All the discussion aside. Why would you like to spend XPs on a talent, that all it does is to allow you to spend a triumph to knock people prone, when they may spend 1 manoeuvre to stand up?

It's possible to take an initiative slot before they act again and gain the benefits of them being prone.

That said, it isn't much in the way of benefit. It's one boost die, which you could give yourself with 2 advantage.

I think part the issue here is that knocking someone down doesn't do much unless you have a group of melee people engaged who can take advantage of it. Making a whole talent around it seems like a waste.

Maybe a cleaner house rule would be: "When you score a critical in melee combat, the target is also knocked down."

Benvingut a Barcelona HappyDaze!/ Welcome to Barcelona HappyDaze!

Benvingut a Barcelona HappyDaze!/ Welcome to Barcelona HappyDaze!

Thanks! Love the city so far. People are friendly, and it's so clean compared to every city I saw in Italy over the last two weeks. Another full day here then off to Lisbon for four days. Then back to my books so I don't have to guess at the rules.

There is a lot of beautiful places in Catalunya but Barcelona is one the the most famous I supose. I hope that you'll enjoy the rest of your journey

FFG, in my opinion, would have to release a digital version of their books. I don't like so much physical format and almost anyone have a computer (or access to it) and in this days even a Smartphone.

No matter how contradictory you think my argument is, you don't get to come in here and ***** about a talent being worthless when you MAKE it worthless. That is even more contradictory then anything I've come up with, all within the scope of the rules.

And it makes perfect sense Brawl gets the knockdown quality. Sweep the leg, Daniel-son. And look, you get to avoid having to take the Knockdown talent! Bonus!

That Knockdown talent is written for melee characters who use melee weapons that don't get any sort of native knockdown quality (although I'd argue that the force pike should probably have it). If you don't like it, and want to cheat the system by using triumph narratively, fine. It's your game. But don't complain a talent is worthless when you make it so.

It's not about "cheating" the system, and nobody's whining. My position is that the talent is a poor addition to the rules. Just because it exists doesn't mean it SHOULD exist.

The core mechanic of the game is a narrative dice system. A table is provided for use as inspiration, as a guideline for the relative strength of effects that can be invoked with X amount of threat/advantage. You stated yourself that prone is a lower-powered option compared with the other effects that 3 advantage are worth.

A GM is well within their rights to allow effects of comparable strength that are not listed on the table. It's encouraged, and an intrinsic part of the narrative system (see p. 205). Thus, the game already provides a way for melee characters to knock opponents prone. No GM is going to deny that to a player with a Triumph (3 advantage may be debatable). Unless the GM is a hardcore rules-lawyer that uses the existence of the Knockdown feat to say "you can't do that," but that kind of mindset goes against the spirit of the system. Most of the other rules advocate free-form creativity, and I'd argue that those should take precedence over those that restrict options unless you pay the "tax."

Going by a strict reading of RAW the only value I can see is that knocking someone prone would be subject to GM approval, whereas the Knockdown talent is guaranteed. You can point it out to the GM and say "but this says I can do it, and I paid XP so I'm not getting cheated out of it!" But is that "safety net" worth the XP (20 XP, in the Fringer's case)? Especially considering that a) most GMs won't veto a suggestion of that power level, and b) ALL rules are subject to GM discretion.

Let's not forget that this is a TTRPG, and that one of the strengths of the medium is having a human brain running the show. If a rule isn't working it's ALWAYS within a GM's right to ignore it, altogether or situationally, and the crux of my argument is that this talent is a GREAT candidate for that.

I'd probably just add some effect to the knockdown for the talent. You knock the person down, and there weapon is knocked away, or you knock them down and they take some extra strain from hitting their head. Mechanics for knocking down a character aside, it's just not powerful enough an effect to be worth using up a Triumph, but as a GM I'd probaby come up with something to spice it up.

I don't think one should disallow a knockdown result even if the character in question lacks the talent. On the contrary if it fits the narrative it should be encuraged. As I see it the talent exists so that a pc can repeatedly knock nemesises over, and not be forced to wait for a fitting narrative.

It's never going to see use outside of fighting a Nemesis, and there it's mostly going to be for the metagame effect of draining that Maneuver

No GM is going to deny that to a player with a Triumph (3 advantage may be debatable). Unless the GM is a hardcore rules-lawyer that uses the existence of the Knockdown feat to say "you can't do that," but that kind of mindset goes against the spirit of the system.

If a rule isn't working it's ALWAYS within a GM's right to ignore it, altogether or situationally, and the crux of my argument is that this talent is a GREAT candidate for that.

This sums it up quite nicely. +1

I don't think one should disallow a knockdown result even if the character in question lacks the talent. On the contrary if it fits the narrative it should be encuraged. As I see it the talent exists so that a pc can repeatedly knock nemesises over, and not be forced to wait for a fitting narrative.

I don't think repeatedly knocking a nemesis over is something I've ever seen in a movie that didn't involve 3 Stooges, and there is good reason for it. I think it's a pretty bad talent, it will often be better to crit or upgrade a crit by 10, so it will get fairly little use. Could it knock an AT-AT over? Heh.

Nemeisises are prone to running away and sometimes a single knockdown can prevent or halt a chase. What I meant was knocking the (same or different) nemesis down on repeated occasion should require a talent. I did not mean knocking the same poor nemesis down over and over Stooges style. Sorry for being unclear.

I'm pretty sure that's actually a standard Threat/Despair result, not Advantage/Triumph. I'll have to check my book when I get home.

EDIT: T-town? Dude, we should game sometime.

I'll try to get in touch with you next week when I'm back from vacation. I can't get the damned private messages to function - Help tells me how, but no link actaually shows up for me to click.

I'm pretty sure that's actually a standard Threat/Despair result, not Advantage/Triumph. I'll have to check my book when I get home.

EDIT: T-town? Dude, we should game sometime.

I'll try to get in touch with you next week when I'm back from vacation. I can't get the damned private messages to function - Help tells me how, but no link actaually shows up for me to click.

Might be worth an email to FFG User Support (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_atencion.asp), but yeah looks like you are blocked from the message system. I can send others messages, but not you. Don't even have the "send message" option for you.

I've been lurker over this thread for a little, going over how this talent is truly useful to have; what I've discovered is that it's a very tactical talent for Melee characters with large dice pools.

Now a couple of good points have been made, such as how is knockdown better than any other 3 advantage effect, or how is making an enemy prone useful. Thinking about this, the answer would be it's situational. You'll need a group that is tactically good and a GM that is trying to challenge the team tactically as well. And I will argue that Knockdown is actually better than any of the '3 advantage' effects.

My Reasoning:

The real boon to this entire Talent is the fact that it negates a maneuver (which I think is being vastly understated), and if the enemy target is in need of a maneuver, they will have to take a hit to strain to use a maneuver. I'll break down how the listed effects are of great use, but Knocking an opponent prone, while doing damage, is pretty **** effective. For Maneuvers, you can Move, Aim, Take Cover, Ready or Stow a Weapon or Item, Interact with your Environment, Engage or Disengage from a target, Stand Up. So, effectively, knocking an enemy down, requires them to use the 'Stand Up' maneuver before they can do anything else and requires them to suffer strain to use another maneuver, effectively keep them in melee range AND taking damage from a successful attack.

Usage of this talent is very powerful for a melee character, keeping their target in range, dealing damage AND preventing damage. The melee character will lose DPS on use, but that's not the argument. So, let's say you roll a success and three advantages, you now can deal damage, and knock your opponent prone, which prevents them from Aiming, taking Cover, readying a weapon (which can be used as a combo, I'll explain in a moment), readying an item (which prevents healing, since you have to 'ready' a stim pack before using), or disengaging from melee... Without suffering strain... If they choose to suffer strain, they negate their attack for that round. So basically, you prevent your target from gaining a boost die on their current attack, and basically having a hard chance of keeping a boost die if they choose to aim, gaining a defensive boost on their next attack, taking out their weapon if knockdown is used as a surprise attack, giving the party a free attack round without damage from that enemy, or running from battle. Each of these effects are significant in combat!

Let's take a look a the 3 advantage 'natural' effects:

Negate Target's defense -> Okay, this is good... But this is a judgement call, if you want your teammates to deal more damage to the target (negate defense), or do you want to prevent the target from increasing their damage (aim), or further increasing their defense (cover) without taking strain damage in addition to physical damage.

Ignore Penalizing Environment -> So this takes away a setback or challenge depending on the situation. IF you're fighting in a hostile environment, there's really no comparison and you may want to use this advantage result... I would take this advantage effect if you're fighting in an area seriously affected by the environment, but I wouldn't say that this effect is 'weaker' than Knockdown.

Disable the Target in Lieu of doing damage -> Well, this is similar to knockdown, but the key difference here is 'in lieu of doing damage'; knockdown doesn't fully disable the target, but it allows the PC to deal melee damage AND weaken the targets next Action. If you gain a Success roll on your attack, Knockdown arguably is a better use of the excess advantages, while if you Fail at your attack down, Disable would make sense here since you aren't doing damage anyway....

Gain +1 to melee or Ranged Defense -> This is a nice little boost and can be argued a better result than Knockdown, I will say however, that Knockdown has a similar effect here as in the Disable, it can give a bonus to defense by preventing a boost die via aim on the Knocked down target. I think this is situational as well, you'll need to decide if the extra defense is necessary, or if removing a maneuver from your target is more necessary. I think the stage of the fight is important here; in the beginning of the fight, I'm more likely to take the the Defense, but if the fight has already turned, taking the maneuver away I'm more likely to use.

Disarm -> this is another effect very similar to Knockdown, but situational as well. It requires the enemy to use the maneuver 'ready item' rather than stand up. While yes, this can be prevent the usage of aim, the opponent can still use every other maneuver. So, while they target effected by disarm can ready item, then attack (which can be done against Knockdown as well), the difference is that the disarmed target has access to the entire maneuver list (an example would be moving, or taking cover then next turn readying their weapon again), whereas the knocked down opponent really must use Stand Up before doing anything else. I would say that this is not as powerful as knocking someone down. In addition, this has no effect brawl characters.

The best use of this talent is synthesis with a large dice pool and skill training, where you've got a lot of opportunity for 3 advantage rolls. The talent is extremely effective against brawl opponents, or highly mobile opponents, keeping them in check moreso than the other 3 advantage effects.

The reason for the talent is the fact that it forces the use of a 'Stand Up' maneuver, effectively removing a maneuver from your targets next term without using strain -> no other 3 advantage effect actually forces the use of a maneuver, without straining opponent; I know people will say disarm does, but a GM can flee an NPC without straining them, whereas if the NPC is knocked down it MUST stand up before fleeing.

I could once again see valid points to each argument, but I would not allow Knockdown as an effect of a 3 advantage roll due to how powerful the attack actually is compared to the other 3 advantage effects in negating a target's maneuver - not because I'm a rule nazi, but I feel that not having an NPC able to use a maneuver in a round without strain is particularly effective in combat. This is simply my opinion from a tactical perspective, each GM should decide how to interpret the game their own way, so I definitely see where everyone else is coming from .

You didn't mention that, per RAW, the Knockdown talent cannot be activated with 3 Advantages - only by a Triumph. For that same Triumph, you can score a critical hit which will generally be the better option.

You didn't mention that, per RAW, the Knockdown talent cannot be activated with 3 Advantages - only by a Triumph. For that same Triumph, you can score a critical hit which will generally be the better option.

Not when you consider you can crit with most melee weapons on 1 or 2 advantages.

There should be no reason, with a decent dice pool, you aren't critting every round with a melee weapon. Using the Triumph for +10? Nah. Using it to keep him in range with knockdown? Yep. All day.

I've never found staying in range to be a problem. This game allows melee characters to easily overrun gunslingers.

I've never found staying in range to be a problem. This game allows melee characters to easily overrun gunslingers.

For the most part this is true, but a fleeing opponent or an opponent with a Jetpack can make staying in range a little more difficult. If the GM isn't playing with ranges, then the talent isn't going to be worthwhile, if they are throwing out more tactically challenging battles, then the talent becomes very useful.

And you're correct, it is a triumph in the RAW, I'm mistaken I don't have my rulebook at work. The talent is very useful, and scoring a critical hit is nice, but so is preventing a tough foe from fleeing and calling in reinforcements.. If the GM is constantly playing NPCs attack, without retreating in every occasion, then the Talent is a waste, but if the GM is creative and has NPCs that attempt to flee battle, you'll get substantial use out of the Talent. Critting may not being enough for a mobile NPC running for an alarm... or a NPC jetpacking away, prevent that mobility could prevent any type of reinforcements to a battle. Or preventing a particular enemy from using a stim pack, priming a grenade or jumping in a vehicle could be good uses of this talent, as it limits a target to a single maneuver in a turn, (so moving to a turret and getting in a turret, or running out of the room and closing a blast door, or priming a thermal detonator, then using the thermal detonator, or moving to a computer and activating the combat droids in the room... things like this, Knockdown prevents), it allows for an action, without a maneuver in a turn, or one significant maneuver at the exchange of strain and no action in a turn - this is unbelievably good, however it's not DPS.

If we're looking at the game as straight forward, DPS fights, then many of the talents in the game are useful, but it's really up to the GM and the group to be creative for how to utilize their skills. If a GM sees one of his PCs choose a talent, they should throw in some scenarios that would use a particular talent, in the care of Knockdown, particularly mobile opponents or stout melee opponents with a high soak value, who have ranged support. If the GM is simply throwing out Storm Trooper minions that are just going to stand there and let the team man-handle them, then as I mentioned before, there are going to be many underused talents in every pool. The GM and the group should be working together to craft an adventure that makes sense and challenges the PCs without being over-the-top difficult. Throwing challenging engagements that require a little more than dealing hawks of damage, is something where these unique talents come in to play, otherwise they are wasted XP.

For me, GMing, I tend to challenge my group with more tactical battles that require more than just DPS and really take use of maneuvers. I don't just let my NPCs stand there and take a beating; I'm not saying that I make impossible fights for my PCs, but I am saying that I make them use more than just dealing damage to win. Sometimes, dealing damage works, other times they have to work a little more for a victory. If they begin to complain, I'll change the way I handle the combat, but I like to make use of my group's full skillset and any talents they choose - I want them to get a chance to use them. .

I've never found staying in range to be a problem. This game allows melee characters to easily overrun gunslingers.

For the most part this is true, but a fleeing opponent and an opponent with a Jetpack can make staying in range a little more difficult. If the GM isn't playing with ranges, then the talent isn't going to be worthwhile, if they are throwing out more tactically challenging battles, then the talent becomes very useful.

If they're fleeing or have a jetpack then either you won't have the action to attack as you're chasing, or you will have the action because you're fast enough to keep up, so you may as well just keep attacking them and knocking them down really does nothing. It would only be beneficial if they MIGHT flee but then...

You're a maurader, you have lethal blows and very likely have a vibro ax. Changing an AT LEAST +50 crit for a knockdown is just plain dumb 99% of the time. I can see it used with a bounty hunter trying to intimidate a target or something, but for the typical case of trying to eliminate someone it won't get used. And since it will so rarely be used it's worthless.

I'll agree on the jetpack (also known as the suicide sled if it gets disabled at anything but the lowest altitude), but no one in this game seems to run any faster than anyone else. Two maneuvers is the max. There's also the chase rules, but rarely will you have those at the same time as an ongoing conflict - it's usually one or the other.

I've never found staying in range to be a problem. This game allows melee characters to easily overrun gunslingers.

For the most part this is true, but a fleeing opponent and an opponent with a Jetpack can make staying in range a little more difficult. If the GM isn't playing with ranges, then the talent isn't going to be worthwhile, if they are throwing out more tactically challenging battles, then the talent becomes very useful.

If they're fleeing or have a jetpack then either you won't have the action to attack as you're chasing, or you will have the action because you're fast enough to keep up, so you may as well just keep attacking them and knocking them down really does nothing. It would only be beneficial if they MIGHT flee but then...

You're a maurader, you have lethal blows and very likely have a vibro ax. Changing an AT LEAST +50 crit for a knockdown is just plain dumb 99% of the time. I can see it used with a bounty hunter trying to intimidate a target or something, but for the typical case of trying to eliminate someone it won't get used. And since it will so rarely be used it's worthless.

Uh... what?

First of all, as a beginning Maurader, you have lethal blows (5 xp points +10 to crit results), Vibro-ax, (vicious 3 so +30 to crit results). That is not at least +50. That's +40. If you really want to be sick, you don't care at all about critting on Triumph, because for the low, low price of 1000 creds you can buy the Mono-Molecular Edge and change that 2 advantage critting Vibro-ax into a 1 Advantage critting machine. You'll get far more use, and not to mention crits, out of that then you ever will using the randomly rolled Triumph for the same thing. Especially when you can crit 3 times in one swing (+60 to the roll) and knock them down with the Triumph.

Even at +60 you need to roll 81 or better to outright kill someone. And that is assuming the 3+Feral Strength Ranks+Brawn with Piece 2 doesn't kill him first!

I've never found staying in range to be a problem. This game allows melee characters to easily overrun gunslingers.

For the most part this is true, but a fleeing opponent and an opponent with a Jetpack can make staying in range a little more difficult. If the GM isn't playing with ranges, then the talent isn't going to be worthwhile, if they are throwing out more tactically challenging battles, then the talent becomes very useful.

If they're fleeing or have a jetpack then either you won't have the action to attack as you're chasing, or you will have the action because you're fast enough to keep up, so you may as well just keep attacking them and knocking them down really does nothing. It would only be beneficial if they MIGHT flee but then...

You're a maurader, you have lethal blows and very likely have a vibro ax. Changing an AT LEAST +50 crit for a knockdown is just plain dumb 99% of the time. I can see it used with a bounty hunter trying to intimidate a target or something, but for the typical case of trying to eliminate someone it won't get used. And since it will so rarely be used it's worthless.

I wouldn't call it dumb, I'll say that if your GM bases conflicts PRIMARILY on static moving NPCs that rush into an attack, then knockdown is a waste of a talent. If all you need in a fight is DPS (which I find mind numbing and lacking creativity), then spending experience on abilities for controlling a fight is pointless. It's when a GM is throwing creative enemies, or tactical combat into a skirmish, then tactical abilities, such as knockdown, shine. If you have a Storm Trooper minion group and an Imperial Officer, how many time in a Star Wars movie or book, does that Imperial Officer just sit their and fight? Typically they try and run if things are going bad and call in reinforcements. Now make this a particularly challenging Imperial Officer (maybe a decent amount of HP, or wearing armor... Something of that nature where critting him might not get the job done), and you given a choice as a PC when you roll a triumph, he's running for an alarm, which is 2 move distance away, for the Imperial officer to get there, it would require a two maneuver turn and a second two maneuver turn. IF the opponent is made tough enough, the call to use an ability to knock him down and prevent him from subbing strain for 4 maneuvers is HUGE as reinforcements could break the back of the team. This is just one example of how knockdown can be used... Another is thermal detonators - it's almost better to sub the knockdown and prevent the thermal detonator from going off on a teammate. Or, in the case where a character is trying to get in to a vehicle, that may turn the tide of a battle, critting him may not kill him, but knocking him down and forcing him to not being able to get in to that vehicle could turn the tide of the battle. Same with foe trying to move out of the room and shut a blast door, critting him could deal some damage, but if he doesn't die, he gets out of the room, next thing you know you've got full-health battle droids on your party....

These are examples of where knockdown is better than a critical hit. If your GM is just sending Storm Troopers at you and the only thing their doing is aim, shoot, take cover, shoot, etc. then having an ability to knock down an opponent is useless... But if your GM is throwing out dynamic battles, then knockdown can easily become an asset... Especially with a high dice pool.

I'll agree on the jetpack (also known as the suicide sled if it gets disabled at anything but the lowest altitude), but no one in this game seems to run any faster than anyone else. Two maneuvers is the max. There's also the chase rules, but rarely will you have those at the same time as an ongoing conflict - it's usually one or the other.

I mention Jetpacks mainly due to the fact that a well palyed Jetpack combatant is difficult to battle. They can easily manipulate ranges, and knocking them down for a turn or two can make a big difference. Fighting Boba Fett would be a pain in the ass force instance, unless you managed to knock his ass to the ground... or you have the Force like a certain Jedi Knight...

I believe that a standard listed use of a Triumph is to disable an opponent's gear. When that's a jetpack, the results are ugly. Falling damage can take someone out of a fight really quick. I'd spend my Triumph for that any time. For Knockdown, not so much.

I believe that a standard listed use of a Triumph is to disable an opponent's gear. When that's a jetpack, the results are ugly. Falling damage can take someone out of a fight really quick. I'd spend my Triumph for that any time. For Knockdown, not so much.

This makes sense, but you could get fun with combat from a narrative standpoint.. If a Jetpack NPC uses a maneuver to 'Engage' with your Marauder, then uses strain for a second maneuver to Jump in to the air, I'm not sure how smart using a triumph to Destroy his Jetpack would be... Maybe you'd want to use Knockdown to to bring him sailing back to the ground .

I wouldn't call it dumb, I'll say that if your GM bases conflicts PRIMARILY on static moving NPCs that rush into an attack, then knockdown is a waste of a talent. If all you need in a fight is DPS (which I find mind numbing and lacking creativity), then spending experience on abilities for controlling a fight is pointless. It's when a GM is throwing creative enemies, or tactical combat into a skirmish, then tactical abilities, such as knockdown, shine.

I think the point you are failing to understand is that a crit does more to control a fight than knockdown does.

Hamstrung, winded and compromised are all FAR better at stopping someone from running, and those are low crit rolls. How about having a limb chopped off or being blinded for hindering someone from fleeing?

You can pretend your superior creative GMing would somehow make knocking someone over more effective than hacking their leg off, but I'll stick with knocking them senseless rather than knocking them down.

I think the point you are failing to understand is that a crit does more to control a fight than knockdown does.

Hamstrung, winded and compromised are all FAR better at stopping someone from running, and those are low crit rolls. How about having a limb chopped off or being blinded for hindering someone from fleeing?

You can pretend your superior creative GMing would somehow make knocking someone over more effective than hacking their leg off, but I'll stick with knocking them senseless rather than knocking them down.

Now that that is out of the way, I want to say that I do understand your point and that the argument of the lack of functionality of the talent is simply not true. This is a useful talent and inexpensive for a Marauder (but scout is a different story that's a call for the scout if they are going melee or not). In any case, as a Marauder you gain a talent that's rather inexpensive and for a Triumph, you gain the ability to knock an opponent prone in addition eliminating the use a Maneuver... This almost the equivalent of a mid level critical injury, early game. It's extremely effective early game less proficiency dice, because prone gives a boost die to a melee attacker. So, effectively, early game using knockdown can setup a critical hit when getting the boost for attacking a prone combatant and aiming next turn. The key here is that critical hits are triggered via advantages and the talent is triggered via a triumph (making a target go prone and dealing damage is pretty nice bonus for a triumph when looking at everything that can be done). Additional triumphs can be spent to knock larger silhouettes down, which is awesome!

Dealing critical hits must a. Result in a successful melee attack, b. damage of the hit must exceed the soak value of the target and c. Must be triggered using advantage listed. Also, beginning players will only realistically have a talent level in lethal blows giving and maybe a vibroaxe with vicious 1... This starts the critical hit threshold low at best, but still a little potent. I'd say with that setup you'd be just as able to Knocking a foe down then hamstringing them effectively.

One of the big keys here is the damage must exceed soak (which it should, other than hefty enemies). But if the damage doesn't exceed soak, then no crit... Or if you don't roll enough advantages for a crit. But if you roll a triumph, you can still knock your foe down and set yourself for critting them with two boost dies (from prone and aim).

Again, you can stack a crit and a knockdown by rolling a triumph which results in a rather brutal attack. This applies to higher levels as well, where you should be experiencing more difficult combatants (more setback/challenge dice), high soak combatants, setbacks/challenges with environments, fleeing opponents, GMs playing tactical... Etc... The fact that the talent uses a Triumph and Crits use advantage gives versatility. As I've said, the knockdown talent is best used when Crits aren't enough....