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

[Desdichado]

I suppose I am alone in thinking that there should be less, not more, character customization should there be a 4th Edition. Make it a class based game again, not a point based one.

I imagine you are, yes. Class based games only work if the classes are flexible and open ended. Calling this a point based game is wildly inaccurate, though.

 

[Cam Banks]

It seems to me that the Defenses (Ref, Fort, and Will) are essentially DCs to beat in order to do something bad to somebody. Want to hit them with an attack? Roll against Reflex. Want to irradiate them or poison their drink? Roll against Fortitude. Want to use Force to damage their mind? Roll against Will. This brings combat and other forms of threat closer together, making it possible to come up with new and inventive challenges for the characters. I like that a great deal.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[ruleslawyer]

I suppose I am alone in thinking that there should be less, not more, character customization should there be a 4th Edition. Make it a class based game again, not a point based one.

It is still a class-based system, and I for one think that it's far easier to remove flexibility from design than to add it later. Witness 1e's Unearthed Arcana, 2e's kits (or Skills and Powers), and 3e's prestige classes. All of those options proved pretty difficult to adjudicate (and at least 3e anticipates new PrCs, feats, and such in its design guidelines, unlike the previous two). Having all that stuff built into the game from the beginning allows DMs to pare down by turning options into automatic class features.

For instance, the talent trees. A DM (GM) who doesn't want the complexity of talent trees can just pick a set of talents and make them abilities for the class to take at x level, just as with pretty much every preceding edition of D&D. It'd be like simplifying skills by removing the element of allocating skill points and just awarding all PCs (level +3) ranks in all class skills. Not so difficult.

 

[Ry]

Would it be possible to continue with the thread as if Reynard had not said "Make it a class based game again, not a point based one." and still talk about his point about simplicity and level of customization?

 

[Treebore]

It is still a class-based system, and I for one think that it's far easier to remove flexibility from design than to add it later. Witness 1e's Unearthed Arcana, 2e's kits (or Skills and Powers), and 3e's prestige classes. All of those options proved pretty difficult to adjudicate (and at least 3e anticipates new PrCs, feats, and such in its design guidelines, unlike the previous two). Having all that stuff built into the game from the beginning allows DMs to pare down by turning options into automatic class features.

For instance, the talent trees. A DM (GM) who doesn't want the complexity of talent trees can just pick a set of talents and make them abilities for the class to take at x level, just as with pretty much every preceding edition of D&D. It'd be like simplifying skills by removing the element of allocating skill points and just awarding all PCs (level +3) ranks in all class skills. Not so difficult.

I would have agreed with you until Castles and Crusades came along. I have added stuff from every edition of D&D, including a feat and skill system, as well as adapting PrC's for levels above 9th from 3E alone. The mechanics are holding up perfectly.

But I do agree with class flexibility. I get that with my house rules. Meaning the feat system I have bastardized from 3E, the skills, and the PrC path high level PC's can take.

So I do not pare down, I slowly build it up until it reaches my personal level of critical mass.

3E cannot be pared down to my game without re-writing it. So C&C serves as my core and I write add ons. Two pages worth. Plus I am always open and able to add on more if I ever desire, or have a reason, to do so.


Now these ideas being used for the new Star Wars are intriguing. Fortunately C&C will make it easy for me to adapt and use anything I like from it. Since I will be buying it for my son. Plus be playing in my sons SW game, and get to see the mechanics in use.

So I am very interested in seeing how the new SW works.

 

[fuindordm]

I think 4th edition would look very good if it moved in this direction.

The wound threshold and condition scale are excellent ideas, that I have often tried to port to other systems. Many D20 variants already have something like it with a lower massive damage threshold forcing a Fort save--but that's still all-or-nothing. D&D's one-step condition scale (healthy-->unconscious) and high wound threshold (50 hp) is OK, but makes it hard to model combat fatigue and cinematic wounds. Replacing it with a five-step condition scale coupled to a lower damage threshold? Simply brilliant.

(For the record, the first place I saw this was Earthdawn. Great game!)

Unifying AC and reflex save into a generic "dodge" concept is also a very good idea. In this system, armor as DR works well as long as light weapons can still be a credible threat. I don't like systems where I can only hurt high-level characters with attacks on their level. I want to keep the resource management aspect of the game, and I want cannon fodder to still wear the party down a little even at high levels.

Also, if AC=10+Reflex then there needs to be a better way for fighter-types to boost their AC with skill. (In other words, a parry mechanic--perhaps just a level-based bonus to AC when the fighter has a weapon in hand and is not flat-footed.)

Ben

 

[wingsandsword]

I'm sure its a "test drive" to some extent.

I'd agree with that. Nothing is certain, but if design changes made in Saga Edition work well or are well recieved, I could imagine them getting a close look at incorporation into 4e. Some rules like talent trees from d20 Modern are well regarded and popular enough to be reused in later projects.

Even if you aren't interested in Star Wars, this looks to be an interesting look at the direction they are going at with design.

 

[Reynard]

Would it be possible to continue with the thread as if Reynard had not said "Make it a class based game again, not a point based one." and still talk about his point about simplicity and level of customization?

Yeah, I chose flamebait words on accident. What I meant was that I *like* strong archetypes and am willing to lose flexibility/options in order to ensure those archetypes remain strong.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

No me. Even with all the classes, prestige classes, feats, etc. There are still some character concepts you simply cannot build. You always end up with some abilities that don't fit your character concept, or you just can't get the abilities you need.

That said, four classes: Warrior, Rogue, Mage and Priest, with a series of good ability trees, would be fine as long as the ability trees were varied and versatile enough.

What I'd like to see? Choose a new ability from a tree every odd level, and gain a new feat every even level. That'd provide considerable flexibility, and still keep things class based.

 

[Delta]

I suppose I am alone in thinking that there should be less, not more, character customization should there be a 4th Edition.

You're not alone.