Didn't read the entire thread because I'm at work. But all I've got to say is it's up the GM. If you want to make it harder, just do it and give your reason if the players ask why.

Well it's not the GM's game it's the groups game so if a majority see it as an issue then make the change, if not then leave it. This GM is a god paradigm is High School level thinking, time to grow up.

Well, that kind of thinking was also fairly incumbent to the d20 system and it's derivatives, with a lot of the game responsibility being placed on the GM's shoulders, such as being the final arbiter of the rules. It's only fairly recently that various game responsibilities are encouraged to be shared amongst the group rather than simply being left up to the GM.

Granted, there are gamer groups who've been doing this for a while and for whom such an idea of shared responsibility isn't anything new, but there are a generation of gamers who were introduced to this hobby and weaned on 3rd Edition D&D, where the only rules the players generally need to be aware of are the ones that directly impact their character, particularly what bonuses to apply and when to apply them (4e being fairly notorious for this).

And for some of these players, making the transition to a system where they have more of a shared responsibility in telling the story and interpreting the rules isn't a transition they are comfortable or even willing to make.

An unskilled opponent can already use Guarded Stance and add a setback die, I'd be loathe to see anything else by stats because that lessens the talents and the careers. Natural athletic ability is a great way to start but it is zero substitute for training and experience, that goes for the RL and RPGs imo. You can be a Russian ballerina and be graceful and agile beyond words and that does not translate into an able opponent in a hand to hand encounter.

I actually saw a case of this sort of thing first hand several years back.

Guy 1 was very much into gymnastics, and was very quick and agile. Guy 2 was a middle-aged man who'd been an amateur boxer in his younger years. Guy 1 thought that Guy 2 was too slow and that his quickness and agility would allow him to simply evade anything Guy 2 threw at him. After about a minute, Guy 2 laid Guy 1 out with pretty impressive one-two combo, in spite of not being as quick/agile. Seeing as how Guy 1 didn't have any actual fighting experience, this made perfect sense, as he didn't have the acumen to anticipate precisely when Guy 2 would make his attacks, particularly if using short/quick jabs rather than farm boy* style haymakers.

As a counter-point, in a separate incident, Guy 2 had a "friendly bout" with Guy 3, who was a bit younger and had several years of karate under his belt. It was a far more even contest, as both Guy 2 and Guy 3 had learned defensive traits that enabled them to anticipate and either deflect or evade their opponent's attack, though Guy 2 had a rougher time of it as his training didn't really work that well against attacks aimed at the legs and knees, but that's a level of detail that's not really relevant to most RPGs.

*There was an instance I wound up in a bar fight with a farm boy. Telegraphed his punches a week in advance, but I've no doubt they would have hurt like blazes if they'd connected. I made a point to thank my Tai Chi instructor the next time I saw him after that.

Great points, thank you! I have never been in a fight (a real fight), that does make sense that although the quick guy can dodge a few hits, eventually he's going to get clocked.

So how do I reflect a character's training in Brawl or Melee in their defense? It's a little silly that the difficulty to hit a well-trained martial artist (Brawn 3, Brawl 3) and a moisture farmer (Brawn 3, no skills), is both 2 difficulty dice!

Then we get into lightsaber combat. It shouldn't be nearly the same difficulty to hit Yoda wielding a lightsaber as it is to hit a moisture farmer. Let's say Yoda has some talents that add setback dice, plus upgrade his dice to d12's, maybe even three times, giving us 2 d12's and 1d8 difficulty. That's still only three difficulty dice and a couple setback to an attacker's (probably) 4 dice (two or more of which are d12's). Two hits on Yoda (since lightsabers ignore soak), and the little guy's dead in 12 to 24 seconds.

Didn't read the entire thread because I'm at work. But all I've got to say is it's up the GM. If you want to make it harder, just do it and give your reason if the players ask why.

Well it's not the GM's game it's the groups game so if a majority see it as an issue then make the change, if not then leave it. This GM is a god paradigm is High School level thinking, time to grow up.

Well, that kind of thinking was also fairly incumbent to the d20 system and it's derivatives, with a lot of the game responsibility being placed on the GM's shoulders, such as being the final arbiter of the rules. It's only fairly recently that various game responsibilities are encouraged to be shared amongst the group rather than simply being left up to the GM.

Granted, there are gamer groups who've been doing this for a while and for whom such an idea of shared responsibility isn't anything new, but there are a generation of gamers who were introduced to this hobby and weaned on 3rd Edition D&D, where the only rules the players generally need to be aware of are the ones that directly impact their character, particularly what bonuses to apply and when to apply them (4e being fairly notorious for this).

And for some of these players, making the transition to a system where they have more of a shared responsibility in telling the story and interpreting the rules isn't a transition they are comfortable or even willing to make.

Totally agree. Though I am about to start with a 5 player group containing a majority of those D20, 3rd Ed + players, I am still peppered with texts and emails how great their character builds are and how they are going to smash me, the GM. The mentality around GM versus player is still prevalent, despite my messages that this game mechanic is very different and considering we had two playtests already. Will be a slow transition to ween these guys of that drug.

An unskilled opponent can already use Guarded Stance and add a setback die, I'd be loathe to see anything else by stats because that lessens the talents and the careers. Natural athletic ability is a great way to start but it is zero substitute for training and experience, that goes for the RL and RPGs imo. You can be a Russian ballerina and be graceful and agile beyond words and that does not translate into an able opponent in a hand to hand encounter.

I actually saw a case of this sort of thing first hand several years back.

Guy 1 was very much into gymnastics, and was very quick and agile. Guy 2 was a middle-aged man who'd been an amateur boxer in his younger years. Guy 1 thought that Guy 2 was too slow and that his quickness and agility would allow him to simply evade anything Guy 2 threw at him. After about a minute, Guy 2 laid Guy 1 out with pretty impressive one-two combo, in spite of not being as quick/agile. Seeing as how Guy 1 didn't have any actual fighting experience, this made perfect sense, as he didn't have the acumen to anticipate precisely when Guy 2 would make his attacks, particularly if using short/quick jabs rather than farm boy* style haymakers.

As a counter-point, in a separate incident, Guy 2 had a "friendly bout" with Guy 3, who was a bit younger and had several years of karate under his belt. It was a far more even contest, as both Guy 2 and Guy 3 had learned defensive traits that enabled them to anticipate and either deflect or evade their opponent's attack, though Guy 2 had a rougher time of it as his training didn't really work that well against attacks aimed at the legs and knees, but that's a level of detail that's not really relevant to most RPGs.

*There was an instance I wound up in a bar fight with a farm boy. Telegraphed his punches a week in advance, but I've no doubt they would have hurt like blazes if they'd connected. I made a point to thank my Tai Chi instructor the next time I saw him after that.

Great points, thank you! I have never been in a fight (a real fight), that does make sense that although the quick guy can dodge a few hits, eventually he's going to get clocked.

So how do I reflect a character's training in Brawl or Melee in their defense? It's a little silly that the difficulty to hit a well-trained martial artist (Brawn 3, Brawl 3) and a moisture farmer (Brawn 3, no skills), is both 2 difficulty dice!

Then we get into lightsaber combat. It shouldn't be nearly the same difficulty to hit Yoda wielding a lightsaber as it is to hit a moisture farmer. Let's say Yoda has some talents that add setback dice, plus upgrade his dice to d12's, maybe even three times, giving us 2 d12's and 1d8 difficulty. That's still only three difficulty dice and a couple setback to an attacker's (probably) 4 dice (two or more of which are d12's). Two hits on Yoda (since lightsabers ignore soak), and the little guy's dead in 12 to 24 seconds.

Yoda rolling 5 dice against 4 (which is being very generous, since I can only see farmers be ing physically fit, not military grade fit, and I highly doubt many personal can get to 4 strength without relentless training)is fairly decent odds for amiss, probably 6 from melee def from exile tree. Keeping in mind that we are lacking the material to create Yoda, nor what the system considers a generic Jedi, that may addressed in the last book. In the meantime there are no Jedi for comparison in rules, just degrees of less knowledgeable force users. Again, being abstract may mean that simple rolls translates into a lot of action.

As far as non force users go, melee combat is very strieght forward punches, kicks and improvised attacks, most of which is fine at dealing with the foe. Hence there isn't a huge need to complicate action since non force users don't tend to dodge that well without a lot of per existing experience.

An unskilled opponent can already use Guarded Stance and add a setback die, I'd be loathe to see anything else by stats because that lessens the talents and the careers. Natural athletic ability is a great way to start but it is zero substitute for training and experience, that goes for the RL and RPGs imo. You can be a Russian ballerina and be graceful and agile beyond words and that does not translate into an able opponent in a hand to hand encounter.

I actually saw a case of this sort of thing first hand several years back.

Guy 1 was very much into gymnastics, and was very quick and agile. Guy 2 was a middle-aged man who'd been an amateur boxer in his younger years. Guy 1 thought that Guy 2 was too slow and that his quickness and agility would allow him to simply evade anything Guy 2 threw at him. After about a minute, Guy 2 laid Guy 1 out with pretty impressive one-two combo, in spite of not being as quick/agile. Seeing as how Guy 1 didn't have any actual fighting experience, this made perfect sense, as he didn't have the acumen to anticipate precisely when Guy 2 would make his attacks, particularly if using short/quick jabs rather than farm boy* style haymakers.

As a counter-point, in a separate incident, Guy 2 had a "friendly bout" with Guy 3, who was a bit younger and had several years of karate under his belt. It was a far more even contest, as both Guy 2 and Guy 3 had learned defensive traits that enabled them to anticipate and either deflect or evade their opponent's attack, though Guy 2 had a rougher time of it as his training didn't really work that well against attacks aimed at the legs and knees, but that's a level of detail that's not really relevant to most RPGs.

*There was an instance I wound up in a bar fight with a farm boy. Telegraphed his punches a week in advance, but I've no doubt they would have hurt like blazes if they'd connected. I made a point to thank my Tai Chi instructor the next time I saw him after that.

Great points, thank you! I have never been in a fight (a real fight), that does make sense that although the quick guy can dodge a few hits, eventually he's going to get clocked.

So how do I reflect a character's training in Brawl or Melee in their defense? It's a little silly that the difficulty to hit a well-trained martial artist (Brawn 3, Brawl 3) and a moisture farmer (Brawn 3, no skills), is both 2 difficulty dice!

Then we get into lightsaber combat. It shouldn't be nearly the same difficulty to hit Yoda wielding a lightsaber as it is to hit a moisture farmer. Let's say Yoda has some talents that add setback dice, plus upgrade his dice to d12's, maybe even three times, giving us 2 d12's and 1d8 difficulty. That's still only three difficulty dice and a couple setback to an attacker's (probably) 4 dice (two or more of which are d12's). Two hits on Yoda (since lightsabers ignore soak), and the little guy's dead in 12 to 24 seconds.

Using the above example, as a house rule, could you upgrade the dice based on the difference in skill? using the above Martial Artist (Brawn 3, Brawl 3) and Moisture Farmer (Brawn 3, Brawl 0) the moisture Farmer would get both dice upgraded (2x Purple D8 to Yellow D12) and one extra added? (a single Purple D8). While in reverse the Martial Artist woulod stay at 2x Purple D8's ?

I havent yet thought this through much if at all, but i think you get where i am going with this.

Using the above example, as a house rule, could you upgrade the dice based on the difference in skill? using the above Martial Artist (Brawn 3, Brawl 3) and Moisture Farmer (Brawn 3, Brawl 0) the moisture Farmer would get both dice upgraded (2x Purple D8 to Yellow D12) and one extra added? (a single Purple D8). While in reverse the Martial Artist woulod stay at 2x Purple D8's ?

I havent yet thought this through much if at all, but i think you get where i am going with this.

Having Post Fails, going to bed.

... This GM is a god paradigm is High School level thinking, time to grow up.

But I enjoy being God, getting treats, offerings, sacrifices in the form of chocolate, fruit, cake, beer and snack. It makes me feel special, appreciated and above all: POWERFUL! and its only like for one night every third or fourth week these days, and I'm a benevolent God.

The Defensive Stance (EotE134) and Dodge (EotE135) talents for melee attacks, and the Dodge (EotE135) and Sidestep (EotE142) talents for ranged attacks. Also, the Guarded Stance maneuver (EotE201) grants melee defense 1.

-EF

Assassin: Dodge x2 (5 + 20 pts)

Gadgeteer: Defensive Stance (5 pts)

Doctor: Dodge (25 pts)

Politico: Dodge (15 pts)

Fringer: Dodge x2 (25 + 25 pts)

Bodyguard: Defensive Stance x2 (15 + 20 pts)

Marauder: Defensive Stance (25 pts)

Thief: Dodge x2 (10 + 25 pts)

Outlaw Tech: Defensive Stance (15 pts)

FS Exile: Sense (Left column's Control, Duration and Strength (10 + 10 + 10 + 10 pts))

Combining these with the opposed roll thing is likely to draw out your Brawl / Melee fights significantly.

On the plus, I calculate they your brawls will be [taps at calculator, scribbles in pad] approximately 78% more hilarious, with both sides generating multiple Despair because of their opponent's high Skill and Talent combo.

....

Then we get into lightsaber combat. It shouldn't be nearly the same difficulty to hit Yoda wielding a lightsaber as it is to hit a moisture farmer. Let's say Yoda has some talents that add setback dice, plus upgrade his dice to d12's, maybe even three times, giving us 2 d12's and 1d8 difficulty. That's still only three difficulty dice and a couple setback to an attacker's (probably) 4 dice (two or more of which are d12's). Two hits on Yoda (since lightsabers ignore soak), and the little guy's dead in 12 to 24 seconds.

You ever go against two reds? Gets nasty. Plus if you`re going all out and negating your defense Yoda is going to have his (concievably 5+ ranks of lightsaber) against your two purps, you won`t make it "12-24 seconds". Even if you went first and hit you`re not going to have alot of extra anything, successes or advantages to trigger extra damage or crit. How many opponents did Yoda face and last longer than 12-24 seconds? Two? Sith lord (whom had to cheat to win) and a former apprentice whom specialized in lightsaber combat (again had to cheat to escape).

But we should probably leave the larger than life characters out of this until they come out with a Sith lords and Jedi masters book.

Totally agree. Though I am about to start with a 5 player group containing a majority of those D20, 3rd Ed + players, I am still peppered with texts and emails how great their character builds are and how they are going to smash me, the GM. The mentality around GM versus player is still prevalent, despite my messages that this game mechanic is very different and considering we had two playtests already. Will be a slow transition to ween these guys of that drug.

I blame 4E for the mentality. The system was designed to be run automatically without a GM at all and effectively bound their hands and made them a victim.

I know while there are a number of board games, i.e. Descent, that pits the "GM" against the players, there aren't many RPGs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Paranoia. Which I sadly don't get to play enough.

The Defensive Stance (EotE134) and Dodge (EotE135) talents for melee attacks, and the Dodge (EotE135) and Sidestep (EotE142) talents for ranged attacks. Also, the Guarded Stance maneuver (EotE201) grants melee defense 1.

-EF

Assassin: Dodge x2 (5 + 20 pts)

Gadgeteer: Defensive Stance (5 pts)

Doctor: Dodge (25 pts)

Politico: Dodge (15 pts)

Fringer: Dodge x2 (25 + 25 pts)

Bodyguard: Defensive Stance x2 (15 + 20 pts)

Marauder: Defensive Stance (25 pts)

Thief: Dodge x2 (10 + 25 pts)

Outlaw Tech: Defensive Stance (15 pts)

FS Exile: Sense (Left column's Control, Duration and Strength (10 + 10 + 10 + 10 pts))

Combining these with the opposed roll thing is likely to draw out your Brawl / Melee fights significantly.

On the plus, I calculate they your brawls will be [taps at calculator, scribbles in pad] approximately 78% more hilarious, with both sides generating multiple Despair because of their opponent's high Skill and Talent combo.

Thank you! This is very helpful - saves me a bunch of time.

Combining these with the opposed roll thing is likely to draw out your Brawl / Melee fights significantly.

On the plus, I calculate they your brawls will be [taps at calculator, scribbles in pad] approximately 78% more hilarious, with both sides generating multiple Despair because of their opponent's high Skill and Talent combo.

While making the opponent roll 7 red dice to punch you might be hilarious, if you don't have the 12 strain needed to do it all at once it might be... even more hilarious.

I blame 4E for the mentality. The system was designed to be run automatically without a GM at all and effectively bound their hands and made them a victim.

I know while there are a number of board games, i.e. Descent, that pits the "GM" against the players, there aren't many RPGs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Paranoia. Which I sadly don't get to play enough.

Interesting, I find that the vs mentality lays squarely in the 3X/Pathfinder system that many gamers were weaned on. The 4e games I've played and ran were all much more open and narrative. Since the GM's hands weren't as defaultly tied in the system he was free to run a much more free form game. Really, the only structured part was combat, but structure never equaled vs for us. But then, we were a much more mature group.

I blame 4E for the mentality. The system was designed to be run automatically without a GM at all and effectively bound their hands and made them a victim.

I know while there are a number of board games, i.e. Descent, that pits the "GM" against the players, there aren't many RPGs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Paranoia. Which I sadly don't get to play enough.

Interesting, I find that the vs mentality lays squarely in the 3X/Pathfinder system that many gamers were weaned on. The 4e games I've played and ran were all much more open and narrative. Since the GM's hands weren't as defaultly tied in the system he was free to run a much more free form game. Really, the only structured part was combat, but structure never equaled vs for us. But then, we were a much more mature group.

While I still love me some Pathfinder (playing it with a group now) I would have to agree. Most of the D&D universe was filled with the classic hit or miss system. You either did it, big whoop, or didn`t. Has that same emotional connection of "you sunk my battleship". It takes a farely talented GM to bring out the narrative with most D20 systems i have played and doesn`t let your players do much to add to the story. As I player I love the Edge system because it means I get a pool of things I can do with successes and advantages and I can describe just how it happens and why it happens. As a GM I love it because it means I don`t have to do all the narration, but I have plent to work with when I do.

I`ve never actually had a group I`ve play with that had the 'players vs GM' mentality and i grew up on 3.5. As a player I have adjusted playing styles for different GM's and as a GM I`ve sometimes been squarely set against what my players are doing. I`ve been in some disfunctional groups and it' sometimes gotten heated with some players but except for one instance where a player could not just let it go I`ve never had that hostility at the table. (I said he couldn`t have a +5 legendary sword at 3rd level and he threw a fit, like there wasn`t a 10th level person out there who would just show up and kick his teeth in for it).

Not to say I haven`t played where I didn`t enjoy the style of GMing, or some of the players actions (or lack there of).

I don`t think it was inherent of the 3X/Pathfinder/4e or any other D20 system. Played with a group of 1st/2nd edition hold outs whom insisted that everything was based upon rolls. Walk into town and meet the local blacksmith, roll to see if you like him. Dividing up party loot, roll to see who gets each magical item. Just met a new party member, roll to see if you like him. Cleric of good, roll to see how good you are. Walking up the stairs, roll to see how many (okay not that bad but almost). Got so tired of stupid rolls replacing good roleplaying I ended up leaving the group.

The D20 system was definately more constictive with its rolls, but a GM could work with it if they had some good experience and an understanding group. Edge is beautiful because you don`t need nearly the creative leaps to bring life to the rolls.

The best I can explain it is that D20 is black and white, you get a clear picture but there is not much else to it. Edge is colorful, each color (yes I am punning on the colorful dice) has a story to tell and all you need is to step back and look at the mosiac.

@Liberiton The roll for everything mentality I lay squarely at Gygax's shoulders. That man loved his charts. Charts of charts of charts... LOL

How do you teach a 12-14 year old how to play a game that for the most part was quite new in its genre?

I learned DnD in the blue and red box of the basic DnD days. For a long time I thought the red and blue rule books for this game was a silent homage to those games. Now days games like this can take the knowledge we have because we have played similar games and build on that.

This is like Wargamers paying out on Donald Featherstone or HG Wells. Ya just done do it!!

I understand the flat difficulty in ranged attacks, because the target's agility can never be good enough to dodge fast-as-light flying plasma (unlike Dexterity helping AC against an arrow in DND).

But a flying fist is tremendously slower, and the target's abilities in combat should come into play. I am trying to reflect this in my game by replacing Brawl and Melee's 2 Difficulty with "the character's Coordination (Agility) skill." So a defender with Agility 3 and a rank in Coordination provides 2 ability dice and 1 big red skill die in difficulty. For someone untrained in Coordination, the difficulty to strike them is simply the target's Agility.

I suggest you head over to the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay forum.

What you describe is also a feature of said game and has been discussed a quite a few times IIRC and you might find some good ideas there on how to address it.

I understand the flat difficulty in ranged attacks, because the target's agility can never be good enough to dodge fast-as-light flying plasma (unlike Dexterity helping AC against an arrow in DND).

But a flying fist is tremendously slower, and the target's abilities in combat should come into play. I am trying to reflect this in my game by replacing Brawl and Melee's 2 Difficulty with "the character's Coordination (Agility) skill." So a defender with Agility 3 and a rank in Coordination provides 2 ability dice and 1 big red skill die in difficulty. For someone untrained in Coordination, the difficulty to strike them is simply the target's Agility.

Sadly blastesr are not even close to the speed of light. If it were we`d only see a line and it would take virtually no time to traverse the distances we see in the films.

There is a guy who actually found the relative speeds of such things. Must have been an engineering project or something.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/star-wars-blaster-speed/

It actually pretty good work what with George giving physics a once over and then saying **** it. Makes Jedi alot less impressive though as hand held blasters travel at a whopping 34.9m/s (78mph). Not even as fast as a pro baseball throw. So go ahead kids, play Jedi at home, get a bunch of friends to throw baseballs at you while you try deflect them all with a stick, send me videos.

The only conclusion I can draw is that blasters are some sort of high energy plasma encased in a magnetic field to hold it together, it explains the slow speed, ability to be deflected with "magenetic" fields aka lightsaber and magnatized hulls, clean burn marks, and the fact that they don`t travel very far.

As far as agility for defense: Changing it for either ranged or melee to me would over emphasize the importance of agility making it the only ability that people will want to beef up. I mean if I could stack one stat up and be the best gunslinger and the best at dodging fire/punches who wouldn`t? Plus how would you reason shooting a stationary target, would it be a 0 purp, or a two, and how would that make sense with a person who only has 1 agility? Doesn`t make sense when I know people who couldn`t hit a haybail at 10m with a shotgun. It is funny to watch them try.

As far as agility for defense: Changing it for either ranged or melee to me would over emphasize the importance of agility making it the only ability that people will want to beef up. I mean if I could stack one stat up and be the best gunslinger and the best at dodging fire/punches who wouldn`t? Plus how would you reason shooting a stationary target, would it be a 0 purp, or a two, and how would that make sense with a person who only has 1 agility? Doesn`t make sense when I know people who couldn`t hit a haybail at 10m with a shotgun. It is funny to watch them try.

I thought about that. I think Brawn is the super skill in the game - it applies to soak, wounds, and can be used for attacks when you don't have a blaster (or if you specialize in melee). Switching to Agility for defense balances them I think.

How exactly do you figure? Agility applies to more skills (and more important noncombat skills). Range is still king, as are ranged weapons.

How exactly do you figure? Agility applies to more skills (and more important noncombat skills). Range is still king, as are ranged weapons.

Pretty much this.

in the d20 system, Strength and to a lesser extent Constitution were dump-stats for a lot of characters. Even a Soldier could afford to have a mediocre Strength since most combats they'd be using a blaster rifle. Even Jedi could work around a low Strength through the Weapon Finesse feat (and the Ataru talent in Saga Edition).

Agility is already pretty good being tied to the three major combat skills in the game and both piloting skills. These are skills that are going to see usage almost every session. If anything, FFG actually made Brawn valuable in comparison by having it be tied to Soak Value & Wound Threshold.

If one is truly determined to have Agility play a factor, unless you're willing to totally revamp several portions of the combat system, the most I'd suggest is that each rank in Agility past 3 provides +1 to their defense scores. This way, those PCs that have focused on Agility get a bonus, but said bonus isn't going to cause a major imbalance in how combat is set to work. As noted by the real life example I posted earlier, being quick and nimble may help you a bit, but against an experienced fighter (someone with at least one skill rank), it's not going to do you a whole lot of good unless you've had some actual defensive training (in this system, covered by talents such as Dodge and Side Step).

Well, Con was always good for Hit Points.

I'd kinda prefer a different stat for Gunnery (probably Intelligence or Cunning, since aiming an E-WEB or turbolaser hardly relies on your eye-hand coordination) but what are you gonna do.

I firmly think that any bonus to agility is a bad idea. Combat talents exist for a reason. Adding this along with those talents would allow 7 defence dice monsters with double vibroswords wandering around.

Along other things, having people wandering around with 4 defence dice out of the gates is a bad idea. People should take talents to be badass, not be born badass because they pumped 4 into the dancing stat that can do a lot of dynamic things

I firmly think that any bonus to agility is a bad idea. Combat talents exist for a reason. Adding this along with those talents would allow 7 defence dice monsters with double vibroswords wandering around.

Along other things, having people wandering around with 4 defence dice out of the gates is a bad idea. People should take talents to be badass, not be born badass because they pumped 4 into the dancing stat that can do a lot of dynamic things

Thus my suggestion of only providing a single point of defense for an Agility of 4 or higher, if any sort of bonus is to be provided.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment that Agility is indeed good enough as is, and doesn't need any more padding.