I also have a lore question here. Stormtroopers always wore that black cowl which was made of what? For environmental purposes only? Or more armor/protection based like a cortosis weave or 'Kevlar like' type material. This would render a knife slitting action maybe a daunting action? Thoughts?

Given the nature of vibroweapons, I'd say it wouldn't be too hard. It's basically like holding a powered saw (except much stronger). Heck, they even have pierce 2 built into their rules, which reflects their inherent ability to cut through armor.

True, but a pierce move = stab. A throat slash = slice. Not the same thing.

Pierce isn't entirely literal, in this case. It's just the name of the mechanic. In fact, few bladed vibroweapons (at least the canonical examples) are shaped in such a way to actually be used effectively for piercing attacks. They are traditionally slashing weapons.

Per the Adversaries chapter, stormtrooper armor is a flat +2 soak, the same as standard character-purchaseable laminate described in the Gear chapter.

I wouldn't make slitting their throat any more difficult with the bodyglove than without it. It is not mechanically relevant for purposes of their stats or combat rules.

True, but the provided bonus is only usable if you're requiring Damage/Soak comparisons rather than instant-kills; if you're determining whether the character should die on narrative alone, rather than the results of "# of Successes + Damage - Soak", then the effectiveness and density of the armour should be considered outside of the flat bonus (which, as with the above equation, is being ignored).

One thing that isn't mentioned by the OP, did the player have to roll for the climb into the boat, in wet clothing? As this is where I would've started in this situation. It's not impossible but it isn't easy either. So to climb into a boat without being spotted, sneak up on a combat aware foe in wet clothees and then slit the throat of an armoured combatant, wow the guy had some guts to even try it, especially with that dice pool!

Although I would have made the player make rolls for each action, I would also have allowed him to aim before attempting the knife kill, so he could have added an additional two boost dice to his roll and spent a destiny point to upgrade one of his dice if he wanted to but these options are in the hands of the player.

The game is set-up to allow this sort of thing and its the GMs job to make sure it all plays out fairly, which I believe the GM did in this situation.

And sometimes the player, I have this type of player in my group, just needs to accept that the GM has final say!

One thing that isn't mentioned by the OP, did the player have to roll for the climb into the boat, in wet clothing? As this is where I would've started in this situation. It's not impossible but it isn't easy either. So to climb into a boat without being spotted, sneak up on a combat aware foe in wet clothees and then slit the throat of an armoured combatant, wow the guy had some guts to even try it, especially with that dice pool!

Although I would have made the player make rolls for each action, I would also have allowed him to aim before attempting the knife kill, so he could have added an additional two boost dice to his roll and spent a destiny point to upgrade one of his dice if he wanted to but these options are in the hands of the player.

The game is set-up to allow this sort of thing and its the GMs job to make sure it all plays out fairly, which I believe the GM did in this situation.

And sometimes the player, I have this type of player in my group, just needs to accept that the GM has final say!

Well the players were guests on a small yacht owned by a Rebel aligned Mon Cal diplomat who was throwing them a party for reducing his daughter. The PC in question was wearing a swimsuit that they were provided with previously and I assume had their knife on a belt ( I wasn't going to question everything, wanted to keep the story moving). I also just hand waved climbing on the boat and assumed there were hand rails. The PC started their turn on the edge of the boat and used a maneuver to close to engaged. I then suggested to spend two strain to aim and I believe the end Melee check was 2 success and two threat. In the end I got so frustrated with the discussion I narrated the attack to be that the trooper struggles and is stabbed in back and dies. In hindsight I should have let the player narrate the action, but I was fed up with the arguing. Lesson learned I guess.

PS. The same would apply for a sniper shot or any other situation where you are trying for a quick kill.

Say you're in a situation where the shooter is far enough that a stealth roll need not reasonably be rolled, on the grounds that the shooter has essentially no chance of failure. Would you just roll a stealth check with zero (or perhaps one, I guess?) difficulty dice to see if the player rolled any advantages or triumphs? How would you handle that?

I'd probably make it a Simple (0 Difficulty) or Easy (1 Difficulty) roll. Something could still give him away, even if it's at night, in a thunderstorm and the defending character has like 4 Setback dice from the environment to notice. Of course in that case, the sniper would be suffering environmental setback dice as well to make the shot.

PS. The same would apply for a sniper shot or any other situation where you are trying for a quick kill.

Say you're in a situation where the shooter is far enough that a stealth roll need not reasonably be rolled, on the grounds that the shooter has essentially no chance of failure. Would you just roll a stealth check with zero (or perhaps one, I guess?) difficulty dice to see if the player rolled any advantages or triumphs? How would you handle that?

There is always a chance of failure, either by the PCs actions, the Target's, or some unknown or unexpected occurrence.

In this situation I'd give the player a choice:

1) If you're far away enough to not be seen then you're far enough away that the variables of environment and unexpected movement from the opponent cancel out any expectation of a bonus. Take the shot as is.

2) You can Make a Stealth vs Vigilance roll to attempt to gain an advantage (even if you are so far away) representing the possibility that some other factor alerts or changes the situation somehow (a reflection off your scope etc.). If you succeed you have the potential to gain some bonus greater than just aiming but at a cost of the shot being ruined in some way and being unable to Aim.

3) Aim and gain the automatic Boost die.

The system already provides a mechanic to gain a bonus in this situation, the Aim maneuver. Aiming isn't just about you being steady it's about taking the time to choose the best moment to pull the trigger. That best moment is determined by measuring all the variables and hoping the target doesn't do something unexpected at the last moment.

If you want an additional bonus you're going to have to do something to earn it and that something should have the potential to not go your way, so you roll for it.

PS. The same would apply for a sniper shot or any other situation where you are trying for a quick kill.

Say you're in a situation where the shooter is far enough that a stealth roll need not reasonably be rolled, on the grounds that the shooter has essentially no chance of failure. Would you just roll a stealth check with zero (or perhaps one, I guess?) difficulty dice to see if the player rolled any advantages or triumphs? How would you handle that?

There is always a chance of failure, either by the PCs actions, the Target's, or some unknown or unexpected occurrence.

In this situation I'd give the player a choice:

1) If you're far away enough to not be seen then you're far enough away that the variables of environment and unexpected movement from the opponent cancel out any expectation of a bonus. Take the shot as is.

2) You can Make a Stealth vs Vigilance roll to attempt to gain an advantage (even if you are so far away) representing the possibility that some other factor alerts or changes the situation somehow (a reflection off your scope etc.). If you succeed you have the potential to gain some bonus greater than just aiming but at a cost of the shot being ruined in some way and being unable to Aim.

3) Aim and gain the automatic Boost die.

The system already provides a mechanic to gain a bonus in this situation, the Aim maneuver. Aiming isn't just about you being steady it's about taking the time to choose the best moment to pull the trigger. That best moment is determined by measuring all the variables and hoping the target doesn't do something unexpected at the last moment.

If you want an additional bonus you're going to have to do something to earn it and that something should have the potential to not go your way, so you roll for it.

I can agree with this, but given your example, if option 3 (just aiming) is available, what does the stealth check narratively imply? If you've established that you are hidden and can make a shot while hidden without rolling for stealth, I'm not sure what the action brings to the table (as in, what you're doing to achieve that benefit, that also puts you at risk).

That said, I suppose the one reason why I feel like aim alone isn't satisfactory in a long-range sniping situation (where the target is unaware, at least), is because it functions completely identically in combat. You could argue that there's always a chance of the target moving out of the way, but I feel as if something should reflect the fact that it is less likely. As a result, I would probably use option 2, pretty much regardless. That's just my personal take on it though.

Per the Adversaries chapter, stormtrooper armor is a flat +2 soak, the same as standard character-purchaseable laminate described in the Gear chapter.

I wouldn't make slitting their throat any more difficult with the bodyglove than without it. It is not mechanically relevant for purposes of their stats or combat rules.

Yep, which brings us full circle to the original question. The player wanted the throat slash to be an insta-kill with no rolls. There are way too many variables such as the stormtroopers armor, climbing out of the boat, a vigilant combat aware clone, and more that necessitates rolls, if not multiple rolls, for the assassination.

I can agree with this, but given your example, if option 3 (just aiming) is available, what does the stealth check narratively imply? If you've established that you are hidden and can make a shot while hidden without rolling for stealth, I'm not sure what the action brings to the table (as in, what you're doing to achieve that benefit, that also puts you at risk).

That said, I suppose the one reason why I feel like aim alone isn't satisfactory in a long-range sniping situation (where the target is unaware, at least), is because it functions completely identically in combat. You could argue that there's always a chance of the target moving out of the way, but I feel as if something should reflect the fact that it is less likely. As a result, I would probably use option 2, pretty much regardless. That's just my personal take on it though.

Well I guess for me mechanically the Aim maneuver has the same effect regardless. In combat it can mean taking more time to increase your chance of hitting by firing less often but more focused shots. At range, outside of combat, it can represent as I described earlier with the taking of time to get that one shot off after adjusting for all the known variables. It makes no difference to me how you describe the Aiming only that the result is a Boost die.

Why would you have the Stealth check for a long range shot? Because the player asked to gain a bonus greater than the standard Aim, otherwise I wouldn't offer it. The PC Aiming already has several advantages including getting to start combat with the first shot at the time of their choosing without being in any danger of being detected plus they get a Boost die (or two if they aim twice). As I said before if you want more than a couple of Boost dice by Aiming, then you should have to roll for it and in the situation the only reasonable kind of roll I can think of off hand is a Stealth vs Vigilance, maybe a Cool vs Vigilance if you want and can describe it. Either way it makes no difference because the RAW already provides you with a risk free way of getting 1-2 Boost dice, if you want more you're going to have to risk something or it just devolves into Munchkinism.

Also just as an aside I'd be unlikely to ever let either side "establish being hidden" without a Stealth vs Vigilance or Perception roll regardless of range. Opposed rolls are always made because there is always a chance that you or your opponent might make a mistake and give yourself or themselves away.

So much over thinking for what ?

A storm trooper...

So much over thinking for what ?

A storm trooper...

It's not really about a Stormtrooper, it's about managing expectations.

A good Stealth check result, in and of itself, doesn't need to grant a bonus to the hit/kill roll. The only benefit it should give, if the player is successful, is positioning himself in order to make the kill without being noticed, with Threat/Despair adding complications...but if there's still success, the player should be in position to make a stealthy attack.

However generating Advantages on that check could be spent to add a Boost die to the subsequent attack roll, per the rules for such.

I can agree with this, but given your example, if option 3 (just aiming) is available, what does the stealth check narratively imply? If you've established that you are hidden and can make a shot while hidden without rolling for stealth, I'm not sure what the action brings to the table (as in, what you're doing to achieve that benefit, that also puts you at risk).

That said, I suppose the one reason why I feel like aim alone isn't satisfactory in a long-range sniping situation (where the target is unaware, at least), is because it functions completely identically in combat. You could argue that there's always a chance of the target moving out of the way, but I feel as if something should reflect the fact that it is less likely. As a result, I would probably use option 2, pretty much regardless. That's just my personal take on it though.

Well I guess for me mechanically the Aim maneuver has the same effect regardless. In combat it can mean taking more time to increase your chance of hitting by firing less often but more focused shots. At range, outside of combat, it can represent as I described earlier with the taking of time to get that one shot off after adjusting for all the known variables. It makes no difference to me how you describe the Aiming only that the result is a Boost die.

Why would you have the Stealth check for a long range shot? Because the player asked to gain a bonus greater than the standard Aim, otherwise I wouldn't offer it. The PC Aiming already has several advantages including getting to start combat with the first shot at the time of their choosing without being in any danger of being detected plus they get a Boost die (or two if they aim twice). As I said before if you want more than a couple of Boost dice by Aiming, then you should have to roll for it and in the situation the only reasonable kind of roll I can think of off hand is a Stealth vs Vigilance, maybe a Cool vs Vigilance if you want and can describe it. Either way it makes no difference because the RAW already provides you with a risk free way of getting 1-2 Boost dice, if you want more you're going to have to risk something or it just devolves into Munchkinism.

Also just as an aside I'd be unlikely to ever let either side "establish being hidden" without a Stealth vs Vigilance or Perception roll regardless of range. Opposed rolls are always made because there is always a chance that you or your opponent might make a mistake and give yourself or themselves away.

We're agreeing, but I think you're reading me wrong. I meant, narratively, what you'd be doing for the stealth check to achieve the bonus, versus just plain aiming. (Though, now that I'm less sleepy, I can think of a plethora of ways to describe the effects of those potential advantages. :| )

And I agree about rolling for stealth. What I meant is that I'd be inclined to have a player be able to achieve some sort of benefit (either by rolling a stealth check or by having a lowered difficulty due to an unaware target), rather than relying on aim alone, which can be accomplished with equal proficiency in the midst of a chaotic combat. We may disagree about the amount of benefit to give a player in this circumstance, but otherwise, I think we're mostly in accordance here.

The problem for me on this one is that there is not a significant enough difference between sneaking up to the guy and not killing him and being found sneaking up. Failing the second roll pretty much invalidates the first. The guy is going to fight back/sound an alarm if either fails.

Yes, there is nuance, but that can be determined from advantage/threat or triumph/despair. Fail with threat, he hears you and gets the drop on you before you can approach. Fail with advantage and you are right on him, but don't quite have the knife in place when he realizes you are there. Succeed with a despair, and he calls out as he dies.

I realize that a lot of people here are coming from a SAGA (d20) background where everything has to be a discrete roll, but two rolls in this system is just dice for the sake of dice. You don't get that much more from it.

The problem for me on this one is that there is not a significant enough difference between sneaking up to the guy and not killing him and being found sneaking up. Failing the second roll pretty much invalidates the first. The guy is going to fight back/sound an alarm if either fails.

Yes, there is nuance, but that can be determined from advantage/threat or triumph/despair. Fail with threat, he hears you and gets the drop on you before you can approach. Fail with advantage and you are right on him, but don't quite have the knife in place when he realizes you are there. Succeed with a despair, and he calls out as he dies.

I realize that a lot of people here are coming from a SAGA (d20) background where everything has to be a discrete roll, but two rolls in this system is just dice for the sake of dice. You don't get that much more from it.

I was going to write another reply but the good Doc saved me the trouble.

Instead of asking yourselves when the player should make a roll, ask yourself why and what the roll in itself brings to the story. The distribution of the dice roll in Edge is so great that two or even more rolls in other rpgs easily can be accounted for by clever interpretation.

Dungeon Worlds (another very narrative rpg) has GM rule (or principle) that says:

Be a fan of the characters

I very much do not want to tell anyone how to play their game but a lot of the replies in this thread comes off, to me, as ways to prevent the player from shining, or even screwing with them.

ymmw, imho etc.

I very much do not want to tell anyone how to play their game but a lot of the replies in this thread comes off, to me, as ways to prevent the player from shining, or even screwing with them.

I'm not really seeing that at all.

Either way, for me different rolls are called for when different skills should reasonably come into play. Being the stealthiest man in the galaxy doesn't automatically make you an expert throat-slitter, if you have brawn 1 and no ranks in a relevant skill. For me, the act of sneaking up on a guy, and the act of murdering the heck out of him, are different enough that I would certainly call for separate skill checks. If you're not an expert knife fighter, having to fail at slitting someone's throat isn't "unrealistic".

It's been mentioned several times already, but EotE already has a perfectly serviceable system for "automatic kills". Saying as much isn't really a way to prevent the player from shining (unless said player is the aforementioned brawn 1, melee 0 guy and think it's unrealistic that he can fail at murdering stormtroopers with a knife, in which case maybe he should be prevented from shining in that field.)

I think the heart of the disagreement (and were we to sit down face to face I doubt there would be much of a disagreement actually, just a difference of perspective) comes from me evaluating the OP's example within the given context of that specific situation.

I agree that a successfull stealth skill should not - in general - mean that a character gets to off an NPC. In general, killing an NPC should happen through combat resolution.

What I am arguing is a perceived - on my end of the screen - dogmatism: an unnecessary rigidness in the way situations arising during play are judged by the GM.

Essentially what it boils down to for me is rule of cool (and yes, rule of cool can become an obstacle for fun gaming if it ends up making the players unsure of how the world will react to their actions).

In the situation given by the OP it would have been awesome for the player to swim under the boat, slither out of the water and silently knife one of the Storm Troopers. I think it would have been a moment that would be remembered by both the player and the group as a moment of awesome.

Granted that moment could have happened even if the player had to roll not only for being stealthy but for swimming under the boat and trying to knife the storm trooper. But it would have been a lot higher risk for failure, slower and needlessly complicated. For in my opinion very little gain.

In another situation perhaps a higher risk of failure and more dice rolls would be preferable. Perhaps while sneaking towards the big bad at the end of the adventure.

In the situation given by the OP it would have been awesome for the player to swim under the boat, slither out of the water and silently knife one of the Storm Troopers. I think it would have been a moment that would be remembered by both the player and the group as a moment of awesome.

I agree, that would be awesome.

What I disagree with, is the notion that anyone suggesting you use the rules that already exist to model that sort of kill (and really, two advantages should be almost trivially easy if your character has the sort of knife skills to pull this off reliably) are somehow advocating that you should suppress the players from ever having an awesome moment.

Furthermore, given the example in the OP, the player was upset because he felt there was little to no chance to pull off what he had in mind. He felt there was roughly no chance to kill a stormtrooper with one hit of his weapon. Personally, I disagree. I actually think there was a pretty significant chance of success (with two or more boost dice, the chance to roll 2+ advantages is actually quite significant.) It seemed to me, more an issue that the player was unhappy because they forgot about the 'critical hit = instant dead minion' rule.

But I feel we're getting into the territory of discussing which is the correct way to play out the situation, which I find is an inherently flawed discussion. All I can say is that I would have played it roughly the way the GM of the example did, using the mechanics previously outlined. You are not wrong for doing it differently in your game.

All this is about GMs styles and there is no single right approach to how to handle such situation.

Fianlly, I would recommend to some to play (or at least read) the Burning Wheel rpg. It provides a new...vision to rpgs and game mastering.

What I disagree with, is the notion that anyone suggesting you use the rules that already exist to model that sort of kill (and really, two advantages should be almost trivially easy if your character has the sort of knife skills to pull this off reliably) are somehow advocating that you should suppress the players from ever having an awesome moment.

I completely agree. Even as a player I prefer for rules adjudications to be consistent, not warped for some unknowable, subjective Rule of Cool. If I want my character to be an awesome throat-slitter, I won't assume that just because I want to do that or it'd be memorable, means I get to do it without using the game mechanics. Instead, I'll hedge my bets by being mechanically skilled at it. That way, if the GM decides to do it narratively, great for me, and even if not, I can probably pull it off using the mechanics anyway.

Even as a player I prefer for rules adjudications to be consistent, not warped for some unknowable, subjective Rule of Cool.

So far when I've seen a reference the Rule of Cool, the examples make me think Rule of Cheese.

What I disagree with, is the notion that anyone suggesting you use the rules that already exist to model that sort of kill (and really, two advantages should be almost trivially easy if your character has the sort of knife skills to pull this off reliably) are somehow advocating that you should suppress the players from ever having an awesome moment.

I completely agree. Even as a player I prefer for rules adjudications to be consistent, not warped for some unknowable, subjective Rule of Cool. If I want my character to be an awesome throat-slitter, I won't assume that just because I want to do that or it'd be memorable, means I get to do it without using the game mechanics. Instead, I'll hedge my bets by being mechanically skilled at it. That way, if the GM decides to do it narratively, great for me, and even if not, I can probably pull it off using the mechanics anyway.

+1

What I think a lot of people haven't grokked yet is that this system has in a way codified the "Rule of Cool". It's taken the application of the cool out of the arbitrary hands of the GM and firmly placed it into the game mechanic. Now if you roll well and have the Advantages and/or Triumphs you can do all the things that only a hand wave of the GM can be done in games like D&D. Even better it's done in a Consistent and Fair way that applies to everyone at the table equally.