Yes, that's not in the RAW but until there is errata it's my game and my game table and if it's impacting everyone's enjoyment then it will be addressed.

Actually that is exactly RAW. The GM adding setback dice as he feels appropriate based on circumstances. The individual circumstances are not listed but are left up to GM discretion. I think your example is a very applicable and appropriate stance. You as the GM assessed the situation and added dice as you felt conditions warranted.

Yes, I know we can add setback dice. I was referring to limiting the number of attempts, because, as they have pointed out, by the RAW doing the same thing three times in a row is legal. Me going, "No, I don't think attempts 2 and 3 are going to work because they are the same as attempt #1" is against the rules as written; it's my judgement call and I fully expect my player to argue and it'll turn into setback dice or upgraded difficulty, or ....

Hopefully Sam will chime in as he's reviewing this thread right now (Of course that could just be someone posing as him)

Nashable, sure, a GM can penalize the politico with massive amounts of setback dice. Raw Sense emotions won't work on Droids, so they will lose the blue dice, and the GM can make Droids immune to Scathing Tirade because they want to. Snipers at extreme range works on a lot of characters. Against Melee characters, you can have 10 guys with heavy blaster rifles on a roof with no ladder and have no cover for the melee person. But aren't all these solutions different flavors of "Rocks fall, you die"? They all seem like really aggressive dm tactics that will do nothing but leave a bad taste in the mouth of the player and lead to tension in the group. Why not fix the problem at its source, the talent, instead of passive aggressively punishing the player?

It's not passive aggressive if the PCs insist on being one trick ponies. It only becomes passive aggressive if the GM does it outside the 'common sense' rule. If I had PCs who ran around firing missile tubes everywhere wouldn't it make sense for the Empire to respond, in force, in heavily armored vehicles?

The whole cliche, which is typically referred to "A Red Dragon lands on you, you die" comes from the GM conjuring up a negative deus ex machina and dropping it onto the PCs in a nonsensical way. Responding to the threat and utilizing a weakness of the PCs is far from that. I'd use the Sniper trick if everyone in the group was melee for instance and I wanted to challenge them.

Piratewolf, so wait, do you believe that Scathing Tirade is a combat check and has adversary apply to it or not? "The fact is the power doesn't need errata and his original argument, that the use of this ability does not count as a combat check, was incorrect and to continually make that argument despite all evidence presented to the contrary can only be held if you are trying to pull something." implies you do, but "However, step 2 is finally a valid argument for excluding the Adversary effect since no target has been chosen when the roll is made and you can't retroactively upgrade dice. Which makes the entire question of whether it is a combat check moot." implies you don't.

I didn't ascribe the rancor eating to you in any comment I made.

He brought it to your attention and repeatedly proved his assertions, short of Intimidation lowering the check to simple difficulty. You can not agree with his facts, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Actually, without Intimidation, it doesn't take a lot of strain to do this. 2 strain to perform it as a manuver twice, and 2 strain to do two manuvers. Only 4 total. Of course, you can also recoup this strain during the acts. I just did 5 test rolls of 3 Scathing Tirade attacks, and got results of 7/14/15/16/20 unsoakable single target strain, with 3 strain to 2+ other targets each time as well. You can also do 4 less strain damage, and recover the four strain you took to accomplish this. That can drop all but a select few enemies in one round.

I originally argued that Adversary applied because the argument that this is not a combat check because it does not use combat skills is incorrect. However, I changed position when he made his one valid argument that you haven't even chosen targets when the roll is made. That does not prove only checks using combat skills are combat checks but it does prove that with this particular talent Adversary doesn't apply.

I had made a comment about a rancor and it can be easy to not remember who said what exactly on a post two pages back so I just wanted to be clear that I was not the one who made that argument.

In your example, once again you don't list the setback dice. You are assuming that you will just be able to walk around in combat doing this round after round at base difficulty with no setback dice and that the GM has to let you or he is simply making up dozens of convoluted reasons to add setback dice. You are taking into account every possibility the player has in using this ability but then discounting all GM actions in order to arrive at this conclusion.

All I have to say is LOL! Seriously? Game breaking! LOL.

I think there are much more game breaking combos than this, auto fire I'm looking at you. First, common sense says most creatures won't or don't understand basic enough for this to work. Can scream all I want at a wild lion but it would kill me all the same.

Second, I would rule that several people doing the same thing is an ASSIST not separate attacks/rolls. So that takes care of that issue.

Finally, being intimidating means everyone targets you, so that takes care of this amazing game breaking issue.

Nashable, sure, a GM can penalize the politico with massive amounts of setback dice. Raw Sense emotions won't work on Droids, so they will lose the blue dice, and the GM can make Droids immune to Scathing Tirade because they want to. Snipers at extreme range works on a lot of characters. Against Melee characters, you can have 10 guys with heavy blaster rifles on a roof with no ladder and have no cover for the melee person. But aren't all these solutions different flavors of "Rocks fall, you die"? They all seem like really aggressive dm tactics that will do nothing but leave a bad taste in the mouth of the player and lead to tension in the group. Why not fix the problem at its source, the talent, instead of passive aggressively punishing the player?

It's not passive aggressive if the PCs insist on being one trick ponies. It only becomes passive aggressive if the GM does it outside the 'common sense' rule. If I had PCs who ran around firing missile tubes everywhere wouldn't it make sense for the Empire to respond, in force, in heavily armored vehicles?

The whole cliche, which is typically referred to "A Red Dragon lands on you, you die" comes from the GM conjuring up a negative deus ex machina and dropping it onto the PCs in a nonsensical way. Responding to the threat and utilizing a weakness of the PCs is far from that. I'd use the Sniper trick if everyone in the group was melee for instance and I wanted to challenge them.

What Andre means is that all of these tactics are unacceptable to a self-professed dyed in the wool min-maxer. If the GM min-maxes right back it is "Rocks fall everybody dies". The double standard here is just astounding.

Double standard? I think you misunderstand the entire point of this thread sir. The op and I both believe this issue is a problem, and needs to be resolved via official errata to make the ability more balanced and fun to play with in this game. The solutions presented by most of the people in this thread have been various ways of screwing over the imaginary player who would use this in a game by abusing dm fiat to kill them. If that is your attitude, fine, but it is extremely offputting and not really an appropriate response to the situation being presented here. I hope you don't actually treat your players like you profess to act in this thread.

Double standard? I think you misunderstand the entire point of this thread sir. The op and I both believe this issue is a problem, and needs to be resolved via official errata to make the ability more balanced and fun to play with in this game. The solutions presented by most of the people in this thread have been various ways of screwing over the imaginary player who would use this in a game by abusing dm fiat to kill them. If that is your attitude, fine, but it is extremely offputting and not really an appropriate response to the situation being presented here. I hope you don't actually treat your players like you profess to act in this thread.

I am sure he doesn't. Personally, I don't know any GM that acts like the way you seem to suggest we are wanting to act. The GMs put work into their campaign, they don't want to just end it by killing off characters and ticking off their players so they leave the game. In most circumstances this build won't just show up at the table (unless it was a new character created for an ongoing campaign with more xp to spend than normal), so as parts of it start happening at the table that smell off, it will be discussed then and there so there won't be a surprise to the players. Also, the book encourages the GMs to add setback dice so I am sure that the players will have a feeling for how many setback dice an action might gather from their GM before trying it. I agree, if a GM never uses setback dice and then suddenly goes "I don't like that, here's 5 setback dice" then yeah, that's not good. But honestly, that shouldn't be happening and I don't think that's what anyone is really trying to say here - we're discussing something in a vacuum away from our game tables.

No combination of abilities, skills, talents, feats, etc. in any game can break the game unless the GM allows it to be broken. I realize this statement does not sit well with some players, but it is how I have always managed my games. I encourage creative thinking and unique tactics, while discouraging rules chicanery and repetitive use of the same ploy. Would I allow it once or twice? Sure. Would I let someone defeat every group of enemies the players encountered by yelling at them? Never.

Even if this tactic was perfectly legit and inarguably sound, I would not allow it to work every time. The GM has a responsibility to keep the game balanced, and ideally, the players participate in that balance.

Double standard? I think you misunderstand the entire point of this thread sir. The op and I both believe this issue is a problem, and needs to be resolved via official errata to make the ability more balanced and fun to play with in this game. The solutions presented by most of the people in this thread have been various ways of screwing over the imaginary player who would use this in a game by abusing dm fiat to kill them. If that is your attitude, fine, but it is extremely offputting and not really an appropriate response to the situation being presented here. I hope you don't actually treat your players like you profess to act in this thread.

No the solutions which have been proposed are not all methods of screwing over the player. That is simply your interpretation because you admittedly like to min-max and don't want the GM to do the same. Adding multiple setback dice is not screwing over the players it is GM min-maxing. Hence, your double standard.

You post an example of rolls made with absolute ideal conditions to try and prove this Talent is broken then simply declare that non-ideal conditions are just the GM screwing over the players. You are proposing an extreme use of an ability on the part of a min-maxing player (who has poured though every skill, every talent, every force power and maxed every relevant characteristic) is not fairly met by a GM that then takes into account every single condition. You are claiming that the GM should show restraint or he is screwing over the player but the players are not expected to show any restraint and must be restrained by errata. Yet again, double standard.

Ive found another section that backs up my interpretation of how it should be applied

'A number of talents are specifically associated with physical conflict. These combat talents represent techniques that a character likely learned through practice and experience. In a few instances, these abilities even seem superhuman to the uninitiated.' Page 127

Your premise is that the game is broken solely based on your assumption that scathing tirade is not a combat ability, if you remove that single barrier then the game is not broken. Im only putting forward that IMO combat abilities include not only combat skills , but also certain talents, force skills and abilities , even non combat skills if you intend them to affect an enemy during combat. If you apply this line of thought then, voila, the game is not broken. I have to agree about the possibility about the fact that it doesnt target however , I dont remember anywhere in the rules where it says anything about non targetting effects.

I would also like to point out some inconsistencies in the game that have been mentioned by the designers. Example you can use combat abilities and talents when using a ship based weapon , eg using Aim in a turret in a dogfight allows you to add bonus dice to your gunnery attack roll. In an order 66 podcast there was a question to the devs asking for confirmation about this they said that yes,within reason this was possible and to apply common sense, an exception that they quoted was sniper shot since the differences in range from personal to planetary were too much and this was one talent/maneuver you couldnt use. Yet a compuer based mod can do exactly that. A bit of common sense should be used when applying rule especially when it comes to a set of rules that are not meant to be arbitary but the results can be subjectively studied and the results extrapolated from that.

Again, well said IceBear. I believe most tables operate like in your post. I simply don't see why some of the people in this thread seem to be allergic to resolving an issue at its source, i.e. the talent, versus correcting the issue with heavyhanded dming. A balanced approach, as you cited in your previous post, is the best tactic.

Direach, I couldn't agree more with your statement "The GM has a responsibility to keep the game balanced, and ideally, the players participate in that balance.", and I think that is what this thread is all about.

PatientWolf, I feel like I'm talking past you instead of having a discussion with you. You seem to be under the impression that I've actually made this build and play it at my table each week, shouting at the dm everytime he lays a single setback die down against me, holding the game manual shouting RAW, RAW! I don't know why you have this impression. This entire thread has been discussing a hypothetical character build, and how it could be balanced by a small errata to target the offending talent rather than sweeping, targeted dm actions that come across as petty and meanspirited. I don't know if you are being ironic, or joking, or seriously believe the things you are saying, but I must respectfully disagree with the entire tact you are taking in this thread. You are arguing against strawmen, tilting at windmills. I don't feel I can have any more meaningful discussion with you. Best of luck in your games sir.

syrath, if you are correct, the intimidate talent from the gadgeteer line can come back in and mitigate much of adversary. It costs more exp and strain, but can be dealth with. It is reduced slightly in effectiveness however, you are correct.

You should probably put it into practice before suggesting it's breaking anything.

As stated, it takes a sizeable Xp investment to get there, and combat heavy characters will likely be just as effective with combat skills at that point.

Rookhelm, both valid points. My primary concern would be a) it doesn't require a weapon, and b) it bypasses soak. These two factors make it very powerful. As stated earlier in the thread, a fully specced autofire user can put out HUGE amounts of damage, but they have to contend with the legaility and obtainability of their weapon and attachments for it, as well as with opponents soak, where the scathing tirade politico can walk up, apparently unarmed, and browbeat a foe into a gibbering mess, which while cool, is a little on the extreme side for my tastes.

PatientWolf, I feel like I'm talking past you instead of having a discussion with you. You seem to be under the impression that I've actually made this build and play it at my table each week, shouting at the dm everytime he lays a single setback die down against me, holding the game manual shouting RAW, RAW! I don't know why you have this impression. This entire thread has been discussing a hypothetical character build, and how it could be balanced by a small errata to target the offending talent rather than sweeping, targeted dm actions that come across as petty and meanspirited. I don't know if you are being ironic, or joking, or seriously believe the things you are saying, but I must respectfully disagree with the entire tact you are taking in this thread. You are arguing against strawmen, tilting at windmills. I don't feel I can have any more meaningful discussion with you. Best of luck in your games sir.

I never said you used this build. I have pointed out that in your hypothetical argument you are assuming an extremity on the part of the players but then comparing it to just usual GM considerations.

Why do you not make and play this build at your table? Because it is just as egregious as the GM throwing on 20 setback dice. Both are perfectly fine by RAW. However, you are only arguing that one should be errataed. You are arguing about a hypothetical player that is being inconsiderate of his/her other players and the GM by using an extreme tactic and saying it would be somehow wrong for the hypothetical GM to then use similar tactics. Errata is not needed simply common sense by both player and GM. That is all I have been arguing.

Do you think that large amounts of setback die should be errated? Because targeting one issue talent with errata on the player side seems much easier and specific then errating a core concept of the game on the dm side. Your argument is that players and GMs can both be equally inconsiderate of each other, and have played this out in a performance on this forum? Ok, I think most of us already knew that. We are looking for constructive input, not dramatizations. I'm sorry, I just don't understand your angle of debate on this topic. I am relieved to hear that you were being satirical in your earlier arguments however.

Scratch that, I think I figured out the isse, maybe? I'm pretty sure you don't want to errata the setback die. However, when you say "Why do you not make and play this build at your table? Because it is just as egregious as the GM throwing on 20 setback dice. Both are perfectly fine by RAW. However, you are only arguing that one should be errataed.", your creating a false choice. What this thread was attempting to do was a third option, where the Scathing Tirade ability, based on mutual agreement between the players and GM, is altered so in to be more in line with similar options available to the players, i.e., errata. This mutual decision between everyone prevents shenanigans from players seeking to get an edge, while keeping the GM from having to utilize heavy handed actions that come off as punitive and aggressive. Everyone wins. I don't understand what your argument against this is? It feels like your argument is that nothing is wrong as long as my players psychically know what I will and won't tolerate, and if they step over that line, I always have a pile of setback die ready to punish them back into line. Isn't errata an easier, friendlier, more formalized solution that leaves everyone better off?

Do you think that large amounts of setback die should be errated? Because targeting one issue talent with errata on the player side seems much easier and specific then errating a core concept of the game on the dm side. Your argument is that players and GMs can both be equally inconsiderate of each other, and have played this out in a performance on this forum? Ok, I think most of us already knew that. We are looking for constructive input, not dramatizations. I'm sorry, I just don't understand your angle of debate on this topic. I am relieved to hear that you were being satirical in your earlier arguments however.

I'm not arguing that either one should be errataed. I'm not arguing that players and GMs can both be inconsiderate of each other (and I'm not sure what the "played this out on the forum" comment is supposed to mean) I have not offered any dramatizations.

I have made the very clear point which everyone on the thread other than you seems to have understood. You have used a hyperbolic argument, i.e. used an extreme example to emphasize a point (that this talent is overpowered and needs errataed). I countered with the hyberbolic argument giving an equally extreme example of GM response. So during normal play this Talent is not an issue. During extreme play by both player and GM this is not an issue. It is only when you declare that the GM is "unfair" or "screwing players" by reacting extremely to the extreme that there is a problem.

I read an earlier post about the scathing tirade being aoe while that is the case how it is applied is not that each success causes 1 damage to everyone . It is worded that 'for each success one enemy within short range suffers one strain.' Advantage also causes one strain but that can only be used on someone who has already been damaged by a success.

Examples

3 opponents with 1success and 2 advantage , you choose one opponent for one damage from the success you have to use the 2 damage from the advantage on that opponent only.

2 opponents 2 success ,1 advantage you can either do 2 damage to 1 opponent or 1 damage to 2 opponents . In the first case the advantage can do additional damage to the one opponent for a total of three in the second you do 1 additional damage to either for 2 damage to 1 and 1 dmg to the other.

PatientWolf, ok, I see your point now. Your statement here "During extreme play by both player and GM this is not an issue.", I simply fundamentally disagree with. You feel that as long as you can counter someone playing in a manner you don't like by giving them alot of setback die, that it is no longer a problem. I respectfully disagree with your assessment here. If the way to solve a problem is pile bad stuff on them because thats what they are doing to you, that in and of itself is a problem, which should be corrected, I feel, by errata. We just fundamentally disagree on this point. Agree to disagree sir.

My interpretation of the rules might be wrong, but an Action means that the character must concentrate on this thing he is doing and can't do other things except some simple maneuvers (moving, stand up, holster a weapon, etc.). Since this thing you are doing is taking all your action time, you can only do one per round... So if an Action can be converted to a Manoeuver with a talent, shouldn't it be implied that he can only do that thing as a manoeuver once per round also ?

So if you have a lowbie politico, he must mostly stand still and talk the ennemies to death...

But if you have a veteran politico, he can talk his ennemies to death while also dancing or opening a locked door or shooting the nemesis in the face.

I've got the feeling that FFG implemented Supreme Scathing Tirade so that the politico could do something else during his turn then just bore the opponent to death. I see it like that : the politico has that trick up his sleeve but can now do other useful thigs.

But I agree with AndreKeller that Scathing Tirade, used that way (per RAW), is broken for high end characters and should need a look at from FFG. I also agree that the talent Adversary doesn't work on that Talent but that you could add setback dices if your player tries to intimidate a Rancor (upgrade to 2 Red dices - it's a ******* Rancor ; add 1 Blue die for Courage ; add 1 Black die for Stupidity ; add 1 Black die - it's an animal ; add 1 Black die - he doesn't understand what you're saying ; add 1 Black die - he's bigger then you ; add 2 Black dices - he's hungry).

Cheers and take care!

syrath, that is how I have been operating on how the power works. I just did 3 rolls of http://game2.com/eote/?#proficiency=5&ability=1&boost=1&difficulty=2&force=2 , and got 4 successes, 3 advantage, 2 ls points on the first roll, 3/5/4 on the second, and 3/3/1 on the third. Therefore, the first roll could do 1 strain to 4 seperate targets in short range, and 5 more strain spread out or focused as I see fit, the second roll could do 1 strain to 3 seperate targets, 9 more spread out or focused, and the third roll could do 1 strain to 3 seperate targets, 4 more spread out. So I could hit 1 target for 21 strain that is unsoakable with that, and dent a few others.

Scratch that, I think I figured out the isse, maybe? I'm pretty sure you don't want to errata the setback die. However, when you say "Why do you not make and play this build at your table? Because it is just as egregious as the GM throwing on 20 setback dice. Both are perfectly fine by RAW. However, you are only arguing that one should be errataed.", your creating a false choice. What this thread was attempting to do was a third option, where the Scathing Tirade ability, based on mutual agreement between the players and GM, is altered so in to be more in line with similar options available to the players, i.e., errata. This mutual decision between everyone prevents shenanigans from players seeking to get an edge, while keeping the GM from having to utilize heavy handed actions that come off as punitive and aggressive. Everyone wins. I don't understand what your argument against this is? It feels like your argument is that nothing is wrong as long as my players psychically know what I will and won't tolerate, and if they step over that line, I always have a pile of setback die ready to punish them back into line. Isn't errata an easier, friendlier, more formalized solution that leaves everyone better off?

No, it is clear that you still do not see. I don't know whether you truly don't get the point or if you are deliberately missing it but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. No one is suggesting the setback dice are used as "punishment". It is all about matching play styles to provide a challenge.

If the players are all min-maxing then the GM has to take that into consideration and even has freedom to go all out himself. If both sides like an extreme play style the game should not be errataed to make their style of gaming impossible without a house rule.

If all the players are more about storytelling than maxing out stats then the GM takes that into consideration in their style but doesn't need to errata so that those who do not share this style must conform to it or house rule.

There is only a problem when the people at the table can't agree on what style of gaming should be played or if a player wants to power game but doesn't want the GM to do the same. That doesn't mean the developers need to pick one style for everyone and illegitimize the other by errata.

What I'm getting from your argument is still that overpowered, to use your words "extreme", tactics available to players don't need to be errated out because the dm is fully capable of being heavyhanded and punitive, to use your words "extreme", to counter their actions. If this style of game balancing works for you and your group, then by all means, feel free to continue to do so. However, in my group, such actions by the player, and then counter actions by the dm, would only lead to tension and hurt feelings. I would prefer to resolve the issue by balancing the ability to be more in line with other options available to players. I simply disagree with your style of dming/playing. Wouldn't it be possible to errata this issue for people like me, and your group can continue using the old rules? Or you could houserule new, extreme versions of abilities the dm will then have to ratchet up his adventures to counter? Frankly, it feels like a vicious arms race I'd rather avoid with my group.