Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Dalamar]

In the D20 Modern Roleplaying Game characters can purchase two (2) Talents with one Feat: Strong Plus, Fast Plus, Tough Plus, Smart Plus, Dedicated Plus, and Charismatic Plus from D20 Future. This implies that one Talent is worth 1/2 of a Feat but I'm not sure I agree that those Feats are correctly balanced. A strong hero with Melee Smash (+1 damage) can pick up Improved and Advanced Melee Smash for the low low price of one Feat (for a total of +2 damage in addition to Melee Smash). That seems better than Weapon Specialization (a feat that also gives you +2 damage) because Melee Smash doesn't require you to limit its bonus to a single weapon.

Actually, the Plus feats say that a character can't choose more than one Talent from the same Tree with the feat. But yeah, I agree that those feats are not balanced correctly.

 

[Flynn]

Actually, the Plus feats say that a character can't choose more than one Talent from the same Tree with the feat. But yeah, I agree that those feats are not balanced correctly.

Also, if I recall, the Plus feats only give you access to talents that have no prerequisites, so you only get "bottom of the talent tree" stuff anyway with them. That being said, I don't think they are balanced, because I don't feel that talents are half a feat.

There are four types of special abilities:

1. Low-powered ability usable only in limited situations.
2. Useful ability usable only in limited situations.
3. Low-powered ability usable in very common situations.
4. Useful ability usable only in very common situations.

The rough CR adjustments for these under Grim Tales is, in order: CR +0.1, CR +0.2, CR +0.2, and CR +0.5.

Most talents fall into the #2 and #3 categories. As an aside, so do feats, which are rated at CR +0.2.

With that in mind, the Plus feats concept is unbalanced and therefore useless to me. I have noticed that it only appeared in D20 Future, and they have not been used elsewhere in any WOTC work, including Saga. Perhaps WOTC feels that the Plus feats are not appropriate for a Saga Edition game, despite the fact that they were found in D20 Future and SW is a sci-fi campaign setting.

Food for thought,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

What are the plans to balance magic? Won't only giving one attack increase the damage output gap between spellcasters and fighter types?

Bonus damage will be given to compensate for the loss of iterative attacks. Based on the numbers, the damage output gap will not be significantly effected under most conditions. I previously posted a link to a thread where I discussed this at length with a number of people on the board, prior to this project coming into existence.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[drothgery]

What are the plans to balance magic? Won't only giving one attack increase the damage output gap between spellcasters and fighter types?

Don't you mean decrease (raw damage output favors fighter types in D&D; if you're a blaster mage, you're one because it's fun -- that would be why I play them -- or because you want to clear out mooks quickly)? Between almost always hitting two or three times per round, strength bonuses, magic weapons, and whatever feats and/or other class abilities the warrior type picks up... well, the d6/level of a typical blasting spell isn't going to keep up.

But yeah, the level-based bonus damage makes up for the loss of iterative attacks pretty much.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In the D20 Modern Roleplaying Game characters can purchase two (2) Talents with one Feat: Strong Plus, Fast Plus, Tough Plus, Smart Plus, Dedicated Plus, and Charismatic Plus from D20 Future.

I'll just point out that, according to the Saga designers over on the WotC board, they went the other way, generally making talents stronger (or, at least, much cooler) than feats.

The justification is that, when it comes right down to it, anyone can take any feat. There is an opportunity cost (you must be class X) to gain access to a specific talent.

Something to consider, anyway.

 

[Gundark]

It's been my xp that mages deal way more damage than figther types at higher levels. It was my understanding that multiple attacks decreased this gap. I understand how SAGA adds half the level as a bonus to damage, however is this enough? My gut tells me no.

 

[drothgery]

It's been my xp that mages deal way more damage than figther types at higher levels. It was my understanding that multiple attacks decreased this gap. I understand how SAGA adds half the level as a bonus to damage, however is this enough? My gut tells me no.

Err... multiple attacks were supposed to decrease the gap. What they actually do is blow right past the gap and create one in the other direction. Wizards can kick butt at high levels, but it's not by doing damage directly (except in terms of wiping out hordes of mooks).

Take a really simple build of a Ftr 12 -- 22 Str (15 Str +3 level-up bonus +4 belt), +2 greatsword, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization. His attack bonus is +12 BAB +6 Str +2 weapon focus +2 magic = +22, for three attacks at +22/+17/+12. His damage bonus is +12 str (2-handed weapon) +2 magic +4 specialization, so each hit does 2d6 + 18, or 25 damage on average. If he averages 2 hits/round, he's doing 50 damage per round.

A really simple blaster wizard 12 -- 22 Int (same logic), greater spell focus (evocation), greater spell penetration, empower spell. With a straightforward blasting spell that he doesn't run into his level cap on, he'll do 12d6 damage, or 42 damage on average, if the target doesn't save. If they do, he'll do 21 on average (unless they've got evasion, in which case he'll do none). Or he can empower a lower level spell and do 10d6 X 1.5 damage for 52.5 on avergae on a failed save and 26.25 on a successful save, but that reduces the saving throw DC by 2, so you might not want to do that.

And it's a lot easier to make the fighter do better than this than it is to make the wizard do better than this. About the only way my Warmage 16 keeps up with the Barbarian 9/Fighter 8 in damage output is because I'm pretty sure the player's making math errors and understating her damage more often than not (and because her feat and weapon choices haven't been optimal; frex, she's got a lot of average magic weapons instead of one really good one). And even then she's still doing more damage than me to most targets.

 

[Flynn]

Guys,

As an FYI, the damage bonus just makes up for the potential damage lost with the removal of iterative attacks. The fighter will be just as effective (or ineffective) as he was previously, within one to two average points of damage. Whether or not there's a gap, and if so, what direction it lies in, isn't really the question in regards to the damage bonus. The real question is: does the iterative combatant do the same damage with the damage bonus as he did before with iterative attacks? The answer is yes, or reasonably close. Therefore, Mr. Fighter impacts the system in pretty much the same way mathematically as he did before, and so the overall impact of the shift is negated.

I guess the true answer to the original question should probably be "no, this does not address the gap, but it doesn't change it either."

Does that help?

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[EditorBFG]

Let me take a stab at The Human Paragon...

The thing is, in the current draft, humans already get a bonus feat, a trained skill, and an extra talent from their class. Now, if you think that extra talent should come from any class, I'm don't think I agree, but maybe I'm wrong about that-- it's certainly debatable.

For the human stat bump, I had a thought. What if we add a talent that allows a +2 to any ability score, but only if you have not previously gained an ability score increase from a talent. We make that talent available to all classes, though at a slightly higher level than the static racial stat bumps. So, humans get the same stat bump as other races, just a couple levels later, and other races have the option of choosing not to get their racial stat raise, in order to raise a score of their choice later on.

(Thinking about it, maybe the above would be better as a feat, available at, say 7th level?)

Between this, an extra feat, an extra talent, and an extra trained skill, humans should be fine. But feel free to voice disagreement.

Regarding Plus Feats:

I did a lot of looking into Plus feats when I work on Talent Tree Compendium and Fantastic Classes. A lot. You'll notice that the talents offered by Plus feats aren't always simply the ones with no prereqs. I tried to figure out the precise logic behind Plus feats and what talents were placed into them.

My final conclusion was that the game designers were compensating for failures made in the original talent designs. Basically, they realized that some Modern talents were a bit too weak (an error the SAGA designers corrected in their game), and so they threw in something to help base classes get farther up certain trees. This should not be taken as an assertion of talent value-- many talents are much better than the average feat, and many talents are weaker. A talent is not "half" a feat.

Plus Feats appeared in Fantastic Classes, but only to help simulate the "front-loaded" nature of D&D base classes in Modern. And I was very careful to limit what talents each Plus Feat should grant, to prevent abuse. But Fantasy Concepts should have no need of Plus Feats, nor are they an accurate measure of relative potency.

To my mind, the difference between Talents and Feats has nothing to do with relative power, and everything to do with who can acquire them. As Patryn pointed out, Feats are abilities that any character willing to meet the prerequisites can get, while Talents are abilities only certain classes or races can acquire. And that should be the only real difference-- yes, feats are acquired more often (a 20th level character in this system will have 19 feats and 11 talents) but I don't think each talent must be judged to make sure it is more powerful than a feat would be. And to be honest, even judging the relative power of one feat versus another or one talent versus another is not always exact anyhow, yet alone talents versus feats

This brings up the earlier discussion of talents that grant a feat. In some ways, yes, you are using something you only get 11 of to buy something you get 19 of, but at early levels it can be quite useful, especially if the talent lets you bypass prerequisites. Also, sometimes useful talents are designed to expand or build on a feat's abilities in a way that only a certain class should be able to. In such a case, PCs looking to acquire those talents may find it useful to have multiple avenues to acquire the base feat; those talents can then be designed have that feat as a prerequisite, rather than the talent that grants the feat. That way, those who want to acquire the feat at an odd-numbered level can do so, but those who choose not to spend a feat on a talent are not penalized; both can acquire the talents that build on that feat. In any case, a talent that only grants a feat should never be a prerequisite for any talent.

Regarding the Fighter/Mage "damage gap":

Should we make the weapon damage bonus all characters receive half base attack bonus (rounded up) instead of half character level? This would make it so a fighter with longsword is that much better than a mage with a longsword, which might help reward the fighter's specialization as he progresses in levels.

 

[tsadkiel]

Regarding the Fighter/Mage "damage gap":

Should we make the weapon damage bonus all characters receive half base attack bonus (rounded up) instead of half character level? This would make it so a fighter with longsword is that much better than a mage with a longsword, which might help reward the fighter's specialization as he progresses in levels.

I don't think that's needed - the fighter will already be much better than the mage with a longsword, and I don't think you need to complicate the rules to reinforce that.