Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Flynn]

Regarding weapons, I personally would like to use weapon groups such as those mentioned in Unearthed Arcana. I've been using them for several years now, and the players like them a lot. Some of the feedback here seems to indicate that others feel the same way.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm

Saga uses more general weapon groups, if I recall correctly: Advanced melee, Heavy weapons, Lightsabers, Pistols, Rifles, Simple (or something like that).

Of course, classic D20 is: Simple, Martial (only for classes, otherwise you buy each one separately), and that's it for weapon groups. Exotics are per weapon, and when you use feats to buy Martial, it's per weapon as well.

What do you guys think? What would you like to see, and why?

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I'm fine with weapon groups, especially if they are kept as broad as SWSE. UA is also okay, but could lead to the married to a weapon type that I personally is not that keen on. If you decide on UA weapon groups, you should tale a look at proficiencies in Spycraft. I like those (basically, they increase as a level benefit a la feats). The upcoming Pratice Makes Perfect for Spycraft lets characters spend proficiencies to learn tricks, sort of like Complete Scoundrel. Might be interesting for this project.


Your magic system: I think you should make it so that the spellcasting check to beat a spells DC also is used to overcome Reflex, Fort or Will - otherwise you will have two rolls, which is less elegant.


Flynn: I'm still up for the feedback. Just seems like everything I propose is in a direction opposite you and BFG

 

[Flynn]

Your magic system: I think you should make it so that the spellcasting check to beat a spells DC also is used to overcome Reflex, Fort or Will - otherwise you will have two rolls, which is less elegant.

Agreed. That's the way we've currently been discussing it, as it is more streamlined and follows the Fantasy Sage concept in spirit.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Flynn: I'm still up for the feedback. Just seems like everything I propose is in a direction opposite you and BFG

The second paragraph in that playtesting response was more of a general statement for all interested in being involved later on. I know it seems like we disagree on a lot, but I think that's only because we have different foundational philosophies on what we want out of this project. You present yourself well, and offer constructive feedback. i.e. You are definitely more than a simple "I don't like it" poster. You give suggestions and examples and offer input. That's the kind of thing we need, and it is appreciated very much.

Please Keep It Up,
Flynn

 

[drothgery]

Regarding weapons, I personally would like to use weapon groups such as those mentioned in Unearthed Arcana. I've been using them for several years now, and the players like them a lot. Some of the feedback here seems to indicate that others feel the same way.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm

Saga uses more general weapon groups, if I recall correctly: Advanced melee, Heavy weapons, Lightsabers, Pistols, Rifles, Simple (or something like that).

Of course, classic D20 is: Simple, Martial (only for classes, otherwise you buy each one separately), and that's it for weapon groups. Exotics are per weapon, and when you use feats to buy Martial, it's per weapon as well.

What do you guys think? What would you like to see, and why?

With Regards,
Flynn

I'd think more general weapon groups than UA, though possibly less general than Saga, if only because there are more general types of widely used weapons; in Star Wars, if it's not a vibro weapon, rifle, pistol, heavy weapon, or lightsaber it's either primitive or really weird.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Definitely use weapon groups, just try to have them make sense. Case in point: I don't think spears are like lances, nor picks like hammers. Keep It Simple Stupid and all that come to mind!

 

[The_Gneech]

If you take the number of views for this thread, and divide by the number of posts, you get just over 14. While not a true representation, it does indicate that at least 14 people are reading this thread.

With that in mind, I'd like to hear from some of you guys that haven't posted yet, just to make sure we're not catering Fantasy Concepts to the most vocal parties. That's one of the reasons I ask for thoughts and input, so that I can see what people think and desire in a finished product of this nature. So please feel free to speak out, so your voice can be heard.

Not knowing this thread was here, I started one of my own on basically the same topic earlier today, with my thoughts on the matter. My project isn't for publication, just my own use, but you might glean some interesting ideas out of it. I'll be very interested to see how your project works out!

-The Gneech

 

[Dalamar]

When I was working up a simple "Use Saga for fantasy" plug for myself, I though about using groups of Simple, Finesse, Heavy, Crossbows, Bows and Thrown, possibly adding something between Finesse and Heavy (plus of course the Exotic category). My biggest problem was that either Soldiers wouldn't have access to all the weapons that a DnD Fighter does, or I would have to give them significantly more proficiencies than they have in normal Saga. More recently I've been thinking that I could give the Soldier (and only the Soldier) a choice in which groups they would want.
Also, here I would like to urge the developers to not make too straight conversions. The dagger doesn't have to be a Simple weapon, that "slot" can be filled by a simple knife. The dagger could be a Finesse weapon, or even a Thrown weapon if you want to throw it.

As to simplifying to 20/x2, I think it is not strictly necessary, but cutting down the variables would be good. So a Rapier is 19-20/x2 and a scythe is 20/x3 as the extreme cases, and your standard longsword is just 20/x2. Coupled with increased base damage to "keep up" with Saga damages, it should create enough variability to offer adequate choices. You could even make "rules" such as swords dealing three dice of damage while axes deal two, or what not. Set your top end melee weapons around the 3d6/2d10 range, perhaps a bit lower to account for likely Strength modifiers to damage, as that is about where average damage is around a starting character's Damage Threshold.
I agree with Nightwing on removing the "bastard swords". They're really an unnecessary step as hand-and-a-half weapons that muddy up the weapon sizes without any real gain. I'd much rather have a Monkey Grip type ability to replace the effect instead.

 

[EditorBFG]

Definitely trim the weapon list down.

Why? Can I ask what the advantage is to having fewer choices? Streamlining is part of the point of this, but I want to do it in such a way that it increases options for PCs rather than removing them. I feel that a fantasy setting requires a much larger selection of weapons than vibroweapon, lightsaber, and various types of blasters, and the existing weapon list provides that. Why would we do otherwise?

I am not saying it is wrong to have the opinion that we need to have fewer weapons, but can someone please indicate why it would be better?

The only option for streamlining the weapons that makes sense to me is the customizable weapon rules from Grim Tales, in which you can stat any weapon you want.

Regarding Weapon Groups: I do understand the impetus behind this rule, but I like that a fighter can use just about everything, purely by virtue of being a fighter. This is what the characters in fantasy literature are like. Conan doesn't say "A polearm? I can't use this!"-- he grabs it and slaughters the entire cult. If Weapon Groups are the way we go, there has to be a rule so fighters can still use everything.

I don't think Simple/Martial/Exotic is great, but what is good is that the Martial Category includes so many weapons for a Fighter to be good with.

If Weapon Group proficiency feats replace single Weapon Proficiency feats, I am all for it. It makes PCs more capable. But if a Fighter is actually able to use fewer weapons because we alter the categories, then I vigorously object to using this rule.

 

[Flynn]

Regarding Weapon Groups: I do understand the impetus behind this rule, but I like that a fighter can use just about everything, purely by virtue of being a fighter. This is what the characters in fantasy literature are like. Conan doesn't say "A polearm? I can't use this!"-- he grabs it and slaughters the entire cult. If Weapon Groups are the way we go, there has to be a rule so fighters can still use everything.

I don't think Simple/Martial/Exotic is great, but what is good is that the Martial Category includes so many weapons for a Fighter to be good with.

If Weapon Group proficiency feats replace single Weapon Proficiency feats, I am all for it. It makes PCs more capable. But if a Fighter is actually able to use fewer weapons because we alter the categories, then I vigorously object to using this rule.

How many weapons does the usual fighter character actually use? If they get to choose four weapon groups, would that cover all of the stuff that particular character concept would use? In my experience, it does. I haven't had anyone playing a fighter type ever complain about not having enough weapon group feats to cover the stuff they carry around and use in-game. Often, they only use two weapons or combinations anyway: one for melee and one for ranged. Having fought in soft weapon fantasy combat societies for 15 years, I find that weapon groups work well for reflecting what warriors carry out into the field and how they build their weapon skills. I've never seen a warrior effectively carry and use weapons from more than four weapon groups in any particular battle, and I figure watching people do this for years on end should be a good indication of what the average character would likely do in such an environment.

Just something to consider,
Flynn