Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Matrix Sorcica]

I see that as a feature, not a bug. It bugs me that a fighter who has been using a sword for thirteen levels gets captured, breaks out, steals the jailer's axe and is just as good with that axe as he is with the sword. He never picked up an axe before during his adventuring life, but he weilds this one with just as much skill.

That's because he's a badass fighter The argument you use is similar to the Rolemaster people. That's is not realistic. It's a very valid point. But it leads to the situation I described in my previous post.

I like sub-systems that delve into the aspects of specialization of weapon styles. Having access to special capabilites through secret manouvers or exploiting a weapon's special geometry (axe - cutting power, spear - long reach, &c.) is really cool to me.

These can be advanced, such as the Jedi special lightsaber training, but I do like them to be available.

Now, I like this approach as well. Would prefer it to be broadly applicable. But I like it. As an example of cool abilities tied to a weapon type, that somehow to me doesn't feel 'married to a weapon type' one could look at Razor Fiend from Iron Heroes.

 

[Flynn]

By randomness, do you mean the die rolls for damage? Or do you mean that the stats for weapons seem to have been assigned randomly, as in arbitrarily? I don't understand.

I mean that the effects of the die rolls, the resulting damage is too random and disparate. Read the sidebar in the DMG on decreasing randomness in combat based on weapon crit ranges and multipliers. The logic is covered there.

While the Weapon Group proficiency feats work well in conjunction with the standard classes' starting armor and weapon proficiencies, you might want to substitute a number of these feats for each class's starting weapon proficiencies*.

*[Emphasis mine]

If you've used them before, you might realize that the Simple and Martial distinctions no longer matter in a game with Weapon Groups. They don't work and play well together, despite that single part of the quote you emphasized in your post. Read further in the section you are quoting in regards to creating new weapon groups, and for their use in weapon-based feats.

I'll admit that I like Weapon Groups a lot, but I won't mix the two. It's gonna be one or the other, and if you don't want to use Weapon Groups, then we'll stick with the core. That's my opinion.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

That's because in both D&D 3e and a lot of other systems you are required to make investments in a certain weapon type, ergo you only use that weapon. It doesn't matter that you are able to use all weapons - the second you have spent a feat/profiencicy slot/skill point etc., you use that weapon exclusively. One melee, one ranged. That's what I call married to a weapon type.

Hmmm.... the reason I like weapon groups is because of my previous experience in soft weapon fantasy combat societies. I find they reflect the ability to use weapons better than the single weapon selection process or the Simple/Martial/Exotic sytem does. I like that weapon-based feats apply to the range of weapons covered by a weapon group, instead of a single weapon. I've been using them for three years in D20, and a lot longer in Traveller, and they work conceptually for me.

However, I think the point is going to be mute. My partner in crime, BFGEditor, is married to the core Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon concepts of the game, and given our arrangement, as that is closer to the core that we are working from (an OGL Fantasy Saga project), it is the direction we will likely go.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

I'd use the simplest method to power up weapons in order to get above Damage Thresholds. All dice of damage (manufactured or natural) for weapons are doubled. Short swords do 2d6, Longswords do 2d8, Greatswords do 2d12, and converting Monster Manual monsters is easy (Hill Giants do greatclub 4d8+10 or rock 4d6+7).

PS: I know that greatswords start with 2d6 damage but I think it's too good and it isn't elegant because all other sword/axe comparisons use the same damage die but different critical hit stats except Greatsword (2d6) versus Greataxe (1d12).

In the end, if the weapons aren't streamlined, I will certainly be opposed to adding more dice to the mix and modifying the existing weapons to make them more damaging. The Saga weapons are easy: one die for normal weapons, two dices for vibration-based weapons, three dice for energy -based weapons. So adding dice to weapons goes against our base model.

In addition, it would require recalculating the damage bonuses to compensate for the loss of iterative attacks.

The heightened damage will eat through hitpoints that much more quickly, reducing the effective challenge of the monsters that the characters will face. (The monsters die quicker, so they don't give as much challenge.) This might require CR adjustments for monsters.

One of our goals is to limit the amount of adjustments that need to be made to monsters as much as possible, so that you can still use your existing monster manuals and the like. Heightening base weapon damage is an unnecessary step that increases the amount of adjustments that must be done.

For these reasons, I would prefer we did not adjust weapon damage.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[The_Gneech]

The problem is, SAGA is built on the assumption that most people are using either lightsabers (2d8) or blasters (3d6), so the damage threshold is calculated for that benchmark. If you don't do something to compensate for that, the entire damage threshold mechanic goes out the window, at least until characters start carrying around +3 weapons.

-The Gneech

 

[Flynn]

The problem is, SAGA is built on the assumption that most people are using either lightsabers (2d8) or blasters (3d6), so the damage threshold is calculated for that benchmark. If you don't do something to compensate for that, the entire damage threshold mechanic goes out the window, at least until characters start carrying around +3 weapons.

-The Gneech

Have you looked at the numbers? There's a whole thread or two just here on ENWorld on removing iterative attacks, where the numbers are crunched pretty well using existing weapons. Trust me, the damage threshold mechanic is in no danger. It will still be useful.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Still being rather hampered by not having the Saga book:

Don't the defense scores in Saga raise somewhat beyond the applicable D&D cognates would normally be, rather rapidly? (And Damage Threshold is set to Fortitude Defense + applicable bonuses.)

The way I've been looking at it, Saga has taken some rolls and flipped them on what is essentially a Take 10 mechanic. Instead of a Will Saving Throw of +5 you have a Will Defense of 15. Instead of a DC 15 Will Save spell, you throw a +5 spell and roll a 1d20. That seems to be the core of the Defense mechanic and related changes (and generally retains equilibrium on the law of averages, just puts activity in the hands of the currently-active-player and reduces the total number of rolls).

Then we have the Massive Damage Save mechanic. This is in D&D and d20 Modern. In D&D it is set to 50 and is a Save Vs. Death. In d20Modern it is set to Con and is Save vs. Dying. Since we have removed saves, we no longer get a Save vs. ----- after the number is hit. If the Massive Damage Threshold (or just Damage Threshold) is breached you IMMEDIATELY get some effect. In Saga's case, that is move a step down the condition track.

I think we need to look some at "what does this do" in relation to level bonuses and the like. Doesn't the level bonuses to Attack, Damage, and Defense remove/mitigate the need for equipment based bonuses ... bonuses in D&D that usually come as magic enhancement bonuses to attack, damage, and saving throws.

OR: Given all other things constant, if we merely switch the mechanic on its ear in D&D and remove any remaining saves ... aren't we essentially "there", plus some tweaking?

If, say, magical bonuses to these scores remain commensurate with those found in D&D AND there are level-based additions to damage, hit, and defense, characters are going to increase in power across the board while (if we want to keep d20 books and the like useful) monsters will not. Characters will hit more, hit for more damage, and be harder to affect. If the major mechanic is a Take 10 Flip, as it were, it would be essentially very easy to "convert" any monster in any book ... add ten to all of the saves (with any armor or natural armor bonuses adding in to Ref) and subtract ten from any special attacks.

On that same note I think the equipment-based-bonuses in D&D are where the differences in base damage dice get evened out. In D&D you start getting bonuses on damage from +1 to +1d6 around 3rd level, and increase from there. Most characters get some sort of damage-addition bonus to their weapons pretty quickly.

--fje

 

[The_Gneech]

Have you looked at the numbers? There's a whole thread or two just here on ENWorld on removing iterative attacks, where the numbers are crunched pretty well using existing weapons. Trust me, the damage threshold mechanic is in no danger. It will still be useful.

With Regards,
Flynn

Well, I've looked at the weapon stats ... I'd like to see the crunching you're referring to, tho. Do you happen to have links to the threads in question? (I don't seem to have access to the search function.)

EDIT: Nevermind. Google is your friend.

-TG

 

[Flynn]

Well, I've looked at the weapon stats ... I'd like to see the crunching you're referring to, tho. Do you happen to have links to the threads in question? (I don't seem to have access to the search function.)

EDIT: Nevermind. Google is your friend.

-TG

Even better, a more detailed discussion can be found here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196052

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[The_Gneech]

Even better, a more detailed discussion can be found here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196052

Enjoy,
Flynn

I found that thread too, actually, but I'm not sure it really addresses the "weapon damage meets damage threshold" issue. Granted, once you get up a few levels, you're generally doing more damage with your 1/2 level bonus and multiattack feats (which generally add +dice in SAGA) -- but at low levels you still have the dichotomy of operating from a d8 damage baseline (average 4.5) instead of 2d8 (average 9) or 3d6 (average 10.5).

If you're running something fairly close to standard D&D, this is also mitigated by magic weapons (a +1 flaming sword will get you back to the exact same average as a lightsaber with the additional boost of hitting more often), but you're still a bit down on the deal for the first few levels at least.

In my own case, I'm looking to convert SAGA for a sword-and-sorcery game, so there aren't gonna be many +1 flaming swords around. Conan d20 dealt with this issue primarily by raising every weapon's die up a notch (so a broadsword does d10 for instance) and giving each weapon an armor piercing rating (since Conan d20 primarily assumes armor = DR).

Since I don't want to mess with armor piercing (anything that adds more figuring in combat kinda defeats the purpose of converting to SAGA), I may end up going with a suggestion I saw earlier of just doubling the dice for weapons. Not sure.

-The Gneech