Difficulty of Parrying a Blaster Bolt

[Dredwulf60]

[Darklighter79]

[Darklighter79]

The only scene in which we can see single shot vs Jedi is the one on the sail barge
Luke was caught off guard as this was rear arc attack and he failed to see the enemy.
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story.

[Naaman]

Meh... I've resolved that the films make it pretty clear that a Jedi with a lightsaber is impossible to defeat with a blaster unless the plot calls for it.


Only Jango has the distinction of shoting a Jedi to death all by himself.

His shots at Obi-Wan had no chance of getting through, and of course Mace Windu was out of his league all together.

Even the destroyer droids didn't get through against padawan Obi-Wan (one for one, perhaps if they had doubl-teamed him, they would have).

[CRMcNeill]

Sorry, I've been meaning to reply to this but I got sidetracked.

[Darklighter79]

[CRMcNeill]

For simple attacks, Moderate seems good enough. As to the other, that's not really something I've concerned myself with. The closest I've come is in trying to come up with alternate rules for Danger Sense that allow sufficiently chaotic threat environments to increase the Difficulty, thereby potentially confusing the Jedi as to the source of the threats.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[garhkal]

Are not jedi already considered by many, to be overpowered.. Now you are making it easier for them to defend against blasters//?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

[Darklighter79]

[CRMcNeill]

Exactly. The films show the only way to overwhelm a Jedi's lightsaber defense is to overload it with as many shots from as many angles as possible. The RAW fails to accurately represent that.

Theoretically, it would be possible to overload a Jedi's defenses under the RAW, but that would require rolling each and every shot vs. parry, accounting for MAPs. This rule boils it all down to a single roll, plus tracking the ammo.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[CRMcNeill]

[Whill]

I see the problem with RAW you are addressing, that a single shooter making multiple attacks against a Jedi is MAPed while a Jedi makes one Lightsaber blaster bolt Parry roll that applies to all range attacks regardless of how many, meaning that fewer shots are harder to defend and more shots are easier to defend.

The solution you've developed here works for blaster vs. lightsaber, but I still see a issue with it. The Jedi still has the option to forget about parrying and just dodge, whereas in RAW it goes back to the same general rule of all reaction skill use, where one roll applies to all applicable attacks the rest of the round. It seems to me that rule is really at the heart of the matter. So the main problem that this thread addresses, more shots by a single attacker are easier to defend than less shots, actually applies to all reaction skill use including non-Jedi defenders, not just blasters vs. Jedi with lightsabers.

In 1e, each reaction was per action segment, MAPing at they went, but all dodges added to the base difficulty. In 2e they changed it a single reaction roll for the rest of the round for simplicity's sake, to not nickel and dime defenders so much. The trade-off is the reaction roll in 2e replaces the difficulty (for normal dodges). It seems to me their logic in the change is that it removes the "buffer" of the base difficulty, so a really crappy reaction roll replacing the attacker's difficulty can make it is easier for the attacker to hit than if the defender hadn't dodged at all. Even with the attacker being MAPed by multiple attacks, one crappy reaction roll can make all attacks have an easier change to hit. This applies to a Jedi parrying blaster bolts with a lightsaber, a crappy roll can make it easier for all shots to hit them the rest of the round.

I feel your fire arc rule should be across the board for all reaction skill use. Even brawlers and pilots flying ships should have a harder time defending against attackers from multiple directions. But this still only addresses multiple attackers on a single target, not a single attacker MAPed for making multiple attacks.

As far as interpreting the films, I already think of each blaster "attack" as possibly including the "effect" of multiple shots, but to-hit and damage are rolled normally. Game mechanically each attack is still each attack, but a single "attack" may be described as having two or three bolts. More cinematic. Blaster wound results could be an interpretation of how many "hyphens" hit you. A wound could be from one hyphen hitting you, incapacitated could be two, and mortally wounded or killed could be three. Without this reinterpretation of the effects of RAW, low skilled combatants shooting at each other once per round to avoid MAPs can seem pretty boring, and that does not really reflect what mooks seem to do in the films.

A "barrage" against a defender could be one really high-rolled attack, possibly with CPs or an FP. As an option you could still use the rule for increasing damage based on how successful the attack is which could be interpreted as multiple shots hitting the target. But game mechanically, if the attacker wants more chances to hit, he will make multiple attacks and accept the MAPs with the hope of rolling at least one lucky shot or multiple rolls hitting and more damage. I think having more chances to hit with a lesser chance for each is a good trade-off, but both can be interpreted as multiple shots.

If you really want to defeat the general rule of one single reaction roll applying to all applicable attack types the rest of the round, you can have each the reaction roll apply only to that action segment, which MAPs the defender further as they go from multiple attacks. And you could require a separate roll for each fire arc attacks come from, further MAPing the defender. But I probably won't use these two harsh options.

Multiple attackers can use coordination/combined fire to overcome a Jedi's reaction roll, with multiple fire arcs making it even if worse for the Jedi. Even without multiple attackers or multiple attack rolls, really good attack rolls can pin a Jedi down because if they try to do other things, they MAP their reaction rolls. You can easily just interpret a really good attack roll as multiple blasts the Jedi is cinematically swinging his lightsaber around to defend against but only rolling one reaction roll. Having every individual blast represented by its own roll is a nickel and dime approach that RAW and these suggested house rules so far use, when to me that seems to be an unnecessary constraint on imagination.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

[Darklighter79]

[Naaman]