Would it be feasible, and are there any advantages of being able to brandish a pistol and a melee simultaneously?

Some say, Yes.
Some say, No.

Me, I use whatever gets the job done.
I might try it for novelty's sake.

I suggested this long long ago before TSL came out and everyone laughed at me.

My thought was holding an off-hand saber for blaster bolt deflection and a blaster for actual combat. Nobody saw any reason for holding a saber for defensive purposes only and instead envisioned trying to attack with the saber and blaster simultaneously which would obviously have devastating consequences.

As for a melee weapon other than a saber, I think it would be fine too but focusing mostly on its use as a defensive weapon against an enemy using a melee attack.

Maybe something like this:
Off-hand melee weapon with a main-hand blaster has -4 Attack on top of the normal dual-wield penalty, but eliminates the defense penalty against melee attacks when wielding a ranged weapon. In addition, a small off-hand weapon adds a +2 to melee defense. So it is useful as a defensive strategy, and you can attack with it at melee range, but not as effectively as if you were dual-wielding two melees.

Why not just add that silly looking energy shields that were used in Episode I. I dunno, it all seems sort of... unnecesary.

This sounds more like something that belongs in a Warhammer 40,000 RPG than Star Wars.

I suggested this long long ago before TSL came out and everyone laughed at me.

My thought was holding an off-hand saber for blaster bolt deflection and a blaster for actual combat. Nobody saw any reason for holding a saber for defensive purposes only and instead envisioned trying to attack with the saber and blaster simultaneously which would obviously have devastating consequences.

As for a melee weapon other than a saber, I think it would be fine too but focusing mostly on its use as a defensive weapon against an enemy using a melee attack.

Maybe something like this:
Off-hand melee weapon with a main-hand blaster has -4 Attack on top of the normal dual-wield penalty, but eliminates the defense penalty against melee attacks when wielding a ranged weapon. In addition, a small off-hand weapon adds a +2 to melee defense. So it is useful as a defensive strategy, and you can attack with it at melee range, but not as effectively as if you were dual-wielding two melees.

I was thinking something on the same lines.
A short saber, loaded with blaster bolt deflection and defensive upgrades in the off hand, while wielding an upgraded Static-electric or Mandalorian heavy pistol with master percision to go up against those force users who are foolish enough to think the force can save them.

Not a bad suggestion and I'm not laughing. I often thought what it would be like to brandish a melee (or saber) and a blaster in attack. I've tried actual simulations with my brother to see if feasible and it is. It could add a little flavor to the game.
:gben: The Jedi Master agrees!

I remember suggesting this also. But not as good as you people. I agree. :D

It's not good balancing. So no.

It's not good balancing. So no.
Why? It's just to improve the looks. And you won't be shooting and sword-fighting at the same time. You can sycle through the attack options and see "Attack Melee" or "Attack Ranged", it really isn't that bad. Maybe it could slow you down, like decrease Dexterity by 1 and decrease Fortitude. It's not so bad if you ask me.

Oh yeah, it is. The disadvantage of using blasters as a Jedi instead of lightsabers is mainly the blaster bolt deflection capabilities. In TSL, the blasters were heavily improved in attack power, thus that fact became more obvious.

It might not be more powerful than using two sabers, but it's blurring the line too much between melee and ranged.
Add to that, single saber wielders are even weaker.
Worst is personnal shields are rendered nearly useless. What's the point of using a shield with a blaster now?

Besides, it frankly looks stupid. Nobody can decently fight that way.

It's just an option, you know.

Sure it is, but what good is an option if people don't use it? Even in Single player.

If I find it worthless to use x weapon or x skill or x anything, I won't. With options like these, we could just forget about single saber wielders.

If I find it worthless to use x weapon or x skill or x anything, I won't. With options like these, we could just forget about single saber wielders.
You can equip whatever you want even if the ability to wield both melee and range weapon at the same time. It's a matter of will, you can equip a single saber, no one will complain; Some people would like to have a Melee and a Ranged weapon at the same time, but that they are not forced to it by the programming.

But it eliminates the logical point of using a single saber, when you can use one and a blaster.

^^^^
*Blam... Blam!* "So uncivilized!" :ben:

But seriously, in the PnP RPG your character either is armed for Ranged or Melee combat, usually you cannot do both...

If they were to implement this you could expect some stiff penalties to your Reflex Saves, Blaster Bolt Deflection and To-Hit rolls, possibly even partial or total loss of your Dexterity based Defense Bonus... too much penalty for too little reward IMO.

I think it'd be cool. I mean there was a guy in Tenchu who used a sword and a shotgun and that worked like a beast, you know? Some amazing moves to be done.

^^^^
*Blam... Blam!* "So uncivilized!" :ben:

But seriously, in the PnP RPG your character either is armed for Ranged or Melee combat, usually you cannot do both...

If they were to implement this you could expect some stiff penalties to your Reflex Saves, Blaster Bolt Deflection and To-Hit rolls, possibly even partial or total loss of your Dexterity based Defense Bonus... too much penalty for too little reward IMO.

Perhaps, but it would still be the choice of the player. Sometimes you have to take a penalty to get an edge elsewhere.

...and if you want to be a single hilt player, then, by all means, go right ahead.

Some of us like to experiment in all kinds of disposal methods.

Perhaps, but it would still be the choice of the player. Sometimes you have to take a penalty to get an edge elsewhere.

But if the penalty is too great, would you even consider using it? You might try it out for one or two fights and realize it's not worth it.

...and if you want to be a single hilt player, then, by all means, go right ahead.

That's not the point. They have a hard time already balancing dual, double and single. No need for a third one jumping in and unbalancing everything even more.


Some of us like to experiment in all kinds of disposal methods.

It seems like this is the usual answer. However, balancing is important, whether it be MP or SP. It might seem to affect MP more, but I like my SP games to be also balanced.
Right now, there's virtually no reason why anyone, non-hardcore, should play with a single saber. Some polls on the official site show this. It's only:"Dual or double blade?" Rarely do we get to see single.
Why? Because single blade users are definitely weaker then dual or double. Their advantages are puny. +3 attack and +3 defense with Master Dueling. That's a tiny advantage compared to the sheer damage a double-blade can inflict. Even if the +3 to attack and +3 to defense come into play, the second the double-blader touches you, you're screwed.
It's the same for dual blade users.

Add to that the ability to wield a blaster and a saber for both ranged and melee. So unless there's some major penalties, here's another option to pound single saberists to the ground.

But it's just an option you'll say...no, it isn't just an option. That oversimplifies eveything. You'd have to remember that if you can do that, enemy NPCs can do it too. What if it's really overpowered and the AI is smart enough to use it efficiently? It'll be fun.

But enough about balance, has anyone thought of how weird it would look? How can a Jedi concentrate on aiming correctly and blocking at the same time?
Sure, they do have melee and ranged mixed in other games. Warhammer 40K for example. But does the Space Marine Commander block enemy fire while shooting back? No.
It simply is too unrealistic to even be considered.

I would say no. Apart from looking silly, it would require more animations.

Animations take time to create. Instead of making an animation for a charactor with a melee weapon and a blaster, they could make add more variety to the existing animations. Such as a few more "flurry" animations or whatnot. Perhaps they could even add different animations for the different sabre styles.

That would be a better use of their time, in my opinion.

Look we practically already have a combined melee/ranged attack already:

Ever used Force Storm, Force Wave, Destroy Droid, etc. with a lightsaber in your hand? Those are all ranged attack against *MULTIPLE* enemies that also enable you to defend against melee attacks and blaster fire. Heck you can attack an opponent at melee range with a saber in one round and then fry him with lightning in the next. The most unbalanced aspect of both games is being able to stand completely still and spam Force Waves destroying every enemy on screen long before running out of VP or FP. So a ranged/melee combo is not a balance issue. Really.

The question is whether a dual-wield ranged/melee combo makes sense as a way real people/Jedi could and would fight, and whether players would use it often enough to justify implementing it in the game. *I* would use it from time to time simply because the concept/look of it is cool to me. If not enough people would use it then it would be a waste to put in the game and get it to work.

(Which, incidentally, wouldn't really be that hard. Imagine four buttons in the attack Target Menu rather than three: Melee, Ranged, Force Powers, Grenades. If you don't have a melee or ranged weapon equipped then that option is blacked out. During the defense portion of each round you see the defense animation of either defending against a melee attack with your melee weapon, and/or deflecting a blaster bolt with your saber...that is absolutely no different than what we currently have with a Jedi who has selected a Force power and is waiting for his attack portion of the round. During the attack portion of each round you attack with *EITHER* your ranged weapon or your melee weapon, depending on which option you select in the Target Menu. Depending on the range of your target and the weapon you selected, you attack as if single-wielding that kind of weapon, but applying a dual-wielding penalty and whatever penalty there exists for mismatched wielding. If you dual-wield the same kind of weapon (melee or ranged) then attacks function as they do currently.)

And really, if doing the animations for dual wielding ranged and melee weapons together only takes away from five more Flurry, Critical Strike, and Power Attack animations each, I'm all for it. Next thing we'll get is the screen flashing purple, pink, and yellow with fireworks and the screen shaking when a critical hit is scored, followed by the screen splattering with blood that runs slowly down and an evil laugh. But I suspect for many people that alone would make KOTOR3 the best game ever. :rolleyes:

Alright, so not everyone agrees, oh well, that's the way of the universe.

I'm one who likes options. If they decide to place these types of options in the game, then I'll explore them.

If not, then I'll find other ways to eliminate my enemies.

I'll tell you one thing, IMO, the next game won't be the same old thing. I believe the next gen Kotor will have a few surprises for all of us. Yes, even those of you who think you have seen the future.
Another thing, when I come across a single blade saberist, he'd better have the force as his ally.

...and even that may not be enough.

But if the penalty is too great, would you even consider using it?
Now if they wanted to insert that. Would they do such a thing?

Even if the +3 to attack and +3 to defense come into play, the second the double-blader touches you, you're screwed.
I never got beaten by a double-bladed wielder. And if I never got beaten, Why would anyone else be? :confused: Maybe you just didn't improve your character as good as you thought. :p

Add to that the ability to wield a blaster and a saber for both ranged and melee. So unless there's some major penalties, here's another option to pound single saberists to the ground.
That doesn't mean that. You just have to think what abilities are you going to use.

But it's just an option you'll say...no, it isn't just an option. You'd have to remember that if you can do that, enemy NPCs can do it too. What if it's really overpowered and the AI is smart enough to use it efficiently? It'll be fun.
Now you are over exagerating.

A.I.'s are not that smart and no NPC would wield such a thing, because NPC's are mostly unoriginal minds that doesn't really think or aim correctly.

But enough about balance, has anyone thought of how weird it would look? How can a Jedi concentrate on aiming correctly and blocking at the same time?
HEY! You said that. Not us.

But does the Space Marine Commander block enemy fire while shooting back?
No, because he doesn't have the correct polarity of a electron field projecting shield, nor does he have a Xenon stick that is ionicly positive, while the projectiles are also positive; making them deflect because of the positive ions from both sides.

It simply is too unrealistic to even be considered.
Who says that Star Wars is real? :p

Animations take time to create. Instead of making an animation for a charactor with a melee weapon and a blaster, they could make add more variety to the existing animations.
People don't get money for the time they've spent making something, they get money for the things made.

Yeah, and if they spend that much time making animations for this, as well as animations for other things, and saber forms, and improve the engine, and fix bugs, and try to simultaneously make a good story..... The game won't make its deadline, and thus, they won't be getting too much money for what they made. An animation, let alone an entire set, is not something that can be created in a matter of minutes. "It's not a routine procedure, but an artform." To quote svцsh. :) Especially human animations like these.

People don't get money for the time they've spent making something, they get money for the things made.
Not really. If you take the time to make something well, you can charge more for it then if you do not.

Games are somewhat different in that most new games sale for about $50. However, in the long term my statement holds true. If the game is rushed, once people hear its not good, the sales will drop and the price will drop. If they take the time and make it well, they can keep selling it for $50 for a longer period of time, thus making a higher profit.

Ergo, your statement is false in most, though unfortunately not all, instances.

The game won't make its deadline, and thus, they won't be getting too much money for what they made. An animation, let alone an entire set, is not something that can be created in a matter of minutes.
If the game is rushed, once people hear its not good, the sales will drop and the price will drop.
What? For one animation a set of them and a delay??? That's ridicoulous.

A set isn't one animation. A set is many animations. And it's not ridiculous when you're arguing over a LucasArts game. They get rushed anyway. And from OE's (OE being the likely candidate for K3.) work on K2, it definitely seems that they're geared towards engine improvements and better models and animations - before the story/bug fixes. Which means that they would likely create new animations/models first, then get to the story last. They could barely get K2 out as a working game in time. To do the same again in addition to an entire set of animations... Well, it won't get the game done in time for a deadline. Animations take a long time. That's why Nihilus uses recycled animations. That's why most models in the game are built on a shared skeleton, so there is no need to animate everything on its own. You can't make natural-looking animations like you can make an item on KotOR Tool.

You will also notice in my post, that I never said the animations alone would cause a failure to meet a deadline. OE has enough trouble getting everything into the game on time as it is, and adding more, especially something as time consuming as animtations, is going to take up the time they could be fixing some of the bugs or improving the story.

Well maybe they can do the same thing with animation skeletons with KOTOR 3 as well. I don't mind seeing everyone have same animations for everything. The blaster-and-melee weapon wielding can be PC and Party only animation.

Maybe so but this was a suggestion after all

Well maybe they can do the same thing with animation skeletons with KOTOR 3 as well. I don't mind seeing everyone have same animations for everything. The blaster-and-melee weapon wielding can be PC and Party only animation.

Yeah, if it was done, it definitely would be. There's still the matter of making the animations though, a lot of time which could be better spent giving us a solid, relatively bugless story. :D

There's still the matter of making the animations though, a lot of time which could be better spent giving us a solid, relatively bugless story. :D
Quoted for emphasis! ;)

No.

It just doesn't make sense,
If you are a Jedi, why would you WANT a blaster to begin with?
And if you are (presumabley a skilled) Jedi most blaster shots the enemy throws your way are going to be deflected, and who says an NPC wouldn't use this feature? They use everything else you can. Think about it, my PC with a short saber in my left hand hand, and a super what-ever you want to call it mega Mandalorian blaster pistol in my right, I am against another Jedi/Sith with the same ability, I attack him first with my blaster and he deflects every single shot, he does the same and I deflect every shot, now we are at a stalemate. Stalemates in videogamecombat are BAD. Now if either of us switches to just one type of weapon, blaster or saber, we'll lose because our opponent will shoot us while we run up to him/her to fight with a saber, or we get stabbed in the gut because our blaster cannot get through his armor/saber deflects.
If we we resort to force powers who ever has a higher Wisdom setting will win hands down because his/her opponent will not be able to fight with a weapon without being gunned down or stabbed. So essentially its like a slanted version of Rock-Paper-Scissors, Force Powers Are better than the combo, The combo is better than a single type of weapon, and a single type of weapon gives you nothing but death.

Now if you threw grenades and/or mines into the mix that is a different story, whoever threw a freeze-grenade or something of the like would have the upper hand, which is mainly why I hate grenades because they don't make sense in an RPG game. But honestly, who uses grenades when your opponet is weilding a saber?! Bleh.

So in the end you force players to be either extremely powerful, have a ton of grenades, or only use the same spam-tactic through the whole game. Spamming a game with the same moves, same powers, same weapons over and over again gets real old real fast.

The idea sounds like something from your usual hollywood movies, where the brawny action hero jumps into a corridor horizontally, firing with two machineguns. Then, stylishly, he takes out a sword and a gun and hacks away at the guys around him, while accurately hitting those far away.

My vote: no.

Depending on the level of deflection rolls the jedi/sith carry and the level of 'precise shot' I have, not all my shots are deflected.
With the right damage and critical hit upgrades, sabarists many times fall before me.

Actually, sometimes I can kill jedi fairly easy with blasters.
Maybe that's the problem with this thread. Jedi and sith alike don't like blasters.
(barbaric weapon)

Force users and traditionalists don't usually favor deadly pistoliers.
(especially if they brandish one of their own 'civilized' weapons.)

I don't mind if it is in there, but there should be huge penalties.

I don't mind if it is in there, but there should be huge penalties.
Now that's what I am talking about.

But if you are going to have stuff like "Attack Ranged", and then "Attack Melee" in the action queue, why not just switch weapons? It would come out the same, it would take a round for each attack. But the idea is kind of intriguing, if they did it right, it could be kind of nice. But I agree, massive penalties, maybe only being able to use with shortsabers if you haven't mastered it. I think it could work really good, although it might not be that great for an RPG than it would be for a FPS.

The most unbalanced aspect of both games is being able to stand completely still and spam Force Waves destroying every enemy on screen long before running out of VP or FP. So a ranged/melee combo is not a balance issue. Really.

Not a balance issue how? You've just mentionned something that needs balancing and then claim that there's no balance issue?
There is, more then you seem to think. The theoretical counterweight to using force powers are force points. You risk running out of FP. However, when using a saber and a blaster, you don't run out of ammo.

Now if they wanted to insert that. Would they do such a thing?

If they want to balance things out, yes.


I never got beaten by a double-bladed wielder. And if I never got beaten, Why would anyone else be? :confused: Maybe you just didn't improve your character as good as you thought. :p

I'm just making up a potential situation. Of course, both KotOR games without hardcore mods are outrageously easy. I'm just saying that if you faced someone of equal level with roughly the same stats, using a single saber, in the actual context, against a double-bladed saber would lead to your loss.
That doesn't mean that. You just have to think what abilities are you going to use.


Now you are over exagerating.

A.I.'s are not that smart and no NPC would wield such a thing, because NPC's are mostly unoriginal minds that doesn't really think or aim correctly.

That's because the game is too easy. Doesn't have anything to do with them using both a blaster and a saber at the same time. Besides, what stops an NPC from doing that?

HEY! You said that. Not us.

Oh, you did. I might have confused people by saying "at the same time", but I'll explain it later.


No, because he doesn't have the correct polarity of a electron field projecting shield, nor does he have a Xenon stick that is ionicly positive, while the projectiles are also positive; making them deflect because of the positive ions from both sides.

Now this doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Who says that Star Wars is real? :p

Who says it must not be? There's realism in real life and realism and Star Wars. Shooting and using a saber at the same time doesn't fit either.

Frankly, someone said something about already being able to use both melee and ranged weapon by switching in the middle of a battle.
Now that makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is someone who would stand there and shoot while deflecting when they can deflect and then rush up to the enemy and do some slice and dice.
It makes even for a stupider scene, as someone mentionned earlier, where two saber and pistol wielding enemies would fight. They'd stand there and shoot and deflect. It would look absolutely horrendous.

Now that's what I am talking about.

This goes back to another one of my points. If there's too big a penalty, why use it?

Frankly, someone said something about already being able to use both melee and ranged weapon by switching in the middle of a battle. Now that makes sense.

The advantage of dual-wielding a melee and ranged together would be from the defensive point of view. You could defend against a melee attack (or a blaster shot if you are wielding a lightsaber) while launching a ranged attack of your own. YOU ALREADY DO THIS WITH FORCE POWERS AND A SABER!!!! My goodness. It's not about mechanics or balance. It doesn't unbalance anything *MORE* than it's already unbalanced, which was my point about spamming Force Waves, and it doesn't add a dimension of the game that doesn't already exist, albeit in a slightly different form (Force powers instead of blaster fire). The only issues as I see it is whether it's realistic to fight that way, and whether it would be used often enough to justify spending time on it to put it in the game.

What doesn't make sense is someone who would stand there and shoot while deflecting when they can deflect and then rush up to the enemy and do some slice and dice.

Really? Do you realize what you are implying: Why EVER use a ranged attack? Why let anyone in your party stand there and ABSORB (forget even deflecting) blaster fire when they can rush up to an enemy and slice and dice? :rolleyes:

It makes even for a stupider scene, as someone mentionned earlier, where two saber and pistol wielding enemies would fight. They'd stand there and shoot and deflect. It would look absolutely horrendous.

I'm not sure exactly how it would look, and neither do you. Will it look much dumber than two ranged opponents facing off with defense ratings of +40 never suffering damage and firing at each other for two hours and healing critical hit damage until one runs out of medpacs?

I personally find the strategy of two saber-ranged opponents facing each other intriguing. I think the decision about when to commit to a melee attack in this case would be an interesting one. It enables a stastically weaker melee opponent to try out more options to deal with a stronger one: for example it may force a strong melee opponent to use a saber that focuses on BBD rather than maximum damage. It also multiplies the number of build choices because you now can determine whether you want to max/min for melee, ranged, force powers, or some combo of them. More choices = better as long as they're reasonable (certainly the number of feat and Foce power choices in TSL indicates that world-class game developers believe this to be true). If a melee-ranged combo is too unreasonable as a way for real people and/or Jedi to fight, then forget it. If it's conceivable, then I'm for it.

This goes back to another one of my points. If there's too big a penalty, why use it?

You're the one talking about "too big a penalty." What does that mean? I'm sure that playtesters can figure out what the IDEAL penalty would be to make such a strategy useful with a good setup and bad with a poor setup, and balancing the penalty with the other combat options to make them reasonably equal if min/maxed properly. Playtesting is how every respectable RPG has determined what the penalties should be for various strategies. They don't randomly decide numbers, they try out various numbers to determine what they think is FAIR. Why is this one aspect the only one in any RPG system that would be randomly chosen to have "too big a penalty?"

Look, we get it. You don't like the idea. At this point just say "I think just think it's stupid" and be done with it.

It makes even for a stupider scene, as someone mentionned earlier, where two saber and pistol wielding enemies would fight. They'd stand there and shoot and deflect. It would look absolutely horrendous.

Liayd is right about that, you know, it would make a pretty stupid scene. That would be a definite problem if this happened. And as I said before, why not just attack with say a force Push, and then pull out a blaster, shoot a few times, and then run up and attack with your saber.

I'm not sure exactly how it would look, and neither do you. Will it look much dumber than two ranged opponents facing off with defense ratings of +40 never suffering damage and firing at each other for two hours and healing critical hit damage until one runs out of medpacs?

Sorry, but quite frankly, I have a pretty good idea of what it would look like :xp:. It would be worse than the scenario you just mentioned, which is a bit exaggerated by the way. And what would happen if a blaster shot just kept going back and forth from each person, each in turn blocking it and adding even more rogue blaster shots to the mix?

You're the one talking about "too big a penalty." What does that mean? I'm sure that playtesters can figure out what the IDEAL penalty would be to make such a strategy useful with a good setup and bad with a poor setup, and balancing the penalty with the other combat options to make them reasonably equal if min/maxed properly. Playtesting is how every respectable RPG has determined what the penalties should be for various strategies. They don't randomly decide numbers, they try out various numbers to determine what they think is FAIR.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you just said they should just make it "fair" and make it so it would have hardly any drawbacks at all. Come on, there is a fine line between "reasonable" (for the game) and "unrealistic," and what you said seems to be crossing it. For someone use what we are talking about would make them either the most terrible fighter alive, or, it would make them a dangerous killer, yet would still have several weak points.

When I think of ranged weapons along with melee like you are saying, I think of some guy fighting with a saber, warding off an enemies blow, then pulling out a blaster and gunning down an enemy running toward him; then, using his saber on the first guy. That would be really what I would like. But then again, you can almost already do this with the secondary weapon option, so why include it?

Now the kind of combo I would really want, more than having the blaster/saber combination, is still having only melee weapons at a time, but having your fists or feet. Being able to attack with a saber while simultaneously hitting the enemy and causing a small, yet regular amount of damage. That would be nice.

The advantage of dual-wielding a melee and ranged together would be from the defensive point of view. You could defend against a melee attack (or a blaster shot if you are wielding a lightsaber) while launching a ranged attack of your own. YOU ALREADY DO THIS WITH FORCE POWERS AND A SABER!!!! My goodness. It's not about mechanics or balance. It doesn't unbalance anything *MORE* than it's already unbalanced, which was my point about spamming Force Waves, and it doesn't add a dimension of the game that doesn't already exist, albeit in a slightly different form (Force powers instead of blaster fire). The only issues as I see it is whether it's realistic to fight that way, and whether it would be used often enough to justify spending time on it to put it in the game.

If we rebalance force powers (including force wave) then yes, that tactic would unbalance things.
You missed the point. When using force powers, you use up force points. In theory, when you use up all of your force points, you have to close in and engage in melee combat.
That is not the case with a blaster, as you will never run out of ammo.

You're confusing the ranged skills with the spellcasting skills.

Really? Do you realize what you are implying: Why EVER use a ranged attack? Why let anyone in your party stand there and ABSORB (forget even deflecting) blaster fire when they can rush up to an enemy and slice and dice? :rolleyes:

Thus, why non Jedi do exist. HK-47 or Mandalore with a rifle can't use any of those tactics. As far as I know, they can't deflect blaster fire like a Jedi can.

This comes with the principe of the tanker and the shooter. Tankers come in a take hits while shooters deal damage from afar.

I'm not sure exactly how it would look, and neither do you. Will it look much dumber than two ranged opponents facing off with defense ratings of +40 never suffering damage and firing at each other for two hours and healing critical hit damage until one runs out of medpacs?

Yes, it would look dumber, since both have melee weapons in their hands. Two persons with rifles have no choice but to avoid melee. People who have the option and are able to deflect blaster bolts using said melee weapon would have it in their best interest to deflect then rush forward.

Personally, I think I know exactly how it will look.


I personally find the strategy of two saber-ranged opponents facing each other intriguing. I think the decision about when to commit to a melee attack in this case would be an interesting one. It enables a stastically weaker melee opponent to try out more options to deal with a stronger one: for example it may force a strong melee opponent to use a saber that focuses on BBD rather than maximum damage. It also multiplies the number of build choices because you now can determine whether you want to max/min for melee, ranged, force powers, or some combo of them. More choices = better as long as they're reasonable (certainly the number of feat and Foce power choices in TSL indicates that world-class game developers believe this to be true).

You have to realize that if you mix and match things, you're going to be significantly weaker then a specialist opponent.
Not that you will be only able to hold a single pistol.
You might not even be able to max out or even have good skill in either ranged or melee combat. You'll be not bad and not good, just average.
A game should certainly not allow you to try every single option available during the course of a single run through the game.

If a melee-ranged combo is too unreasonable as a way for real people and/or Jedi to fight, then forget it. If it's conceivable, then I'm for it.

Partly, it is unreasonable. Bayonnets are used to combine both ranged and melee but both are significantly hampered. However, this isn't simply the case of somebody holding a gun in one hand and a sword in another. If it was a simple vibroblade, it could look decent, but it isn't the case.
We're talking about a melee weapon that can counter ranged opponents. Unlike a regular vibroblade, you can actually deflect bolts and rush up against an opponent. If you had a regular vibroblade, it would truly serve as a defense against melee opponents who closed in all you and managed to avoid your fire.


You're the one talking about "too big a penalty." What does that mean? I'm sure that playtesters can figure out what the IDEAL penalty would be to make such a strategy useful with a good setup and bad with a poor setup, and balancing the penalty with the other combat options to make them reasonably equal if min/maxed properly. Playtesting is how every respectable RPG has determined what the penalties should be for various strategies. They don't randomly decide numbers, they try out various numbers to determine what they think is FAIR. Why is this one aspect the only one in any RPG system that would be randomly chosen to have "too big a penalty?"

Because it is overpowered, at it's base, overpowered. The ability to both deflect ranged attacks and counter them by standing still without having any penalty is unbalanced. The "correct" penalty would be a massive disadvantage to both ranged and melee abilities, as both are combined into one.
If you're not good in either, but not bad either, you're weaker then those who are specialists. Usually, specialist characters, either melee or ranged, have special abilities to counter-weight their respective disadvantages.
Melee characters will usually have more VP and ranged characters better attack rates.

A melee character who manages to close in on your character would crush you. Him, being a melee specialist, has the advantage over you being a jack-of-all-trades. Even if you have the ability to defend yourself, it's only for one of those last resort situation.
As for ranged, even though you have good blaster bolt deflection, many bolt will get through and your opponent will likely have shields and a high defense rating helping him avoid the shots. Add to that the fact that ranged characters usually have a very high attack, it will help them get through your jack-of-all-traed defense.


Look, we get it. You don't like the idea. At this point just say "I think just think it's stupid" and be done with it.

So you said that if i's unconceivable, then we should forget it, but you don't want to hear if it's unconceivable or not?
I bring up the opposite point of view and how or why it would be unconceivable. Of course, since it's not your point of view, it's all a bunch of crap.
Your attempt at looking unbiased has failed.

YOU ALREADY DO THIS WITH FORCE POWERS AND A SABER!!!! My goodness. It's not about mechanics or balance. It doesn't unbalance anything *MORE* than it's already unbalanced.

Did you miss the part of LIAYD's post where he talks about Limited FP vs. Unlimited Ammunition? :rolleyes:

If force wave could be done infinitely, and did the same amount of damage as a suped up pistol, then it wouldn't balance anything any more.

Edit: I see you beat me to it.

Because it is overpowered, at it's base, overpowered. The ability to both deflect ranged attacks and counter them by standing still without having any penalty is unbalanced.
You are not a GOD of martial arts to deflect any blow. Unless you use cheats. :rolleyes:

Well,that's where you are mistaken. Due to the ease of the KotOR games, it is quite possible to become a "God," as you call it, at blaster deflection. However, this usually comes at the penalty of a low attack strength. No such attack penalty exists here, so, to limit your "Godliness," Deflection would take a hit. It's how RPGs work. Great bonuses are coupled with great penalties.

Only thing that would be acceptable to me is an additional attack feat for ranged weapons, which incorporates a close range weapon-bash melee attack. Does less damage than a normal shot, but increases defense temporarily, or something. Even that's crossing the line though, that's sort of in the FPS realm.

That wouldn't be too bad an idea actually. Even if it's FPS like. Though it also kills the purpose of being able to switch to melee weapons.

You could become a 'god' according to the strength of the character. But in blaster deflection... I don't think so.

Even that's crossing the line though, that's sort of in the FPS realm.
Bioware, Obsidian and Lucas Arts already stepped into almost every realm in existence with single products. They won't stop: Star Wars, as a mark, was meant to break rules in every genre it presents itself. It's what makes it great. Deal with it.

That wouldn't be too bad an idea actually. Even if it's FPS like. Though it also kills the purpose of being able to switch to melee weapons.

Well, I didn't plan on it being nearly as powerful as, say, your suped up lightsaber or vibrosword. But it gives the strict gunners a little move for close range if they get swarmed. :D It'd be ideal if you shot the crap out of something as it approached your gunner, then used a melee hit to finish it off, giving you a small defense boost for that round too. Then there's no hassle of switching to a melee weapon just for one hit.

Sadly, since feats have a habit of being hardcoded, it's not a mod possibility, OE would actually have to do it. :(

And as for blaster deflection, with the right upgrades, you can add close to 20+ to your deflection roll. Do that in a double saber, and it's 20+ for both blades. Then there's a +10 (Or is it +6?) if you invest in all levels of Jedi Defense. Then there are the saber forms which add +5 or so. so, lets just say 30+ Deflection now. All you have to do is roll higher than them to deflect. Pretty sure that boost will give you the higher roll, when coupled with your natural roll. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised to see most shots redirected back to their targets. You can indeed become a deflection god.

It's all technical to me but I thought the ability to hold a blaster and a saber or vibroblade would be cool. If it is going to take work on the part of the devs, then I would rather they concentrate on the storyline. :darthx

If it is going to take work on the part of the devs, then I would rather they concentrate on the storyline.
Geez, people! They only have to type in 20 numbers.

Geez, people! They only have to type in 20 numbers.

Well then, the only problem is: Will they type the 20 numbers?

Well then, the only problem is: Will they type the 20 numbers?
Yes that's what I thought. Because what is sugested here is more of a harmless bug (from their point of view), rather than something that could bring down the entire D20 system.

Even though I have my reasons for wanting this particular option, I have a bad feeling about this. Not too many people seemed to find it as interesting or useful. So perhaps, the devs will think of it as a waste of time, or maybe not at all. I just feel this game is going to need a lot to bringback the exitement of the '03 game of the year.