Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StarkJunior

Recent Profile Visitors

665 profile views
  1. Yeah, basically what everyone else has said - whichever is coolest is what you narrate. That's the beauty of the system.
  2. He said, "Well, you're 'holding' the lightsaber so it's still part of YOU, so therefore it DID hit YOU." Moving goal posts and stretching logic to support his points.
  3. He should just house rule it and concede this point, or play a different game then, honestly. This isn't a simulationist game, and frankly, few modern systems are.
  4. You do realize that in a narrative system everything is about context, right? Rolls are all about what situations are going on, and in the case of setbacks added because of armor... it's literally because of the armor that the attack is failing. The 'narrative' of the armor is that it makes the attack fail - an attack's intention, of course, is to damage the opponent in this system - because the armor prevents damage to you. It's not that hard to understand, it's not that hard to grasp narratively. Everyone else can, why can't you?
  5. Buddy, deflecting the damage is making an attack fail - because failure means not doing damage.
  6. What the **** are you on, dude? Don't quote the dictionary at us, man. That's childish and makes you seem immature and patronizing. You're wrong, give it up. Stop moving goal posts and twisting words to support your position. Don't be so obtuse. RAW gives armor defense, which can give a failure, which thus means armor prevents you from getting hit, according to your own words. You're not arguing RAW, you're arguing some weird hybrid of house rules, your personal interpretation of what you think armor is or should do, and you're so far up your own argument at this point, you've proven yourself wrong like three times.
  7. You're kidding, right? The or is there to state that ALL of those things can make an attack fail completely - they all do the same thing. It just depends on the context of the thing being used - so, abso-*******-lutely armor can deflect whole attacks. It's right there, in the text. That's RAW. Prove to us you're not being intellectually dishonest and concede this point.
  8. Let's not make assumptions based on what the designers intended unless you specifically have a quote, that describes in detail this intention. Also, you keep contradicting yourself post after post.
  9. Pretty sure it's all fine and dandy for LFL and Disney. There's only a handful of films that a billion dollars each year - and most of them are Disney - and The Mandalorian is like the top streaming show and super well received, so yeah. Trilogies pretty much always trend downwards following the first film (which is basically what happened with all the other Star Wars films), except for the MCU, but they're the exception that proves the rule, in most things. Like, I get you have some kind of weird hate boner for Disney and are out to prove they suck at Star Wars or something, but you know...
  10. It was a joke, my dude, lmao. Also it's a deep fake so height doesn't matter.
  11. Aw, they didn't use Sebastian Stan for Luke...
  12. Fairly normal for a lot of streaming projects these days. Ewan mentioned a lot of the LFL production/team hadn't really had a chance to do a deep dive on some of the writing since they were focused on Rise of Skywalker, but he did say the "creative differences" stuff was bull and that it hasn't affected the not-yet-announced release date. Better to get a well-crafted story than something rushed, imo.
  13. No, it is still a Failed roll. It's a "Failure effect" on the feat - which is something that triggers on a Failure, same as spells and other feats. It's not a Success. It's a Failure. Full stop. You can't trigger any other feats that trigger off Successes, you can't get a Crit, you can't get anything like that because it is still mechanically a Failure. Failures being misses is not a universal truth, so stop basing arguments on it.
  14. Except no, per the system (mechanics) it's still a failed roll. You failed to achieve the success condition, so you still failed mechanically, but failure when you use this specific feat doesn't mean you missed, you just didn't hit as hard as you would if you succeeded mechanically. You always hit when you use this action, just how hard is what changes. And you can still miss otherwise if you don't use this feat for one of your actions. So, thus, you can't claim failure always equals miss in everything because here it doesn't (and fighters have 2 or 3 feats that act like this, too.) And it's not bad design - fighters in PF2E are the best at weapons, so they hit more, are the only ones to achieve the best proficiency level with weapons, and have feats that lets them shift the failure state of Strikes because they're that good with weapons. (As an aside, all the martial classes have a niche - Barbarians do the most damage, Rangers are best at multiple attacks, Champions are best at armor, Monks are best at stances/unarmed, and Rogues are best at debilitation/non-magical debuffs/striking from positioning. All of them have features and feats that shift the base mechanics to permit this, just like fighters who are best at hitting and with weapons do so with theirs.)
  • Create New...