D&D 4E 4e and Star Wars Saga ed...

[Imaro]

I think, it begins not too complex. Two At-Wills, 1 Encounter, one Daily. That's very manageable. Of course, it is more complex then a 1st level Fighter (3E) or Soldier, but I don't think it's harder then a 1st level Wizard or Cleric.

I would agree here...to a point. though I would say the At-Wills/Encounter/Daily distinction adds another level of complexity, in that decisions have another factor...will my Daily be more useful here or in a later encounter. Wizards and clerics only have a per day paradigm to worry about, whereas all classes in 4e have both a per day and per encounter paradigm to mull over when making a decision (and this is disregarding the At-wills).

One thing I like about the way SWSE handles the jedi is... everything is an encouter power, and you can buy a power more than once to use in an encounter. With this paradigm the choice of use now or use later is reduced to a purely in encounter situation.

You can make someone that can take damage, but for a Defender, you also need to be someone that brings the enemy to chose you over anyone else on the battle-field. Without the mark-related abilities of the Fighter and the Paladin, that gets harder. Basically, both classes ensure that if you ignore them, they lay down the hurt on you. But when they focus on you, it becomes easier for them.
In Starwars, the only way you would do this is by _always_ dealing tons of damage. You can wear the heaviest armor you want, no one's gonna attack you if someone else deals the damage to your foe.

The effect on roles are very pronounced in that regard. The Strikers would be the natural target for enemies, if it wasn't for the Fighter always stabbing you in the back or stopping you in your tracks when you try to turn your attention to them.

See here, and it may be my simulationist side coming to the forefront, but I don't like the artificial nature of how this is handled in 4e for a few reasons. First, why, if the fighter does less damage and hits less, would a monster not still attack the striker if he/she/it can? From a purely tactical side, isn't it better to take the ranger out first (since the monster probably has a better chance to hit and a higher percentage of HP's reduced by damage?) than the fighter since it exponentially reduces the amount of damage a particular side can deal each round?

Now, I as a DM have to make this decision and it borders on making the fighter's ability useless if I choose to go the route above, but if I don't then isn't this the same as me choosing to stay engaged with the fighter, just like in 3.5 and SWSE?

It is certainly true that you can choose your role a little more independent from class (I don't think the Noble would be that flexible, barring multiclassing - which of course is exactly the method of choice if you still want to do it.)

I would argue that SWSE is way more flexible within the presented archetype (class) than 4e is. Looking at the noble alone, there are four talent trees (Influence, Inspiration, Leadership and Lineage) with a total of 18 different talents...the fact that you can also mix in match the different talents under each tree + feats + multi-classing (which opens up new talents and feats) is just icing on the cake.

There are definitely two very different design paradigm involved in the class creation. Each class gets only one primary role (sometimes,they might have a secondary role, but it's usually well concealed - Warlords are also a little defenderish, Warlocks a little controllerish, and so on), and you can't get out of it, even with multiclassing.

Yeah, I personally think they should have stuck with Talent Trees...made powers all encounter abilities (if they included them) and allowed more free-form multiclassing... but that's just me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would agree here...to a point. though I would say the At-Wills/Encounter/Daily distinction adds another level of complexity, in that decisions have another factor...will my Daily be more useful here or in a later encounter. Wizards and clerics only have a per day paradigm to worry about, whereas all classes in 4e have both a per day and per encounter paradigm to mull over when making a decision (and this is disregarding the At-wills).

Yes, that's the gamist challenge here. But is it too hard for some? Possibly.

One thing I like about the way SWSE handles the jedi is... everything is an encouter power, and you can buy a power more than once to use in an encounter. With this paradigm the choice of use now or use later is reduced to a purely in encounter situation.

I think there are further concerns at work why daily powers still exist. I played a 3E Warlock for some time, and his abilities were pretty much all encounter or at-will based. What I really missed was having some kind of game resources that allowed me to say "now I really want (need) to hit hard". Most games feature that. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has Fate & Fortune, Shadowrun has Karma (or now Edge). I think there is a reason that most games do have such resources. They aren't always daily limited, by the idea is always the same - you have some back-up ability that you can use when the sh*t hits the fan.

See here, and it may be my simulationist side coming to the forefront, but I don't like the artificial nature of how this is handled in 4e for a few reasons. First, why, if the fighter does less damage and hits less, would a monster not still attack the striker if he/she/it can? From a purely tactical side, isn't it better to take the ranger out first (since the monster probably has a better chance to hit and a higher percentage of HP's reduced by damage?) than the fighter since it exponentially reduces the amount of damage a particular side can deal each round?

It is not the better tactical decision if you are left with no choice (the Fighter stops your movement if you try to go away), or if the Defender suddenly deals more damage to you (possibly equal to the Striker). If you ignore the Defender, he hurts you. It doesn't matter whether you hit the Striker or not - for now, he will hurt you anyway. If you hit the Defender, he won't hurt you as much. There's always a significant trade-off. I suppose few ever risked trying out if not going after the Defender turns into a smart choice at the end.