My Take on D&D a la Saga...

[JohnSnow]

Okay, there have been a lot of threads about what impact Star Wars Saga Edition might have on D&D, either come 4e, or before. What follows is not my attempt to predict what 4e will look like, but rather to rescope D&D with Saga-inspired simlicity in mind.

First off, there's the issue of classes. D&D has gotten bloated with base classes and Prestige Classes. In Saga, they're looking at replacing class features with Talents and giving characters a feat at even levels and a talent at odd levels. Personally, I like that, as it allows differentiation within class archetypes. So, we really have to only capture the base archetypes. My personal take on it is that we need 5 classes. Saga Edition has 5, and I think that's a good number. I've tried to capture the flavor of the class with its name. While I've used D&D names in some cases, don't assume that means it's exactly like the existing class.

Fighter (Atk Good)
Noble (Atk Med)
Ranger (Atk Good)
Rogue (Atk Med)
Spellcaster (Atk Low)

Those familiar with the Saga previews will recognize these classes as very similar. However, I've used Spellcaster instead of Jedi, Fighter instead of Soldier, Ranger instead of Scout, & Rogue instead of Scoundrel (although the Saga names would work just fine in the latter two cases, I've picked the ones with more D&D history). As I see it, the ranger is a pure woodsman/tracker class, not the spell-using nature guardian of D&D. The rogue could capture the rogue, scout and bard with Talent Trees. Similarly for the fighter class with the barbarian, swashbuckler and many other options. The more distinguishing features of the divine casters, like wildshape and turn undead could certainly be handled as part of a spellcaster talent tree. Want a moderate spelluser like the bard Paladin, or old Ranger? Multiclass. Or perhaps, there will be a way to build a moderate spellcaster. I'll be looking to Saga's Force rules for some guidance there.

Skills will work as in Saga, and probably defense too. I'm tired of fantasy characters who don't have any skill in riding. For hit points, I plan to use either Saga's damage track, or Reserve Points, á la Iron Heroes.

I also plan to finish my token-based spellcasting skill system and use that in place of standard Vancian magic. I'll probably wait to finish this system until I have Saga in hand, but I think I may be on to something.

Then I'll just have to see how well this system plays.

Thoughts?

 

[Gentlegamer]

I know you're following the SWSE pattern, but shouldn't "ranger" be a grouping of talent trees under the Fighter class?

Also, I think "Magician" would make a better name than "Spellcaster," even though it will also model the "priestly" magic-users, etc. Is the intent for this class to also model mentalist/psionic characters? Do you think there would be "magic abilities" available in the talent trees of other classes or will multi-classing be necessary?

Heck, maybe "Noble" ought to be "Bard" (the social specialist) . . .

 

[JohnSnow]

Okay, this is not intended to be defensive, but to explain my reasoning.

I know you're following the SWSE pattern, but shouldn't "ranger" be a grouping of talent trees under the Fighter class?

Well, it depends on whether you think that a woodsman type character is a viable archetype in a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting. Personally, I think there's a relatively strong distinction between fighters (characters who train to fight PEOPLE) and hunter/tracker types. My intention was for the ranger class to fill that hunter/tracker/scout niche. As such, ranger may have been a bad choice of label for the class, carrying with it as it does, the D&D baggage of a class that's a better fighter than the fighter.

Yes, one could argue that it reduces to a talent tree. But at some level, one can make that argument about any class. Quite honestly, I think D&D has covered the scout archetype with at least 4 classes: ranger, druid, scout, ninja and with the right skill selections, rogue.

Also, I think "Magician" would make a better name than "Spellcaster," even though it will also model the "priestly" magic-users, etc. Is the intent for this class to also model mentalist/psionic characters? Do you think there would be "magic abilities" available in the talent trees of other classes or will multi-classing be necessary?

I guess it's a personal bias, but I don't particularly like "magician" as a class title. It seems kinda boring to me. I don't usually worry about psionic/mentalist characters, but yeah, I suppose it would cover those as well. My personal favorite class title for the concept is "Adept" but I was worried that would be confusing.

As for whether multiclassing will be necessary, I haven't decided that. I want to see how Saga handles non-Jedi force users, to see if I can get any inspiration from that. Possibly, characters will be able to use magic without multiclassing, and the spellcaster will represent a class that's basically devoted to spellcasting (but is still adventure-worthy).

Heck, maybe "Noble" ought to be "Bard" (the social specialist) . . .

To me, "Noble" is a broader character concept than "bard." Bard tends to imply the social specialist, wandering minstrel type. Noble covers characters with both social skills and good education. To draw a more modern adventure parallel, think of the characters in The Mummy. O'Connell is a fighter (duh), Jonathan is a Scoundrel, and Evie is a Noble. She's from good family, well-educated, plucky, and charming.

Or, put another way, by using different classes, you could build two kinds of bards (before even talking about whether they have any spellcasting talent):

Wandering minstrel - Rogue, with perform. Character who lives by his wits and charm.
Celtic Bard - Noble, with perform. Character with education who digs for ancient lore.

In Medieval settings, nobles were usually the ones with a good education. The rogue is the more self-educated, living on his wits character.

Again, I'm not being defensive, just trying to explain my reasoning.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Okay, this is not intended to be defensive, but to explain my reasoning.

No need to qualify your response! Maybe the environment on this forum makes you think you need to. We're just spit-balling here.

Well, it depends on whether you think that a woodsman type character is a viable archetype in a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting. Personally, I think there's a relatively strong distinction between fighters (characters who train to fight PEOPLE) and hunter/tracker types. My intention was for the ranger class to fill that hunter/tracker/scout niche.

I see what you mean, but I think in the D&D "universe" the rogue is the "traditional" scout, in general. As you note below, many classes have had the ability to fill in different roles. Maybe leaving the class name as "Scout" with a "ranger" talent tree or trees (woodsman, hunter, tracker, bounty hunter, etc.) would work and achieve what you're looking for.

As such, ranger may have been a bad choice of label for the class, carrying with it as it does, the D&D baggage of a class that's a better fighter than the fighter.

Right. Maybe even if you go with my suggestion above, there could still be a "ranger" talent tree or trees under the Figher class, that has a slightly different emphasis than those under the Scout class (focused on guerilla wilderness fighting, fighting monstrous wilderness beasts, etc, but still includes some wilderness stealth-type abilities).

Yes, one could argue that it reduces to a talent tree. But at some level, one can make that argument about any class. Quite honestly, I think D&D has covered the scout archetype with at least 4 classes: ranger, druid, scout, ninja and with the right skill selections, rogue.

This might mean that in the D&D "universe," there isn't a dedicated Scout class but that many classes can serve that role.

I guess it's a personal bias, but I don't particularly like "magician" as a class title. It seems kinda boring to me.

More boring than "spellcaster" . . ? How about going old school and using "Magic-user" . . ? That's pretty generic sounding.

I don't usually worry about psionic/mentalist characters, but yeah, I suppose it would cover those as well. My personal favorite class title for the concept is "Adept" but I was worried that would be confusing.

Adept could work (as it does in True20), but it really is a term for a highly skilled wizard, similar to arch-mage.

As for whether multiclassing will be necessary, I haven't decided that. I want to see how Saga handles non-Jedi force users, to see if I can get any inspiration from that. Possibly, characters will be able to use magic without multiclassing, and the spellcaster will represent a class that's basically devoted to spellcasting (but is still adventure-worthy).

I think it has been said non-traditional Force users don't need a separate class to get Force abilities, so characters will probably have access to minor magic abilities within their classes' talent trees without having to multiclass.

To me, "Noble" is a broader character concept than "bard." Bard tends to imply the social specialist, wandering minstrel type. Noble covers characters with both social skills and good education. To draw a more modern adventure parallel, think of the characters in The Mummy. O'Connell is a fighter (duh), Jonathan is a Scoundrel, and Evie is a Noble. She's from good family, well-educated, plucky, and charming.

You don't think a Bard is educated??? I understand the distinction you're making, but don't you also think that "Noble" (at least in D&D) would also imply advanced social standing, wealth, privilege, etc.?

Or, put another way, by using different classes, you could build two kinds of bards (before even talking about whether they have any spellcasting talent):

Wandering minstrel - Rogue, with perform. Character who lives by his wits and charm.
Celtic Bard - Noble, with perform. Character with education who digs for ancient lore.

In Medieval settings, nobles were usually the ones with a good education. The rogue is the more self-educated, living on his wits character.

I can see this working. Though it could also work with "Bard" as the class name and "noble" as a talent tree for education, etc.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Judging from Preview 3 on the Force, I'd say that we can easily model a new magic system on the Force in Saga. Force powers have limited use and have to be "regained" through various means, so I think that even fits in thematically with traditional D&D spellcasting. The Use the Force skill allows use of what essentially could be cantrips or 0-level spellsl, so characters that want some minor magic wouldn't have to multiclass.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

It looks like the designers for the Saga edition have been lurking around here

I like the potential shown so far, the classes look like it gets closer to what D20 promised before the flood of Prestige Class and 'new' base classes. Modeling characters with a set base class and building on that with Feat and Talent trees looks like the way to go.

The skill system looks very similar to one chatted about here in this forum a couple months ago... one I might adopt in my current game

The Force system looks decent.. altho handling force powers as talents might get a bit cumbersome. I will have to look at how that can integrate into EoM

 

[robberbaron]

How about going the Modern route and having Strong characters (fighter), Charismatic (noble/bard), Wise (ranger - OK, not so sure about this one), Smart (spellchucker)and Dextrous (rogue). Leaves a hole for Tough (barbarian?).

Just a thought. Flame away.

 

[Drowbane]

How about going the Modern route and having Strong characters (fighter), Charismatic (noble/bard), Wise (ranger - OK, not so sure about this one), Smart (spellchucker)and Dextrous (rogue). Leaves a hole for Tough (barbarian?).

Just a thought. Flame away.

If 4e goes that route I'm sticking with 3.X, thank you very much!

 

[Nifft]

IMHO:

Six 8-level base classes (a la d20 Modern).
One or two racial paragon classes (2-4 levels each) for each race.
Advanced classes can be entered early-ish or mid.
Prestige classes can be entered mid to late.

Savage is a template (for Barbarians, Rangers, Wilderness Rogues, and possibly Druids).
Aristocratic is a template (for Nobles of all subtypes).

Cheers, -- N

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, I'll be putting up more of the magic system later. Saga's Force rules are so close to the magic system I've been working on, it's almost spooky. That said, I'm pondering lifting something else from Saga, which I'll mention before I get into everything else.

I'm considering what effect removing iterative attacks would have on my games. A lot of d20 variants seem to be going this route, in whole or in part (Spycraft 2.0, True 20, Star Wars Saga Edition). The iterative attacks were a good idea conceptually, but seem to have the problem of slowing down play. The designers knew that too many would, but apparently, if the game's "sweet spot" is any indication, 2-3 seems like the most that should happen. And is pretty reasonable for 6 seconds...

What would people think about a system where iterative attacks allowed you to get more attacks in exchange for lowering all your attacks? It's a pretty easy houserule. You still get to move and attack, but if you want multiple attacks, you have to substantially lower your bonus on ALL of your attacks.

That way, it's a real tactical option that replaces the choice between stand and swing, or move and attack. For example, a fighter with an Atk Bonus +8 could take one swing at +8, or two swings at +3. Resonably, you shouldn't be able to take an extra swing if it would make your Atk Bonus go negative. Yes, I said Atk Bonus. I don't see any reason to limit it to BAB.

Obviously, two-weapon fighting and various other feats need to be revisited in a system that doesn't allow for iterative attacks. But I suspect the Saga guys will take care of that (if True 20 or Spycraft hasn't already). If not, I can probably just adapt the rules from Warhammer.

As I recall, d6 Star Wars had this as an option (take an extra action in exchange for a penalty to all actions), and it saw use - sometimes.

Thoughts?

More later in response to the excellent commentary.