Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Flynn]

I like the feat but only if you can take it just at 1st level and only once. Access to one talent tree is not really that powerful. Heck I may use something similar in my SWSE game.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. However, I am considering getting rid of it just because several people have posted concerns about abuse. Your input might change that, though. Let's see what they say about it.

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[Dalamar]

The Weapon Proficiency feat does not exactly sit well with me as it gives proficiency in all martial weapons with one feat. Maybe I'm just conditioned into thinking it's too good by the current edition, but I would prefer if the Martial group was divided for the purposes of the feat, such as being Martial Melee and Martial Ranged, or something similar.


I'd say that negative levels have to remain their own separate track, otherwise either dying from negative levels has to be removed (creates problems with some spawning undead) or 5 negative levels will be enough to kill even high-level adventurers (its own problem).

Fear should be just a condition track effect. The current DnD way is too cumbersome (enemies fleeing on the second step), plus this is the kind of things that the track was created for.

Gaze attacks should remain mostly the same, but averting gaze and such should modify defenses instead of requiring a roll of their own.

No idea really with level loss or paralysis. And I agree with people who have said that SR should be a bonus to defenses.


By the by, the 0/1/2/5/10 progression is used in Mutans and Masterminds 2nd Edition (Though it continues as 25/50/100/etc.) in everything that gets multiplied (number of summons, multiplied durations, area affected, and such), if you feel you need justification for using it.

 

[Flynn]

Good Afternoon, All:

I'm writing today in regards to Alignment, that component of the rules where you indicate in broad and general terms how you will be playing your character. How would you suggest we approach that particular subject?

Should we use alignment as it appears in the SRD?

Should we use alignment as it appears in Basic D&D (i.e. Law/Neutral/Chaos, and no good-evil stuff)?

Should we use allegiances from D20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana?

Should we use nature/demeanor or vice/virtue as found in other games?

Should we do something different that the options listed above?

Should we do nothing at all in this area, and remove the concept entirely from the game?

What do you think?

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Animus]

I say leave alignment out and let the individual decide how that will be handled.

 

[Nine Hands]

Current OGL is -4, and I've included an optional rule to change those to -5. This protects us legally, and the implementation is as simple as saying you use the Combat Consistency Optional Rule. Please bear in mind that, for legal reasons, we cannot simply duplicate Saga word for word, so there are some differences simply to provide protection in legal matters. Where the OGL backs us (and you'd be surprised where it does and how), there's a high degree of similarity. Where the OGL does not, we have had to pursue alternate means of arriving at similar results, and I think we've done a good job of it, too, but I'm biased, I must admit.

As for weapon groups, I wanted UA weapon groups, but my partner in this venture does not agree, and I stopped fighting the matter after several days of fruitless discussions. The discussion is somewhere in the first five or six pages of this thread. You are free to substitute them in your home games, though. (To be honest, that's what I'm going to do. )

Enjoy,
Flynn

I completely understand, interestingly someone also posted that M&M does something similar. One of the things I appreciate about Saga is that they took the time to create a template for penalties and applied that to everything. The values are easy to remember and much better than odd-ball numbers like 3, 6, 13, etc.

But of course this is your project, I'll just change it when I use it

 

[Nine Hands]

Good Afternoon, All:

I'm writing today in regards to Alignment, that component of the rules where you indicate in broad and general terms how you will be playing your character. How would you suggest we approach that particular subject?

Should we use alignment as it appears in the SRD?

Should we use alignment as it appears in Basic D&D (i.e. Law/Neutral/Chaos, and no good-evil stuff)?

Should we use allegiances from D20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana?

Should we use nature/demeanor or vice/virtue as found in other games?

Should we do something different that the options listed above?

Should we do nothing at all in this area, and remove the concept entirely from the game?

What do you think?

With Regards,
Flynn

I'd like to see the end of alignments and the introduction of virtues/vices, maybe something that ties into replenishing action points when you act towards one of your natures (similar to True 20).

Sorry to mention so many other systems but they have some good ideas which I think will be a good substitute for stuff.

 

[EditorBFG]

As for weapon groups, I wanted UA weapon groups, but my partner in this venture does not agree, and I stopped fighting the matter after several days of fruitless discussions. The discussion is somewhere in the first five or six pages of this thread. You are free to substitute them in your home games, though. (To be honest, that's what I'm going to do. )

The grumpy partner should pipe up here and explain.

What I wanted was to have both weapon groups and the categories of simple, martial, and exotic. I still do not understand why the two concepts are mutually exclusive, but so I have been told.

In Saga, part of the great thing is you can make characters-- even high level ones-- quickly. So, at 1st level, I want each character to get a big bundle of weapons he can use without the creator having to do any choosing at all. I want a warrior? Aside from equipment, right now I pick 4 skills, a feat, and a talent, and I'm ready to play. That is great. At 1st level, picking 5 weapon groups (or whatever) just slows it down.

Now, as I go UP in levels, if I encounter a weapon I am not proficient with, and I want to use it, I don't think blowing a feat should just get me proficiency with a single weapon (the way D&D does it now). That is lame, a waste of a feat. On the other hand, if I could buy a feat that gets me, say, all bows or all axes, that is a worthy choice.

To my mind, this is how it should work: Simple/Martial/Exotic as categories for determining what 1st level characters get, Weapon Group Proficiency feats for going up in levels.

I am not against Weapon Groups, I love them-- just not at 1st level.

Why can't we have both sets of categories?

 

[EditorBFG]

I say leave alignment out and let the individual decide how that will be handled.

The only reason we can't do this is because we want to include abilities like what paladins can do in D&D now. We can't replace Smite Evil with "Smite Whatever Abstract Concept of Negative Philosophy You and the GM Agree On"-- if we did, the description would read like nonsense. Better we include some kind of rule for you to tinker with or replace than leave an empty slot you're required to fill.

 

[EditorBFG]

How about an antonym for Fatigue, Vigor or Vitality. Both have a more positive ring to them too. I personally have no problem with Condition track as litterally thats what it's tracking for me, My condition.

We don't have a problem with Condition track per se, except that it is a term from copyrighted material published by WotC which we have no legal right to use.

An antonym like Vitality or Vigor would be much easier to come up with, but since we are talking about single units of penalty, each would have to be called a "Vitality Loss" or something.

Thinking about it this week in my bedridden stupor, I came up with two separate ideas, each miles away from the other.

The first is just "Penalty Level". Simple, to the point, and specific, describing exactly what it sounds like. Not very evocative-- you have to remember, Star Wars is fine with terms like Condition Track because it is a sci-fi setting. But such things sound overly clinical and modern in terms of fantasy. Names are important not only for how they describe things, but the mood they create.

Still, in terms of pure specificity, "Penalty Level" is perfect. Right now we're using "Pain Level," so the change will be easy (Pain Level is cool, just not accurate at all).

Now, way on the other end... how about "Burden"? As in, "Your character takes massive damage and receives a Burden." "You have three Burdens, so you're at -4." Burden, in its larger sense, as a metaphor, is anything you bear that is difficult. "The death of his sister was a great burden to him." "The burden of his role as kingmaker began to wear." Something Tolkeinesque about it, reminds me of Frodo and Sam. I like it, but is it too high-falutin' for this product?

So, which do you guys like? Penalty Level or Burden? Because, so far, they're the only terms I can think of that are generic enough.

 

[Flynn]

Why can't we have both sets of categories?

Here's where I get to be the grumpy partner. We've already been down that road, and in my mind, it is no longer up for discussion. We came to an agreement, and we should move forward. I don't want to spin my wheels; I want a final product. If weapon groups don't work at first level, then they should not be included at all. No worries. We have something that works, and that we both can accept. Let's move forward.

With Regards,
Flynn