I didn't see anything in the rules for this, but in melee, it just seems logical that a distracted party should provoke some sort of attack.

For example, a character is in melee and tries to switch to a blaster rifle. It seems to me that any fighter would take the opportunity to strike again, or run away.

I would propose that if someone is in melee and distracted, their engaged opponent gets a free action and a boost to a check made with that action. The action could be exchanged for a maneuver to run, or also pull a weapon, etc, but could not exceed the two maneuver limit.

Thoughts anyone? Is this game breaking or totally unbalanced?

Free action is too powerful. The rules already have a means to affect characters making ranged attacks while engaged (page 210). If a character attempts to make a ranged attack while at engaged range (not necessarily in melee combat), any opponent engaged with that character gets a Boost die to use against them.

I think you could rule the same for an engaged character who swaps weapons or does some other action while engaged. That way you're not breaking the initiative order and keeping the game moving. Make judicious use of the Boost and Setback dice.

Makes sense, if you're coming from D&D 3/3.5/Pathfinder/4. This system is deadly enough without giving people extra attacks for no real reason.

Thoughts anyone? Is this game breaking or totally unbalanced?

Game breaking and totally unbalanced, since a single hit can take an opponent out of the fight in this system. Giving them a free attack would be insane.

Agreed. There needs to be a massive notice on the front of every book reading;

"YOU MUST SHED ALL D&D/PATHFINDER, etc. NOTIONS BEFORE PLAYING THIS GAME"

This is too easy.

Completely agree with Yoda.

Combat is definitely too deadly to give a free action. If I wanted to simulate the distraction at most i might give the attacker a boost die on their next check. As of right now I probably wouldn't even do that.

I think extending the "boost die for enemy ranged attacking while engaged" could easily be appended to anything that would be significantly distracting, such as switching weapons. A free attack would be quite a bit too strong.

What, Yoda said.

Simple blaster fire can drop ya in 4 hits or so. Giving the bad guys more chances to hit would just make for short adventures and lots of character generation time. No thanks!

With the way this system works, with a blaster rifle I can crit on 3 advantage, or gain an extra maneuver. If in the open and can get behind something with another maneuver I tend to do that instead of inflicting the crit. Along with wiping one strain.

I get where you guys are coming from... I learned about RPGs via Saga Edition, so attacks of opportunity seem natural, and I can't treat every game that way.

Think of it this way - this extra action isn't going to come up much at all if players don't do something very stupid and unrealistic. Anyone under attack by someone with a sword has one of two options: fight back or run; you can't just pause the fight to get something heavy off your back and then take a shot. By this reasoning of no free action, you should be able to pick a lock while someone's trying to run you through, and they only get a boost die.

I see it not as a way to kill the players faster, but a threat to hang over the heads of players who are acting based on numbers and rules, rather than what's realistic... Does that make sense?

If someone was standing next to the player trying to pick a lock and attacking him with a vibro-axe, in the narrative of this game I would just simply rule that the difficulty of the lockpicking just became Impossible. If they still wanted to try picking that lock I will have a lot of fun spending the threat and despair I am sure they will roll. That or I would just flat out say they can't do it, but I dislike saying "No"

From my angle, it gives players more possibilities. If you're engaged with an enemy and want to run, you had to weigh the option of being hit with an attack of opportunity and not hitting back against staying, taking the hit and delivering one in turn.

Now, you move, shoot, hit, whatever.

There are drawbacks to this system. Two-weapon fighting is one I keep refering to as being way too cheap. But all in all, this is a very good, and very effective, rpg system.

And, if you want the bas guys to get that extra when the heroes are retreating, well, there may just be that sniper on the roof with a Nightstinger...

Free action is too powerful. The rules already have a means to affect characters making ranged attacks while engaged (page 210). If a character attempts to make a ranged attack while at engaged range (not necessarily in melee combat), any opponent engaged with that character gets a Boost die to use against them.

I think you could rule the same for an engaged character who swaps weapons or does some other action while engaged. That way you're not breaking the initiative order and keeping the game moving. Make judicious use of the Boost and Setback dice.

Agreed. I would say that if an engaged character takes any action NOT directed at the person he's engaged with, the other character gets a boost die on his next attack. This extends the "shooting at a ranged target while engaged" penalty to other actions as well.

Free actions don't really make sense with the scale of combat in this game.

A combat round isn't about 5 seconds long like it is in Dungeons and Dragons, it's almost a full minute long. Conceptually, combat is pretty different.

I see it not as a way to kill the players faster, but a threat to hang over the heads of players who are acting based on numbers and rules, rather than what's realistic... Does that make sense?

Given how lethal an extra action could be in this system, I think if you want to give your players an abject lesson in making wiser choices during combat, you can simply ding them with setback dice, higher levels of difficulty, and judicious application of dark side Destiny.

But, the traditional 'your table, your rules' applies, of course.

Think of it this way - this extra action isn't going to come up much at all if players don't do something very stupid and unrealistic.

Instead, think of two things: first, this game is far more abstracted than D&D, and because of the dice mechanic, none of that specificity is required. That's where the advantages and threats come in. Player rolls a few threat while attacking after switching weapons, GM says: you take a few strain because you were caught off guard switching weapons. Simple. If you add specificity here, you've created this one tiny bottleneck in a fluid system that doesn't have it anywhere else.

Edit: "like strongarm85 said"...

Second, realize that 1 round is about a minute, and a lot of stuff can go on. 1 attack is not one shot, it might be a barrage of shots with the last one hitting home. Micromanaging the events in a control zone just slows everything down (I know...many a long night have been spent resolving D&D4 combat), and runs counter to the spirit of the game.

Edit: "like strongarm85 said"...

Second, realize that 1 round is about a minute, and a lot of stuff can go on. 1 attack is not one shot, it might be a barrage of shots with the last one hitting home. Micromanaging the events in a control zone just slows everything down (I know...many a long night have been spent resolving D&D4 combat), and runs counter to the spirit of the game.

I think this is a good point. I like to use battle mats and minis for my EotE games, but only to help visualize the situation. I'm glad that this game doesn't require the kind of tedious detail that is needed for d20-based games.

-Nate

Instead of a free action for a surprise round, how about a free maneuver limit one? This allows the surpriser to tactically set up before the surprisee, but does not allow for the surpriser to actually attack. That way the surprisee are at a disadvantage from the beginning of the fight, but not so much that they can't recover.

A 'surprise round' pretty much consists of the GM telling you that, "You suddenly find yourselves surrounded by a squad of stromtroopers you didn't notice.", or "A blaster shot rings out from the fog. {Roll and adjudicate the results.} It looks as though Jabba's minions have been waiting for you. Roll Vigilance for Initiative."

If the targets of the ambush don't spot the enemy, the ambushers get to trigger the ambush with an action. Then initiative is rolled.

Yeah, if anything, maybe give the acter a setback dice for screwing around with their equipment while getting swung at, or give the attacker a boost dice.

Quality input, everyone!

If someone was standing next to the player trying to pick a lock and attacking him with a vibro-axe, in the narrative of this game I would just simply rule that the difficulty of the lockpicking just became Impossible. If they still wanted to try picking that lock I will have a lot of fun spending the threat and despair I am sure they will roll. That or I would just flat out say they can't do it, but I dislike saying "No"

I like this because it has various effects. Maybe it should take a hard Cool check to switch weapons while engaged with a melee opponent, and they can run the risk if they want.

Yeah, good idea with the Cool check - forgot about that.

Yeah, good idea with the Cool check - forgot about that.

Considering that Cool doesn't show up on most combat centered careers, perhaps that's not the best option.

Hi

First time poster

Yeah, good idea with the Cool check - forgot about that.

Considering that Cool doesn't show up on most combat centered careers, perhaps that's not the best option.

_{Actually, I think that the fact that Cool isn’t a common combat oriented spec. skill will be even more appropriate.}

_{Since most non-combat actions (lock picking, patching up somebody, quick and dirty slicing, etc…) in a combat situation will be performed by a non-combat oriented characters ,that kind of a house rule will “upgrade” the effectiveness of such characters in combat situations and create cool and interesting combat scenarios that they can shine in.}

Hi

First time poster

Yeah, good idea with the Cool check - forgot about that.

Considering that Cool doesn't show up on most combat centered careers, perhaps that's not the best option.

_{Actually, I think that the fact that Cool isn’t a common combat oriented spec. skill will be even more appropriate.}

_{Since most non-combat actions (lock picking, patching up somebody, quick and dirty slicing, etc…) in a combat situation will be performed by a non-combat oriented characters ,that kind of a house rule will “upgrade” the effectiveness of such characters in combat situations and create cool and interesting combat scenarios that they can shine in.}

May I say, not a bad first post. You make a good point. Though I don't think that's really a, "house rule." One of the great things about this sytem with its boost die and setback die and the generality of skills is that it leands itself to just rolling with it and being cool. So if you come up with a logical way to use cool, go for it cause the rules say that using skills that is part of why they aren't overly specific.

FYI - if my spelling sucks or my gramer is bunk its cause I haven't slept in like 2 days, lol