Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 6959175" data-attributes="member: 6704184">So, I must have missed it. Are you using Swift Actions or Bonus Actions? My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to have no "reaction" or 5e style bonus action, and instead have two Swift Actions per round, which can be used either for bonus action type stuff, or reaction type stuff. Condition Track: What is the point of this change? I meant to ask back when I first posted in this thread, and never got to it. Seems more cumbersome than the Condition Track, while providing less benefit to the game. Honestly, Condition Track and Bloodied are, IMO, vastly superior as game elements to 5e's exhaustion. Could even add in an element where it requires the expense of a Hit Die to move up the Track, thus making the track part of your slow healing variant decision. Skills: Supernatural? Anyway, if you're making tool proficiencies work like 5e rather than like Saga, you need to account for that in how many skills each class gets. Especially if you're dropping Saga's x+int skill number calculation. I'd say either add 3-4 proficiencies per class from a list, or simply state that each character can choose 3-4 of any tool or vehicle proficiency regardless of class. As it is, my Sky Slicer riding Jedi mechanic has a hard time being proficient in the things he is currently proficient in under Saga, and it seems like there will be a lot of that. Also, why doesn't Con have any skills? Talents: Why not keep talents mostly as they are, and give characters slightly more of them? One of the big problems with Saga is that characters are much more starved for talents than feats. Unless you are consolidated skill trees into single talents, you're likely to make this worse by beefing up talents to 5e feat levels. Advantage: One thing Saga does better than 5e is having both Advantage (albeit not called that) and "reroll but you have to take the second result". You've given a noticeable boost to many abilities by turning them into Advantage. Is that intentional? Prestige Classes: I like the lower level of requirement, and that you're getting rid of some of the egregious talent requirements (like Force Adept's original 3 force talent requirement) I didn't read every little thing. Did you keep "weapon finesse" or are you making some weapons into finesse weapons? Why rework Force Powers much at all? They work pretty much verbatim in 5e, other than the DC numbers being come to on a different math model.</blockquote>

Verification