D&D 4E Star Wars Saga Edition as preview of 4e?

[Sir Brennen]

I think the biggest advantage to "attacker rolls" is with effects that affect an area or multiple targets. Now instead of the DM having to roll the saving throw for all those bandits (who are rogues with evasion) against a PC's fireball, all he has to do is ask the PC wizard what he rolled, and check off any NPCs that didn't make it. (Though some people may not like how this will mean that 7 rogues of the same level with evasion either all take full damage or none.) Or maybe it's not a single roll for multiple targets.

Anyway, PC wizards get to do more dice rolling, which is always a good thing

 

[Ry]

Sounds like a good idea.

Honestly, it's the best rule (players roll all the dice) I've ever brought into my game.

 

[The Grackle]

One thing about switching saves to defenses is it works differently w/any sort of action point system or reroll ability. If a PC doesn't get to roll a save, he can't boost it up with an Action Point.

I've GMd games using Players Roll All The Dice, and it puts more power/options in the players' hands. THey can use them on attacks or defense.

 

[Ry]

One thing about switching saves to defenses is it works differently w/any sort of action point system or reroll ability. If a PC doesn't get to roll a save, he can't boost it up with an Action Point.

I've GMd games using Players Roll All The Dice, and it puts more power/options in the players' hands. THey can use them on attacks or defense.

You just described my house rules. Players roll all the dice, and lots of luck points for re-rolls in players' hands. Empowers the players, lets them say "hey, I know I get knocked around sometimes, but THIS action is important to me, OK?"

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I'm sure this has already been noted, but...

I feel that the Star Wars Saga edition is trying out new rules in the way that Alternity/Dark*Matter did before 3e was released.

We might end up seeing a d20 Modern revision based on the Saga changes to further refine all of that before 4e comes out.

 

[Felon]

(Though some people may not like how this will mean that 7 rogues of the same level with evasion either all take full damage or none.) Or maybe it's not a single roll for multiple targets.

Well, if they're going for streamlined, then they'll make it a single roll, which will have a "lopsiding" effect on combat as that one roll becomes very decisive. And it doesn't take Evasion for that to be the case either.

 

[RodneyThompson]

One thing I don't like is that saves are static numbers, and the attacker always rolls. I understand why mechanically, its cleaner and more streamlined. But as a player and a dm I know that players do NOT like their characters messed without some ability to save them. Mechanically its doesn't matter that the dm rolls a "reflex attack" instead of a player rolling a "reflex save" but to the player's perception it does....a lot.

Actually, one of the reasons we made some of the changes we did was to empower the players more when they take actions. For example, it's deflating to make an attack roll with, say, a grenade, only to have the DM roll roll roll...oh, sorry guys, your grenade didn't do as well as you'd hoped. Or the following scenario:

Player: "I roll a 25 on my Move Object check! That's my best roll tonight!"
GM: *rolls dice* "Nice roll, but the bad guy resists with a higher roll."
Player: "Awww."

Now becomes:

Player: "I roll a 25 on my Use the Force check! That's my best roll tonight!"
GM: "Well, that exceeds his Will Defense, do you successfully hurl him away."

And so forth. Basically, we wanted to make the game more proactive than reactive, because the players are almost always more proactive than reactive (i.e. they're more likely to make more attacks than they will be the target of).

Now I certainly understand a player wanting to save himself from being harmed; who doesn't? But if you can accept a static Defense score, you can accept the changes in the Saga Edition rules. Also, if you *do* want a more dynamic defense, it won't be hard to reverse engineer a bonus as opposed to a flat score. However, the core game doesn't support this, because the "roll to exceed a difficulty number" mechanic leads to much, much quicker gameplay that fits in better with a lot of the other mechanics in the d20 system.

And, all that having been said, we do have some "Save your own ass" mechanics in the game, including one involving the new destiny mechanics.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

And, all that having been said, we do have some "Save your own ass" mechanics in the game, including one involving the new destiny mechanics.

Awesome. I much prefer mechanics for REAL player narrative control to the fake narrative control of 'being the one to use the random number generator.'

 

[mmadsen]

Also, if you *do* want a more dynamic defense, it won't be hard to reverse engineer a bonus as opposed to a flat score. However, the core game doesn't support this, because the "roll to exceed a difficulty number" mechanic leads to much, much quicker gameplay that fits in better with a lot of the other mechanics in the d20 system.

You can have the best of both worlds by providing a bonus and a static difficulty class -- which should be 11 + bonus, not 10 + bonus, for symmetry.

Then any opposed check is d20 + bonus vs. difficulty class, and the player can always roll the die.

 

[nerfherder]

Which is why I turned AC into a modifier (d20 + AC bonuses, instead of 10 + bonuses), and now the player rolls opposed to the attacker.

Cool. I might use that for PCs when I next run D&D. NPCs and monsters would keep a static AC for simplicity.

Awesome. I much prefer mechanics for REAL player narrative control to the fake narrative control of 'being the one to use the random number generator.'

I don't know why, but I just *like* being the one to use the random number generator, even though I know that it is no different .

On saying that, if I do ever get to run SW, I'll initially use the rules as written and make a judgement after that. So far, I'm liking what I see.