Do Star Wars Saga skill rules make d20 better?

[Mallus]

At everything? But I guess, like folks have been saying all along, it's a reasonable supposition for a very cinematic game.

Sure. And it's not just reasonable for a cinematic game, but for a heroic (and superheroic) game like standard D&D past mid-level. Where the characters are more like Achilles, Gilgamesh and/or the Batman than regular human beings.

In fact, I propose the "Batman Test". Whenever a DM finds themselves getting mired in questions of "Can a high-level, ie heroic, character do that?" they should simple ask themselves "Would this pose a significant challenge to the Batman?".

If the answers "no", then they should let the player roll, or better yet, just declare their success, and move on to bigger challenges that better suit the current level of play.

 

[GreatLemur]

Still, do you honestly think it should be expensive to have a hobby skill or two (i.e., pay 2 points for 1 rank)?

Hell, I don't even think a Fighter should have to pay 2 points per rank for Use Magic Device. I've gotta say it again: I houseruled out cross-class skills, and I have not regretted it.

 

[Asmor]

Just out of curiosity, GreatLemur, do you allow anyone to find traps with DCs higher than 20, or does the remain the exclusive purview of Rogues and their ilk?

Assuming you have, has it had any effect on your game? Are people less inclined to play a rogue, or when they do do they feel shafted?

 

[Evilhalfling]

[thread jack]

Monte Cook's definition-- D&D magic items are a point-buy ability system tacked onto a class and level game

now that is quite an insight. It seems obvious when stated that way. I wonder if there is anything I can do to fix it, and If I can get my players to agree.

link please?

 

[GreatLemur]

Just out of curiosity, GreatLemur, do you allow anyone to find traps with DCs higher than 20, or does the remain the exclusive purview of Rogues and their ilk?

Assuming you have, has it had any effect on your game? Are people less inclined to play a rogue, or when they do do they feel shafted?

I'm afraid it hasn't come up. This is a pretty new game, no one's playing a Rogue, and we're not really doing dungeon crawls. But I generally think traps aren't nearly interesting enough to give them the kind of spotlight that WotC mechanics seem to assume, so yeah, I'd let anybody find a 21+ DC trap, if it ever came up. I'd be all for letting a Rogue trade out Trapfinding for something else, too.

 

[Grog]

Skill points go up with level because you do get to practice and study some things over time, but not everything. So you allocate your skill points to represent what you had learned besides combat-stuff, during the time it took you to reach a new level of combat ability.

But how do you know that your character had time to learn anything besides combat skills? The amount of "down time" characters have is completely dependent on the adventure they're on. If they're protecting a group of refugees on a mad rush to freedom, for example, it's pretty unlikely that they'll have much, if any, time to do any studying.

For that matter, the amount of time it takes to gain a level varies by adventure, too. Suppose it only takes three days of game time for the character to gain a level. How much skill training could you possibly do in three days?

I don't see how the SAGA skill system is any less believable than the D&D one. How is it less believable for characters to improve in all their skills when they level up than it is for a fighter to get better at swimming by spending a week in the desert killing orcs?

 

[The_Gneech]

The Saga skill system was designed with a very specific purpose in mind: to let everybody have a bash at whatever's going on in a particular scene, rather than sit out an otherwise-exciting moment because their character didn't have the appropriate skill.

The particular example the designers mention is chases. The badguy hops on his speeder bike and takes off! Does that mean that only people with the Pilot skill should be able to chase him? Using the standard skill system, the Noble (who has no ranks in Pilot and would splatter himself against the first DC 18 canyon wall) will sit this one out, and the Noble's player will sit around for fifteen minutes twiddling his thumbs while the Scoundrel and the Soldier (who both have ranks in Pilot) play through an exciting chase.

In that light, I think there's a lot to be said for the SWSE version. Even with it, the Noble's not going to be anywhere near the level of competency of the Scoundrel and the Soldier. It just means that he can at least attempt to participate.

The "Trained Only" aspects of the skill system are a particularly important subtlety. Being trained in a skill doesn't just give you a flat +5, it also opens up applications of that skill that people struggling along on +(1/2 level) don't have access to. At 10th level, the Noble may have +5 to his Pilot check, but he's not going to be pulling out fancy stunt maneuvers. A 1st level Scoundrel trained in Pilot and a 10th level Noble who isn't both have +5 to their check, but the 1st level Scoundrel is still a better pilot.

-The Gneech

 

[ZSutherland]

I don't see how the SAGA skill system is any less believable than the D&D one. How is it less believable for characters to improve in all their skills when they level up than it is for a fighter to get better at swimming by spending a week in the desert killing orcs?

I don't think anyone is arguing that it's more believeable. Simply that it's simpler than skill-point accounting while allowing heroic characters the opportunity to perform relatively common tasks (things that can be attempted untrained) with a level of skill that reflects their heroic stature. The designers also wanted to encourage multi-classing, for which there is no penalty, and the inability to become Trained in a non-class skill coupled with the fact that Skill Training is a bonus feat for every class simply encourages this desired behavior.

As an aside not directed at Grog, the argument about cross-class and hobby skills is pretty weak. You could say the same about feats (or levels for that matter, considering how many base classes are out now). Yes, you can sink skill-points into cross class skills to dabble, though you will never be very effective with them since CR tends to scale in a linear fashion. A fighter player could, similarly, take Dodge, Weapon Focus, and Power Attack without ever picking up Whirlwind Attack, Weapon Spec., or Cleave - but the vast majority of players are not going to choose to penalize their characters with subpar choices for any reason. This system allows you to both. You can still specialize in those couple of skills that are most important to your concept and be as effective at them as your stats and level will allow while having "hobby" skills that you get better at as well without costly investment of limited character resources. However, it will take you to heroic level 20 to match a non-heroic level 1 character on his/her given skill of choice if they also took skill focus, excepting your attribute bonus advantage which has always been a way to demark the line between heoric and non-heroic characters in D20 games, and there will still be actions he can perform that you can't even attempt (Trained only actions). Seriously, we're not talking about every PC being a Renaissance Man. We're talking about them being able to perform normal tasks for their environment (such as pilot an airspeeder across town or routine computer use like every office worker in the world) and generic adventuring skills (Spot, Jump, Swim, Initiative, etc) that should by all rights scale somewhat with level because they're heroic (not necessarily because they get used all the time) without taking a hit to those abilities that truly mark them as different from non-heroes (like slicing computers, piloting star-fighters, and infiltrating Imperial bases).

 

[BryonD]

Saga is great for Star Wars. But D&D is not Star Wars.

Exactly.

I think this works great for SW but would suck for D&D.

 

[HeinorNY]

It makes the "fast paced heroic cinematic star wars game" better, but it doesn't make the d20 system better.
One of the aspects I like most about D20 is its flexibility of styles (gamist, narrativist and simulacionist), and Saga skill rules killed most of this flexibility in order to make a game focused solely on cinematic/narrativistic gaming, so every character can do about anything to help in any circunstance. I enjoy the fact that I can have a character that sucks at some skills, it makes them more interesting at some times.
It's good for star wars rpg, but not every D20 game should be or could be entirely cinematic.
OTOH, Saga skill rules would work well with M&M, maybe even better than they do with SW.