.

"I yell at him and he drops his lightsaber crying!"

No. What do you say to him? What would POSSIBLY cause him, a secretly trained highly powerful force user and adept of the dark side, expert of interrogation and torture, to lower his guard by talking to him ? That's not easy. Not even a little bit. But, if the player said something that blew my mind and made sense, then sure, I'll bite.

Hell, I suggested someone who was using a Computers check while engaged with a droid to spend his 5 advantages to inflict a critical injury on it by messing with his systems. I'm all about cool interpretations. But only if they make sense!