[SWSE] Are Jedi just plain better than everyone else?

[Hawken]

For the original poster: Why on earth did you have to color code red and blue? That was making me sick reading that with some weird 3-D effect. You put names by each comment, that's enough for people. Save the coloring for MS Paint or something, please.

To be fair, most of the things Luke was fighting at Carkoom were mooks/non-heroics.

Like Boba Fett, right? He was, what, 15th level, with three classes or so under his belt and Luke basically handed his @$$ to him. It was cool that Boba Fett wasn't afraid of him, but then again, Luke wasn't no Mace Windu either.

To answer the original question though, Jedi are powerful, but not overpowered. Range and area attacks, especially from multiple opponents are their big weaknesses. Or quite simply, put them up against another Force user. That right there is going to keep their attention from anyone/anything else during a fight.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

-snip much truthiness-

A level-based system has no reason to make Jedi 'just better' than other characters; if the average Jedi is a major badass (and he is), that just means he averages a higher level. In Saga, a typical, fully trained Jedi (with the Force as his ally, etc.) is at least 7th level, when he can take the Jedi Knight prestige class. His first six levels represent his early training, either personal exploration of the Force or being a padawan to a fully-fledged Jedi.

Mechanically, a 7th level soldier can take on a 7th level Jedi Knight, and the rare 12th level soldier can take on a 12th level Jedi Master.

The difference is, the 7th level soldier is already one of the top warriors in the galaxy, probably a major bounty hunter or super-elite special forces commando or a top Mandalorian mercenary - but the 7th level Jedi is just some Jedi, not even a particularly powerful one, not unlike perhaps tens of thousands of others during the waning years of the Old Republic.

The 12th level soldier is a legend - probably only a Mandalorian could ever even hope to reach this level as a non-Force-using NPC warrior, and even among that elite brotherhood he'll be remembered as one of the greatest mercenaries who ever lived. But the Jedi? At the height of their power, they have a whole council of masters at this level or higher.

 

[GlassJaw]

Like Boba Fett, right? He was, what, 15th level, with three classes or so under his belt and Luke basically handed his @$$ to him. It was cool that Boba Fett wasn't afraid of him, but then again, Luke wasn't no Mace Windu either.

See also: Jango getting punked by Mace Windu in Ep 2.

I think that's even more telling. Jango could barely even put up a fight. When I saw that, it proved to me how uber the Jedi were. A non-Jedi going one-on-one against a Jedi, even one younger or less experienced, was virtually suicide. Sure there are exceptions but I hold firm that generally that's the case.

 

[GlassJaw]

To answer the original question though, Jedi are powerful, but not overpowered. Range and area attacks, especially from multiple opponents are their big weaknesses. Or quite simply, put them up against another Force user. That right there is going to keep their attention from anyone/anything else during a fight.

As I mentioned in my previous post, a Jedi is almost always going to have the advantage one-on-one. Against swarms this changes.

With regards to your second point about putting the Jedi against another Force user, I see this as a major red flag. If I want to introduce a Sith/Force-using BBEG, the makeup of the group greatly impacts my options. For example, if the group is:

All Jedi: No problem. They are equipped to deal with the baddies.

No Jedi: Also no problem. They players should know they aren't equipped to deal with the baddies and take appropriate action (like avoidance). As a GM, I can prepare for this and take this into account.

Mixed: This introduces problems. If I directly confront the players with the Force baddies, it will put them in a difficult position. The non-Jedi will know they will be at a disadvantage going against Force-using enemies. They will look to the Jedi of the group to take up the slack. As a GM, I see potential problems with this scenario, both from a design perspective and "fairplay" perspective.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

As I mentioned in my previous post, a Jedi is almost always going to have the advantage one-on-one. Against swarms this changes.

With regards to your second point about putting the Jedi against another Force user, I see this as a major red flag. If I want to introduce a Sith/Force-using BBEG, the makeup of the group greatly impacts my options. For example, if the group is:

All Jedi: No problem. They are equipped to deal with the baddies.

No Jedi: Also no problem. They players should know they aren't equipped to deal with the baddies and take appropriate action (like avoidance). As a GM, I can prepare for this and take this into account.

Mixed: This introduces problems. If I directly confront the players with the Force baddies, it will put them in a difficult position. The non-Jedi will know they will be at a disadvantage going against Force-using enemies. They will look to the Jedi of the group to take up the slack. As a GM, I see potential problems with this scenario, both from a design perspective and "fairplay" perspective.

Giving yet another good reason for why Jedi being mechanically unbalanced for their level is a problem.

The PCs in my campaign encountered a minor Dark Side user (Jedi 4/Soldier 2) as the 'boss' of their first session. They might have fled or cut a deal; instead, they fought. The party's two Jedi, a combat-focused wookie and a more 'mage' type ithorian, managed to get knocked out by a clone trooper and so badly injured by the Dark Sider as to have to retreat, respectively. However, the party's Soldier/Scout and Scoundrel/Scout took that opportunity to gun down the Dark Sider. He deflected about 50% of the time, but the two of them kept the pressure on and eventually brought him down. Indeed, throughout that session, the Soldier/Scout was by far the most powerful combatant.

 

[pawsplay]

In all the games I've run, there's generally been a designated Jedi or Force user. Under RCR, a Force-using pilot proved to be spectacular in many respects. But for comparison, the Fringer hacked the Imperial network, and the Soldier gunned down thirty five stormtroopers single-handedly.

Under Saga, I think Jedi are very close to other characters. sure, other characters can't do magic, but a Jedi is a poor substitute for a dedicated slicer, pilot, diplomat, or heavy weapons trooper.

 

[Victim]

Except the Jedi can use Block/Deflect to prevent getting hit by a vibro-axe swing/blaster shot. For free. And then attack into no such defense.

It's not free; it costs a talent.

Moreover, it's not really automatic, since it's not difficult to fail the check. Especially at higher levels, when defense bonuses exceed skill bonuses.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Under Saga, I think Jedi are very close to other characters. sure, other characters can't do magic, but a Jedi is a poor substitute for a dedicated slicer, pilot, diplomat, or heavy weapons trooper.

Actually, what other characters can't do is cut things to pieces with a lightsaber in really creative ways, or use the Force in place of other skills.

Non-Jedi can be quite capable as 'mages' under Saga; a Force Sensitive noble is probably the closest to the spellcasting classes in D&D, for example, and a Force Sensitive soldier mixes the Force with ranged combat rather than melee.

Jedi get a slight advantage as casters by starting out Force Sensitive, but that advantage is lost if they ever want to take one of the starting feats another class gets, such as proficiency with armor or a rifle.

For a straight 'caster,' I would go with a noble, because a noble would probably get the most synergy from the 'casting stats' of Charisma and Wisdom.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Which is essentially irrelevant when the players start rolling dice. When people say "balance", they really mean "comparable effectiveness in combat".

If they mean that, they have slipped a long way from the 'balanced design' that the 3e designers sought and which permeates d20 and much OGL stuff since then.

Balanced doesn't mean comparable effectiveness in combat.

Balanced means equal fun to play.

Now a bad GM can screw things up by, say, making every single encounter a combat encounter, but that is a problem with the DM, not the system.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If they mean that, they have slipped a long way from the 'balanced design' that the 3e designers sought and which permeates d20 and much OGL stuff since then.

Balanced doesn't mean comparable effectiveness in combat.

Balanced means equal fun to play.

Wow, really?

If you have some evidence that d20 is not preponderantly balanced around combat, I would love to see it.

Personally, I think the evidence is abundant that d20 is balanced around combat, and most of the "stuff" we've seen for d20 since its inception has been primarily concerned with combat balance as a design criteria.

Combat is the core of d20 design. 75-90% of the "rules" of d20 point back at combat.

EDIT: Just a quick edit to let you know this post is not meant to sound snarky.