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

[Destil]

Here's my issue:
Are we offloading annoying but behind the scenes complexity (figuring out the final skill bonus) into actually game time (remembering that you can reroll your Intimidate).

I mean, yeah it's annoying getting your final bonus to your skill sometimes. But once it's written down you're fine (assuming that the system is well-designed with regards to bonuses: i.e. your changes-in-play bonuses stack with your bonuses on the sheet. Usually the case with core rules, supplements add wacky bonus types, though...).

Just a thought.

 

[Felon]

I just wish they would have dumped the ability scores and gone straight to the modifiers, which is what is really important anyway. Having a number just so it can represent a number is downright silly.

Amen to that.

 

[Felon]

Here's my issue:
Are we offloading annoying but behind the scenes complexity (figuring out the final skill bonus) into actually game time (remembering that you can reroll your Intimidate).

I mean, yeah it's annoying getting your final bonus to your skill sometimes. But once it's written down you're fine (assuming that the system is well-designed with regards to bonuses: i.e. your changes-in-play bonuses stack with your bonuses on the sheet. Usually the case with core rules, supplements add wacky bonus types, though...).

Just a thought.

It's a good thought, and I think you've touched something important to the topic.

If a bonus is universal, then it's an easily calculated factor. OTOH, all the situational bonuses (like a saving throw bonus against one particular type of threat) that forces one into constant number-crunching. I could see eliminating those contingent bonuses, but I think the designers have gone baby-with-the-bathwater here.

 

[JohnSnow]

I would dislike it if they did away with ability scores and went to just the modifiers. They need to come up with ways to better utilize the ability scores, along the lines of Iron Heroes.

Not to mention that some of us still enjoy rolling up stats.

Yes, that makes me a dinosaur. But bonuses only forces one to point buy your stats. Not necessarily bad if that's what you like. But if it's not...

I'm all for shooting many D&D sacred cows (AC, Spell slots, Arcane/Divine distinction, various spells, alignment, and so on) but the six ability scores, 3-18 range, I like.

I also want to keep classes, levels, and hit points (slightly modified).

 

[Jer]

What do you mean why? Why can I build a 16th level character in 15 minutes or less? Because it's not that difficult, I guess. Especially for a one-shot where agonizing over every detail is a waste of time. I don't understand why you're asking me why. I was in the process of asking the "it takes hours and hours to build a PC" crowd why.

No, not that. I'm sure that you can build a 20th level character, fit to the rules, in 15 minutes or less (or you're next ones FREE!). Specifically, the "Why?" related to this quote:

That completely boggles my mind.

Which you replied with in reference to the idea that it might take someone brand new to the game 3 weeks to fully flesh out an 18th level character. I'm not sure why that would be mind-boggling - newbs can take hours to make a 1st level character, let alone an 18th level character.

Well, yeah--if you're wishy-washy and indecisive, it can take a long time. But in that case, don't blame the system.

Except, of course, that the system doesn't do anything to help with this. We never had this problem with previous editions of the game (even when we used the optional proficiency/skill systems) because, well, skills mattered so little we could skip them. Skills in this game are actually useful, and so making these decisions actually IS important. If we get a system that better facilitates class-based character creation I'm all for it. Right now we've got a skill system with all of the downsides of Chaosium's BRP system with none of the upsides.

Don't get me wrong; I would too. I'm all for this new system, and I may well adopt it as a houserule in other d20 games I use. :shrug:

But that isn't because it's taking me hours and hours to make characters.

I like it mainly because it will cut down on bookkeeping immensely for my players - our problems don't show up so much in character creations (they've now run the same characters for a year and half) but in levelling up - anything that cuts down on the silly decisions that they have to make and focuses attention on the actual interesting decisions that they need to make is aces in my book.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'm all for shooting many D&D sacred cows (AC, Spell slots, Arcane/Divine distinction, various spells, alignment, and so on)

After a certain point, killing sacred cows becomes the creation of an entirely different game. I think that's what would happen with that many sacred cows getting the axe. I mean, really, if that much of the game is unappealing enough to do away with, I think I'd find another game to play that was closer to what I wanted.

 

[JohnSnow]

After a certain point, killing sacred cows becomes the creation of an entirely different game. I think that's what would happen with that many sacred cows getting the axe. I mean, really, if that much of the game is unappealing enough to do away with, I think I'd find another game to play that was closer to what I wanted.

Well, I hear what you're saying, but to be fair, all of my complaints could be boiled down to:

1. The Magic System
2. Alignment (though to be honest, if this stays, that's fine with me)
3. Defense (minor revamp)

And I don't see how wishing D&D had a different magic system makes it "not D&D." There have been plenty of D&D campaign worlds that changed magic quite radically. I realize that to some people, the magic system is the heart and soul of what makes D&D 'D&D,' but I just disagree.

 

[Jer]

Keep in mind though, that its not utterly meaningless to him. This game draws all kinds, and some people just love working with details. Others think they are the most boring thing in the world, but perhaps for this guy it may be the most fun part of making his character while coming up with a background isn't that much fun for him. And fun is what the game is about.

I think a simplified system is fine, especially for skills, but there is always a place for some detailed complexity.

The problem is that it ISN'T fun for him. He complains bitterly about it every single time he levels up. He actually hates keeping track of all of the skills, but he likes playing the "dashing rogue" type. He vacillates between skills that fit his "dashing rogue" concept and skills that he thinks will actually be "useful" in the game. And I can see his point - some of the skills are too specialized to be very useful no matter how much I try to work them into an adventure and others are "must take" skills that really everyone should have to some degree or another. I'd really like to see some other mechanic for the "flavor" skills that may crop up once every handful of sessions (like Craft(cooking), for example) and the skills that have a real in-game use at every session (like Bluff).

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, I hear what you're saying, but to be fair, all of my complaints could be boiled down to:

1. The Magic System
2. Alignment (though to be honest, if this stays, that's fine with me)
3. Defense (minor revamp)

And I don't see how wishing D&D had a different magic system makes it "not D&D." There have been plenty of D&D campaign worlds that changed magic quite radically. I realize that to some people, the magic system is the heart and soul of what makes D&D 'D&D,' but I just disagree.

Those altered magic systems haven't become the standard, and with good reason. Don't get me wrong; I don't mind alternatives. Matter of fact, I like that there are many different magic systems available for the current edition of D&D, by way of all the d20 products out there, as well as WotC's efforts. I just feel that the basic system as we know it now should be retained. It's worked for many, many players over the years. But it's great to have choices. But the current system is one of the most identifiable elements of the game, as is alignment.

 

[JohnSnow]

Those altered magic systems haven't become the standard, and with good reason. Don't get me wrong; I don't mind alternatives. Matter of fact, I like that there are many different magic systems available for the current edition of D&D, by way of all the d20 products out there, as well as WotC's efforts. I just feel that the basic system as we know it now should be retained. It's worked for many, many players over the years. But it's great to have choices. But the current system is one of the most identifiable elements of the game, as is alignment.

I guess I just have trouble believing that the best possible magic system for fantasy gaming was worked out by Gary Gygax on his coffee table in 1973.

Just because it works reasonably well doesn't mean it's that good. Most of the problems people have with D&D hinge on the magic system. The current hit point system requires healing spells. WotC has admitted that the cleric is overpowered so that people will be willing to play the walking bandaid. To me, that says something is terribly wrong.

Top that off with the notion of spell and counterspell and something needs to be fixed. Because Raise Dead is a 5th-level spell, we need a way to make you MORE dead. So we introduce instant death spells that can't be reversed by raise dead. For that you need resurrection. And we introduce spells that can't be reversed by resurrection, requiring True Resurrection. That means D&D has more levels of dead than The Princess Bride - 4 to be precise. Let's call them All Dead (can't be resurrected at all), Mostly Dead (requires True Resurrection), Pretty dead (requires Resurrection), and Slightly dead (requires Raise Dead).

Frankly, it's gotten silly. Heck, even Gary abandoned it in favor of other systems when he went on to design other games.

I admit that 3e has settled on the archetypal party of fighter, mage, rogue and cleric. But IIRC, OD&D only had the fighting man, magic user, and thief. The "cleric" came along later as a hybrid between fighting man and magic user. Then druids were more magic-usery, getting some offensive type spells. In 1e AD&D, Rangers could cast both arcane and divine spells. Heck, even in 3e, there are arcane healing spells (see bards) and divine attack spells (fire strike, call lightning, and various others, including a divine version of fireball). So to me, the arcane/divine thing isn't much of a sacred cow. It's basically a flavor difference.

The cleric was intended as a hybrid who had combat ability and lesser spellcasting talent. With free multiclassing (one of 3e's VERY good innovations), we no longer need that hybrid class. So kill it.

Just my two cents.

Alignment's another discussion, I'm afraid.