• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

EditorBFG said:
we should discuss any such differences before we go forward.
You're absolutely correct that clear goals are critical to this kind of project. :D

My goals were to 1) copy Saga with as few changes as possible to make it work for Dungeons & Dragons and 2) finish the project quickly with as little entirely new design work as possible.

I didn't initially address the issue of compatibility with existing published material. This was a clear oversight on my part. Certain "author" opinions (like defenses = +1/2 level) are effectively designed to address this concern. I've come to believe that compatibility is a difficult and lofty goal but I don't think we should try to improve upon D&D in areas beyond where Saga clearly points the way. For example, making the heroic damage bonus = BAB is a clear break from Saga especially because it punishes Wizards so badly (where Soldiers get no greater heroic damage bonus than Nobles).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Warbringer said:
Make armor reduce your reflex save by its Armor penality, add its AC bonus instead and provide DR equal 1/2 AC bonus.
The problem with this is and some other variants is that no one in their right mind will wear armor (especially at high levels).

For DR 4, the dragon now has a 30% bigger chance of hitting you with its 4d8 + 20 attack. I think I will drop the armor and take my improved chances of no damage, thankyouverymuch.

Making armors provide more DR, and daggers and short swords etc. become useless.

The problem is not easily solved. Iron Heroes tried (and failed IMO). A solution could be to let armor provide full DR (with no or very very little reflex penalty [BTW it's already included in max. dex]), that can be bypassed by a hit roll that succeeds with as wide a margin as the DR.


Ramblings aside, I agree that magic items and spellcasting (that is, SRD spells) are the obstacles to a more direct port of Saga to fantasy.
 

Mokona said:
My goals were to 1) copy Saga with as few changes as possible to make it work for Dungeons & Dragons and 2) finish the project quickly with as little entirely new design work as possible.
I agree 100% :)

Mokona said:
I didn't initially address the issue of compatibility with existing published material. This was a clear oversight on my part. Certain "author" opinions (like defenses = +1/2 level) are effectively designed to address this concern. I've come to believe that compatibility is a difficult and lofty goal but I don't think we should try to improve upon D&D in areas beyond where Saga clearly points the way.
This man speaks both truth and wisdom.
 

Mokona said:
You're absolutely correct that clear goals are critical to this kind of project. :D

My goals were to 1) copy Saga with as few changes as possible to make it work for Dungeons & Dragons and 2) finish the project quickly with as little entirely new design work as possible.

I didn't initially address the issue of compatibility with existing published material. This was a clear oversight on my part. Certain "author" opinions (like defenses = +1/2 level) are effectively designed to address this concern. I've come to believe that compatibility is a difficult and lofty goal but I don't think we should try to improve upon D&D in areas beyond where Saga clearly points the way. For example, making the heroic damage bonus = BAB is a clear break from Saga especially because it punishes Wizards so badly (where Soldiers get no greater heroic damage bonus than Nobles).

It doesn't punish in such a way that makes it unfair. Don't forget that in SWSE there aren't many ways of consistently damaging your opponents without a to hit roll etc.
 

I agree with BFGEditor's post above on our goals for this project. They are mine, as well.

For those that feel that adding BAB to weapon damage goes against the spirit of what they seek, I'm sure we can add an optional rule to cover that. However, I can't recall the last time I saw a wizard or sorcerer actually engage in combat with a weapon after first or second level, and the numbers work better at compensating for the loss of iterative attacks, so I'm having a hard time understanding the objection, aside from "that's not how Saga does it." Of course, that is a perfectly valid justification, in and of itself.

I hope the optional rule text will cover that scenario for those interested in doing so, and still allows us some differences to help avoid legal issues.

With Regards,
Flynn

BTW, BFGEditor, check your email when you get the chance...
 

Let's talk about the save/defense problem.

Because really, by not making magic skill based, spells aren't the issue. Yes, we can do MAB at roughly half class level. But, as others point out, we can also just make Caster Level a thing that appears on the class chart next to BAB as easily as MAB (by the way, if we did use MAB we would have to call it something else, I hate that term), and make it scale with level, thus making it not subject to skill-type improvements.

In fact, since MAB is too much of a departure for some folks, if we do go with half-level saves (half-defenses) we could still use caster levels. We could even just make the roll to cast a spell/overcome defenses 1d20 + ability mod + half Caster Level, which is just about the same as D&D. Caster Level can be on the class chart with BAB, which also solves the multiclassing problems mentioned above. In many ways, Caster Level works like Saga's Use the Force skill, we just hardwire the progression into the class rather than using at as a skill.

So either way, spells and defenses will scale.

The problem is making saves/defenses scale with everything else.

I know the problem has already been laid out, but just to go over it again, restating some of the obvious:

I'm a GM running, I dunno, Death in Freeport, and there is a trap with a Reflex save DC of 17. Now, at half-level defenses, I just roll d20+7 against the character's Reflex Defense, and the chances of success or failure are true to the author's intentions. If we use character level as defense, instead of half, is there a way to make the conversion just as easily?

Further, if there are cloaks that add to AC (which becomes a bonus to Reflex Defense) and rings that add to ability scores, on the fly conversion becomes that much harder. Even if we assume that both sides in most conflicts have such buffing capabilities, it doesn't solve everything. The above trap DC is fine at first level, but what about traps in a higher level module like, say, Monte Cook's the Banewarrens? Conversion on the fly becomes a real hassle.

And, on top of all this, characters in fantasy should find armor a more attractive option than in Star Wars. Because in Star Wars, armor is something bad guys wear (Darth Vader, Stormtroopers, Boba Fett), rather than heroes, so armor being a loser without certain talents makes sense. In fantasy, knights and heroes often do wear armor, so using the Saga rules as is makes D&D style settings work more like George Lucas movies, which is bad. So defenses matter in this arena as well.

Now, if I've touched on all the issues, half-defenses seem to be the way to go-- and when we first had this discussion, that seemed to be the consensus. Now, we seem to be disagreeing again, so if folks don't like half-defenses, please restate the reasons why now so people can respond and bring this particular debate to a close.
 

Well Editor, here's how I see things (from the point of view of a once control engineer):

Ultimately, as a character levels up, they should get better at what they do.
As it stands, some classes get better at hitting than others.
Some classes get better at using magic than others.
All classes get better at resisting these forms of attack equally.

In order for the steady state of the game to be fun and playable, these three factors have to increase in equal amounts. That's fine. The problem lies with the available 'offset' boosts, not derived from level. In the case of armour and effects adding to reflex save, there's an offset that with 3.5 numbers, far outweighs the offset you can apply to BAB. But you need armour for the game to have the spirit of D&D.

So imagine if you include recommendations to restrict magic items. Make the cost of adding a to hit bonus to a weapon the same as the cost of increasing the AC of armour. Make magical bonuses to armour the same effect as rings of protection, so they don't stack. Similarly with magical bonuses on armour and a shield - just make all the +1, +2, etc.. deflection modifiers (or even better, magical equipment modifier). Suggest the same costs and limitations apply to skill boosts, as even in 3.5 some items are ridiculous.

So now if we assume that any magical bonuses to reflex are complemented by equal-costing magical bonuses to weaponry, the only offset to worry about is base armour. At first level, in 3.5 also, AC is usually higher than to hit, and we don't complain much about it. As the Fighter progresses, he'll get +1 to hit every level, where reflex defense only goes up +1/2, with perhaps some improvement from the type of armour being worn. But in essence, we've taken a problem and distilled it down to one that already exists in 3.5. Sure the Wizard is gonna suck at hitting, but that's why they have magic.

Now for magical attacks. Using caster level will be the same as using BAB vs. reflex for Fighters, but there are almost no magical bonuses to it. This is where I think the idea of using spellcraft actually works. At first level there's a +5 offset at most, but as all parties concerned level up, basic armour will add to reflex and fortitude. Magic bonuses should again cancel out in terms of cost. Taking prestige classes and multiclassing will offset defenses. But essentially, the skill and the defenses increase at the same rate, you need only consider if the offset is small enough to make this balanced. My thoughts are that even with skill focus in spellcraft, the +10 offset is equal to the full plate and shield combination. Adding spell focus style feats could tip the balance too far. Will defense is a problem too, unless there are ample ways to boost it from class abilities etc. (although many PHB will saves let you keep on saving, there are certainly few nasty damage spells, perhaps this can be extended to all). Perhaps a nice tradeoff would be specifying a school of magic for skill focus spellcraft (or dispelling if you don't want a school) - that gives the Wizard something to spend those feats on!

We need a playtest ;)!
 

EditorBFG said:
Because really, by not making magic skill based, spells aren't the issue. Yes, we can do MAB at roughly half class level. But, as others point out, we can also just make Caster Level a thing that appears on the class chart next to BAB as easily as MAB (by the way, if we did use MAB we would have to call it something else, I hate that term), and make it scale with level, thus making it not subject to skill-type improvements.

In fact, since MAB is too much of a departure for some folks, if we do go with half-level saves (half-defenses) we could still use caster levels. We could even just make the roll to cast a spell/overcome defenses 1d20 + ability mod + half Caster Level, which is just about the same as D&D. Caster Level can be on the class chart with BAB, which also solves the multiclassing problems mentioned above. In many ways, Caster Level works like Saga's Use the Force skill, we just hardwire the progression into the class rather than using at as a skill.

Maybe I'm missing some important distinction, but isn't MAB really just a "caster level" system that takes multi-classsing into account. Is this just a issue of semantics? :confused:
 

Twiggly the Gnome said:
Maybe I'm missing some important distinction, but isn't MAB really just a "caster level" system that takes multi-classsing into account. Is this just a issue of semantics? :confused:
Yes, it absolutely is. Semantics and nothing more.

But if calling it caster level is what people want, I am fine with it. Partially because I hate the name Magic Attack Bonus and have yet to hit upon a better alternative, and partially because it does essentially serve almost the same function as in D&D. If, later on, calling it caster level becomes undesirable, it could be Caster Rank, Caster Bonus, whatever.

So, based on existing discussions, I think class tables would like something like this:
Code:
[B][u]Mage[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses: 	+2 bonus to your Will Defense
+1 bonus to your Reflex Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+0	+1	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+1	+2	Bonus feat
3	+2	+3	Talent
4	+3	+4	Bonus feat
5	+3	+5	Talent
6	+4	+6	Bonus feat
7	+5	+7	Talent
8	+6	+8	Bonus feat
9	+6	+9	Talent
10	+7	+10	Bonus feat
11	+8	+11	Talent
12	+9	+12	Bonus feat
13	+9	+13	Talent
14	+10	+14	Bonus feat
15	+11	+15	Talent
16	+12	+16	Bonus feat
17	+12	+17	Talent
18	+13	+18	Bonus feat
19	+14	+19	Talent
20	+15	+20	Bonus feat

[B][u]Priest[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses:	+2 bonus to your Will Defense
+1 bonus to your Fortitude Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+0	+1	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+1	+2	Bonus feat
3	+2	+3	Talent
4	+3	+4	Bonus feat
5	+3	+5	Talent
6	+4	+6	Bonus feat
7	+5	+7	Talent
8	+6	+8	Bonus feat
9	+6	+9	Talent
10	+7	+10	Bonus feat
11	+8	+11	Talent
12	+9	+12	Bonus feat
13	+9	+13	Talent
14	+10	+14	Bonus feat
15	+11	+15	Talent
16	+12	+16	Bonus feat
17	+12	+17	Talent
18	+13	+18	Bonus feat
19	+14	+19	Talent
20	+15	+20	Bonus feat

[B][u]Warrior[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses: 	+2 bonus to your Fortitude Defense
+1 bonus to your Reflex Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+1	+0	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+2	+0	Bonus feat
3	+3	+0	Talent
4	+4	+1	Bonus feat
5	+5	+1	Talent
6	+6	+2	Bonus feat
7	+7	+2	Talent
8	+8	+2	Bonus feat
9	+9	+3	Talent
10	+10	+3	Bonus feat
11	+11	+4	Talent
12	+12	+4	Bonus feat
13	+13	+4	Talent
14	+14	+5	Bonus feat
15	+15	+5	Talent
16	+16	+5	Bonus feat
17	+17	+6	Talent
18	+18	+6	Bonus feat
19	+19	+7	Talent
20	+20	+7	Bonus feat

[B][u]Expert[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses: 	+2 bonus to your Reflex Defense
+1 bonus to your Will Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+0	+0	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+1	+1	Bonus feat
3	+2	+2	Talent
4	+3	+2	Bonus feat
5	+3	+3	Talent
6	+4	+4	Bonus feat
7	+5	+4	Talent
8	+6	+5	Bonus feat
9	+6	+6	Talent
10	+7	+6	Bonus feat
11	+8	+7	Talent
12	+9	+8	Bonus feat
13	+9	+8	Talent
14	+10	+9	Bonus feat
15	+11	+10	Talent
16	+12	+10	Bonus feat
17	+12	+11	Talent
18	+13	+12	Bonus feat
19	+14	+12	Talent
20	+15	+13	Bonus feat
(With half caster level (rounded up) being the highest level spell you can cast.)
 

Chris_Nightwing said:
Well Editor, here's how I see things (from the point of view of a once control engineer):
<snip>
We need a playtest ;)!
Well, with some discussion, I could be persuaded to include these very rational magic item restrictions as an optional rule or variant, but as far as the "default" system, I absolutely think magic items need to remain as they are now. As I stated, one of my main goals is to let published d20 fantasy adventures be easily convertible on the fly, and I think changing magic items will make that very difficult.

I know this has been said before, but I would be perfectly happy to publish the main product with spells as they are (only changing how they are cast) and magic items unchanged, then do a magic sourcebook that updates both to a new and more streamlined system, for those who do not mind having to do the extra work of converting these two things. Like True20, which published a version of the Psychic Handbook's rules for magic in the main book, then released a superior (IMHO) system with True Sorcery.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top