SW Saga Skills

[B.T.]

In another thread--now locked due to flaming--Charwoman Gene made the remark that Saga Edition had "shredded the skills system, just like 4e [sic] and that was a horrible crime against gaming."

What are your personal opinions on the SE skill set? I think that the idea is sound, but I feel that they cut out/merged too many of the skills.

[Mistwell]

You can read the preview article on skills here:

Saga Edition Preview 2

[ValhallaGH]

Originally Posted by B.T.

What are your personal opinions on the SE skill set?

For Star Wars, it works very, very well. For other settings and genres it doesn't work as well.

Good luck avoiding a flame war.

[drothgery]

I think it's great, and they didn't merge enough skills (climb, jump, and swim should have been rolled into Athletics; yes, that would have left only one Strength skill, but it would actually be useful enough to be trained in). And in cinematic/high heroic RPGs (like any Star Wars RPG, or D&D), I think a skill list about the size of Saga's (or 4e's) is about right, and the trained/untrained setup with fixed advancement is much preferred over classic d20 style micro-managing skill points (which in practice resolves skills down to the states of no ranks, 1 rank, just enough ranks to qualify for a prestige class, enough ranks that all tasks auto-succeed, and maxed out; anything else is the domain of delibrately unobtomized characters).

[Crothian]

I think it works well in Star Wars. My complaint is not with the skills but that one doesn't have enough feats since that's the best way to modify skills.

[Donovan Morningfire]

I love the streamlined skill system in SWSE, and have come to agree with the point of view that drothgery espouses about rolling Climb, Jump, and Swim into Athletics. I especially love the fact that skill point were shown the door, as it makes creating and leveling up a character a lot easier. And given the "jack of all trades" mold that the iconic heroes of Star Wars are from, it works very well indeed for a space opera styled game.

I will confess to being initially leery of a single Force skill (too many memories of Jedi in WEG's d6 version trumping everyone else with just three skills), but Rodney and company made it work and work very well indeed, and as one player of mine put it when we swapped our existing RCR campaign to the new rules, "I feel like I'm actually playing a Jedi."

Now I'm not saying it's 100% perfect, as threads abound on the WotC boards about how Skill Focus (especially in Use the Force) becomes problematic at low levels since Defenses haven't had a chance to catch up yet.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by drothgery

I think it's great, and they didn't merge enough skills (climb, jump, and swim should have been rolled into Athletics; yes, that would have left only one Strength skill, but it would actually be useful enough to be trained in). And in cinematic/high heroic RPGs (like any Star Wars RPG, or D&D), I think a skill list about the size of Saga's (or 4e's) is about right, and the trained/untrained setup with fixed advancement is much preferred over classic d20 style micro-managing skill points (which in practice resolves skills down to the states of no ranks, 1 rank, just enough ranks to qualify for a prestige class, enough ranks that all tasks auto-succeed, and maxed out; anything else is the domain of delibrately unobtomized characters).

While I agree that SWSE didn't merge enough skills, I feel that it went too far in cutting down on the number of skills. This works in the Star Wars universe, but it irritates me on some level because I like taking systems and tinkering with them and using them in different settings. (That's no fault of the game, really.)

I do, however, feel that 4e went overboard in merging skills, especially when several of them are just Knowledge skills from 3e.

[ValhallaGH]

Originally Posted by B.T.

I do, however, feel that 4e went overboard in merging skills, especially when several of them are just Knowledge skills from 3e.

The fault with 4E isn't the skills they have (not much, anyway), it's the skills they don't have. The massive areas of a role-playing game that occasionally need mechanical adjudication have no more support that simple ability checks are where I find great fault with 4E. Saga actually covers most of those, though, so I'm fine with it for cinematic heroism.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by ValhallaGH

The fault with 4E isn't the skills they have (not much, anyway), it's the skills they don't have. The massive areas of a role-playing game that occasionally need mechanical adjudication have no more support that simple ability checks are where I find great fault with 4E. Saga actually covers most of those, though, so I'm fine with it for cinematic heroism.

What are some of the trouble spots you've noticed? One of the most egregious errors, to me, was not introducing a concrete way to track opponents. (Unless I just missed that while perusing the books.)

[ValhallaGH]

Originally Posted by B.T.

What are some of the trouble spots you've noticed? One of the most egregious errors, to me, was not introducing a concrete way to track opponents. (Unless I just missed that while perusing the books.)

I guess you did miss tracking, then. It's listed as a function of the Perception skill, with DCs determined by plot (i.e. the DM).

In my games the lack of the ability to measure, if they craft a sturdy barricade, how quickly they can tunnel through a collapsed passage, how well they sail in a storm, and the impressiveness of a performance, are all serious lacks. Sure, I can substitute ability checks (Int & Str, Str & Con, Wis, Cha) but that doesn't really represent backgrounds, hobbies, and supplemental training at all.

As written 4e covers the classic Dungeon Crawl skills. It does, but just barely. What it's totally lacking are the skills that can prevent or propel the party's bizarrely clever schemes, or support a less combative gameplay that still has meaningful die rolls and deep skill usage.

[B.T.]

That would explain it--I expected it to be under Nature. Now, to be fair, those things that you suggested can all fall into the realm of "DCs determined by plot (i.e. the DM)." I don't believe that really excuses their lack of rules, mind you, but if the rules for actual rules are "handwave it," then it's not too hard to guess what the rules for not-rules are.

[OStephens]

When we wrote Saga Edition, we had discussions which went round-and-round on which skills to combine and which to keep separate. I think Chris, Rodney and I all had slightly different opinions on what the "right" set for Star Wars was, and the end list isn't exactly what any of us saw the perfect. (I actually consider that a good thing -- we each had good points on why some things should be combined and others not).

I suspect if we were to do it again, we might make Athletics more all-encompassing. In one version of the playtest that's what we did, but we ended uop stepping back from that. I'm not sure if that was the right call, but a number of players seemed to feel it was too much a catch-all, and we were already changing a LOT of the core rules.

We also definitely looked to get the right balance for Star Wars, and any other use of the rules was completely secondary. I myself have used Saga to run 1930s Pulp Heroes (complete with Ace Airman character types), Gamma World, and Road Wars (with intentional nods to Mad Max and Death Race). For each of those I tweaked the skill set slightly, but it was never much work to pull skills from other d20 games, or write up new ones.

The hope was to make skills fast and fun, and character generation and leveling easier. A lot of people get into RPGS through Star Wars first, and we didn't want to complicate that process any more than we had to.

[Psion]

Originally Posted by B.T.

In another thread--now locked due to flaming--Charwoman Gene made the remark that Saga Edition had "shredded the skills system, just like 4e [sic] and that was a horrible crime against gaming."

What are your personal opinions on the SE skill set? I think that the idea is sound, but I feel that they cut out/merged too many of the skills.

I liked how they used some skills (like initiative), but I do rather dislike the overall rigid skill bonus structure.

Dislike is too mild a word, really.

[ValhallaGH]

Originally Posted by OStephens

The hope was to make skills fast and fun, and character generation and leveling easier.

For what it's worth, I think you guys succeeded pretty well.

Thank you.

[Donovan Morningfire]

Originally Posted by OStephens

The hope was to make skills fast and fun, and character generation and leveling easier. A lot of people get into RPGS through Star Wars first, and we didn't want to complicate that process any more than we had to.

And from where I'm sitting, you guys succeeded admirably, and I think I can safely say that d20 Radio's Gamer Nation thanks you for it.

The fact that you got one of my players that was about to give up on Star Wars gaming entirely after "the schizophrenic kludge" (their words) that the prior edition had become to once again fall in love with the game says plenty (she was the one that said "I actually feel like I'm playing a Jedi!" in my prior post in this thread).

[MarkB]

The only place the Saga skills system falls down somewhat is where skill checks (mainly Use The Force) are made as attacks versus standard defenses. They're poorly scaled for this task, being too strong at low level and too weak at high level.

If the scaling of the skills had been a little better integrated with the scaling of attacks and defenses, the problem would be resolved.

It's not a major issue, but something to consider if adapting SWSE-style skills to other systems.

[OStephens]

Originally Posted by MarkB

The only place the Saga skills system falls down somewhat is where skill checks (mainly Use The Force) are made as attacks versus standard defenses.

I agree that's the weakest part of the system. I haven't had it derail a campaign, but I do see why the numbers for 4e work they way they do.

In retrospect, I think we should have just had a Force Attack value (based on level), and had a UtF check modify your attack by a set amount based on your result, much as the effectiveness of many Force powers vary by your skill check.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I prefer the 4E take on the social skills. I like Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate to be distinguished and not just rolled up into one Persuasion skill. I think if you want to support non-combat scenarios, diverse social skills can help that a lot more than having a default skill. All 3 skills are relevant in a social situation, while most scenarios that would require Athletics just need one of either Climb, Jump or Swim and not all three. More importantly, if you need all three you _really_ need all three, as in every character needs it. In a social scenario, you have "good-cop/bad-cop" scenarios where you might need Intimidate and Diplomacy at th same time but by different people.

Regarding Use The Force - I would go a different route. Throw away BAB and instead make attacks act like skills. They already do, in a way, with being not proficient causing a -5 penalty to attacks. The only difference would be that Weapon Focus would now have to give a +3 bonus, but if the skill system is supposed to handle that, why not the combat system? Since you still have a class based system, you can keep enforcing everyone to be trained in some weapon skills.

Of course, I say that now with hindsight of 4E

[ValhallaGH]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

I prefer the 4E take on the social skills. I like Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate to be distinguished and not just rolled up into one Persuasion skill.

Hey, Saga has a Deception skill. Just because some groups house rule it all into Persuasion doesn't mean that they all do.
More importantly, the two skills of Deception and Persuasion allow you to have wildly different forms of Intimidation covered. One tells an extremely menacing deception. One tells the truth, in an extremely menacing way. Both can contribute a lot to both the characters and the encounter. Sure, the rules only cover the menacing truth but that's easily house ruled.


If I do have a major complaint about Saga, it would have to be the continuation of base attack bonus. BAB is one of the many subtle ways to punish characters for choosing to multi-class. More so, it is a math-based punishment with diminished penalties for careful number manipulation. This seems wildly at odds with the style and tone of star wars (where all-trades characters are fairly common, and everyone seems pretty effective in a fight).

[small pumpkin man]

It's awesome. Some details are off, but the heart is in exactly the right place.

Originally Posted by MarkB

The only place the Saga skills system falls down somewhat is where skill checks (mainly Use The Force) are made as attacks versus standard defenses. They're poorly scaled for this task, being too strong at low level and too weak at high level.

If the scaling of the skills had been a little better integrated with the scaling of attacks and defenses, the problem would be resolved.

It's not a major issue, but something to consider if adapting SWSE-style skills to other systems.

Yeah, this is the major issue, and is what people who actually like the system complain about.

Essentially there are three large changes made that people who don't like the system complain about.

1)Merge a bunch of skills. This is a fairly obvious problem with 3.x and many d20 versions involve this fix. Some people argue that 4e took it to far, and I can see their point. I would argue that for 4e climb/swim/jump should just be a single skill, and that mechanics might cover a little too much, otherwise SAGA's really good here.

2)Everyone gets half level to all skills. This one's freakin' awesome and anyone who says otherwise just Doesn't Get It. Having checks in a level based system where one character can't fail and another can't succeed is just a Bad Idea, and in a Star Wars or Fantasy game being poor at something should be a specific choice, not the default. (Seriously, high level Paladins who can kill demons the size of elephants with a rusty spoon but can't climb a tree are completely stupid.)

3)Getting rid of points and making it untrained/trained/focused. Lots of people hate this but I can take or leave it. I find points unnecessary, I think people who want "granularity" have a different idea of what a character sheet means than I do, but I don't think the slight ease of use you get from this system is really enough to care about. I have seen some people vaguely annoyed they don't get to mess around with skill points every level, even if it is just adding +1 to int+2 skills they enjoy the illusion of choice.

As you might expect I get somewhat annoyed by people who don't like (3) and throw out (2) along with it without taking the time think why.