I'm curious as to what the impacts might be in condensing these two skills down to one. My thinking behind making them one skill is that I'd like my players to be able to be flexible in certain situations where a heavy blaster of some description may not be appropriate. I understand that from a simulationist standpoint, it makes sense to have them in separate categories, but I'm concerned that placing my players in a situation where they can't tote around their huge guns would make them feel unfairly punished (especially when you consider that a vibro-ax wielding character could just switch to a vibroknife and not be any less skilled with it), or it might prompt them to shoot their way through the problem rather than deal with having a limitation placed on them.

And yes, arguments for, "It's no big deal and they can deal with it" are perfectly valid, but humor me, please. I'm just curious if anyone thinks it would make a significant impact. I'm not the most experienced GM, so I'm concerned about making somewhat larger changes to the source material like this.

Yes, it would make a pretty big impact. Rolling these skills into one would make for some grossly overpowered combatants. Star Wars already kinda favors ranged combat, what with high-damage blasters, an Easy short range combat check, and all. Brawn is only attractive because it adds to Soak AND damage for melee-strong combatants, but the fact of the matter is the melee guy still has to GET there to get in a hit, and he won't benefit much from cover while he's at it.

My thoughts are as such: how often does your play group engage in missions where they can't carry in a blaster rifle? If this occurs more often than not, perhaps they should be playing a different character? Or just give them a chance to smuggle their rifle in inside a droid, or some chances to locate a rifle once they get inside wherever they're going.

Terrible idea.

Also, if you are creating challenging situations where they cant walk around with their heavy weapons, your players will need to be a little more creative...or even may possibly need to invest in secondary weapon & skills.

There is also carbines, shortened barrel attachments, etc etc.

Yes, it would make a pretty big impact. Rolling these skills into one would make for some grossly overpowered combatants. Star Wars already kinda favors ranged combat, what with high-damage blasters, an Easy short range combat check, and all. Brawn is only attractive because it adds to Soak AND damage for melee-strong combatants, but the fact of the matter is the melee guy still has to GET there to get in a hit, and he won't benefit much from cover while he's at it.

Would it, though? It's not going to give you any more ranks in the skill. Say I never forced them to use blaster pistols, or allowed them to bring their blaster rifles along, hidden somewhere else (as you suggest). All that means is that they can freely ignore the second skill and dump all their points into the one. A Ranged (Heavy) character with five skill ranks is no more powerful than a Range (Heavy + Light) character with five skill ranks. It just means that character two can drop the rifle and pick up a pistol if he has to.

Also, not to be rude or anything, but I'm not sure where the rest of your point is coming from? I'm not sure how it would affect the relative strength of ranged combat versus melee combat, unless I'm missing something. The point I made about melee weapons is that there is no Melee (Light) / (Heavy) skill. So a character with ranks in melee can wield a difficult to conceal weapon with equal ease as they can wield a knife, with one skill.

All that means is that they can freely ignore the second skill and dump all their points into the one.

I think you're grossly undervaluing how powerful that is. One skill for all non-vehicle shooty weapons allows even non-combat-primary characters to be good with every single possible ranged weapon they might loot from an enemy's corpse, as opposed to (usually) just being better with pistols which while nice, lack a lot of the best Advantage-triggered Qualities and have higher Critical triggers.

Moreover, it frees up a lot of XP to devote to other places, especially for combat characters who often will take both Ranged (Light) and Ranged (Heavy) for different reasons (e.g. it's easier to hide a pistol than a rifle when you're going into a fancy club).

It means there is no penalty for them using ANY blaster or projectile weapon or thrown explosive they can get their hands on. You've just made your characters into Rambo-terminator-super snipers. Any intelligent player would then probably spend ALL their incoming exp and max this out quickly...they are then masters of ranged combat, instead of having to specialize.

Melee & Brawl characters penalty is they have to be in engaged range.

All that means is that they can freely ignore the second skill and dump all their points into the one.

I think you're grossly undervaluing how powerful that is. One skill for all non-vehicle shooty weapons allows even non-combat-primary characters to be good with every single possible ranged weapon they might loot from an enemy's corpse, as opposed to (usually) just being better with pistols which while nice, lack a lot of the best Advantage-triggered Qualities and have higher Critical triggers.

Moreover, it frees up a lot of XP to devote to other places, especially for combat characters who often will take both Ranged (Light) and Ranged (Heavy) for different reasons (e.g. it's easier to hide a pistol than a rifle when you're going into a fancy club).

In that case, what's to stop a non-combat character from putting ranks into Ranged (Heavy) instead of Ranged (Light)? If we're assuming they have ranks in any weapons, there's nothing that forces them to choose one over the other. The scholar could totally pick up the Light Repeating Blaster instead of a pistol if he really wanted to. In fact, he's more likely to be prevented from doing so by having a low brawn characteristic than due to there being two skills.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just not seeing - explosives aside (which I agree with) - how it would be much stronger. As it stands, no character is forced to use light weapons unless they have a low brawn characteristic, which would continue to be a limiting factor. Whether they are good with one or another is already player choice. If your concern is that, for example, a baddie had a bowcaster and they looted it off his body, the smuggler or colonist shouldn't be able to just pick it up and lug it around, they already could (with approximately equal ease, just by taking ranks in heavy instead of light) if they wanted to. And given that there's no incentive to use light weapons (ignoring explosives for a second), power-wise, there's no benefit to a heavy weapons character to be able to pick up that pistol that wasn't already there. Also, the extra XP can be adjusted to by giving lower XP rewards.

As a follow-up question, how would you feel if the skills were Explosives and Firearms, rather than Ranged Light / Heavy?

Nothing stops a noncom from picking Ranged: Heavy over Ranged: Light, except possibly: (1) low Brawn to deal with Encumbrance/Cumbersome ratings; (2) not having Proficiency in any ranged weapon under circumstances where one can't carry around a rifle or repeating blaster. Don't get me wrong, having Agility 5 and no Proficiency will still result in a lot of successes. But you'll never hit Triumph and you may not hit Advantages like you want, especially if the difficulty gets upgraded against any opponent with the Adversary trait.

Think of it this way: narratively, pistols are easier to hide and a lot easier to license as a personal defense sidearm. The Empire is sort of like the real world in that it doesn't think a private person needs or necessarily should have access to heavy gatling guns as a matter of personal/home defense. Concealed carry (or even open carry) of pistols, even on worlds like Coruscant, is not going to turn heads like wearing padded armor to the grocery store or carrying a long rifle to a dance club would.

Mechanically, Ranged: Heavy weapons are objectively superior weapons for full-on firefights where law enforcement will not intervene. They typically have longer Ranges, higher Damage, lower Crit requirements, more Hard Points, more Mods that work with them, and a slew of possible Qualities that can be triggered by Advantages. On the other hand, pistols have less Encumbrance, only require 1 hand to wield (and thus can be dual-wielded), can be hidden much easier, are cheaper (especially if you need to toss one quick because the cops show up), are more likely to be considered legally-owned and carried for a lawful purpose, and perhaps most importantly, they have stun settings which most heavier weapons lack.

To me, this translates to the Average Joe (a Colonist, Explorer, Technician, or even most Smugglers) practically preferring to take a pistol as a main-carry weapon. You can take it a lot more places, it's cheaper to buy when you have non-combat gear you need as well, it can be used non-lethally, and for a lot of these Careers, they get it as a Career Skill through either the base Career or through a Specialization - which is nothing to sneeze at given that XP is always finite.

On a gameplay level, combining it all in one makes the combat careers flat-out less impressive. Any Doctor who owns a pistol can man a heavy E-WEB and lay down auto-fire, hitting crits left and right because their skill in pistol shooting has now upgraded their heavy weapons dice too. Keeping the current rules, they certainly can still man that E-WEB and provide fire support, but their shooting is not going to be on par with the Assassin or Mercenary Soldier who have focused on rifle skills. But then, out of combat, the Doctor can do a ton of cool things too, like heal people and have knowledges in-Career. The Assassin...can't really do as much. I mean sure he can skulk but that Specialization is built around heavy weapons being cheaper to improve, thus allowing more impressive combat feats. IMO it cheapens his play experience when the Doctor can shoot any gun as good as him, but then can do a number of other cool things that the Assassin simply can't (for the most part).

it's a little bit of Career protectionism, but I'm OK with that.

You are also forgetting there is a +2 difficulty penalty when trying to use a Ranged (heavy) weapon while engaged (CRB pg.210), not to mention that melee character gets a bonus to his next attack against that blaster user. If I was GM I'd just mob you with melee minions, your all heavy group would be in a world of hurt.

Also there are many situations indoors where you wont be able to benefit from the range provided by Heavy weapons, but you inherit all the weakness of having to use them while engaged.

Otzlowe, in your OP you mentioned that you were concerned about making changes and that you weren't the most experienced GM So I hope that you will be able to take the collective experience here to heart when making decisions in your own game.

With the skill question, though; if your heavy-weapons user wants to be serious, he's really gotta have a higher than average Agility (I suggest 4). This will make him a de facto decent shot with a pistol, as Kshatriya point out, so if he's required to leave his heavier arms behind he can still keep up in a firefight. It's good the GM in this case to drive home to his players the importance of building up Characteristics at character creation. This way, the Agility 4 Rodian will have a great time with either the blaster rifle OR the pistols, but he will be especially talented at one or the other.

Personally, I like the ranged combat mechanics the way they are, especially for the Star Wars setting.* It just makes good sense, it's mechanically balanced, and it's the reason we like to play with more than 1 person in our parties. The group should pull together and make up for a lack of equipment or skillfulness in one character when required to do so.

*I actually flipped it around for my (not-yet-finished) Elder Scrolls conversion, having one "Marksman" skill and 2 melee skills (One-Handed & Two-Handed, tip of the hat to Skyrim).

Otzlowe, in your OP you mentioned that you were concerned about making changes and that you weren't the most experienced GM So I hope that you will be able to take the collective experience here to heart when making decisions in your own game.

With the skill question, though; if your heavy-weapons user wants to be serious, he's really gotta have a higher than average Agility (I suggest 4). This will make him a de facto decent shot with a pistol, as Kshatriya point out, so if he's required to leave his heavier arms behind he can still keep up in a firefight. It's good the GM in this case to drive home to his players the importance of building up Characteristics at character creation. This way, the Agility 4 Rodian will have a great time with either the blaster rifle OR the pistols, but he will be especially talented at one or the other.

Personally, I like the ranged combat mechanics the way they are, especially for the Star Wars setting.* It just makes good sense, it's mechanically balanced, and it's the reason we like to play with more than 1 person in our parties. The group should pull together and make up for a lack of equipment or skillfulness in one character when required to do so.

*I actually flipped it around for my (not-yet-finished) Elder Scrolls conversion, having one "Marksman" skill and 2 melee skills (One-Handed & Two-Handed, tip of the hat to Skyrim).

I hope I'm not trying to sound like I'm brushing your opinions off, because that's not my aim. What I'm trying to do is get to the meat of why it is a poor choice. In this case, I'm hearing that people think it's not a good idea, but either don't explain why, or mention something that is confusing to me or what have you. I appreciate your opinions, I just want to be sure of them, too.

You make a valid point, however, about a combat focused character having a high agility, which would naturally translate to decent proficiency in light weapons, even without investing skill points.

That said, I'm just not getting what is particularly unbalanced, mechanically, about being able to wield pistols and rifles with equal proficiency, given that the skill ceiling for either wouldn't be increased, and given that heavy and light weapons cannot be used simultaneously.

You are also forgetting there is a +2 difficulty penalty when trying to use a Ranged (heavy) weapon while engaged (CRB pg.210), not to mention that melee character gets a bonus to his next attack against that blaster user. If I was GM I'd just mob you with melee minions, your all heavy group would be in a world of hurt.

Also there are many situations indoors where you wont be able to benefit from the range provided by Heavy weapons, but you inherit all the weakness of having to use them while engaged.

This is true, but I'm not looking to punish them for using heavy weapons. I just want to encourage them to be willing to use more than just "their blaster. There are many like it, but this one is theirs."

Nothing stops a noncom from picking Ranged: Heavy over Ranged: Light, except possibly: (1) low Brawn to deal with Encumbrance/Cumbersome ratings; (2) not having Proficiency in any ranged weapon under circumstances where one can't carry around a rifle or repeating blaster. Don't get me wrong, having Agility 5 and no Proficiency will still result in a lot of successes. But you'll never hit Triumph and you may not hit Advantages like you want, especially if the difficulty gets upgraded against any opponent with the Adversary trait.

To me, this translates to the Average Joe (a Colonist, Explorer, Technician, or even most Smugglers) practically preferring to take a pistol as a main-carry weapon. You can take it a lot more places, it's cheaper to buy when you have non-combat gear you need as well, it can be used non-lethally, and for a lot of these Careers, they get it as a Career Skill through either the base Career or through a Specialization - which is nothing to sneeze at given that XP is always finite.

On a gameplay level, combining it all in one makes the combat careers flat-out less impressive. Any Doctor who owns a pistol can man a heavy E-WEB and lay down auto-fire, hitting crits left and right because their skill in pistol shooting has now upgraded their heavy weapons dice too. Keeping the current rules, they certainly can still man that E-WEB and provide fire support, but their shooting is not going to be on par with the Assassin or Mercenary Soldier who have focused on rifle skills. But then, out of combat, the Doctor can do a ton of cool things too, like heal people and have knowledges in-Career. The Assassin...can't really do as much. I mean sure he can skulk but that Specialization is built around heavy weapons being cheaper to improve, thus allowing more impressive combat feats. IMO it cheapens his play experience when the Doctor can shoot any gun as good as him, but then can do a number of other cool things that the Assassin simply can't (for the most part).

it's a little bit of Career protectionism, but I'm OK with that.

To your first paragraph: That's what I'm getting at, really. The people who'd benefit most from a combined skill are, arguably (due to naturally spending less XP on combat skills), the less combat focused types. However, they're hindered in making full use of the change by having other skills to invest XP into (as you mention), and by likely having too low of a brawn to even make use of the heavier classes of weapons.

As for the point about class and career skills, I went back and double checked on those. Unless I'm missing any, only Scoundrel and Gadgeteer have Ranged (Light) as spec skills, and they're already combat focused careers who are going to be maxing these skills anyway.

Also, it's not a big point, but E-Web blasters are under the Gunnery skill, so they wouldn't be affected by this change. The doctor, unless he's going for a broken brawn-heavy, pressure point build, would likely only be able to pick up a blaster rifle out of the heavy weapons group. Certainly, you could argue that it would be somewhat disappointing to see the doctor blasting away with his blaster rifle just as well as the hired gun, but he could already do that anyway if he chose to, and this scenario already assumes (by saying that he's invested points into the ranged skill) that he has chosen to. However, it's worth keeping in mind that that means he's spent XP on combat skills instead of doctoring skills. While he can lay his gun down and do some medicine, he's going to be sacrificing some skill in it. On the flip side, the assassin has tricks that the doctor doesn't have, so even if they've got even ranks in the combat skill, the assassin will still likely be better at it, especially given that Ranged (Heavy) is a much more prevalent class / spec skill and would mean that it took the doctor 25 more XP to get to the same level of proficiency as the assassin (possibly even 55 XP difference, if the assassin took two ranks of ranged heavy at creation).

I certainly agree with you about wanting a meaningful delineation between classes, however, I don't think that the Ranged skills are primarily what accomplish that. I think that the cumbersome quality has a lot more to do with it, honestly. At least as far as I can tell.

Edit: At the end of the day, I think I like the argument that a heavy weapons character probably already has a high enough agility / likely invested points into light for the sake of grenades, for my particular scenario (a heavy weapons user being unwilling to use a pistol) to be unlikely.

All that means is that they can freely ignore the second skill and dump all their points into the one.

I think you're grossly undervaluing how powerful that is. One skill for all non-vehicle shooty weapons allows even non-combat-primary characters to be good with every single possible ranged weapon they might loot from an enemy's corpse, as opposed to (usually) just being better with pistols which while nice, lack a lot of the best Advantage-triggered Qualities and have higher Critical triggers.

Moreover, it frees up a lot of XP to devote to other places, especially for combat characters who often will take both Ranged (Light) and Ranged (Heavy) for different reasons (e.g. it's easier to hide a pistol than a rifle when you're going into a fancy club).

In that case, what's to stop a non-combat character from putting ranks into Ranged (Heavy) instead of Ranged (Light)? If we're assuming they have ranks in any weapons, there's nothing that forces them to choose one over the other. The scholar could totally pick up the Light Repeating Blaster instead of a pistol if he really wanted to. In fact, he's more likely to be prevented from doing so by having a low brawn characteristic than due to there being two skills.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just not seeing - explosives aside (which I agree with) - how it would be much stronger. As it stands, no character is forced to use light weapons unless they have a low brawn characteristic, which would continue to be a limiting factor. Whether they are good with one or another is already player choice. If your concern is that, for example, a baddie had a bowcaster and they looted it off his body, the smuggler or colonist shouldn't be able to just pick it up and lug it around, they already could (with approximately equal ease, just by taking ranks in heavy instead of light) if they wanted to. And given that there's no incentive to use light weapons (ignoring explosives for a second), power-wise, there's no benefit to a heavy weapons character to be able to pick up that pistol that wasn't already there. Also, the extra XP can be adjusted to by giving lower XP rewards.

As a follow-up question, how would you feel if the skills were Explosives and Firearms, rather than Ranged Light / Heavy?

I'm pretty sure more people are accessible to blaster pistols as they are both cheaper and simpler, not to mention that Scoundrels get it as a career and not heavy weapons. If you are a Colonist or Technician, then it's just good roleplaying. A posh noble won't be lugging a huge blaster rifle wherever he goes. He's more likely to hide a discreet holdout under his jacket.

As others have already said, it also frees up experience and makes the game a bit more uneven. Not to mention that (again from a narrative view) pistols and rifles are two different worlds. Even in real life, it's different to shoot a rifle than a pistol. A rifle has more kick and is larger, whereas a pistol I easier to carry and easier to whip out. Pistols do less damage, but can be hidden.

I hope this makes sense. I don't want to be confusing, so feel free to tell me if I am.

EDIT: Also, general skill with weaponry is available through Agilty, which can be acquired at the beginning of the game or later once you get the talent. It's preferable to use Agility as overall weapon use rather than wrap big and stalls guns into one group.

And I think that melee weapons are kind of all round to keep it simple, because there are less of them. It's just simpler to say that if you know how to swing a stick, you can swing any stick. It's also a narrative dealio.

The plain truth is it's a poor choice for game balance reasons. If you combine those skills you have to combine brawl and melee. You should also combine cool and vigilance, negotiation and charm, coercion and deception, piloting planetary and space, athletics and coordination, & computers and mechanics.

The plain truth is it's a poor choice for game balance reasons. If you combine those skills you have to combine brawl and melee. You should also combine cool and vigilance, negotiation and charm, coercion and deception, piloting planetary and space, athletics and coordination, & computers and mechanics.

Er... no you don't. No offense, but that's just a slippery slope argument. Unless you're implying that you need to keep the same ratio of skills for balance reasons, but that seems unlikely.

See, roleplaying is my goal here. I'm not intending to make this change in order to allow my non-combat oriented characters to start lugging around light repeating blasters (but again, they already could've if they wanted to). What I want to do is allow even the more combat-oriented characters to feel comfortable with not using their big toys from time to time. I'm not worried about them min/maxing if I were to make a change like this, because I know they won't (and I still don't see what they could do with this change that they already couldn't. I'm also honestly kind of in favor of combat characters having more XP to spread in non-combat skills, frankly). I actually find the argument that you and awayputurwpn have mentioned about said combat characters likely having a high agility score to be more compelling for leaving it alone, honestly.

Are you worried about a hypothetical situation that hasn't even come to pass yet (combat characters told to leave heavy weapons aboard the ship)? Why not ask your players how they would imagine they would feel if that happened - if they'd feel punished (bad) or challenged to be creative (good). I ask because I don't like to implement house rules in my games until we see that an existing rule is more trouble than it's worth, is clearly discriminatory to a character concept only after that concept has been put into play, etc. I don't like to house rule on hypothetical problems; I like to fix known issues with rules that work better for my table. And it's not a known issue unless it's come up as an issue in game or a player has brought it up to me as something that concerns them.

The plain truth is it's a poor choice for game balance reasons. If you combine those skills you have to combine brawl and melee. You should also combine cool and vigilance, negotiation and charm, coercion and deception, piloting planetary and space, athletics and coordination, & computers and mechanics.

Er... no you don't. No offense, but that's just a slippery slope argument. Unless you're implying that you need to keep the same ratio of skills for balance reasons, but that seems unlikely.

Why should the ranged characters only have 1 combat skill, but a character that wanted to be melee is screwed over by your change and has 2 skills?

Why should the social character who doesn't want any combat skills be screwed over by your change and have twice as many core "class build" social skills to increase than a ranged based character.

Honestly, it seems like you want to make the change no matter what anyone says. There are numerous posts saying not only it a horrible idea, but why it's a bad idea. You seem to be set in your decision and mostly argumentive and dissmitive of people with a lot more gaming and GM experience than you. Which makes me wonder if you really are interested in others opinions or just trolling.

Make your own decision, but as a players perspective your change screws over every character that might not wanted to have ranged weapons skills. My final suggestion is let your players read this thread and make the decision as a group instead of you forcing it on them.

Best of luck.

Perhaps I hadn't have mentioned that I'm inexperienced with EotE. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the system (meaning that I have read the rulebook cover-to-cover, but have limited playing experience), but I've been playing RPGs for a long time and, frankly, I'm not an idiot. Experience or no, I am capable of knowing and understanding things. I am arguing the point only because - as your own first post evidences - there's kind of a lack of concrete, "This is bad and here's a fleshed out example of why" going on in this thread. Alternatively, some of the examples simply strike me as not really being that sturdy (should I not then say something?). Which is fine, but that means I need to pick at parts of the arguments presented to actually get that tangible worth beyond opinion. Without saying something to you, I would never have known what you actually meant by your post - if you were just being flippant, or actually attempting to convey something more meaningful.

And, as I have mentioned multiple times, I value your opinions, but opinions alone don't balance games. Lots of people who play RPGs have opinions that would result in poor balance, so I apologize if I don't accept them on face value. Assuming I'm trolling just because I am arguing the point is unfair. At no point have I called anyone's opinion stupid or worthless. In fact, I have hoped that I have been delicate, despite attempting to argue the matter. Just because I'm arguing doesn't mean I think you're stupid or wrong. Again, opinions just don't balance game systems. (What's more, I've even acknowledged a few points as being entirely valid. Kshatriya's last post, for example, is entirely true and something I did not consider)

So, I apologize if I've offended you or anyone else. Truly. (That said, I would invite you to recognize that I haven't escalated or gotten offended by people calling my idea "horrible," even though that's more rude than my attempting to argue the point).

Edit: At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand why something is imbalanced, not simply if. Can we agree that that's fair? Arguing the point just helps be get to that understanding more easily. I could accept the first response I get as gospel, but that doesn't help my understanding of the issue at all.

I perfectly understand the OPs point, and it is something I've wondered myself. It is actually a house rule I am planning to run with after my current RAW campaign finishes.

Most of your arguments against combining make no sense to me. Talents are what set apart the combat career builds, not the differentiation in light / heavy ranged skill.

It makes no sense to me that my assassin player may get into a situation where he doesn't have his blaster rifle, and if a firefight breaks out, he wouldn't be able to pick up a blaster pistol and be just as deadly.

It's just absurd. Han Solo used a Blaster Rifle effectively, and I sincerely doubt he had any ranks in Ranged (Heavy). So why can't my players?

The only thing I can agree with is that RAW EOTE would be unbalanced to combine them, and so some tweaking of the rules would be required. Nothing as game breaking as any of you are alluding to, though.

Why would you doubt that Han Solo has ranks in Ranged (Heavy)? Is it just because his favored weapon is covered under Ranged (Light)? Han sees the value in diversifying his capabilities and has likey trained ranks in both skills. In a similar way, just because Han has many ranks in Piloting (Space) doesn't mean he hasn't also trained up Piloting (Planetary).

Consider it this way: all skills in this game can be used untrained, as there is no such idea as "untrained". That means that everyone is trained to some degree in everything. Your characteristic is you innate abilities and basic training/education/experience. A skill rank on the other hand is a specialisation. Seen this way, a skill rank is a reward for investing in a narrower subset of a skill. So in a sense, Agility is the catch-all ranged weapon skill.

To me it makes more sense to reward players for specialising, than letting all ranged combat be solved with one skill and then devalue and remove specialisation options from the game.

Of course, if you don't mind that any player would be as proficient with any and all kinds of ranged weapon through one skill, nothing stops you. I'd not do it - because I think that it works perfectly well as is. Just because a player sometimes won't have the opportunity to bring along their big gun, and have to use a smaller gun with which they are not as skilled with, this is not punishment, this is a challenge. When you specialise you sacrifice something for something else.

So, why would one really merge the two skills? I cannot really see a good reason for it, and it hardly makes sense in my opinion, because the two are different.

It's just absurd. Han Solo used a Blaster Rifle effectively, and I sincerely doubt he had any ranks in Ranged (Heavy). So why can't my players?

The idea of interpreting movie scenes through the lens of the RPG's mechanics is really silly, bit if you must...Han is a smuggler and a very skilled pilot with an expansive and thorough backstory. One part of that (aside from the many, many times in BBY setting books where he uses rifles), he went through the Imperial Academy. There's no reason to believe he wasn't trained in rifles, and would have a very high Agility anyway to make the Falcon dance the way it does.

. Just because a player sometimes won't have the opportunity to bring along their big gun, and have to use a smaller gun with which they are not as skilled with, this is not punishment, this is a challenge. When you specialise you sacrifice something for something else.

So, why would one really merge the two skills? I cannot really see a good reason for it, and it hardly makes sense in my opinion, because the two are different.

I agree, with regard to the challenge, if I were the one playing. Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. However, as far as that particular circumstance is concerned, it's in consideration of my group, who I feel would see the challenge as a challenge of how they can just gun their way around the actual challenge, rather than be constrained by it. I recognize that there are other ways I can promote them to not just do so, but it was my thinking that something like this might make it feel more natural and intuitive for them, rather than feel like something I'm trying to railroad them into doing.

And while I agree about it not making sense for them to be combined, there's at least some precedent for it, given that melee exists as a singular category (not counting brawl, given that RAW, brawling isn't meant to be a primary combat method). There's nothing to cover one hand versus two hand weapons for melee, which is the basis for heavy and light ranged skills (handedness, that is). I don't think that means it should be done as a result (given partly that melee is that way likely due to not having as many choices), but that it's not totally out of place to consider.

That said, I'm on the fence, actually. Mostly because it seems to me like making the change would have an exceedingly small, meaningful impact.

(Also, apparently everyone in Star Wars took ranks in both types of ranged. Even Obi-wan, who perfectly shoots Grievous in the chest and potentially never fires another blaster again. I can't actually think of an example where a character picks up a weapon - short of a lightsaber - and struggles to use it incredibly well.)

Well Obi-wan could just have a high agility, basic and innate training, plus enhance power upgrade for agility and sense power ongoing offensive effect. Let's say agility 4 or 5 with enhance, plus two upgrades from sense... He doesn't need skill ranks in ranged light or heavy, and still score a critical and do lots of damage. Short range, plus adversary 3 makes for two challenge dice difficulty. Obi's odds are still pretty good.

About your players, I don't know them, but could you be underestimating them?

As for melee and brawl. Ranged weapons are, particularly ranged heavy weapons, much more powerful than fists, knives and even the axe.

About your players, I don't know them, but could you be underestimating them?

It's always possible. I know them all well, but none of them have played RPGs before, and seem to struggle with thinking outside of the rules as written in certain circumstances, or be especially creative with what they're given. But that's a problem everyone faces when they're new, really. However, it's due to that that I've been inclined to blur some of the lines of mechanics, to make non-mechanical thinking a bit more natural.

However, we haven't played more than a handful of games together now, so I can't reasonably say that I know exactly what to expect from them.

Edit: At the end of the day, I'm just trying to understand why something is imbalanced, not simply if. Can we agree that that's fair? Arguing the point just helps be get to that understanding more easily. I could accept the first response I get as gospel, but that doesn't help my understanding of the issue at all.

Player 1) I want to use range that's Ranged Light and Heavy (oh awesome I have a combined super skill instead), great I rank it from my starting skill of 2 over playing to rank 5. That costs me 30+40+50=120 experience.

Player 2) I want to use Brawl and Melee, great I rank my starting ranks of 2 to 5 that's 30+40+50=120*2=240 experience

Player 3) I want to make a noncombat social character. I want my Deception and Coercion skills,great I rank my starting ranks of 2 to 5 that's 30+40+50=120*2=240 experience.

So Player 1 has an extra 120 experience to spend in other areas, most likely talents, that the other 2 characters can't because they don't have a combined super skill.

That's imbalance.