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

[iwatt]

Speed and size are now listed solely in squares ... and squares are an awkward 1.5m now instead of 2m before.

funny you should bring this up. Every time I use 5' increment y have converted them to 1,5 meters to actually grasp what the distance represents.

The RCR base of 2m always bothered me, since I was already used to 1.5 m, and a 2mx2m square is a huge area.

 

[Sir Brennen]

This is interesting. I'm not sure I can really get behind the whole idea of a character getting better at repairing droids over the course of his career even though he never does any mechanical work, and mechanical aptitude isn't part of his concept in any way.

My guess is that really complex tech like droids and starships require a character to be trained in the skill. In a pinch an untrained character could fix a jammed blast door or replace the fan belt on his speeder, but that's about it. So "specialists" still exist, even though all major characters have the skill on a basic level.

 

[Alnag]

It's irrational of me, but I'd prefer to keep that secret cow around; first of all, I like the general 3-18 ability range, for random generation of scores, rather than "assigning bonuses" the way they do in True20; second, it just plain DOESN'T feel right to say you have a "-1 for Dexterity" or a "-2 for Strength"; I'd rather have zero be helpless or dead, and have positive scores from there.

Actually it might be not as irrational as it seems. The ability number work as a kind of "hit points" by itself. As long as some spells/abilities will be increasing or decreasing abilities via dice roll (aka -1d6 Con) you have to have appropriate range of these "ability hit points". Yes... it might be solved either by not targeting abilities by any changes (ability status quo as another step of game simplification - which brings different problems) or by increasing and decreasing modifiers with small dice ranges (1d3) or by fix changes one step up/down. This solution again brings some inevitable problems, which must be solve by themselves.

Spells, poisons, special conditions and rules all work with the primary ability number sometimes. If you want to kick the number (and kill the cow) you have to solve this problem without making mess in the rest of the rules. Because so far we are just "attack the ability hitpoints"... it is just application of the same principle. Here you will have to come with new principle (but they use the principle - step down - with the damage treshold, so it might not be so much problem anyway). Well, better end this rant sooner till I will disagree with myself.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm sorry if this has already been said, but is anyone else disappointed by the near-total integration and near-requirement of miniatures into the Saga edition?

You've already said it plenty at the WotC forum.

I am a bit apprehensive on how tactical the combat will be and how necessary miniatures are. Star Wars combat should be fast and furious; not slow and plodding as players count out ranges in squares on a battlemap and move their figures around terrified of drawing attacks of opportunity.

 

[GreatLemur]

Er... I guess I'm even more confused then. That seems like that's--and always has been--the entire point of levelling. I can't parse the statement that you don't have a problem with leveling, just with getting better at everything. That's what leveling is.

I'd say that levelling should be about getting better at everything you do. I don't really like the idea of characters getting better at stuff that's completely outside their whole concept and experience. A 20th level Wizard with "as good" in combat as a 10th level Figther is actually okay. Setting aside the obvious issue of the Fighter's superior pile of combat feats and weapon proficiencies, that Wizard is 20th freaking level, and combat is something that even Wizards have probably done a lot of by that point.

Now, if the Wizard was automatically as good at picking locks or disarming traps as a typical 10th level Rogue, then things start to look ridiculous. The Wizard in question probably hasn't opened a lock without using knock in his life.

 

[GreatLemur]

My guess is that really complex tech like droids and starships require a character to be trained in the skill.

That'd work for me. And I imagine feats and talents will be a big part of how such a skill works, too. I'd be perfectly comfortable with a skill that lets anybody make minor repairs, but requires special feats to be used for building droids and lightsabers.

 

[Desdichado]

One reason I don't think SWSE is a dry run for 4E is that D&D does *not* suffer (in sales) for complexity or an overabundance of options. While there will always be individuals who dislike X or Y, the fact is that trends in published material for 3.5e all point toward complexity and a high degree of options are good for D&D's current and future success. That Star Wars has twice now failed under the same assumption suggests that WotC finally got smart and understands that Star Wars is not, in fact, D&D in Spaaace and decided to build a system around what Star Wars *is* -- plus selling minis.

(BTW, I really wish our confused smiley looked confused instead of like he's about to throw-up. That's a really crappy smilie and is a pet peeve of mine. Er... anyway...)

On what grounds are you claiming that the d20 Star Wars game has failed?

 

[Kunimatyu]

Now, if the Wizard was automatically as good at picking locks or disarming traps as a typical 10th level Rogue, then things start to look ridiculous. The Wizard in question probably hasn't opened a lock without using knock in his life.

I have this odd feeling that picking locks and disabling traps will be a Trained skill. Not sure why.

 

[Desdichado]

I'd say that levelling should be about getting better at everything you do. I don't really like the idea of characters getting better at stuff that's completely outside their whole concept and experience. A 20th level Wizard with "as good" in combat as a 10th level Figther is actually okay. Setting aside the obvious issue of the Fighter's superior pile of combat feats and weapon proficiencies, that Wizard is 20th freaking level, and combat is something that even Wizards have probably done a lot of by that point.

On the contrary, your example about wizards completely does not work with your stated intent.

For that matter, neither does the hit point concept. What exactly do you do better that gives you more hit points, for example?

For that matter, so does the concept of XP as a product of overcoming challenges and (most of the time) killing monsters. Why don't you get better with practice, training or education? Why don't administrators go up in level for doing their job day in and day out, for example? And if they do, why does their BAB, Saving Throws and hit points go up?

No, I honestly can't see any defense of leveling but with discrete spending on skill points making any logical sense. The logical gap is about levels in the first place, and you either accept that as a game construct that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but does certain things from a mechanics standpoint, or you don't. If you do, I can't see how getting better at skill checks that you haven't spent ranks in is any more nonsensical than anything else that's part and parcel of leveling, and from the point of view that leveling is a game construct rather than a modeling of "reality", then it actually makes much more sense the way the Saga edition will be doing it rather than the way d20 games to date have done.

 

[GreatLemur]

On the contrary, your example about wizards completely does not work with your stated intent.

For that matter, neither does the hit point concept. What exactly do you do better that gives you more hit points, for example?

For that matter, so does the concept of XP as a product of overcoming challenges and (most of the time) killing monsters.

Man, HP and XP have never made sense; everybody knows that. But tell me, what's wrong with the Wizards, BAB, and skills comparison? I'm not seeing how it doesn't work, here.