Alright, the physics of lightsabers are up for debate since nothing like them exists. However, we can draw a lot of conclusions based on what we see in the movies.

Those of you thinking about them as "flashlights that cut" are dead wrong. Period, end of sentence, whatever you need to hear to make you understand. They are explicitly not photon beams like a laser, and function nothing like that.

Lightsabers clearly have mass. Heck, for all physicists know photons may have mass. We think they don't,but no one knows for sure. The hilt of a lightsaber (going by how the actors have handled them) are quite dense and have a fair amount of mass. This makes sense given that there is a high output power generator in there.

If you're going by the movies, then you have to consider what the actors are really swinging when the filiming is being done -- they're pretty thick metal rods that are attached to the "lightsaber" handles that we can see. The heavy metal rods get replaced during the Rotoscoping process by the lightsaber blades.

So, what the actors are really swinging really does have mass and length and really does act a fair amount like a real sword, because it is a certain length of metal rod. Ewan McGregor had several identical lightsabers made for him, because he found that he could get quite animated and kept bending the metal rods. So, they had to keep fixing them, and had to have a number of them in stock because it took them a lot longer to fix them than it took him to bend them.

How all that works out in game physics, is not something that is clear to me. You can't just put all that mass into the handle -- you've got to somehow keep the majority of the mass in the blade. Otherwise, it just doesn't swing the same way.

You really don't want to try to talk about the mass of photons, because even if you were to take a particle that does have real measured mass (like an electron), to get enough electrons together to make up enough mass to make the balance work right, well that would be a heck of a lot of energy -- check out Einstein's E=mc^2 equation. That would be enough energy to make a small tactical nuclear device.

Sure, lightsabers have a lot of energy and they can cut through just about any type of matter, but putting a Thermal Detonator in their hands is bad enough -- you don't want them walking around Mos Eisley with a TacNuke strapped to their waist.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should just treat lightsabers as a "hand wavy" type of weapon, and not try to delve too deep into the physics behind them. They do what they do because that's what we say they do, and that's what makes sense from a narrative perspective. And whether that's us as individual players or GMs saying that, or FFG as the "official" game designers saying that, I think that's the way they should work.

But I would definitely keep the skill separate from standard melee weapons and many melee-based talents probably wouldn't be applicable to them, although both Strength and Agility could be quite useful when applied correctly by someone who is properly trained. I also think that anyone not explicitly trained in how to use them should suffer massive difficulties in trying to actually use them in combat -- like maybe have to throw two or three extra purple dice, or maybe have all their purple dice upgraded to red dice. Or maybe both.

It's one thing to turn on a lightsaber and carve a slot in the stomach of a dead Taunton in a non-combat situation, it's another thing entirely to try to fight someone with a weapon you've never trained in and doesn't work like any other weapon you've ever known.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should just treat lightsabers as a "hand wavy" type of weapon, and not try to delve too deep into the physics behind them. They do what they do because that's what we say they do, and that's what makes sense from a narrative perspective.

I completely agree with this. My post was merely meant as a pseudo-science explanation of lightsaber behavior. The theory is undoubtedly wrong, but might help to enhance immersion for some people.

To me the game is meant to model what we see in the movies because that's as close as anyone can get to what it means to be "Star Wars". In the movies lightsabers are not swung in a manner consistent with a reaction-less blade so that's what we have to work with.

If you want lightsabers to be massless in your game, that's up to you. It's not what other people are imagining, though.

I don't think given the difficulty in acquiring a lightsaber that you will see players using them as improvised grenades very often, but maybe you play with fools.

I am on the fence as to it being a new skill, as both sides have some good points. FFG has already declared it to be a new skill, so there's no debate whether it should be. Making it be it's own completely separate set of skill and support talents does feel awfully game-based and not reason-based, however. I think the designers would be well severed to make some bleed-over between the Melee and Lightsaber skill sets.

many melee-based talents probably wouldn't be applicable to them

The logic for this being what.

many melee-based talents probably wouldn't be applicable to them

The logic for this being what.

For me, this gets back to my idea that we shouldn't be looking too hard at the real-world physics of how these weapons should work, because these things don't actually exist in the real world -- at least, not the real world as we know it. Since these weapons don't work like any other "normal" weapon, many of the skills you learn from other "normal" melee weapons just wouldn't be applicable.

Some of those skills/talents might be applicable, that is something I would generally be inclined to leave up to the GM.

Since these weapons don't work like any other "normal" weapon, many of the skills you learn from other "normal" melee weapons just wouldn't be applicable.

Some of those skills/talents might be applicable, that is something I would generally be inclined to leave up to the GM.

I sincerely hope not. While it may be realistic it causes more rule problems than it solves. And forcing the GM to make a call on the applicability of every melee-range talent for a melee-range weapon is terrible game design.

We have a book coming out in like 3 months that I think will clear up how Lightsabers work. I don't know what FFG will do but given they have made a point of saying Lightsabers need a specific skill and they have chosen to include nothing related to that as of yet, I would assume that Lightsabers are going to be handled differently.

I sincerely hope not. While it may be realistic it causes more rule problems than it solves. And forcing the GM to make a call on the applicability of every melee-range talent for a melee-range weapon is terrible game design.

How do you make any of the following talents work with lightsabers?

Feral Strength -- The lightsaber does a flat amount of damage, regardless of your Brawn. So, how do you justify adding +1 damage for each rank of Feral Strength, if the weapon does damage that does not depend on your Brawn?

Knockdown -- how does a lightsaber knock an opponent down, instead of slicing through them?

I'm sure there are others, but I haven't gone through the entire book to find them.

Given how the game already treats lightsabers, until the official rulebook comes out that is supposed to address them, I don't see how the situation could be any worse than it is today, in terms of forcing the GM to rely on their own skills, knowledge, talents, and experience, in judging how this kind of a weapon could potentially be used by PCs.

And even then, I strongly suspect that there will be conflicts between this rulebook and that rulebook. So, who has to decide how to handle those conflicts? Again, that must fall to the GM.

Feral Strength -- The lightsaber does a flat amount of damage, regardless of your Brawn. So, how do you justify adding +1 damage for each rank of Feral Strength, if the weapon does damage that does not depend on your Brawn?

I wouldn't read the talent name too literally. Hitting a target in a vital area, even with a lightsaber, is going to be more damaging than a flesh wound.

Knockdown -- how does a lightsaber knock an opponent down, instead of slicing through them?

That's a really good point. But I'd ask the same question about a vibroax. And I think people get hit with lightsabers and then get knocked over in the movies, specifically the sail barge fight.

So, who has to decide how to handle those conflicts?

Hopefully the writers will address it. If lightsabers aren't going to be intended to work with certain talents, I would think they would say so explicitly in books that go into more detail about lightsaber use.

Feral Strength -- The lightsaber does a flat amount of damage, regardless of your Brawn. So, how do you justify adding +1 damage for each rank of Feral Strength, if the weapon does damage that does not depend on your Brawn?

I wouldn't read the talent name too literally. Hitting a target in a vital area, even with a lightsaber, is going to be more damaging than a flesh wound.

I'm talking about Feral Strength. What you just described is Anatomy Lessons.

Knockdown -- how does a lightsaber knock an opponent down, instead of slicing through them?

That's a really good point. But I'd ask the same question about a vibroax. And I think people get hit with lightsabers and then get knocked over in the movies, specifically the sail barge fight.

A Vibro-Axe is more than just the blade. You can get hit with the shaft, too. Or hit with the blade and then have part of the axe that isn't sharpened can get hung up on some piece of armor or a bone, or whatever.

With a lightsaber, yes there is a handle -- but unless you make a conscious decision to hit someone with the pommel, that handle is not involved in a weapon strike.

Since the new book is not out yet, we don't really know for sure how they're going to handle things. So, as far as official rules are concerned, I think we have to wait and see.

Until then, there are some things that just don't make sense to me with regards to melee combat with a lightsaber.

I think the idea of Stunning Blow with a light saber is absurd. If it were legal, wouldn't just about every Jedi want to have it?

Feral Strength -- The lightsaber does a flat amount of damage, regardless of your Brawn. So, how do you justify adding +1 damage for each rank of Feral Strength, if the weapon does damage that does not depend on your Brawn?

I wouldn't read the talent name too literally. Hitting a target in a vital area, even with a lightsaber, is going to be more damaging than a flesh wound.

I'm talking about Feral Strength. What you just described is Anatomy Lessons.

Only if you want to take Talent names extremely literally. I don't subscribe to that view, personally. And Anatomy Lessons and Feral Strength are mechanically distinct: one is always on, one you have to activate and keys off a whole other stat (IIRC there are like 3 talents like this, for various other typically non-combat attributes). I don't see the need to read Feral Strength as literally some animalistic buff to strength (Brawn).

I think the idea of Stunning Blow with a light saber is absurd. If it were legal, wouldn't just about every Jedi want to have it?

I don't see how you can do that with a vibroknife either, but nobody's ever brought that possible issue up before.

Um... "flat of the blade" perhaps? It's a fairly lame answer (especially since Pierce technically still applies), but games have done it since the early days of D&D with subdual damage.

I do have two characters in my bounty hunter game that regularly use Stunning Blow with vibroswords, so I'm pretty familiar with the absurdity of this particular talent.

Um... "flat of the blade" perhaps? It's a fairly lame answer (especially since Pierce technically still applies), but games have done it since the early days of D&D with subdual damage.

I do have two characters in my bounty hunter game that regularly use Stunning Blow with vibroswords, so I'm pretty familiar with the absurdity of this particular talent.

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't allow that -- at least, not with a standard Vibro-Sword. The Force Pike has an explicit stun setting, but none of the other vibro-type weapons are listed in the table or in the description as having a stun setting. And if you use the example of blasters, not all of them are capable of having a stun setting, either. Those blasters which are capable of having a stun setting are specifically called out as such in the tables.

That said, if you wanted to retcon the concept of a "stun setting" for vibro-weapons, I think I'd allow them to have a special mod that provides the same kind of electrical-based mechanism that the Force Pike does. But that would be an extra mod, much like Balanced Hilt or Mono-molecular Edge.

So, GMs call, basically. But that's my personal view.

[ Edit: In retrospect, if the players could convince me of how they could do stun-only damage with a vibro-weapon, then I'd let them use the Stunning Blows talent to do that. But in either event, IMO, a simple "flat of the blade" technique would not be sufficient. ]

I think the idea of Stunning Blow with a light saber is absurd. If it were legal, wouldn't just about every Jedi want to have it?

Isn't that how Maul killed Qui Gon? Smack in the face with the handle to throw him off then kabang.

Isn't that how Maul killed Qui Gon? Smack in the face with the handle to throw him off then kabang.

Speaking only for myself, I would rule that as a Brawl attack with the effect in question.

If it was going to be a Stunning Blow with the lightsaber itself, that would have to be with the blade of the lightsaber -- and there is no "flat of the blade" with one of those things.

But that's just my own personal view.

Um... "flat of the blade" perhaps? It's a fairly lame answer (especially since Pierce technically still applies), but games have done it since the early days of D&D with subdual damage.

I do have two characters in my bounty hunter game that regularly use Stunning Blow with vibroswords, so I'm pretty familiar with the absurdity of this particular talent.

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't allow that -- at least, not with a standard Vibro-Sword. The Force Pike has an explicit stun setting, but none of the other vibro-type weapons are listed in the table or in the description as having a stun setting. And if you use the example of blasters, not all of them are capable of having a stun setting, either. Those blasters which are capable of having a stun setting are specifically called out as such in the tables.

That said, if you wanted to retcon the concept of a "stun setting" for vibro-weapons, I think I'd allow them to have a special mod that provides the same kind of electrical-based mechanism that the Force Pike does. But that would be an extra mod, much like Balanced Hilt or Mono-molecular Edge.

So, GMs call, basically. But that's my personal view.

You did see that the discussion is based on using the Stunning Blow talent, right? That's the talent that specifically allows lethal (Wound damage) Melee weapons to inflict non-lethal (Strain) damage instead.

You did see that the discussion is based on using the Stunning Blow talent, right? That's the talent that specifically allows lethal (Wound damage) Melee weapons to inflict non-lethal (Strain) damage instead.

I did see that, yes. Speaking only for myself, that kind of a talent can only go so far. You wouldn't allow a frag grenade to be used this way, because of the way a frag grenade works it is simply impossible to do only stun damage with that weapon.

With regards to regular vibro-weapons and this talent, I'd have to think about it, but at the end of the day if the players could come up with a way to explain how they can use this talent to do stun-only damage with a vibro-weapon, then I'd allow it. As I mentioned in another response, I'd also allow them to get a special modification that could add the capability of doing stun-only damage, in much the same way that a Weapon Sling adds the "Quick Draw" talent to any Ranged (Heavy) weapon.

But, as we have also established in this thread, I don't feel that lightsabers are a "standard vibro-weapon". IMO, this is like trying to do stun-only damage with a frag grenade -- it simply is not possible.

A talent of this nature can only take you so far -- you can't violate the laws of game physics with it.

Of course, it's up to each individual GM to decide how to interpret the rules in front of them and decide what will or won't be a violation of the laws of physics for their game, but that's how it is in all games anyway.

But my personal view is that the Stunning Blows talent could not be used with a lightsaber.

Stunning Blow couldn't be used with a Lightsaber because a Lightsaber uses the Lightsaber skill and Stunning Blow can only be used when making a Melee check. It doesn't require any sort of ruling as the RAW is very specific. In regards to vibro weapons that does require some creative narration.

The Stunning Blow talent reads as such: "When making Melee checks, the character may choose to deal damage as strain..." Lightsabers are obviously not included in this, since they do not use the Melee skill.

As for the Marauder talents, they apply only to Melee and/or Brawl, and so therefore do not apply to lightsabers (unless you were trying to use the lightsaber hilt as an improvised weapon, I guess )

Finally, Anatomy Lessons (from above) was a poor example. A better one, assuming the Lightsaber skill has been added to your game, might be Deadly Accuracy talent. That would actually apply damage to Lightsaber attacks, whereas Feral Strength would not.

My vote is go with the RAW, including the Lightsaber skill as a custom skill if you must (as suggested in the CRB page 167). With the exception of Knockdown and Lethal Blows, all those offensive Marauder talents are useless to lightsaber combatants.

Knockdown also specifies Melee, so it likewise wouldn't work with an attack using Lightsaber.

The actual wording is "melee attack" (note the lack of capitalization), which encompasses attacks with any weapon used in, and designed for, close combat (page 205, sidebar). So that'd be Melee, Brawl, and Lightsaber skill checks.

The actual wording is "melee attack" (note the lack of capitalization), which encompasses attacks with any weapon used in, and designed for, close combat (page 205, sidebar). So that'd be Melee, Brawl, and Lightsaber skill checks.

The actual wording is "melee attack" (note the lack of capitalization), which encompasses attacks with any weapon used in, and designed for, close combat (page 205, sidebar). So that'd be Melee, Brawl, and Lightsaber skill checks.

Is that from the tree or the full description of the talent?

Both. Which is fairly reasonable I suppose since if you're whacking away at somebody with a lightsaber and they manage to not be dead, it makes sense that you could knock them over (Like with Luke bringing Vader down in RotJ).

I may be off here, but I'm thinking people need not worry about talents that buff Lightsabers. Pretty sure we are about to get a whole book of options of how to skin a space cat with a Lightsaber here shortly.

That's one of the reasons why my Wookiee is going to be looking for a Rocketpack/Jetpack or something similar in the near future -- he wants to close that distance faster.

It's not a good idea to put a jetpack on a creatures that's 50% hair. Flame On!