D&D: Saga Edition?

[Ry]

Warlock Invocations sure sound like a class ability tree waiting to happen. Although I don't like trees as much as I like invocations... mostly because I think Invocations are easier to turn into feats.

I mean, is it so wrong for the game to have class-specific feats that we have to call them Talent-Trees?

 

[AshremBayle@Home]

Here are my thoughts on spellcasting...

There is no split spell lists. Everyone picks their spells from the same list of spells leveled 0-9th level.

However, there are different spellcasting progression tables. There is the Adept table that goes from 0-5th over 20 levels, the Journeyman table that goes from 0-7th, and a Master table that goes from 0-9th.

Talents must be spent to continue to progress up the spell table you have access to. This means that primary spellcaster types like wizards must burn some of their Talents or lose out.

 

[AshremBayle@Home]

That'd be a HUGE revision. On one hand, I'd prefer to keep things a little closer to the way D&D is now. On the other, Monte Cook wrote an interesting article...*snip*

Found it! http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Spellcasters

 

[Gentlegamer]

There is no split spell lists. Everyone picks their spells from the same list of spells leveled 0-9th level.

If levelled lists are kept, can we use levels 1-10 instead? I've never liked the term "0-level spells" as I prefer to start counting from 1.

 

[AshremBayle@Home]

While I agree that "0 level" spells are dumb, this is similar to what I mentioned earlier in that it would invalidate the DMG, which I'd rather not do unless it's for a really good reason.

 

[Alnag]

Warrior
...
Rogue
...
Mage
...
Priest

The problem with less classes is, that too few of them means you don't need them at all. I think that 4 is really the lowest possible variant, but 5 is better and 6 is optimal. And magical abilities might be available to everyone, just some classes would be better with it (thanks to talent trees).

Mage (kind of a Jedi)
Inteligence as dominant ability

Priest (as well kind of a Jedi)
Wisdom as dominant ability

Warrior (soldier)
Strength as dominant ability

Rogue (scoundrel)
Dexterity as dominant ability

Monk (scout)
Constitution as dominant ability

Bard (noble)
Charisma as dominant ability

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

My problem with the monk and bard as classes is because they are so focused. How many Talent trees do they really need? I figure each class should have three or four talent trees to make the character more defined, but I can't think of three or four Talent trees for the monk or bard that wouldn't significantly overlap with the other classes.

They just seem way too specific to be base classes.

D&D has been designed with the Warrior, Expert, Mage, Priest makeup in mind. That's what all published adventures assume. Why stray from it?

 

[ValhallaGH]

My problem with the monk and bard as classes is because they are so focused.

But they don't need to be.

Monk = simple warrior.
Through various abilities, this user of sub-optimal weapons (unarmed, staffs, darts, slings, etc) is able to roll with the tricked-out combat engines. Some of them are squishy but fast, some are solid like stone but poor dodgers, some can break down steel doors with a single strike but can barely outrun the elderly. Some are immortal and some are not.
Take every stereotype of the mystical simple warrior and weave each path into a separate talent tree. A character can be all of one type or a mix of several.

Bard = inspiring companion.
It may be the lute-sy traditional D&D bard, it may be the war skald, it may be the inspiring commander, maybe it's a warrior-scholar with a knack for remembering inspiring tales, or it may be 'that guy that screams and scares off half the enemy army'. Different bards contained in different talent trees. And many will take advantage of several different trees to create a character that is inspiring and useful in all of the above (though not as good as the specialists).

There's lots of room once you're willing to let there be.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I say remove the (warrior) monk concept entirely to Oriental Adventures.

 

[Alnag]

My problem with the monk and bard as classes is because they are so focused.

Currently in D&D yes. But do they have to be? Especially with the talent trees? I used the names of the classes not because I like them in DnD 3e (especially not the monk) but because I didn't have the better name.

Look into the D20 modern for 6 character concept - for each ability. It give sense. And you can rename them as you wish.

D&D has been designed with the Warrior, Expert, Mage, Priest makeup in mind. That's what all published adventures assume. Why stray from it?

Good and also tough question. I would say, why D&D has currently 11 classes and not these four? Because if average party has 4 players + DM there are no niche for newcomers. For I know the groups with 7 players and it could be pretty rough if there would be like two warriors, two experts two mages and priest. Even with six characters there would be one nich overcrowded, but not in so many cases.

Also if you base the talent trees on those of SW SAGA you will have what you need for both Bard (noble talent trees) and Monk (scout talent trees). But I am just offering my opinion, I do not want to press it in anyway.