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

[JohnSnow]

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

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

Point. And since we're removed from earlier editions a bit, it doesn't have quite the baggage of the equally generic "sorcerer." Another generic term is Arcanist, which I kinda hate. So magic-user it is.

I also agree that Adept is a better term for someone skilled with magic. When I was rewriting True Sorcery's Student of Wizardry, First, Second, Third Magnitude stuff for a less BCCS setting, I called them Apprentice, Adept, Wizard, Magister, and Archmage. Moving on...

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.

I agree. It would also cut down on the need for hundreds of class variants. Instead, you just build new talent trees. What you balance between the classes are the skills, attacks, defenses (incl. hit points), and general flavor.

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

Well, Force Powers are basically accessed via feats, as spells are in True Sorcery, or traditions in Elements of Magic - Mythic Earth. From what he said in our earlier correspondence, I think Ryan's going to a single "Spellcasting" skill with feats for spell access in the next version of EoM. So, it's basically similar to the Saga Edition approach.

Where Saga diverges is having force uses be skill-based, with feats required to access some advanced uses (Powers), and talents for others (basically like class features). That's, in my opinion, brilliant.

I know some of the Enworld folks hate Encounter-based game balance, but I personally love it. I'd be thrilled if hit points were (almost) the only character resource with a "real world" time limit. And yes, there would have to be some limit to how many times you could be healed in a day. But how difficult is that to throw in, really?

There's only a few magical abilities that are game-breaking to use multiple times in a day. I'm not sure about the 1 minute recovery, but the most compelling option is fatigue. And nobody EVER likes that one. So, I'm going to be considering Saga's system very carefully. Depending on how well it plays, I may replace it with a token-based mechanic that recovers incrementally even during combat, but that's an easy houserule.

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

First off, this is just my personal attempt at Saga-izing D&D, and has nothing to do with 4e. Second, I personally think fantasy works better with archetypal characters, but I don't think we need 71 base classes. Quite frankly, that's silly. So I think there might be something to the notion of reducing it back to a few archetypes, and allowing the differences to allow for variant class features by using Talent Trees (a la d20 Modern). Yes, you could do it all with feats, but some things scream to be specific to a single class.

Is a knight, samurai, swashbuckler or barbarian different enough from a fighter to merit different classes? Are the Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade and Duskblade really anything but fighters with some spellcasting and flavor? I don't really think so.

But that's my opinion.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

And the skill system is so close to something I've been thinking about it's almost spooky!

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.

This could very well work. You're right, in the d6 system, a character could take more than one shot at an increasing "penalty" to his die pool. If you had Blaster D6, you could fire at two targets each at D5, or three at D4, and so on.

This may not be what you want for the "core" game, but multiple attack chances could be used for things like parries, blocks, ripostes, etc. That is, since combat is "deadlier" with the condition track, higher level characters will want to use "tactical maneuevers" in combat to reduce the number of times they're hit in combat. Again, this may be too granular or tactical for what you want, but I could see a set of "optional advanced tactical rules" offering this within the sytem.

It could also be entirely possible within this system to make "BAB" (or Combat, or whatever generic all-inclusive combat skill name you want) an actual skill, like what is being done with Initiative. Since all skills improve according to level, non-warrior types would still get some combat skill, but the fighting-types would be trained and have Skill Focus, allowing them access to trained combat manuevers and use their warrior-themed Talent Trees to give them extra abilities tied to Combat skill rolls.

You know, the possibilities are exciting!

 

[Bavix]

Dropping Multiple Attacks

I've been thinking about dropping multiple attacks for some time now. I think the problem is that most players don't see combat and attacks as the abstract elements that they are meant to be in D&D. A combatant in D&D is considered to be parrying, dodging, and attacking in every round and all of these actions are hidden behind AC, hit points, and the attack rolls. The only real reason for multiple attacks is the fact that higher-level opponents have more hit points and it all has to balance out somewhere.

Why not just allow one attack per round and describe that attack as a manuever—whether attacking with two weapons, a flurry of blows, 2 claws and a bite, etc—that does more damage as a character advances. In other words, when a 1st-level fighter attacks a foe with a "flurry of longsword slashes and thrusts" she deals 1d8 points of damage (plus standard bonuses). Why not just increase the damage as the characer advances—like a rogue's sneak attack—so that a 20th-level fighter's "flurry of longsword slashes and thrusts" deals 1d8 points of damage (plus standard bonuses) plus a number of bonus dice.

Another option would be to allow characters to make an extra damage roll for a set penalty to their single attack roll.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Analysis based on the SWSE previous seems to indicate that higher level characters get a flat damage bonus instead of multiple attacks, just as you suggest, Bavix.