Do Star Wars Saga skill rules make d20 better?

[Greg K]

Sure, just give me way more points to spend so I can make a guy who is not a complete tool just because he isn't a super genius.

PHB 110-customizing the character. There is an example of the fighter getting extra skill points and extra skills. use it as an example.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There.
Are.
Not.
Enough.
Skill.
Points.
To.
Spend.
Because.
The.
System.
Is.
Weak.

The system is fine. There are plenty of skill points to spend. Use them wisely, and according to your character concept (hopefully), is all.

(. . .) [T]he 20th-level character has spent time interacting with magic and fighting outsiders, but because he's a fighter he's a dolt when it comes to skills.

A "fighter" also doesn't just have to be a Fighter,for that matter. Each class is essentially a package of abilities, including skills. Again: use them wisely, and according to your character concept (hopefully), is all.

 

[Hjorimir]

I guess we'll just have to disagree, but I'm with the majority here thinking that the SWSE is better.

But to each their own!

 

[Ranger REG]

The system is fine. There are plenty of skill points to spend. Use them wisely, and according to your character concept (hopefully), is all.


A "fighter" also doesn't just have to be a Fighter,for that matter. Each class is essentially a package of abilities, including skills. Again: use them wisely, and according to your character concept (hopefully), is all.

Emphasis on the "(hopefully)" parts.

 

[Victim]

Mechanically, doesn't this comes down to the same thing as the other post.... the high level character is getting a circumstance bonus to his check? Or perhaps a more accurate model of what you're talking about is essentially passively taking 10 on an intimidate check all the time, because he's obviously a bad-arse? In other words, other characters automatically perceive him as more dangerous because of his obvious competence and air of menace (read: level).

So, in order to reach the verisimilitude afforded by a Saga-like automatic attribution of skill, you have to apply a circumstance bonus to his intimidate or just automatically adjust all NPC reactions by DM fiat.

Basically, I'm saying people can rationally (more or less, considering the person ) assess at least some dangers, and act accordingly. Intimidate is all about distorting that consideration - it's not simply making people afraid, it's using fear to suit one's purposes. Simply appearing dangerous isn't necessarily going to get a badass what he wants - people might be more ready to call for backup, provoke a fight to show off their own toughness, run away, manipulate the character into taking out their enemies, etc. Being Intimidating gives the character more control over how other people act in response to that dangerousness.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Basically, I'm saying people can rationally (more or less, considering the person ) assess at least some dangers, and act accordingly. Intimidate is all about distorting that consideration - it's not simply making people afraid, it's using fear to suit one's purposes. Simply appearing dangerous isn't necessarily going to get a badass what he wants - people might be more ready to call for backup, provoke a fight to show off their own toughness, run away, manipulate the character into taking out their enemies, etc. Being Intimidating gives the character more control over how other people act in response to that dangerousness.

Ah. We're at an impasse then Intimidation is nothing more or less than appearing scary, IMO, since the fear response in the other person is, of all things, that which you have the LEAST control over. Fear is a tough one like that. If I'm manipulating anger, lust, or any one of a half dozen other states, it's fairly easy to set up the situation to give you some easy outs. Fear is much more dependent on your internal states. It's probably worse than upset stomach in terms of unintended consequences, from a research perspective.

Incidentally, I'm serious. Never run psych or neuro experiments on someone who's afraid or has an upset stomach. Nothing else I know of will add more variability to your data.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Emphasis on the "(hopefully)" parts.

Sure, I'd also like to see roleplayers contemplating character concept and prioritising it a little higher, in general.

But there are lots of play styles to go round. It's all good.

 

[Ranger REG]

Sure, I'd also like to see roleplayers contemplating character concept and prioritising it a little higher, in general.

But there are lots of play styles to go round. It's all good.

But it could be better.

In d20 Modern, the talent tree concept have been for the most part unexploited. Blood and Vigilance changed that by offering superpower talent trees. Star Wars Saga took it one step further by giving it "character kit"-like talent trees. Doing so, we could reduce the need to have more base classes, and to some extent prestige classes as well. We went from having two Jedi classes and one Force Adept class into one Jedi class with multiple talent tree options.

 

[HeinorNY]

Query:

What are gamist, narrativist, and simulationist styles?

Wait, forget about the simulationist. RPGs and simulation games are two entirely different entities.

I'm more simulacionist and gamist than narrativist.
I like to calculate how many days I'll have to travel tor reach that city, how many rations i need to carry, etc. I don't like to roll a 1d6 days (as you do with narrativistic rules from Saga) to see the travel time, or let this to the DM to decide, according to what he would think to be most apropriate for his story.

I don't like PCs to start with extra HD because they are "protagonists" of a "film". My games are not meant to work like movies.

Things are what they are meant to be, as the player's common sense and the rules allow them to be. Things do not happen this or that way because it would look more exciting or cooler for the story, they happen that way because that was the way they were meant to happen. I like "status quo" gming.

As a Gm i dont control the story, I just adjucate what happens, the way it should happen, because that was what was meant to happen.

I don't use screen to roll the dice.

If you think simulacionism and RPG are two entirely different things, than maybe you don't know what RPG is or what simulacionism is. Maybe both, who knows.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In d20 Modern, the talent tree concept have been for the most part unexploited. Blood and Vigilance changed that by offering superpower talent trees. Star Wars Saga took it one step further by giving it "character kit"-like talent trees. Doing so, we could reduce the need to have more base classes, and to some extent prestige classes as well. We went from having two Jedi classes and one Force Adept class into one Jedi class with multiple talent tree options.

I'm in complete agreement here. I just don't like the skill system of Saga, and some other aspects annoy me. I'd still rather use the revised ed. of either D&D or Star Wars, with mainly non-saga-like tweaks.

My tentative house rules actually strip classes down to three, with feats, talent trees and skills to provide all the customisation required.