But he boasts he wants to go toe to toe with big things. Helpful that his Obligation is 'Power' (Scorekeeper wants him to beat up everything in the galaxy maybe. I don't know how Trandos think... If they think). I just don't want big things to kill the rest of the party at the same time.

After talking to him about his desires, we guided him into putting points into Coercion and Leadership, so he can try to soak enemies onto himself, rather than the party. That way he can live the tank role he wanted.

They have to prove that they're good hunters, so that's a good fit.

If you can ignore the more... vigorous commentary, this thread had some good ideas on finding challenges for high-soak PCs (without turning the rest of the party into a pink mist).

anyone wearing laminate or heavy armor is constantly harassed by the Imperial troopers, it is not legal in the empire to wear stormtrooper armor or armor designed for war without a purpose, your marauder red flags law enforcement everywhere he goes due to what he wears.

I'm afb right now, but IIRC, laminate armor is legal to own and use, but without modifications, you might as well stick to Padded Armor. Just get Laminate that isn't Stormtrooper Armor (find an off brand). Heavy Battle Armor is indeed Restricted.

Aren't Bounty Hunters allowed to use any means necessary to capture their quarry?

Aren't Bounty Hunters allowed to use any means necessary to capture their quarry?

The Imperial Peace-Keeping Certificate does let you carry restricted crap, yes.

I imagine there'll still be problems if you're not Human and don't have much of a reputation yet, though.

Aren't Bounty Hunters allowed to use any means necessary to capture their quarry?

The Imperial Peace-Keeping Certificate does let you carry restricted crap, yes. I imagine there'll still be problems if you're not Human and don't have much of a reputation yet, though.

Yes exactly I couldn't remember what it was called! Glad I'm a Human. My group is starting to realize NOT being human sucks haha.

I've read a few of these threads and the majority of what I see is the GM of a game trying really hard to either challenge a minmaxer or somehow account for the disparity in combat between them and more balanced builds. Invariably the Is/are the player(s) having fun? If so then whats the problem? comes out and offers of how to challenge/defeat the minmaxer or, surprisingly often, the telling the GM to basically suck it up.

I'd like to point out that the GM is also part of the group and not some pre-scripted videogame AI there only to provide the Players with a sandbox to play in. If this kind of combat monster minmaxing wasn't an issue that was tilting the fun away from the GM in favour of one player's build then we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of threads (at least not this often). Every RPG I've played in has minmaxers (though not every group, thank the maker) and so this is not exclusive to EotE and in most of the games I've played or run that has one it becomes something you have to deal with. I mean deal with and generally not enjoy having around. The times it's not an issue is when everyone minmaxes and the game is essentially one long combat with breaks for selling the loot and buying new stuff (this can be fun and I do enjoy this kind of game too, on occasion).

The OP here, and the rest of the time I've seen this come up, really wants to have fun too as well as provide the sand and the box for everyone to have fun. He doesn't want to penalise the Player or make him play a certain way, but it's obvious (or at lease it seems like it to me) that he'd be happier if this wasn't an issue. The problem isn't him/her the problem is the minmaxer. The solutions will vary from group to group and I can't offer one except to say that if the minmaxed character didn't exist neither would the problem.

So I'm going to open myself up to your slings and arrows and say to the minmaxers out there, your play style may be fun for you but it's at a price that the whole group, including the GM, are going to be paying. If their happy paying that price fine but you should consider this before you make your PC, because not every group is going to want to pay for your ride.

anyone wearing laminate or heavy armor is constantly harassed by the Imperial troopers, it is not legal in the empire to wear stormtrooper armor or armor designed for war without a purpose, your marauder red flags law enforcement everywhere he goes due to what he wears.

I'm afb right now, but IIRC, laminate armor is legal to own and use, but without modifications, you might as well stick to Padded Armor. Just get Laminate that isn't Stormtrooper Armor (find an off brand). Heavy Battle Armor is indeed Restricted.

ok maybe my wording was poor, but if you were to walk down the street in full tactical military gear the cops are probably going to talk to you.

like wise in our games, if we don our heavy armors on a habital world in town, we get the law enforcement looking into us, and we dont want them to know our business, s we only use it off world on planets wear we need it.

you can use despair and threat to damage his armour.

use the fear rules occasionally.

have his reputation precede him, and have a series of contenders call him out to take him on one on one. (like connor mcloud from highlander)

Being bulletproof is awesome.

It means that the next group will either try to hire you, or throw atomic weapons on you.

Always remember rule #2

Yeah, turns out a wrist-rocket at point blank range after a Nemesis battle's-worth of heavy combat damage is still a one hit kill no matter what your soak is.

I don't see this as a problem either. Don't try to adjust your game to do damage to that one. Balance it for the other players. Let the Marauder take the hits and grin. Challenge the Marauder in other ways like give him a lock to pick, or a cake to bake and the PC Thief/Chef is busy. Every once and in awhile give your foes a big gun. But even Carbines from standard storm troopers will damage him on a hit.

The soak rules are one of the few things in EoE I dislike.

It feels really un-StarWars-y to me that an unarmoured being, no matter how tough, would be unconcerned at being shot by blaster fire.

The soak rules are one of the few things in EoE I dislike.

It feels really un-StarWars-y to me that an unarmoured being, no matter how tough, would be unconcerned at being shot by blaster fire.

This is why my group uses the pierce house rule discussed earlier and in other threads.

Unless this is a problem with the group, I don't see a problem. And it doesn't seem to be a problem. Too many times people treat this as something to defeat as if the GM is in competition witu the players. Your job as GM is tocreate the world that the players play in. If they are having fun then you are doing your job. Personally if the players are enjoying themselves I am happy. That includes the soak monster. If he is wading into combat and laying waste and having a great time, I am happy. I could care less how many minions, rivals or nemesis he takes out. There are more where they came from. And if he is not having fun, then maybe he needs to rethink his character and/or the GM needs to actively challenge him in one or more of the mrany examples already given in this and other threads.

Unless this is a problem with the group, I don't see a problem. And it doesn't seem to be a problem. Too many times people treat this as something to defeat as if the GM is in competition witu the players. Your job as GM is tocreate the world that the players play in. If they are having fun then you are doing your job. Personally if the players are enjoying themselves I am happy. That includes the soak monster. If he is wading into combat and laying waste and having a great time, I am happy. I could care less how many minions, rivals or nemesis he takes out. There are more where they came from. And if he is not having fun, then maybe he needs to rethink his character and/or the GM needs to actively challenge him in one or more of the mrany examples already given in this and other threads.

I don't fully disagree, people having fun is the point and it seems in this case that the Players are having fun, however there is a problem here otherwise the OP would not have posted this question at all. Also the OP seems, like many other GMs that want to discuss this, to be bending over backwards to accommodate a minmaxed PC and this is what I see as the issue. I think that this is not the result of poor GMing but minmaxing and Players that minmax their PCs not fully appreciating this and the effect their having on the game. Or worse, they don't care.

Where there is smoke theres fire and the fact that threads like this keep coming up, regardless of how accommodating the GMs seem to want to be, there is a problem.

Hmm, this topic yet agian.

---begin scathing tirade---

Players really dont have to be punished for their choices of character development. So what if a character has 9 soak. It really doesnt matter unless you as a GM want to beat them up for no good reason. Just let them have fun. As a GM the point is to tell a story and make sure the players are having fun...thats really it.

---end scathing tirade---

Edge really isnt a system like D&D where you constantly fight. Have a couple sessions in a row without combat and the combat minmaxers are basically going to feel useless. If they still want to participate, they will have to adjust for it and spend XP on something other than combat skills...then no more problem.

Have you talked to your players about your issues? If you and your players are serious about the situation, perhaps some compromise can be made.

If you as a GM get really grumpy and just need to damage that particular character, you are the GM. Do whatever you want.

You are right to a small degree. The OP player made a combat character and wants to fight, the GM wants to challenge that combat character without killing the rest of the party. Which is why the OP asked for advice, that's a good thing. Not sure what help you provided with your negativity and scathing tirade.

If you as a poster get really grumpy and just want to try and push your play style on others, maybe you shouldn't post on threads people are asking for help on.

I've read a few of these threads and the majority of what I see is the GM of a game trying really hard to either challenge a minmaxer or somehow account for the disparity in combat between them and more balanced builds. Invariably the Is/are the player(s) having fun? If so then whats the problem? comes out and offers of how to challenge/defeat the minmaxer or, surprisingly often, the telling the GM to basically suck it up.

I'd like to point out that the GM is also part of the group and not some pre-scripted videogame AI there only to provide the Players with a sandbox to play in. If this kind of combat monster minmaxing wasn't an issue that was tilting the fun away from the GM in favour of one player's build then we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of threads (at least not this often). Every RPG I've played in has minmaxers (though not every group, thank the maker) and so this is not exclusive to EotE and in most of the games I've played or run that has one it becomes something you have to deal with. I mean deal with and generally not enjoy having around. The times it's not an issue is when everyone minmaxes and the game is essentially one long combat with breaks for selling the loot and buying new stuff (this can be fun and I do enjoy this kind of game too, on occasion).

The OP here, and the rest of the time I've seen this come up, really wants to have fun too as well as provide the sand and the box for everyone to have fun. He doesn't want to penalise the Player or make him play a certain way, but it's obvious (or at lease it seems like it to me) that he'd be happier if this wasn't an issue. The problem isn't him/her the problem is the minmaxer. The solutions will vary from group to group and I can't offer one except to say that if the minmaxed character didn't exist neither would the problem.

So I'm going to open myself up to your slings and arrows and say to the minmaxers out there, your play style may be fun for you but it's at a price that the whole group, including the GM, are going to be paying. If their happy paying that price fine but you should consider this before you make your PC, because not every group is going to want to pay for your ride.

If this wasn't so long I'd have it tattooed, not really, but great post. A lot of people forget the GM is part of the group and should be having fun and the players need to work together for team balance and fun of the whole group. It reminds me of an old DnD game were the group was playing a roguish style game and a new player decided to make a Lawful Good Paladin.

I think that could work, just depending on the players and interpretation of LG, and who the targets were (if evil...probably not a big issue). But I digress.

Unless this is a problem with the group, I don't see a problem. And it doesn't seem to be a problem. Too many times people treat this as something to defeat as if the GM is in competition witu the players. Your job as GM is tocreate the world that the players play in. If they are having fun then you are doing your job. Personally if the players are enjoying themselves I am happy. That includes the soak monster. If he is wading into combat and laying waste and having a great time, I am happy. I could care less how many minions, rivals or nemesis he takes out. There are more where they came from. And if he is not having fun, then maybe he needs to rethink his character and/or the GM needs to actively challenge him in one or more of the mrany examples already given in this and other threads.

Just curious no were in your comment did you mention anything about the GM having fun. Also you mention maybe the GM needs to challenge him, but isn't this thread exactly about that? The OP and others are asking for help on how to challenge that min-maxer

If this wasn't so long I'd have it tattooed, not really, but great post. A lot of people forget the GM is part of the group and should be having fun and the players need to work together for team balance and fun of the whole group. It reminds me of an old DnD game were the group was playing a roguish style game and a new player decided to make a Lawful Good Paladin.

Yeah, I can be a bit loquacious at times... Thanks

Just curious no were in your comment did you mention anything about the GM having fun. Also you mention maybe the GM needs to challenge him, but isn't this thread exactly about that? The OP and others are asking for help on how to challenge that min-maxer

Yeah I did. If it wasn't clear I am the GM. I don't feel the need to take the fun away from soak monsters. I let them revel in it. It doesn't frustrate me when they build a tough character. I've got plenty of other ways to challenge them, many already mentioned. And I realize he is looking for challenges which is why I was saying it wasn't a problem. He's just looking for ideas.

The problem I see are the people that feel the GM/player dynamic is adversarial. When you say the GM isn't having fun, why is that? If all the players are having fun, how is the GM not? It is one thing to ask for help (which seems to be the case here) and another to look for a way to cut of the character at the knees (which seems to be the case at other times). Is the GM losing the game because the players are all having fun playing the characters they made? Now if you're frustrated because you've run out of ideas, I can understand that. Lots of good ideas here.

I often see the assumption that these high Soak characters are min-max monsters, but what usually is being talked about is a 300-500 XP Marauder that's finishing (or has finished) the talent tree and raised a starting Brawn 4 up to 5 with Dedication. With the two ranks of Enduring and Padded Armor, we hit Soak 9. I don't think that such a character is an attempt to break the game when its just following a single talent tree.

Technically speaking, raising your Brawn through Dedication should not affect Soak.

Technically speaking, raising your Brawn through Dedication should not affect Soak.

Why not?

How would he deal with being coerced? Squeal like a little girl I bet.

ahem!

ANYWAY... All the suggestions are seeming a little gimmicky to me and, in the end, the trouble still exists. The minmaxed (look at me using the lingo!!) character is still there and still minmaxed.

Is it bad for a GM to just tell a player that his character build is an issue? Since this is a narrative game, shouldn't they already be talking about it when the player is spending xp? He can still be the toughest guy in the group without minmaxing to the point where he's becoming an issue - either by what he can do or, as some are suspecting, by what he can't.

Technically speaking, raising your Brawn through Dedication should not affect Soak.

Why not?

Sorry. Mixed up wounds and soak. Wounds don't increase, but soak does.

The soak rules are one of the few things in EoE I dislike.

It feels really un-StarWars-y to me that an unarmoured being, no matter how tough, would be unconcerned at being shot by blaster fire.

i have to agree..... i believe soak and defense should have been swapped around, eg in star wars episode 1 the personal shields on the droideka provide so much soak that no one bar ships can hurt them, but in episode 4 we see stormtroopers in lamela go down to 1 hit of a blaster pistol.

so if brawn and armor gave extra disadvantage dice due to it contributing to defense, and shielding provided soak, i believe the game wouldn't have the issue it is having right now.