The fact is that after a while the more aggressive combat characters will stand out compared to the less aggressive ones. That is the way of it. But your game can be balanced in many different ways.

I've adapted to this exact problem by building combat around the 2 main combat characters. The other players can contribute in that they can shoot, but they are hardly my focus.

Work harder at providing noncombat entertainment for the less combat focused.

If you only have half your party participating at any time, why are you even playing an RPG? Break out a board game and everyone can have fun the whole time. It's difficult enough to keep players engaged when they all have internet devices in their hands but if the system actually promotes characters having such dramatically different abilities to contribute at for large portions of the game, then there is a problem with the game that the GM needs to deal with.

You missing the point of my post.

All players contribute wherever possible. In combat droid slicers and hair dressers do not shine even though they can both use blasters.

Out of combat non-combatants shine. If hair dressing is the deal then your hair dresser will rock.

This isn't a new concept. Read any adventure for any game system.

I didn't miss your point, you seem to fail to understand that about half the time half the people in the party may as well be surfing the web rather than playing the game.

Most games do not have the massive disparity between character abilities that EotE has. I've read and played tons of game systems and adventures and EotE stands way out on this. I question if you've played any other game if you don't appreciate this.

Although not as much a problem out of combat thanks to being able to use any skill untrained, in combat the difference between a 13 soak character and a 3 soak character is absolutely ridiculous and you do not see this in other games. At least not in games that aren't awful.

Really? Like how like switching from AC to Will goes from 20% hit to auto hit? Or Going after the fighter is 20% but the Wiz an auto hit?

I agree with Maelora that being able to shrug off blaster hits isnt starwarsy but it is most definitely not such a game breaker that you make it out to be. There are plenty of ways to challenge all the party members in a fight, it just requires some ability to control the flow of the battle and tailoring the opponents. Making the battle about giving the combat monster a chance to shine instead of an exersize in party slaughter isnt all that hard.

Metagaming is usually given a negative view, but in this game the GM must use metagaming to keep combat encounters challenging for some charaters but not overwhelming for others. If your group is opposed to metagaming on all levels, this will be a problem.

I don't worry much about it. The random nature of combat means even the toughest characters can be taken out by a lucky shot. And for all the times they aren't, then their character is working as intended. If anything, this system promotes all characters to join combat as even the most non-combat among them can contribute even if it is just passing a die ("I distract him!") to the combat monster to help him take out the big baddy.

In my case our Marauder has a soak of 7 (this is likely to go up by 2 at next level), and 19 wounds. He uses a vibro sword and he's also a force sensitive exile with the Force Sense Power.

He's un optimized since I made him pay for force abilities at the start of the game. He's still a bit of a gump since he's having to spread his progression across two talent trees, skills, and force power.

I am noticing that the other players are more flexible and capable out of combat because they have a narrower focus on development... Just one talent tree, and skills, makes them really effective.

Metagaming is usually given a negative view, but in this game the GM must use metagaming to keep combat encounters challenging for some charaters but not overwhelming for others. If your group is opposed to metagaming on all levels, this will be a problem.

I agree with that. Although its been my experience that you always have to metagame. You can't really plan an encounter unless you know kinda what your players are like and how they will handle the situation. I do like it when they surprise me though. I'm liking Beyond The Rim because its built to be flexible around not just the story, but also the encounters.

I don't worry much about it. The random nature of combat means even the toughest characters can be taken out by a lucky shot. And for all the times they aren't, then their character is working as intended. If anything, this system promotes all characters to join combat as even the most non-combat among them can contribute even if it is just passing a die ("I distract him!") to the combat monster to help him take out the big baddy.

I agree with this as well. Our Marauder is the 'tank' or 'Defender' for the group. His job is to stand there and take it. And he's had more than his share of bad luck.

He spends most of his time in the Bacta tank. Heck.. he should trade in his bunk for a heated bacta tank. When battling the Cyber Nexu he took no damage... he got critted 3 times. The player was so scared that his next fight with the Nexu would be his last, he leaped out of the ship.. (Medium, 30 damage, 20 stun, oh, and another crit.)

The other players contribute but often miss, mostly due to bad luck than anything else. Passing the bonus dice to the combat lead is a time honored battle technique. (Fantasy role players call this 'Buffing'.)

The soak rules do seem to be the weak point of a system I otherwise enjoy. Much too easy to exploit.

But then I ban armour, unless your name is Boba Fett or Darth Vader.

Casually laughing off blaster fire just doesn't feel star wars-y.

I kinda like the way that looks and feels for a game.

Ultimately armor soak gets drowned out by the experience of the character.

Do you do anything to reduce damage from blasters? I've seen a few threads complaining about Autofire and damage enhancement.

The other issue is that Toughness also goes up pretty quick. Our Marauder can shrug off heavy blaster fire... naked.

Lastly, Force Sense works a treat in combat. Upgrading your enemy to red dice hurts them BAD.

A complete aside that popped into my head...

(to the tune of Drunken Sailor)

What do ya do with a 9 soak wardroid?

What do ya do with a 9 soak wardroid?

What do ya do with a 9 soak wardroid?

Earli in the battle?

Shoot em dead with a trusty at-at...

Shoot em dead with a trusty at-at...

Shoot em dead with a trusty at-at...

and leave him rustin to bits.

etc, and so forth...

Auto fire from the bounty hunter dished out 33 damage the other day.. The second attack scored 2 crits. She ain't even optimized. Now how much soak would your dead guy have? Does it matter? Yellow dice equals death in Star Wars. 33 damage? A Rancor would be going yip yip yip.

Autofire is widely regarded as broken, so claiming one broken mechanic makes another okay isn't much of an argument.

Also, you're doing autofire wrong. You get soak on each hit. If that was 3 hits your 13 soak character takes ZERO damage, your 3 soak character takes TWENTY FOUR. See the disparity?

And although it may be a houserule, we don't do criticals when you take 0 damage as it makes no sense.

I'm pretty sure that you have to actually take damage to suffer the critical. But I'm AFB and can't verify right now.

That is true, yes.

"A critical injury can only be triggered on a successful hit that deals damage that exceeds the target's soak value." CRB158, CRITICAL RATING section.

-EF

Auto fire from the bounty hunter dished out 33 damage the other day.. The second attack scored 2 crits. She ain't even optimized. Now how much soak would your dead guy have? Does it matter? Yellow dice equals death in Star Wars. 33 damage? A Rancor would be going yip yip yip.

Autofire is widely regarded as broken, so claiming one broken mechanic makes another okay isn't much of an argument.

Also, you're doing autofire wrong. You get soak on each hit. If that was 3 hits your 13 soak character takes ZERO damage, your 3 soak character takes TWENTY FOUR. See the disparity?

And although it may be a houserule, we don't do criticals when you take 0 damage as it makes no sense.

On that note, my house rule for Auto-fire is that a maximum of one hit may be allocated per target. This makes Auto-fire useful against groups of foes without it being game-breaking.

I also remove Auto-fire from the Heavy Blaster Rifle (but give it Stun Setting along with the same rules as the Heavy Blaster Pistol regarding running out of ammo). Auto-fire is thus only available on the LRB and HRB. This is done for two reasons. First, the RAW version of the HBR makes it clearly better than the LRB once attachments and mods are considered. This change gives a reason for the LRB to exist. Secondly, now both of the personal scale weapons that allow Auto-fire are Restricted.

Auto fire from the bounty hunter dished out 33 damage the other day.. The second attack scored 2 crits. She ain't even optimized. Now how much soak would your dead guy have? Does it matter? Yellow dice equals death in Star Wars. 33 damage? A Rancor would be going yip yip yip.

Autofire is widely regarded as broken, so claiming one broken mechanic makes another okay isn't much of an argument.

Also, you're doing autofire wrong. You get soak on each hit. If that was 3 hits your 13 soak character takes ZERO damage, your 3 soak character takes TWENTY FOUR. See the disparity?

And although it may be a houserule, we don't do criticals when you take 0 damage as it makes no sense.

Drop the attitude... I get that you think it's broken but I don't have that concern. Pretty much every game has this issue. Get a Pathfinder wizard and ask him to stab a fighter... Then get that fighter to stab the wizard. See the similarity? Now Imagine optimized characters. Our 9th level fighter is AC 30 DR 6 (the player worked hard at this). A 9th level wizard needs a 20 to hit him (causing 0 damage), while the fighter can't miss. (Interestingly most boss monsters have no trouble hitting that fighter, and it's even easier to hit the wizard. The wizard has way way less hit points.)

Standard tactics in Pathfinder are to stand the crunchy meat bags up front. By virtue of being there, they get hurt. Artillery at the back deals the damage.

When I run games everyone contributes quite a bit all over the place, including fighting. They don't stop playing as you described. So I therefore cannot reach your conclusions.

More importantly are you looking at what other people are doing to deal with this? My guys only have about 200XP earned, so this may not be a serious concern for me yet.

I get that you think it's broken but I don't have that concern. Pretty much every game has this issue. Get a Pathfinder wizard and ask him to stab a fighter... Then get that fighter to stab the wizard. See the similarity?

I also remove Auto-fire from the Heavy Blaster Rifle (but give it Stun Setting along with the same rules as the Heavy Blaster Pistol regarding running out of ammo). Auto-fire is thus only available on the LRB and HRB. This is done for two reasons. First, the RAW version of the HBR makes it clearly better than the LRB one attachments and mods are considered. This change gives a reason for the LRB to exist. Secondly, now both of the personal scale weapons that allow Auto-fire are Restricted.

Interesting, I will check this.

So let me get this straight, your argument is that if you take a wizard, remove their spells, stripping 95% of the class abilities from them, that they are useless in combat compared to another class that you don't strip all the power from.

Okay, I can totally see the similarity... Artificially destroying the balance in another game can make it similar to the lack of balance in EotE. Got it.

Except it's still not similar. Hacking both arms off a fighter or forcing a wizard to exist in an anti-magic field are extremely exceptional circumstances the GM has to impose on the characters. However having two characters who spend their XP on different things causing one to be practically immune to damage and the other to have merely average damage resistance is something that just comes up naturally and is imposed on the GM.

The thing I hated was that my DM would always toss a number of critters at us that was even. An Orc at level 1 was pretty scary. "Magic Missile!", followed by "owe owe owe! Heal me! Protect me!" Especially if they got the drop on us. The wizard can't go toe to toe. No matter how well you prepare, you can't get it right every time. The party never thanks you for putting them to sleep. "Sorry guys it's all I had memorized."

When we were prepared which was a good 75% of the time I put the crunchy meat shields up front. They couldn't really do damage, not like the wizard. They participated, but really they were protecting me, and they knew it. I killed the dragon while they took the damage protecting me.

In Pathfinder the first time the wizard takes damage it's game over. He can't make a concentration check and that is the end of it.

These are all boiling down to the same tropes. Striker, Defender. Defenders soak up the DMs attacks and damage. Strikers dish it out but tend to have a glass jaw. 13 Soak = Defender.

Trying to deal with your personal concerns... Did you take note of what the other players said? Maybe instead of ranting, you could ask for ideas or help? What about earning soak at half the rate after the first 2 points? Did you like the idea or pierce pecks through for pierce damage? Do you like the idea of crits hurting your players?

You can call yourself a defender, but when the enemy downs all of your squishy friends by the end of turn two before concentrating on you, how is that really defending them?

You can call yourself a defender, but when the enemy downs all of your squishy friends by the end of turn two before concentrating on you, how is that really defending them?

It's pretty rare that I can set up my players in such a disadvantageous position, aaaand with something as tough as you say. I used ship board lasers on the squishies in the last session. No... They didn't last. But that was how the story brought it together and they had lots of opportunity to prevent it.

You can solve this another way... Set up most of your fights around harming all the players Let him mop clean up and never take a point of damage. Make him earn his defender status. Nail him with the Boss. Surprise him with the odd critter. How do tangle grenades work?

Look at the 13 soak droid... By that time your folks who are good with guns are rolling 5Y dice on what will likely be a pretty effective gun. Against 2P? That guy can't miss. Scale the enemies accordingly.

HappyDaze... Don't you have a guy carrying a really really big gun? The Heavy Repeating Blaster? I bet that works great with 5Y dice.

Come to think of it our marauder with force sense is well on his way to effectively downgrading attacks (2R) against him. That's worth more than soak points.

Hello.

Funny that this discussion still boils ... And I wonder how much comparissons with Pathfinder or other RPGs might help.

But anyway

The fact is that after a while the more aggressive combat characters will stand out compared to the less aggressive ones. That is the way of it. But your game can be balanced in many different ways.

Exactly. Since maxed out combat characters are outstanding rules-wisely as well as tehmatically, a proper means of baancing this is: let the universe response to such characters.

Hard to be crushed characters will appear on someone's radar; and if he thinks that these characters might become a problem to him or his businesses, he will take care of it - most likely with middlemen, hired-guns and bounty-hunters.

Now, here is the thin: How do you defeat such a machine? Obviously not with damage; then use different items "catching" and "pinning" him "down". Make him feel and understand that combat is not necessarily about wounding and damaging; but combat may aim at different outcomes. So, let's say, you have the soak 9 droid. Ok, he tanks like crazy and is capable of doing only very few other things. The opponents may wish to use nets, traps, freezing-methods of whatever kind in order to achieve this one thing: immobilize the robot; once immobile, ad a restraint on him and take over his controls. "Bammmm"

In my humble way of looking at thematical and narrative games: the gamers are not the only ones creating the story and background; there is this thing called universe interacting with them. And npcs have their own agendas, motivations, and obligations as well.

Best wishes!

Mad

You can call yourself a defender, but when the enemy downs all of your squishy friends by the end of turn two before concentrating on you, how is that really defending them?

I don't disagree but it does depend how the situation plays out.

It's pretty rare that I can set up my players in such a disadvantageous position, aaaand with something as tough as you say. I used ship board lasers on the squishies in the last session. No... They didn't last. But that was how the story brought it together and they had lots of opportunity to prevent it.

You can solve this another way... Set up most of your fights around harming all the players Let him mop clean up and never take a point of damage. Make him earn his defender status. Nail him with the Boss. Surprise him with the odd critter. How do tangle grenades work?

Look at the 13 soak droid... By that time your folks who are good with guns are rolling 5Y dice on what will likely be a pretty effective gun. Against 2P? That guy can't miss. Scale the enemies accordingly.

HappyDaze... Don't you have a guy carrying a really really big gun? The Heavy Repeating Blaster? I bet that works great with 5Y dice.

Come to think of it our marauder with force sense is well on his way to effectively downgrading attacks (2R) against him. That's worth more than soak points.

Yea just wait till people figure out how OP force sense is when you combine it with Dodge/Sidestep/Defensive Stance. I actually dropped Force Sense because upgrading the GM's attack 5 times was ridiculous.

So let me get this straight, your argument is that if you take a wizard, remove their spells, stripping 95% of the class abilities from them, that they are useless in combat compared to another class that you don't strip all the power from.

Okay, I can totally see the similarity... Artificially destroying the balance in another game can make it similar to the lack of balance in EotE. Got it.

Except it's still not similar. Hacking both arms off a fighter or forcing a wizard to exist in an anti-magic field are extremely exceptional circumstances the GM has to impose on the characters. However having two characters who spend their XP on different things causing one to be practically immune to damage and the other to have merely average damage resistance is something that just comes up naturally and is imposed on the GM.

Why do you bother showing up in this forum if you don't like the game?

The thing I hated was that my DM would always toss a number of critters at us that was even. An Orc at level 1 was pretty scary. "Magic Missile!", followed by "owe owe owe! Heal me! Protect me!" Especially if they got the drop on us. The wizard can't go toe to toe. No matter how well you prepare, you can't get it right every time. The party never thanks you for putting them to sleep. "Sorry guys it's all I had memorized."

When we were prepared which was a good 75% of the time I put the crunchy meat shields up front. They couldn't really do damage, not like the wizard. They participated, but really they were protecting me, and they knew it. I killed the dragon while they took the damage protecting me.

In Pathfinder the first time the wizard takes damage it's game over. He can't make a concentration check and that is the end of it.

These are all boiling down to the same tropes. Striker, Defender. Defenders soak up the DMs attacks and damage. Strikers dish it out but tend to have a glass jaw. 13 Soak = Defender.

Trying to deal with your personal concerns... Did you take note of what the other players said? Maybe instead of ranting, you could ask for ideas or help? What about earning soak at half the rate after the first 2 points? Did you like the idea or pierce pecks through for pierce damage? Do you like the idea of crits hurting your players?

While it's true that different characters can have different roles and therefore there can be power disparity between characters in different niches, if the power difference is too great then you can have problems. Yes, in DnD/PF the wizard getting hit by an orc is in trouble. But the orc can still hit and hurt the fighter. The GM doesn't have to carefully choose the antagonists so that they will be a threat to the fighter yet not auto-kill all the other PCs. He doesn't have to throw in a group of goblins + a troll, then have the troll only attack the fighter while the troll only attacks the others. A system that forces the GM to do that is a flawed system - it forces too many constraints on him, often making certain types of encounter pointless or impossible, while also potentially disrupting the player's enjoyment of the game.

You can call yourself a defender, but when the enemy downs all of your squishy friends by the end of turn two before concentrating on you, how is that really defending them?

By getting a better GM. One who actually understands the purpose of the combat encounter.

By getting better players. Ones who know that their role is to make sure they dont get shot.

The pupose of the combat encounter is to let the combat monsters shine, not to shoot the non-combat characters cause they are eaiser to take down. Just like a non-combat encounter is to let the non-combat characters shine. You dont make the wookie brawler fly the ship, the face do the barehand cage match, or the pilot have to talk his way past the security checkpoint.

This means that when you are making a combat encounter, not every opponent needs to be able to take down the combat monster. Having one or two badass opponents for the monster and a bunch of lesser rivals or minions for the rest of the party to shoot at works pretty well. The monster dosent really have a choice about who to go after, cause the badass enemies will tear up the rest of the party, and if you set it up right, he wont even want to.

That is assuming that the fight even needs to be dangerous by itself. Most fights, the combat monster should be a monster. If it isnt a climactic fight, then the bad guys dont even need to be able to take him down. A room full of low level thugs for instance. Let him go in and do his thing. Sometimes you dont need a gun you just need a Donk.

This all ignores the fact that the GM shooting the squishies first when the monster is hulking out in the middle of the fight is really just a bad move by the GM. This isnt a tactical combat game. The fights dont have to be the best tactics or even good tactics, and most people's first inclination is to take out the big threat first, not the other way around. Deliberately shooting the others first is only the GM choice, and in general, a poor one. If you walk into a fight where the bad guys have two HRB crews and two minion groups of stormies, you dont have the HRB shoot the squishies first. The whole point of the HRBs is the monster, and let him shine by getting machinegunned and shrugging it off! Let him then waste the big threat while the others shoot up the minions. Heck, that is what minions are for too.

That is why alot of us dont think that the high soak is such a problem. It is a tool. A way to keep the party from gettting gunned down in an ambush, not the cause of getting gunned down in an ambush.

You can call yourself a defender, but when the enemy downs all of your squishy friends by the end of turn two before concentrating on you, how is that really defending them?

By getting a better GM. One who actually understands the purpose of the combat encounter.

By getting better players. Ones who know that their role is to make sure they dont get shot.

The pupose of the combat encounter is to let the combat monsters shine, not to shoot the non-combat characters cause they are eaiser to take down. Just like a non-combat encounter is to let the non-combat characters shine. You dont make the wookie brawler fly the ship, the face do the barehand cage match, or the pilot have to talk his way past the security checkpoint.

This means that when you are making a combat encounter, not every opponent needs to be able to take down the combat monster. Having one or two badass opponents for the monster and a bunch of lesser rivals or minions for the rest of the party to shoot at works pretty well. The monster dosent really have a choice about who to go after, cause the badass enemies will tear up the rest of the party, and if you set it up right, he wont even want to.

That is assuming that the fight even needs to be dangerous by itself. Most fights, the combat monster should be a monster. If it isnt a climactic fight, then the bad guys dont even need to be able to take him down. A room full of low level thugs for instance. Let him go in and do his thing. Sometimes you dont need a gun you just need a Donk.

This all ignores the fact that the GM shooting the squishies first when the monster is hulking out in the middle of the fight is really just a bad move by the GM. This isnt a tactical combat game. The fights dont have to be the best tactics or even good tactics, and most people's first inclination is to take out the big threat first, not the other way around. Deliberately shooting the others first is only the GM choice, and in general, a poor one. If you walk into a fight where the bad guys have two HRB crews and two minion groups of stormies, you dont have the HRB shoot the squishies first. The whole point of the HRBs is the monster, and let him shine by getting machinegunned and shrugging it off! Let him then waste the big threat while the others shoot up the minions. Heck, that is what minions are for too.

That is why alot of us dont think that the high soak is such a problem. It is a tool. A way to keep the party from gettting gunned down in an ambush, not the cause of getting gunned down in an ambush.

You make some good points. I think A LOT of people myself included are too stuck in the min/max MMO type of thinking where you get rid of the minions then go after the boss all the while focus firing until your target is dead.

Remember the battle between Padme and Darth Maul? Yea I don't ether because the 2 Jedi stepped up and her crew did something they could handle.

It may or may not be the game just the way we perceive how combat was in every other game we've played.

In D&D you NEVER split the party up. Maybe we should in EoTE?

Apparently some people still think this is a GM vs Players hobby. You're not playing chess. You are creating a fantastic story where you are the heroes. Creating a big baddy to "challenge" the tank is bad/wrong GMing. At the core this is a game with a random nature. So when you create this challenging opponent, there is a good chance that he will take out your tank, and then mop the floor with the rest of the group. Now that being said, depending on how you set up the encounter this could actually be a good thing as it may give the others the ability to shine using their abilities where the tank's failed. Anyways, by trying to "challenge" this character, you run the risk of doing the exact thing that people are saying here about the high-soak character, which is unbalancing everything.

Man I get such a kick out of it when I see my players revel in their characters. Especially when their characters get to do the things they built them to do. Nothing makes me smile more.

Lots of good points.

Should I be really really angry that my stealthy droid is pushing 4Y2G? Should I punish him for it? Its not like anyone is going to notice him. Theoretically he can go anywhere he pleases. He's also a kick *ss slicer. (In reality he's a dumb player, and I know he will do something really really stupid at a very inopportune time. So, let him shine until that time.)

Crimson Death: I've decided that the player's nemesis will be droids, because their minds can't be read. This will weaken the marauder's Force Sense at important battles, and allow the other players to shine.

mouthymerc: Naked, fresh out of the bacta tank, 1 wound, yelling... charging down a corridor at a squad of storm troopers. "Yaaahhhhhh!!!"

I also hear some more great suggestions for how to deal with this melee monster. Let him shine a lot, hurt the others. Set a trap, a physical trap. "Sire, the droid of death is going to be at the station in 10 days what should be do?" "Did you build the room with 3 pits in it like I asked?" "Move my throne to the other side of the pits." Just make this wee agility roll to avoid falling in the pit... fail huh? One sided characters tend to fail pretty hard because they are so useless at other things. The Soak 13 war droid is brain dead trap fodder.

Coming back to Scathing Tirade... I was thinking about that, but you could run this like some sort of anti droid defense system. Swarming Little Droids (minions) come floating in issuing binary shut down orders to all droids in range. Now your players gotta defeat those to keep the war droid in the game.

What about sending him down a corridor full of blaster defenses? It won't hurt him much, but it will make the other players glad they brought him along, 'cause they don't want to go there.

You also don't have to solve this problem all the time. Just when he wants to shine the most, you make him earn it.

One of the things I like about SW:EOTE is that I don't have to fill every session with fights. We do a lot of stuff, lots of other stuff. This gives me more time to make fights fun and exciting.

I do have one other suggestion if this is a concern for you... Tell him not to build such an optimized character. Tell hiim you think it will throw off your DM Mojo.

Oh! Magnetic floor! Then ignore him.

Lots of good points.

Should I be really really angry that my stealthy droid is pushing 4Y2G? Should I punish him for it? Its not like anyone is going to notice him. Theoretically he can go anywhere he pleases. He's also a kick *ss slicer. (In reality he's a dumb player, and I know he will do something really really stupid at a very inopportune time. So, let him shine until that time.)

Crimson Death: I've decided that the player's nemesis will be droids, because their minds can't be read. This will weaken the marauder's Force Sense at important battles, and allow the other players to shine.

mouthymerc: Naked, fresh out of the bacta tank, 1 wound, yelling... charging down a corridor at a squad of storm troopers. "Yaaahhhhhh!!!"

I also hear some more great suggestions for how to deal with this melee monster. Let him shine a lot, hurt the others. Set a trap, a physical trap. "Sire, the droid of death is going to be at the station in 10 days what should be do?" "Did you build the room with 3 pits in it like I asked?" "Move my throne to the other side of the pits." Just make this wee agility roll to avoid falling in the pit... fail huh? One sided characters tend to fail pretty hard because they are so useless at other things. The Soak 13 war droid is brain dead trap fodder.

Coming back to Scathing Tirade... I was thinking about that, but you could run this like some sort of anti droid defense system. Swarming Little Droids (minions) come floating in issuing binary shut down orders to all droids in range. Now your players gotta defeat those to keep the war droid in the game.

What about sending him down a corridor full of blaster defenses? It won't hurt him much, but it will make the other players glad they brought him along, 'cause they don't want to go there.

You also don't have to solve this problem all the time. Just when he wants to shine the most, you make him earn it.

One of the things I like about SW:EOTE is that I don't have to fill every session with fights. We do a lot of stuff, lots of other stuff. This gives me more time to make fights fun and exciting.

I do have one other suggestion if this is a concern for you... Tell him not to build such an optimized character. Tell hiim you think it will throw off your DM Mojo.

The only time you should be angry with a player is if they are deliberately doing something to break the game.