Personally, I would call a lightsaber a Weapon:5 that can be used with Weapons. Full stop, end of story.

However, if a Jedi wants to use the lightsaber for more than hacking and slashing, they're going to need Supernatural powers. Note that since they're powers, they don't get the +2 refresh for being pure mortal. Let's face it, Jedi can do things no mortal can.

Sample Powers:
Lightsaber Combat [-2]: When using a lightsaber, you get a +1 bonus on all rolls, and deal +1 stress. In addition, you may use your Weapons skill to defend against ranged attacks, but not area attacks.
Lightsaber Deflection [-1]: If you successfully defend against an energy-based attack with your lightsaber, you may sacrifice your next turn's action to turn the defense roll into a successful attack against any target within range. If you spend a Fate Point, you do not sacrifice your next turn's action.

The first one is pretty self-explanatory. It's the classic Jedi Defense power. The second one is nothing more than the Repost Stunt found on page YS156 under Weapons. I added the Fate Point expenditure for those times when the Jedi really wants to be that B.A. Besides, powers are stunts with perhaps a bit more oomph, right?

Also, Strength and Speed powers might be appropriate.

-EF

One of my players is playing a True Beleiver.  He has inhuman toughness and this is what he wants as a catch: (+3 discount)

Let's break this down, shall we?

"The Catch is that the toughness only comes into play if I am engaged in conflict with creatures that are affected by my Holy Touch power and I am aware of it,

That sounds like "something specific" to me, so +1.

or was guided to be there by the Guide my Hand power[/i]."

This also sounds like "something specific." However, we can only take the highest bonus, so this is ignored.

Any kind of research would discover this, so it'd be easy to find out and send mortal goons who would bypass the catch.

Since anyone who did some research can find out about your catch, that's worth another +1, for a total of +3.

Is this a fair catch?  It's a bit unusual, so I really don't know how to adjudicate it.

Unusual? Maybe. But going by the guidelines for the catch, you properly priced it out.

Because otherwise it functions as a "free" supernatural sense - if toughness is active, hey, that must be some kinda faith-vulnerable supernatural thingy!  Who would've guessed?

Now, there's nothing wrong with having such a sensory power; it just shouldn't come for free as a side effect of having a slightly unusual catch.

Another way to go about it is to just give the character Supernatural Sense. In-character justification? The Almighty wants them to know what is an abomination in His eyes.

If not, don't worry about it. The +3 catch covers it all!

-EF

I am going to have to side with Bumbling Bear hear lightsabers have been shown to cut through several meters worth of unamed superalloy for example cutting through security doors on a star destroyer and even cutting through ship hull material, considering blaster bolt just pinged off these doors in the fiction  a Weapons 4 bazooka would probably do nothing but scorch the door and possibly leave a dent and anything at weapons 3 or under would have no effected what so ever (other than possible death by richoche). Though I have to admit this may be more due to the fact that lightsabers are a very effective welding torch than because they are effective weapons, pretty much any physical barrier can be cut with a lightsaber with enough time other than barriers made  specially made with cortosis a super expensive super rare material.

Even then, Luke was able to cut through a cortosis-lined cave wall in a matter of hours, with Mara looking on in awe. For lightsabers, it's just a matter of time when the barrier is cut through.

Another thing to keep in mind is that blaster bolts only ping off of doors that are magnetically sealed (EpV, trash compactor). All other instances of blaster fire meeting walls had the wall absorb the bolt and nothing more.

-EF

I agree with Belial, take involuntary human change, but link it to Modular Abilities. That way, you can get what you want when you need it.

-EF

I also ran the numbers, and did it for 2dF, 3dF, and 4dF. You can find the spreadsheet here.

I have not only the percent chances, but also the odds, if you're interested.

-EF

That's not how I saw demonic co-pilot.  I just run it that the player ALWAYS get's a +1 if what they are doing is in keeping with the agenda of the demon.

The only time you make opposed rolls is when the Demon wants you to do something that a character would not want to do: 

Like if the Demon wants the character to kill his mother, that would be opposed mental combat.

The rules for Demonic Co-Pilot say that:

" When [gaining the +1 bonus], you must roll Discipline against the result, as if you were defending against an attack. Failure...results in mental stress..." (YS175).

So anytime you roll with the bonus, you have to defend against your own roll. At least, that's how I'm reading it.

-EF

Last week or so, I statted up a template for my next DFRPG character. You can find it here.

Anyway, from the source material, many different versions could have Demonic Co-Pilot. However, it seems to be a really "bean counting" power. Every time you use the +1, you have to roll to avoid stress? That seems like too much work! Why oppose every roll you make?

Do y'all think it'd be alright to change it to a Consequential Contest instead (YS193)? For those AFB, it's one roll that instead of inflicting Stress, it goes straight to the consequences. You have to absorb the shifts by your consequences. So for DCP, you'd roll once at the end of the conflict you used it in, vs the highest skill used (with the +1 bonus, of course). If you succeed, you resist the influence of the co-pilot. If you fail, it deals mental damage in the form of consequences.

This does a few things that I think are good:

• Reduces the number of rolls
• Makes using it an all-or-nothing choice (in for a penny, in for a pound)
• Gives lasting...uhh....consequences with dealing with the devil

I don't know, I guess I just find it "off" to be rolling twice for one action--once for the action, once against your own action. Does this sound like a good houserule?

Thanks in advance!

-EF