Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Mokona]

Cleric (Champion, Priest, Healer, Ascetic trees)
Fighter (Knight, Martial Artist, Weapon Master, Beserker trees)
Noble (Influence, Inspiration, Lineage trees)
Rogue (Fortune, Misfortune, Thief, Dungeoneer trees)
Scout (Awareness, Naturalist, Hunter trees)
Wizard (Sage, Warmage, Beguiler, Necromancer trees)

I do want to model Dungeons & Dragons (and fantasy heavily-influenced by D&D) but I agree with your list of classes. Warrior, Scoundrel, Scout, Noble, Mage, and Priest.

All classes (under Saga) share the Talent and Bonus Feat features. Individual choices within those allow each class to cover a wide array of class concepts (and Trained Class Skills as well).

However, some parts of semi-generic Saga classes are the same for every member of a class.

1. Base Attack Bonus

All warriors have a Fighter base attack bonus whether they're an armored tank or a hard hitting brute. Should we have any class with Wizard base attack bonus progression? I personally want at least two classes to have Fighter base attack bonus progression. Perhaps base attack bonus is less important in this system but until I believe that I would want players desiring Fighter BAB to have more than one option. I suggest Fighter base attack for Warriors and Scouts; Cleric base attack for Priests, Scoundrels, and Nobles; and Wizard base attack for Mages and Psionicists p).

2. Defense

There are three (3) defenses and six classes so approximately two (2) classes should be "good" at each defense. Probably Priests should have Monk-like equal bonuses in all three.

3. Skill Slots

I'd like to see a little more flexibility here than D&D because I like that Saga Warriors don't get only two (2) skills.

-----

What I'm nervous about is how one would make a Paladin. One option (that I favor) is to have a set of low level Priest, Mage, and Psionicist powers available to everyone (like Force Adepts in Saga) and a Paladin is just a Warrior with the Priestly talents. Two alternate options would be a Priest-light talent only in the Warrior talent options or a Fighter/Magic-User class (a seventh character class) that has talent trees for Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, &c.

 

[Flynn]

I do want to model Dungeons & Dragons (and fantasy heavily-influenced by D&D) but I agree with your list of classes. Warrior, Scoundrel, Scout, Noble, Mage, and Priest.

All classes (under Saga) share the Talent and Bonus Feat features. Individual choices within those allow each class to cover a wide array of class concepts (and Trained Class Skills as well).

-----

What I'm nervous about is how one would make a Paladin. One option (that I favor) is to have a set of low level Priest, Mage, and Psionicist powers available to everyone (like Force Adepts in Saga) and a Paladin is just a Warrior with the Priestly talents. Two alternate options would be a Priest-light talent only in the Warrior talent options or a Fighter/Magic-User class (a seventh character class) that has talent trees for Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, &c.

Beware, for too many class options is a path to the Dark Side... After all, Saga covered its bases with strong archetype characters, reducing the workload by expanding options through Talent Trees. There's no reason to go overboard with extra classes to cover a little bit of this and a little bit of that, when you can accomplish the same thing through multiclassing. There needs to be a strong and compelling reason to include a new archetype class. 2nd Edition showed us four classic archetypes that have survived through today. The Warrior, Rogue, Mage and Priest are strong enough as archetypes that even WOTC's splatbooks seem to still emphasize it. Anything beyond that has to be carefully considered before adding it in.

Just Some Thoughts,
Flynn

 

[drothgery]

What I'm nervous about is how one would make a Paladin. One option (that I favor) is to have a set of low level Priest, Mage, and Psionicist powers available to everyone (like Force Adepts in Saga) and a Paladin is just a Warrior with the Priestly talents. Two alternate options would be a Priest-light talent only in the Warrior talent options or a Fighter/Magic-User class (a seventh character class) that has talent trees for Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, &c.

I'd say Paladin is a PrC. If you build a magic system modeled on the Force, the prereqs are a few Knight talents (I'm thinking the Knight tree is mounted combat / low level war leader stuff), the divine Force Sensitivity analog, training in the divine Use the Force analog skill, and a certain amount of BAB. Easiest way to get it is as a multiclass Fighter/Cleric.

You can extend that line of think for Bard (Noble/Wizard PrC), Monk (Fighter PrC), and Ranger (Scout PrC). Probably add a few more PrCs. If you want to do the two-tiered PrC thing for casters, Archmage and Heirophant are the top-tier ones.

One of the tougher issues in this project is going to be figuring out how to deal with armor; the genre convention in D&D is that everyone wears armor except for people who can't cast spells in it or who have other magical protection that doesn't work with armor (though only front-line warriors wear heavy armor, and in 3.x nobody wears medium armor except dwarves). This is in stark contrast to the Star Wars genre convention wear almost no one except for soldiers and the occasional bounty hunter wears armor, and wear armor doesn't seem to hamper the Force much (except in a few video games).

So the Saga style of taking a feat and two talents to make armor worth wearing at mid-levels and higher isn't going to work. And if armor just adds to Ref Def normally (assuming proficiency), then Ref Def is going to be somewhat higher. Magic weapons might offset that... but then magic armor comes into play, and we're back with the same problem.

Beware, for too many class options is a path to the Dark Side... After all, Saga covered its bases with strong archetype characters, reducing the workload by expanding options through Talent Trees. There's no reason to go overboard with extra classes to cover a little bit of this and a little bit of that, when you can accomplish the same thing through multiclassing. There needs to be a strong and compelling reason to include a new archetype class. 2nd Edition showed us four classic archetypes that have survived through today. The Warrior, Rogue, Mage and Priest are strong enough as archetypes that even WOTC's splatbooks seem to still emphasize it. Anything beyond that has to be carefully considered before adding it in.

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it's practical to knock things down to less than six. It doesn't seem 'right' to put the Ranger's tracking and wilderness abilities in a Warrior/Fighter tree, or the Druid's even more extensive wilderness survival abilities there or in a Priest/Cleric tree. And adding them to Rogue makes Rogue too good (plus I don't think you really want to get more than four core talent trees per class). And later expansions spawned other dedicated classes along the same theme (most notably the CAdv Scout).

The Bard's non-spell-based party buffing is another thing that's hard to place. Thematically it doesen't really go with Rogue or Mage/Wizard (and it's another thing that would make Rogues too good), and the 'guy who knows everything' and 'social expert' aspects of the Saga Noble are also the Bard's forte. But the Bard as an archetype hasn't ever been all that popular. Add in that there have been more than a few party buffer classes added over the years (marshal, archivist, and dragon shaman come to mind), that there have been more than a few 3rd-party spins on the noble (Dragonlance Noble, someone's got a Courtier), and that there's an Aristocrat NPC class in core D&D, and I'd say it belongs.

 

[Nine Hands]

just had a thought. Touch attacks will need some work - especially touch attack spells. In Saga, they are severely hampered.

Well they are too easy in D&D most of the time.

I say just give "Touch Attacks" a flat +5 bonus to attack just to make them easy to use and port over.

 

[Nine Hands]

Add wizard as the sixth class and we're set! (and it will probably please the Modern fans).


Please do not call psionics that. I hate that word in fantasy! Use Mentalist or something. Not a sci-fi word. Please. (Sorry, I'll stop ranting)

Could be time to drop all spellcasting classes (and psionics) into a single Adept class. Then have talent trees for the different types of spellcasting (psionic/arcane/divine).

All of these are just suggestions though, game design by committee is really not the best way to do things

 

[Flynn]

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it's practical to knock things down to less than six. It doesn't seem 'right' to put the Ranger's tracking and wilderness abilities in a Warrior/Fighter tree, or the Druid's even more extensive wilderness survival abilities there or in a Priest/Cleric tree. And adding them to Rogue makes Rogue too good (plus I don't think you really want to get more than four core talent trees per class). And later expansions spawned other dedicated classes along the same theme (most notably the CAdv Scout).

The Bard's non-spell-based party buffing is another thing that's hard to place. Thematically it doesen't really go with Rogue or Mage/Wizard (and it's another thing that would make Rogues too good), and the 'guy who knows everything' and 'social expert' aspects of the Saga Noble are also the Bard's forte. But the Bard as an archetype hasn't ever been all that popular. Add in that there have been more than a few party buffer classes added over the years (marshal, archivist, and dragon shaman come to mind), that there have been more than a few 3rd-party spins on the noble (Dragonlance Noble, someone's got a Courtier), and that there's an Aristocrat NPC class in core D&D, and I'd say it belongs.

I think you yourself touched on the solution for your concerns in these regards: some things should not be part of a core class's talent tree selection, but should be made part of a Prestige Class, where such focused abilities might be better served. Examples include those classes that were described as prestige classes in WOTC's Unearthed Arcana.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm

I'm not saying this is how this will be handled, but it is definitely something to think about, for all parties involved. If something is too specific in flavor, maybe it should become a prestige class.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

All of these are just suggestions though, game design by committee is really not the best way to do things

Agreed. This is very important to keep in mind. In the end, those that actually do the work of writing this up will determine the end result. Input and suggestions are good, though, since that helps provide direction and inspire thought and creativity.

In the end, I know that my work will not please everyone. For each person that likes it, there will be others that do not. I appreciate the insight into what the more vocal gamers on this forum want, as it makes me think about my decisions before I move forward.

With That In Mind, Please, Keep It Up,
Flynn

 

[Mokona]

game design by committee is really not the best way to do things

Flynn has to put his time and money on the line since he'll be releasing something for a fee. Ultimately the choices are made by one person. I agree that we're not going to succeed as a committee.

Hopefully the dialectic we engage in here, publicly, will give Flynn a good idea of what to design and why. With all the information we can muster Flynn should be able to make reasoned decisions instead of arbitrary ones.

 

[drothgery]

I think you yourself touched on the solution for your concerns in these regards: some things should not be part of a core class's talent tree selection, but should be made part of a Prestige Class, where such focused abilities might be better served. Examples include those classes that were described as prestige classes in WOTC's Unearthed Arcana.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm

I'm not saying this is how this will be handled, but it is definitely something to think about, for all parties involved. If something is too specific in flavor, maybe it should become a prestige class.

With Regards,
Flynn

I don't think we disagree on much here, except on the specifics of where to draw the lines on what's too specific for a base class, and what archetypes and abilities should be there from first level.

I think given that there are three 'wilderness-type' core classes in D&D (Barbarian, Druid, and Ranger) and fair amount of follow-on (most notably the CAdv Scout), the woodsman/tracker type should be possible from 1st level as more than just a Fighter or Rogue with the right skills, even if we're putting some of the really cool stuff into a Ranger prestige class.

And although there's never been a Noble base PC class in core D&D, it's a recurring theme in expasnion material, and there are all sorts of classes out there (starting with the core bard and moving on from there) that, mechanically speaking, do what bards are good at in D&D and Nobles are good at in Star Wars Saga. Again, I think there's definitely a place for the well-educated, the well-connected, and the inspirational in D&D-esque fantasy even at 1st level, and a class like the Saga Noble is probably the best way to model it, as the 'noble' theme probably has more people willing to play it than the others.

Prestige classes should be for the cool and unique powers that low-level characters don't have. So Paladin is a PrC -- and calling your special mount is something you can do at Paladin level 1. They shouldn't be for more generic powers that are expected to be available to low-level characters.

 

[Nine Hands]

<snip>

Prestige classes should be for the cool and unique powers that low-level characters don't have. So Paladin is a PrC -- and calling your special mount is something you can do at Paladin level 1. They shouldn't be for more generic powers that are expected to be available to low-level characters.

This is a good point. Another design choice I saw in Saga was that the Prestige Classes had one or two key class abilities and then access to talent trees (along with access to another classes talent trees) or other abilities. This is a smart design choice as it allows for versatility even if you take a prestige class (something that current D&D classes sorely lack).

Sorry to ramble so much but this project is something I am truly looking forward to.