How do Saga skills work?

[Nifft]

Diplomacy

Okay. My problem with Diplomacy is that it's a bunch of fixed DCs which are trivial for a 4th level optimized PC. This is mostly because there are so many synergy bonuses, but other bonus types give similar problems. (Arg, I wish I had my SW Saga book with me so I could look up how they did this with Persuasion...)

It seems like using the same DCs as D&D, +5 Trained, +5 Focused, +2 Charisma gives a similar benefit, but the nice thing about the Saga system is that it stops there.

At 20th level, it's easy to have a 3.5e PC with a negative Diplomacy modifier. In Saga, it's impossible (or near impossible).

I can't think of anything terribly broken about Diplomacy under Saga rules, but under D&D rules it can easily be problematic.

Cheers, -- N

 

[FadedC]

They said that Diplomacy and other social skills would be more interactive, with both sides taking social actions and making rolls. Like you said this would be more of a problem in 3e where a 10th level character could have a diplomacy in the 20s, while the person they were talking would probably be closer to 0 assuming they weren't a cleric, dragon or outsider. The difference is at least likely to be alot smaller under Saga....a person built for diplomacy will still be very good at convincing people (which seems like it should be the case) but at least things will scale better.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hmmm, that's actually fairly hard to answer without posting a good skill system (or referring directly to one, either way my sleep's way off atm).
In general though, I'm a fan of detail and granularity. I rather liked 3E's skill system for the most part (not with a kind of "You're perfect!" love that Linus holds for his blanket, mind you). It had a decent range of skills, each of which tracked with fair granularity. In comparison SAGA skills seem to (mind the "seem to") come in "average', 'good', and 'gooder', and there's your range. I know, it's all impression, but I don't feel the precision from it. For what it's worth, I do think it probably works great for Star Wars, which it was specifically designed to do. It's when it started to be a 'preview' of other things that I started to worry. I was quite happy to see Moridin's post earlier, saying what I'd hoped they would say.

The problem with wanting details is that it takes more time to create the character (higher than level 4). Coupled with the as-is RAW 3e Skill System, it's too expensive for me to buy into those cross-class "hobby" skills to dabble in.

I admit 3e Skill System is better than NWP system, most especially when you cannot develop as you advance until you get to a certain level to gain a slot and increase your NWP by one. In 3e Skill System, you can develop and improve your skill regardless of your ability score modifier. But there is that drawback of too much detail and the cross-class skill expensive cost. (From the sound of your post, you treat class skills as hobby skills rather than max them out despite the limited skill point allotment.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I really liked the "reroll" abilities of Saga for skills.

Instead of giving further modifiers, add more reroll options. The question might be if you really like rolling a lot of d20s for each simple check. TO reduce this, probably all rerolls should force you to take the rerolled result, to ensure that people only use it if they are unhappy with their result, not generally.

I think rerolls could be used even a lot more:
Replace extra attacks per level with rerolls.
Two-Weapon Fighting grants you rerolls - if only your reroll result hits, use your off-hand weapon for damage
Shield Use (or improved training in using shields and two-weapon defense) allows you to force a reroll of the enemies attack roll (not really happy with this one, as it requires the player knowing something about the DMs roll)
Replace Save bonuses with rerolls.

Instead of adding more damage, use the two-weapon fighting approach for damage and energy enhancements. (Flaming Longsword deals 1d8+Str slashing or 1d8+Str fire, whichever deals more damage to the target.)

Don't add modifiers, but still improve the chance to get a good result...

 

[Thundershield]

This encourages multiclassing too much I think.

Having +3 BAB with four different classes is much better than having +0 BAB.

I'd look at it the other way around: Having +0 BAB instead of +3 discourages multi-classing too much.

Nothing wrong with your character being a dilettante, so you shouldn't punish them for it. Fractional BAB and Saves is a brilliant way of making BAB and Save deviations from multi- or single-classing less glaring, if the players and DM are math-minded enough to do a bit extra at level-ups.

 

[Votan]

Okay. My problem with Diplomacy is that it's a bunch of fixed DCs which are trivial for a 4th level optimized PC. This is mostly because there are so many synergy bonuses, but other bonus types give similar problems. (Arg, I wish I had my SW Saga book with me so I could look up how they did this with Persuasion...)

It seems like using the same DCs as D&D, +5 Trained, +5 Focused, +2 Charisma gives a similar benefit, but the nice thing about the Saga system is that it stops there.

At 20th level, it's easy to have a 3.5e PC with a negative Diplomacy modifier. In Saga, it's impossible (or near impossible).

I can't think of anything terribly broken about Diplomacy under Saga rules, but under D&D rules it can easily be problematic.

Cheers, -- N

One fascinating change is that you can only change an attitude by one level at most (e.g. unfriendly to neutral). It's harder to make if the target is already hostile and it is resisted by the target's will defense.

A eseful skill but not nearly the issue that it could have been in some 3.5 Half-Elf Bard builds.

 

[BASHMAN]

Another issue to note is that there is no such thing as a cross-class skill. If a skill does not appear on your class skill list, you cannot train it. If a scout wants to be trained in Treat Injury, he needs a level of Noble or Soldier.

Well boy does that system ever suck then. I think it would be better if they dispensed with the whole certain classes can use certain skills thing. Let everyclass be able to use every skill. The class ability might mean that they can use a skill to do certain things another class can't. Ergo, anyone can take disable device as trained, but only rogues [or maybe wizards] can use it against magical traps for instance.

 

[IanArgent]

Well boy does that system ever suck then. I think it would be better if they dispensed with the whole certain classes can use certain skills thing. Let everyclass be able to use every skill. The class ability might mean that they can use a skill to do certain things another class can't. Ergo, anyone can take disable device as trained, but only rogues [or maybe wizards] can use it against magical traps for instance.

Another place that the 4e skill system will differ from SWSE, I would bet.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well boy does that system ever suck then. I think it would be better if they dispensed with the whole certain classes can use certain skills thing. Let everyclass be able to use every skill. The class ability might mean that they can use a skill to do certain things another class can't.

A better balance act between class and cross-class would probably be nice. Maybe any class can train in a skill, but to take skill focus, you need it as a class skill (or vice versa - in Starwars Saga Edition, you need Training in a skill to learn Skill Focus, but a different approach might work better) I think the simplest approach would be to say: "Skill Training granted from class must be spend on class skills. Skill Training due to feats or Int Bonus can be spend on any skill". This should work out nicely.

Ergo, anyone can take disable device as trained, but only rogues [or maybe wizards] can use it against magical traps for instance.

I do not think that non-rogues and non-wizards would ever bother spending points or feats for Disable Device then - if you actually invest in a skill, you want to use it fully, not parts of it. So, either people multiclass in the end anyway, or they don't take the skill, and you have the same result as before.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm beginning to come around to the idea that for D&D, the SWSE system should be supplemented by a "background" list of skills, in addition to the class skills. The character has a class. The character has a background. These give the character his skill list. All skills on that list get the level-based bonus, and are eligible for training/focus. To add a skill not on the list, you either have to multiclass or spend a feat. When you multiclass, you get to pick one (or maybe two or three) skills from the new class to add to your list.

Background X Class gives a lot more variety and flavor of options, while still leaving a few skills off of most lists. I'd even go so far as to propose formal backgrounds with a set list, balanced for standard play. Then tell the DM/players that if they think a combination is a bit chintzy but otherwise fits the character concept, feel free to swap out a few background skills. Once you've picked, it's easy to manage. Or, if you want to get really formal with it, limit backgrounds to 2-4 highly characteristic skills, list the ones available, start each character with two, and let them spend a feat to buy more.