Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[EditorBFG]

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.

Fair enough, but is half base attack bonus really more complicated than half character level?

And really, why should two levels of Mage increase your weapon damage as much as two levels of Fighter?

 

[drothgery]

Fair enough, but is half base attack bonus really more complicated than half character level?

No, but half character level makes multiclassing less bad.

And really, why should two levels of Mage increase your weapon damage as much as two levels of Fighter?

Mages learn to subtlely imbue their strikes with arcane power. Clerics learn to imbue them with the force of their deity. Rogues know where to hit. Fighters know how to hit harder.

 

[tsadkiel]

Fair enough, but is half base attack bonus really more complicated than half character level?

Yes, because it's affected by multiclassing. It's not hugely complicated by any means, but half level is simpler.

And really, why should two levels of Mage increase your weapon damage as much as two levels of Fighter?

My impression of the level-based damage bonus is that it doesn't come from increased skill, it comes from increased awesome - two levels of Mage should add just as much awesome as two levels of fighter, and vice versa.

More seriously - the fighter will be doing more damage than the mage anyway, because he will have invested feats and talents and ability scores into being cool with weapons. The mage with a sword is dabbling with melee, and in general Saga is much more dabbling friendly than other forms of d20; he should still be able to make a contribution without overshadowing the specialists, just as a soldier who dabbles in the force (or a fighter who dabbles in magic) should be able to make a contribution without overshadowing the specialists.

 

[Flynn]

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.

Actually, the values work out best if you add the BAB as the damage bonus straight out. From a numbers-crunching perspective, that's the best way to minimize the impact on the system which replaces iterative attack and remains streamlined and easy to use. (There are slightly better ways, but they aren't easy, nor do they fit the essence of this project.)

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

On the stat boost issue, what if the racial talents didn't provide an actual bonus, but allowed for allocating level based boosts in a different manner. For example:

Glamour of the Fey: When next presented with the opportunity to raise two ability scores by one point each, the player may instead raise the character's charisma score by two points.

That provides a tangible benefit, but keeps the overall number of points humans and non-humans can get the same.

 

[EditorBFG]

Actually, the values work out best if you add the BAB as the damage bonus straight out.

I think that is a very good solution. Even easier than half character level, and keeps a 20th level fighter competitive with 9th level spells (especially since, as we are planning it, spellcasters will not be so weak at 1st level either.

Glamour of the Fey: When next presented with the opportunity to raise two ability scores by one point each, the player may instead raise the character's charisma score by two points.

This may be the most elegant idea I've heard so far on this problem. This (or some variation on it) may be just what the doctor ordered. Now I just have to figure out how to make something like this work for LA races with multiple ability scores at +2 or higher.

 

[Animus]

I had to chime in and say that I'm eagerly waiting for this supplement. Looking good.

 

[maggot]

I love this project. How can I help out?

A few pages ago you said you were looking for an Open Game version of the increase two stats each level. Well, a system that I came up with that is nearly the same might help:

At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter (6th, 10th, etc) you can increase any stat by +1.
At 4th level and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, etc) you can increase any secondary stat by +1. A "secondary" stat cannot be your highest stat.

This spreads the stat raises out a bit, but works fundamentally the same.

For the trait that says "you can add both raises to Cha" you could change it to "you can add your next secondary raise to Cha even if it is your highest stat".

 

[Flynn]

I love this project. How can I help out?

Thanks, guys, for the vote of support. We are definitely excited about the potentials behind it.

A few pages ago you said you were looking for an Open Game version of the increase two stats each level. Well, a system that I came up with that is nearly the same might help:

At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter (6th, 10th, etc) you can increase any stat by +1.
At 4th level and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, etc) you can increase any secondary stat by +1. A "secondary" stat cannot be your highest stat.

This spreads the stat raises out a bit, but works fundamentally the same.

For the trait that says "you can add both raises to Cha" you could change it to "you can add your next secondary raise to Cha even if it is your highest stat".

Actually, what I probably should have said is that I'm looking for some kind of precedence of s a similar system that has already been published prior to this year that pursued something like that. Just looking to make sure we can back up as many things as we can through either OGC that has been previously published (2006 or earlier), or that directly stems from mathematical progressions.

So far, we're doing a pretty good job of it, but there are some things that will, by necessity, be different, just because of the legal issues involved. Our design is to make this as modular as possible, though, so you can drop in a House Rule on your own to cover those areas that we feel might be legally ambiguous (mostly a CYA thing), or you can look at our alternative for that and decide that's cool with you, too.

In the end, we really are working together to build the best product possible for you guys. Doing anything less than that would not be worth all this effort.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Mokona]

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.

Thanks for the quotation. Makes me happy (I agree with the Wizards of the Coast R&D team). This also helps as we design species Talents and Feats (regarding what kinds of abilites should fall into each category and how the relative power should work out).