Do Star Wars Saga skill rules make d20 better?

[drothgery]

I voted strongly agree; it's not a perfect skill system (and less so for D&D than for Star Wars), but on the whole it's a lot better, I'd say. The main advantages to me are that it's about the same level of granuality as the rest of d20 (unlike skills -- and magic items, if you buy Monte Cook's definition* -- which are a lot more fine-grained), and that it's retroactive (increasing your int modifier gives you another trained skill, so you don't need to track exactly when any int increases happened for a high-level character).

I'm not sure if the 'general competence' effect (where you get a 1/2 level bonus to all skills, untrained or trained) is a good fit for D&D (or d20 Modern) and highly specialized heroes. And I'm not sure if three selectable levels for skills (untrained, trained, skill focus) is sufficient if you want to model dabblers without having a 'general competence' effect.

But I am sure that skills for a high-level/high-int character are too much work in 'standard' d20.

* D&D magic items are a point-buy ability system tacked onto a class and level game

 

[drothgery]

I don't understand systems that try to "simplify" d20 skills, since in core d20 you can do the max rank thing and have all your skills instantly.

... unless you multiclass. Or your intelligence score changes. And then suddenly the max rank thing doesn't work anymore.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You'd think there would be a happy medium.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I agree, but not strongly.

There's not enough base classes, non-heroics seem to suck, and Skill Training is too expensive. But I think it's a good step in the right direction.

 

[Keldryn]

I haven't had a chance to look at the actual book yet, but I really like what I've read about it.

When you bring multi-classing and high levels into the equation, the D&D skill system becomes incredibly clunky. If they're going to stick with skill points, I wish that there would just be a flat skill point total and that the player (or DM) didn't have to be concerned with which classes were taken and which levels and when Intelligence was boosted and all of that crap. One of the worst parts about making a higher-level character.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

everything ive seen on the saga edition has soured me on it. I think if i run Star Wars im sticking with trying to find the old d20 books.

They (WOTC) almost had me convinced with the less classes but talent tree thing, then they had to go and mess everything else up.

 

[Michael Tree]

I voted Agree because it's great, but not perfect.

I especially like the broadly defined skills.

The trained/untrained aspect I like a lot, but it's too difficult to learn skills after 1st level, and the way it interacts with cross-class skills is atrocious. I like the house-rule that allows characters to take any skill with their bonus skills from race/intelligence. Actually, I'd wouldn't mind doing away with the concept of "class skills" entirely.

I really like that numerical bonuses only come from training, attribute, & skill focus. Getting a reroll, or the ability to take 10, are much more interesting and fun than just another +3 bonus.

 

[Asmor]

Strongly agree. Not perfect, but definitely a strong step in the right direction.

I'd like to see more things use the skill system. Weapons, defense bonuses, etc.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Personally, I like the Star Wars skill system. In many ways, it's what I've been looking for in a skill system.

Some of the design diaries on the new skill system raise a valid point. The tendency is to either min/max or create jack-of-all-trade characters. Now this is just a tendency; obviously not everyone does this.

I've been a little torn between the idea of customization (ala D&D) and simplicity (ala C&C). While I like the idea of each character being different, it really does take a bit of time figuring up skill points and distributing them, especially when dealing with high-level characters. On the other hand, I like the simplicity of plugging in level ala C&C, but that takes away from customization and doesn't allow for the guy who is extremely good in one skill (such as the hotshot pilot).

The current system is a great compromise. It allows for some customization, and enough to give you the guy skilled in one area. It allows you to advance in your skills by level, making it simpler and also demonstrating continued advancement in skill abilities.

Whether or not this is a good system or improvement will largely depend on one's point of view. From my own point of view, it is the compromise I have been looking for and will find its way into my own house rules.

 

[Lancelot]

Strongly agree, and desperately hope that 4e takes the concept and improves it further.

As a 25-year DM, I rate 3.5e as the best of the D&D systems I've run... but the needless complexity level makes my job ridiculously hard. Even thinking about calculating skills for a new 16th level PC or demon-with-class-levels makes my head hurt.

My players have a similar level of experience. They know how to work the numbers. They get the synergies, and the special feats, and the magic items. You start seeing bizarre oddities like PCs tooled to have +40 modifiers at 12th level, or wizards who take one level of rogue and suddenly (thanks to 8 + Int bonus + Human bonus) become master lockpickers, stealth experts, and trap disarmers virtually overnight.

I like the idea that a character's trained skills represents all the stuff he/she has learned over 20+ years of life and education. I like the concept that picking up a completely new skill area is actually a pretty major thing. Want to become a trained pilot? It's a bit harder than just chucking in a few points the next time you level. At the same time, a real hero still has a chance of flying a shuttle if they're pushed (...as opposed to 3.5e, where if you don't have at least some ranks invested in a skill at higher levels, you really have no chance).

...and the consolidation is fantastic. I'm sooo over this conversation: "Roll your Move Silent. I'll roll my Listen. Now you roll your Hide. And I'll roll my Spot..." It also makes the skills more individually useful. Even when I'm running political/social campaigns, it's a rare day when my players invest in Forgery or Disguise (or for that matter Handle Animal, Use Rope, etc).

My opinion on the good stuff in Saga Edition: Class Consolidation (with talent trees), Combat Simplification (incl. removal of the dreaded 5-foot step), the new Skill system.

My opinion of the bad stuff in Saga Edition: some of the Feats (Dodge, the various multiple attack options), some of the Combat Rules (the nerfing of 2-weapon/multi-attack melee fighters, the inability to grapple or perform most other combat options unless you have a Feat, the ability to attack and retreat without provoking an attack of opportunity).