That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

That has become my favorite house rule for this system. It is clean and simple and does not seem to really tip the scales too harshly. I haven't gotten to a point in the games I run where I would need it, but it might be useful in the game where I am a PC mechanic.

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

That has become my favorite house rule for this system. It is clean and simple and does not seem to really tip the scales too harshly. I haven't gotten to a point in the games I run where I would need it, but it might be useful in the game where I am a PC mechanic.

Yup it really fixed the problem we had with high soak characters and low soak characters in the same party.

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

That has become my favorite house rule for this system. It is clean and simple and does not seem to really tip the scales too harshly. I haven't gotten to a point in the games I run where I would need it, but it might be useful in the game where I am a PC mechanic.

Yup it really fixed the problem we had with high soak characters and low soak characters in the same party.

Really? Are there that many weapons with Pierce around, or is everyone giving up on blasters and using vibroweapons instead?

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

That's a good rule I think. I was also considering adding the 1 minimum damage rule from WHFB to this as well.

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

That has become my favorite house rule for this system. It is clean and simple and does not seem to really tip the scales too harshly. I haven't gotten to a point in the games I run where I would need it, but it might be useful in the game where I am a PC mechanic.

Yup it really fixed the problem we had with high soak characters and low soak characters in the same party.

Really? Are there that many weapons with Pierce around, or is everyone giving up on blasters and using vibroweapons instead?

Yea there are some 4 pierce ranged weapons in Enter the Unknown.

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

Interesting, in your games does Breach X always cause X*10 damage?

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

That's a good rule I think. I was also considering adding the 1 minimum damage rule from WHFB to this as well.

This is something I did for my Fantasy games using this system. I it always felt right that even the toughest hero could be torn down by a horde of goblins...

That's why my group decided to go with Pierce always happens. IE if you have 30 soak and get hit for 10 and 4 pierce you still take 4 damage even though you have 30 soak.

Interesting, in your games does Breach X always cause X*10 damage?

Good point Yepesnopes... I'm not sure I know how I'd handle that, but it hasn't come up for us either. My first thought would be yes, it does, but where does that leave Jedi in lightsaber vs. lightsaber combat? I'd have to think on that one, but again, it doesn't matter for my group, at least not yet.

This topic makes me pretty depressed, and thankful that I don't have to game with a lot of people on these forums. I've been GMing for a quarter century, and some of the stuff in this thread is positively reprehensible. A lot of GMs seem to be missing one key element:

The GM is not any more important, or less important, than any other player in the game.

If a min-maxer, munchkin, rules-lawyer or other player is messing with your carefully crafted epic story of galactic intrigue and you're looking for ways to deal with them - well, you're wrong. The point of the game is not for the players to play out your story. Players not following your glorious idea, no matter how beautiful or how well thought out it is, are not problem players. Players with absurd stats, impossible skills, crazy weaponry, or any of the like disrupting your game is not a problem - because it is not your game.

The talk of trying to house-rule things in order to limit these players? Looking to find ways to neutralize these players? Who are you to tell a player "your concept of fun is wrong"? Unless the group is not having fun, finding ways to counter things that you find disruptive is just bad GMing. You're telling a player that how they enjoy the game is incorrect - and is doubly egregious if it's in the context of "it's disrupting my story". Your job is to have fun. Every other player's job is to have fun. If their way to have fun is to play a walking tank that can't talk their way out of a wet paper bag, that's great. If your concern is for how bad the story is getting disrupted, maybe you're playing the wrong game - after all, one of the players is telling you that's not the game they want to be playing.

A good GM can work up a combat that engages all the characters. Yes, it takes more time. You can't just grab a handful of similar enemies, slap them in a corridor and call it done. What do you do for low-combat characters? In our group, there's two characters that roll one green for light pistols because they're social/doctor focused. Are they playing "wrong"? No, but there's more thought involved in balancing a combat around "weak" characters, and the same goes for "strong" characters. In some circles, the low-combat characters would be lauded because they're "role play focused" and aren't the sort that just play mindless blaster monkeys, but why is working around their choice in game play any more respected than someone that wants to mow down rows of faceless minions?

As long as everyone is having fun, please just let someone play the character they want. Please don't pull them aside and browbeat them into joining your vision for a brave new world. Remember that you're not there to "tell the story" - the players do that, and if that story is "I shoot him in the face" even when you think that's not at all what should happen, that's viable.

All bets are off when people aren't having fun, though. That does include the GM, but GM unhappiness doesn't trump player happiness.

As I see it high soak characters come in three basic variants; melee, ranged and both. The melee only character is in my opinion the only one that demands special attention, because he requires certain circumstances in order to be able to do his job, i.e. shield the group AND deal damage to the opposition. Luckily, squishy characters tend to favor ranged combat in this system, so you can often engineer encounters, so that the squishy guys are fighting weaker ranged opponents or supporting the tough guy from a distance, while the tough guy(s) engages more dangerous (or numerous) opponents.

Mortanis, you have many valid points in your discussion that many new and long time GM (like my self) should revise from time to time probably. Yet, in my opinion, you oversimplify the situation. Players and a GM agree to play on a given setting, in that case it is Star Wars. Let's say that one of your players comes to you asking to play an elf with a magic bow. Probably you will tell him, well this is SW, there are no elves with magic bows. I presume we all agree on that. Similarly, the high soak tank character (PC and NPC) concept may feel out of place for some gaming groups (to GM and players alike). It is under these circumstances that the issue has to be dealt with, like in my gaming table for example.

Each gaming group (or GM) using different ways, ideas, concepts... We post these ideas in the forums (at least I do) to share it with the others and to discuss them. In my opinion with this procedure the gaming community enriches itself. An idea of someone may inspire others that find themselves in a similar situation. For me, a discussion in the forums it is hardly ever depressing.

Cheers,

Yepes

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.

At the same time, Mortanis, if that one player with his wardroid is having fun, but the GM is frustrated about acceptable challenges and other players are not enjoying how the game is playing out, there is some majority rule that should be considered. Likewise, if the party is mostly noncombatant, but you decide to play a combat character, there should be some combat, but maybe you shouldn't expect most of the game to be combat.

"GM unhappiness doesn't trump player happiness."

Have you ever been completely miserable while GMing a game? I have, though not for the reason of having an overpowered character, but just having a player who was not fun at all to GM for, for a variety of reasons. And I would never say one person's happiness trumps another's. It's a game. If you're not having fun GMing, that is a problem. If the GM isn't having fun GMing, how likely is it that the game is going to keep going?

At the same time, Mortanis, if that one player with his wardroid is having fun, but the GM is frustrated about acceptable challenges and other players are not enjoying how the game is playing out, there is some majority rule that should be considered.

Right. Which is exactly why I said repeatedly "as long as everyone is having fun". One person not having fun, well, that's something that the group should talk about (I'd hope the group is capable of talking things out rationally, but I certainly have run into groups in the past that just let things smolder until they burst into flames unexpectedly, so you can't always control that). More than that and that's a huge red flag that needs to be dealt with right away, because that eats away at a group. It also depends on WHY everyone isn't having fun - "Look, I have to throw a bunch of high level mooks against wardroid over there because of his crazy soak. I'm sorry you guys aren't having fun dying, but it's the only way I can make combat competitive against someone like that" is a contrived grievance. If the GM is trying their hardest to balance things, give things for every player to be useful in combat and wardroid is stomping around like a kid in a mud puddle and the party isn't having fun, that's certainly one thing; if they're upset because the GM it throwing wave after wave of nemesis-level hordes and they're collateral damage, well, it's not actually wardoid's play style that's causing the unhappiness.

Yes, I've been with a completely miserable GM - through some confluence of celestial entities, I've GM'd for 25 years but only played in 2 or 3 campaigns that have lasted less than 6 months each. I'm the miserable GM in those situations, and sometimes it's pretty crappy. I try to listen to what my players want, and it's sometimes conflicting because how in the hell do you combine her love of espionage and treachery with his love of gunning down every NPC that looks crosseyed at him with his roll play need to free every slave everywhere and is a pacifist. We manage, but it's like herding wookies. We all have fun, and if we're not, we try to figure out why.

I just hate to see someone's playstyle picked apart and see people looking for specific counters when I've seen people have their enthusiasm stomped into the mud because "no, you can't do that.". Touchy subject for me I guess. Man, you want to play a pacifist trandoshan scholar? Yeah, okay. That's weird, you're going to struggle, but that's cool. Let's make it work.

Wow... So much food for thought. I find it difficult to comment as I haven't been able to discuss anything with my dm recently due to uni and rl obligations. Hehe. As said i firmly believe everyone should have fun and be firmly engaged, otherwise it's merely a subpar board game. I mean, it is a great game only if you forge the dedication to create vocally dynamic environment. Just as said, this was one hip cup while adjusting to the new system.

I personally don't mind who anyone turns up as, as long as they commit to the chacater, that has been a difficulty for a while now.

Watch the any of the Movies or Clone Wars. Some combat is stand there and shoot, some is avoid the automated factory robots, play chase the paraquat expert or drive a speeder bike at insane speed while shooting at bad guys.

All it takes is one combat that needs anything other than a skill that relies on brawn and our friend may as well be along for the ride.

I would sit him down and not worry about the balance of things. Rather, is this a character that you want to play? If you as the GM split your game session evenly between combat and other encounters, then already he is out of the game half the time. Consider that many combats will require additional skills then maybe 30% of combats has the droid sitting down with little to do. Now, OK, if he wants to play comic relief or be light entertainment for the others in the group he may have fun.

I also think it would be worthwhile finding out what he looks like. With a brawn of 5 and nothing else I get in my mind something like ED-209. So there could be practical limitations as a result, climbing stairs and ladders. Perhaps he weight a couple of hundred kilos and has to be careful not to fall through floors.

Mind you he could provide adventure hooks, a gas leak in the spaceship incapacitates the crew and he has to emergency jump to avoid being shot by some Imperial Tie Fighters. Now, where in the universe are you all?

With such a character, I am not too concerned about the other guys, I am worried about him.

Coordination checks. With few to no railings over bottomless pits that infest the star wars galaxy, you must make coordination checks when walking of fighting on these platforms.

And you think they would have learned the benefit of hand rails!!

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.

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.

As characters grow in capability in their given fields, they are going to grow further apart if they choose to remain specialized. Combat characters will shine in combat and far less so outside of it, while a social character can often accomplish more socially by not bringing the combat character along. In the beginning they could attempt to dabble in the focus areas of the other characters, but later in the game, such attempts appear feeble.

Personally, I've withheld my opinon largely because this is for someone elses benifit (my DM) rather then my own. But it largely depends on the group.

For most part, my group have chosen a fairly balienced approch. We have combat capabilties spread thin throughout orur group, while not really having a outright specialist. We are not making a murder hobo campiagn, but rather one about outback smugglers who end up on the wrong side of a deal. Personally, I feel that the group breaks the fourth wall too often to really enjoy the RPG, but then as long as the DM feels he wants to run it and people are happy to do so, then it will happen. I personally enjoy RPG's, but due to the way recuiting the party occured orignally we have at least a couple of people who are not as interested in the roleplay that have to be entertained never the less. Hence why I am not so interested in hard countering (though that is fun on the odd occation to make a point) and more on the managing.

I am inclined to agree, I've made brawlers more interesting and more liable to not falling flat on his face. After the droid character had died (which wasn't due to a direct counter) he made a gadgetter that still had respectable abilties and a huge combat focus on shooting but was better focused on accomplishing simple tasks, such as easy or average displine check. Just the previous character had raised questions that I raised here, without inherently slaughtering the party.

He has read this thread through by the way, so it's been immensely helpful. Everyone who's posted has my thanks.

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.

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.

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.

Sony... I have Dragon Issue 1 on the wall... I purchased the first Emissary in Canada. I sold my Magic to pay for my house.

http://www.worldworksgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8453

I used to have Chainmail decades ago but I tossed it in the trash when I hit high school. But I still have my original AD&D books which I bought in the 70s. (You remember that? Wizards rule, fighters drool. Talk about disparity.)

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.

Unfortunately storm trooper minions have the same damage output and are better shots than our bounty hunter.

Soak what? I can't hear you over your screams of agony.

Repeatedly what I have said and what you glance over is that the other players have been playing in all the fights and having fun. Having Fun...

And you have obviously not played much if you haven't noticed how much more damage you can do than how much soak you can take. Really take look at it, it's never too late to do it for the very first time.. Gosh what if the gadgeteer used Jury Rig to reduce auto fire cost by 1? The Droid Slicer's Blaster Pistol has a base damage of 9 and pierce 2. Your soak is what? How low? 13?

Your soak ain't high enough.

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.

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.