D&D: Saga Edition?

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.

The problem is, all of those concepts fit equally well within the Warrior or Expert classes. They just need the proper Talents and Feats to make the concept work.

Looking at my suggested setup of:

Race - What the character is.
Class - This defines the broad concept that the character falls into.
Class Ability Tree - This defines what the character can do.
Feats - This defines what the character specializes in.

and then...

Prestige Class - Adds abilities that further nail down the character concept in ways not already covered by feats.


So regarding different flavors of monks:

Race - Let's say human.
Class - Warrior. Regardless of the way he does it, the character kicks butt.
Class Ability Tree - Martial Artist. The character kicks butt with a focus on his mind, body, and soul.
Feats - The character kicks butt using hand-to-hand combat, specifically grappling.

or...

Race - Let's say human.
Class - Warrior. Regardless of the way he does it, the character kicks butt.
Class Ability Tree - Martial Artist. The character kicks butt with a focus on his mind, body, and soul.
Feats - The character kicks butt using various non-traditional weapons.

or...

Race - Let's say human.
Class - Warrior. Regardless of the way he does it, the character kicks butt.
Class Ability Tree - Martial Artist. The character kicks butt with a focus on his mind, body, and soul.
Feats - The character kicks butt using hand-to-hand combat, specifically by striking at pressure points.

or...

Race - Let's say human.
Class - Warrior. Regardless of the way he does it, the character kicks butt.
Class Ability Tree - Martial Artist. The character kicks butt with a focus on his mind, body, and soul.
Feats - The character kicks butt using hand-to-hand combat, specifically by drawing on his ki to perform super-human acts.


With this setup, all you need is the warrior class, the Talent Tree, and a good selection of feats. No need to muddy the waters with another class. Also, another advantage of having fewer classes is you are less likely to cripple multiclassing as a viable solution.

 

[Ry]

It's the number of stats that are bloated (since the wayback) with respect to 4 classes. Lots of games have done it differently, although there seems to be a compulsion towards 6 stats since D&D does it.

Physique, Dexterity, Intellect, Spirit = Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Priest.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I don't see a need to assign a class per stat. Not only does it confuse issues like light Dex based warriors, but there just isn't a need for it. And there are other issues. A Con based class is too passive for example.

If we wanted to do a class for every attribute we may as well do "Strong Hero", "Fast Hero" etc. like d20 Modern did, and personally, that came across to me as very boring.

I also agree that the problem may be the number of stats, but changing those is WAY more trouble than it'd be worth.

 

[Nifft]

Let's see.

I like the d20 Modern base class ideas. Their class-based talent trees are sweet.

To spice up race a bit, let's make your every-three-levels feat into a racial talent too, which is a restricted list of feats OR non-feat racial abilities. Some races will also have Paragon classes (with a varying number of levels depending on the power of the race) which may grant bonus talents or feats.

Now we know why Dwarf Wizards are rare: Dwarves can't usually use their general (now racial) feats to buy spellcasting stuff, and don't go into spellcasting advanced classes.

I like this. Cheers, -- N

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Let's see.

I like the d20 Modern base class ideas. Their class-based talent trees are sweet.

To spice up race a bit, let's make your every-three-levels feat into a racial talent too, which is a restricted list of feats OR non-feat racial abilities. Some races will also have Paragon classes (with a varying number of levels depending on the power of the race) which may grant bonus talents or feats.

Now we know why Dwarf Wizards are rare: Dwarves can't usually use their general (now racial) feats to buy spellcasting stuff, and don't go into spellcasting advanced classes.

I like this. Cheers, -- N

Yeah, I like the idea of racial Talents better than racial feats. I don't care for the Modern base classes though. The Tough Hero for example always seemed VERY boring.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, I like the idea of racial Talents better than racial feats. I don't care for the Modern base classes though. The Tough Hero for example always seemed VERY boring.

I'll need to look the d20 Modern stuff over more thoroughly before making specific comments... I seem to recall that even Tough had some good stuff, like DR and energy resistance, and could prolly be beefed up with SR at high levels.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Im not a fan of the Saga skills. After reading how they work, it might seem fine for Star Wars but not D&D.
Classes could be dropped to only a few, and then have talent trees like d20 modern.
But I think we need to see more of the Saga edition before we all start wasting our time. its out next month after all.
Consolodated skills are fine. I get tired of having to ask the players to roll hide and move silently. A Stealth skill would be handy. I also like the Idea of Perception skill.

I like the idea that Races get something special as they level up. Like say a Drow gets more Spell like abilities as he goes up in level, or a gnome that get more powerful illusions.
However, Im afraid I have to reinterate that a 4e would still have to allow me to use my old books without too much conversion. Everything I need to convert should fit on one or two pages so I could use them straight out of the books. Otherwise I dont think I would get a 4e, except the Forgotten Realms stuff.

 

[Ry]

I still don't understand why something like the following can't handle both the talent tree and feat system.

"All characters get a feat every level"
"Some feats are class-specific"
"Some feats are race-specific"
"Some feats have other feats as prerequisites"

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I still don't understand why something like the following can't handle both the talent tree and feat system.

"All characters get a feat every level"
"Some feats are class-specific"
"Some feats are race-specific"
"Some feats have other feats as prerequisites"

At that point, why even have classes? Just make everything feat based?
You could do that, and it could result in a great game, but I think it kills too many sacred cows for what we're trying to do here.

The reason I wanted to emulate the SW Saga rules is because it allows me to simplify D&D, while still correcting some problems and leaving it as D&D. So some sacred cows like classes, hit points, spells with levels, etc. I don't won't to change. I want to be able to throw away my PHB and use what we come up with here, but still be able to use 90% of these rest of my books.

My favored system is actually GURPS. And the more we shy away from the D&Disms, the more I'm tempted to just play GURPS and forget D&D altogether.

 

[ValhallaGH]

At that point, why even have classes? Just make everything feat based?

Because classes define a character's role. Role in the party and role in the world.

Classes determine hp, BAB, saves and feat access (i.e. selectable class features).

True20 is a great example of a class-based system that uses all of rycanada's suggestions. Each class has a distinct niche to fill (magic user, warrior, skill-monkey) and there are at least half-a-dozen ways to build each character concept using any class or any combination of the classes.

In the end, the difference between getting a talent every odd level and a feat every even level, and simply getting a feat every level with access to class-only feats is no difference at all. The talent scheme simply narrows options.
Me, I'm a fan of options but some people find them frightening. I don't demand people face frightening things unless that individual has already agreed to do so.