LedZeppelin
First Post
Hobo said:
I particularly have never heard of it, and I believe none of my players have...
D&D 4E Star Wars Saga Edition as preview of 4e?
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
I particularly have never heard of it, and I believe none of my players have...
It's my belief that the Rules Compendium coming up in October will be the 3.75 for D&D. Regardless of what they 'test drive' in Star Wars, that system is - needless to say - an entirely different genre from D&D and I wouldn't expect much cross-compatibility.
It's quite easier to accept Star Wars as a testbed for revisions to d20 Modern, however.
If I understand correctly how this Reflex/AC thing works, the character's Reflex base save doubles as their class modifier to Defence?
I personally find that distateful. In a modern-style game the Fort and Will saves get little enough use as it is, compared to the myriad varieties of attacks from magic in a fantasy setting. Reflex base saves shouldn't be any more useful than they already are, compared to the other two, IMO.
To put it another way: there's no reason a character with a high Ref save should automatically have a high Defence, or vice versa. Even if both are modified by Dexterity. Give an advanced class the high Defence and high Reflex save progressions if you want to, but they shouldn't be mutually inclusive.
It's quite easier to accept Star Wars as a testbed for revisions to d20 Modern, however.
If I understand correctly how this Reflex/AC thing works, the character's Reflex base save doubles as their class modifier to Defence?
I personally find that distateful. In a modern-style game the Fort and Will saves get little enough use as it is, compared to the myriad varieties of attacks from magic in a fantasy setting. Reflex base saves shouldn't be any more useful than they already are, compared to the other two, IMO.
To put it another way: there's no reason a character with a high Ref save should automatically have a high Defence, or vice versa. Even if both are modified by Dexterity. Give an advanced class the high Defence and high Reflex save progressions if you want to, but they shouldn't be mutually inclusive.
Matthias said:
You have to look at the whole picture before you you can say whether reflex is getting too much love. You have to include the threshold system into the picture.
What it appears to be is that high defense characters will be hit less. However, once their hit, they may take a crippling wound or something. A lower defense character in good armor or just naturally tough may take more shots, but none of them will hurt him much (except for hp damage).
It seems like a good difference between the two archetypes of characters, we will just have to see how well the mechanics pull this off.
Someone
Adventurer
Preview 4 is up, this time with a brief overlook of combat rules.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Matthias said:
The latest preview reveals that the various defences are 10+level+ability+small class bonus (I'm guessing that nonheroic class levels don't count here). Soldiers give +1 reflex, +2 fortitude.
i.e. there isn't a 'save progression' by character class anymore - just a small bonus.
I wonder how it works for multiclasses? I'd guess that for a multiclass you might take the best bonus from each of your classes?
nerfherder
Adventurer
Yes, it's been confirmed that nonheroic class levels don't count, so the formula is:Plane Sailing said:
Defense = 10 + heroic level + ability bonus + class bonus (which is quite small)
Last edited:
Having read more of this thread...
I really dislike the skill consolidations. It reduces character variation and customization. Rolling everything possible into Perception and Persuasion is the worst.
With Perception, the problem of merging Sense Motive with the physical senses has already been touched on (why should someone who can see and hear well also be able to read people?) The difficulties of Wisdom governing both intuition, willpower, and the physical senses is bad enough; overloading skills just makes the whole thing worse. Why even have skills at all if you're going to whittle them down to the bare minimum?
Persuasion is another big problem. There are worlds of difference between trying to persuade someone into giving you what you want, lying to get what you want, and threatening naked force to get what you want. They are all means to the same end, but that doesn't mean they should all be one skill. How many times do you see Chewbacca intimidating people, versus Lando or Han bluffing people, versus Luke or Obi-Wan trying to talk their way into (or out of) a situation? But now that kind of cinematic distinction will disappear.
I'm not completely against reforming or finding a solution to tracking dozens or a few hundred skill points, but I'm skeptical of this glorified 2E-style non-weapon proficiency system.
Three tiers of expertise are too few. There ought to be at least four, if not more.
When I am generating a high-level character (for D&D), I have a mostly error-free method I use. I'm not saying it should be adopted as standard but it works for me just fine.
1. I choose all the skills for my character that I want to put ranks in and list them on a piece of paper, along with the total number of skill points I have to spend. I am careful not to choose too many skills, which will dilute the number of SP that even the high-priority skills will receive. I don't try to build an exhaustive list since I will probably have SP left over at step #6.
2. If I want to max out any chosen skills, I do this immediately, and mark down the new SP total as appropriate.
3. I assign each remaining chosen skill a priority level; low, medium, and high. Priority translates to a X1, X2, and X4 ratio when it comes to skill points (that is, high-priority skills will have 4 times the skill points of low-priority skills). If there aren't that many skill points to go around, I may use only low- and high-priorities (with a X1 and X2 ratio, respectively).
4. I add all the 1's, 2's, and 4's together, and divide my current SP total by that amount (keeping any fraction). This is my initial SP total for low-priority skills. I double that value (still keeping any fraction) for my medium-priority skills, and double it again for my high-priority skills -- hence the X1, X2, and X4 ratios. After this, I round down all three fractional numbers to the nearest integer. Those fractions are kept so that if I (for example) ended up with a low-priority value of 1.75, that would give me medium- and high-priority values of 3.5 and 7, so instead of 1 / 2 / 4, I have 1 / 3 / 7. Keeping the fraction makes spending your SP more efficient.
5. Beside each skill I write said values for their SP. In this case 1 SP for low-priority, 3 SP for medium, and 7 SP for high.
6. I add up all the skill points doled out so far, and subtract that from my current total. There are usually a few skill points left unspent, which I often divvy up among whatever other skills I didn't pick up at first, but would make sense for the character to have at least half a rank in.
7. I translate the skill points into ranks, dividing by 2 in the case of cross-class skills.
8. I finally add in skill synergy bonuses, racial bonuses, feat bonuses, and the rest.
I really dislike the skill consolidations. It reduces character variation and customization. Rolling everything possible into Perception and Persuasion is the worst.
With Perception, the problem of merging Sense Motive with the physical senses has already been touched on (why should someone who can see and hear well also be able to read people?) The difficulties of Wisdom governing both intuition, willpower, and the physical senses is bad enough; overloading skills just makes the whole thing worse. Why even have skills at all if you're going to whittle them down to the bare minimum?
Persuasion is another big problem. There are worlds of difference between trying to persuade someone into giving you what you want, lying to get what you want, and threatening naked force to get what you want. They are all means to the same end, but that doesn't mean they should all be one skill. How many times do you see Chewbacca intimidating people, versus Lando or Han bluffing people, versus Luke or Obi-Wan trying to talk their way into (or out of) a situation? But now that kind of cinematic distinction will disappear.
I'm not completely against reforming or finding a solution to tracking dozens or a few hundred skill points, but I'm skeptical of this glorified 2E-style non-weapon proficiency system.
Three tiers of expertise are too few. There ought to be at least four, if not more.
When I am generating a high-level character (for D&D), I have a mostly error-free method I use. I'm not saying it should be adopted as standard but it works for me just fine.
1. I choose all the skills for my character that I want to put ranks in and list them on a piece of paper, along with the total number of skill points I have to spend. I am careful not to choose too many skills, which will dilute the number of SP that even the high-priority skills will receive. I don't try to build an exhaustive list since I will probably have SP left over at step #6.
2. If I want to max out any chosen skills, I do this immediately, and mark down the new SP total as appropriate.
3. I assign each remaining chosen skill a priority level; low, medium, and high. Priority translates to a X1, X2, and X4 ratio when it comes to skill points (that is, high-priority skills will have 4 times the skill points of low-priority skills). If there aren't that many skill points to go around, I may use only low- and high-priorities (with a X1 and X2 ratio, respectively).
4. I add all the 1's, 2's, and 4's together, and divide my current SP total by that amount (keeping any fraction). This is my initial SP total for low-priority skills. I double that value (still keeping any fraction) for my medium-priority skills, and double it again for my high-priority skills -- hence the X1, X2, and X4 ratios. After this, I round down all three fractional numbers to the nearest integer. Those fractions are kept so that if I (for example) ended up with a low-priority value of 1.75, that would give me medium- and high-priority values of 3.5 and 7, so instead of 1 / 2 / 4, I have 1 / 3 / 7. Keeping the fraction makes spending your SP more efficient.
5. Beside each skill I write said values for their SP. In this case 1 SP for low-priority, 3 SP for medium, and 7 SP for high.
6. I add up all the skill points doled out so far, and subtract that from my current total. There are usually a few skill points left unspent, which I often divvy up among whatever other skills I didn't pick up at first, but would make sense for the character to have at least half a rank in.
7. I translate the skill points into ranks, dividing by 2 in the case of cross-class skills.
8. I finally add in skill synergy bonuses, racial bonuses, feat bonuses, and the rest.
One more thing to add to that, for figuring up NPC skills I've found it useful to stick with setting a pregenned NPC's character level at some multiple of 4 plus one. 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th, 21st, and so on. The skill point totals (excluding Int bonus) seem to come out to a nice round value at those levels. This tiered-level system also lets me assign some semblance of military rank when it comes to 'mass-produced' NPC soldiers or agents, and some kind of chain of command when it comes to enemy organizations.
1st - low-level enlisted (recruits, privates)
5th - medium-ranking enlisted (corporals, junior sergeants)
9th - high-ranking enlisted (senior sergeants)
13th - low-ranking officers (lieutenants, captains)
17th - medium-ranking officers (majors, colonels)
21st+ - general officers
I wouldn't use this phraseology in-game necessarily, but it keeps my own mind focused on the general amount of influence or authority a character might have outside of what they can accomplish 'on the spot' with their skill checks.
With regard to Star Wars, this might make some sense at least when it comes to every main character seemingly promoted to a high rank in the Alliance above everyone else's heads .... Han Solo as a general might make a little more sense if he was near or past 21st level at that point in the second trilogy.
1st - low-level enlisted (recruits, privates)
5th - medium-ranking enlisted (corporals, junior sergeants)
9th - high-ranking enlisted (senior sergeants)
13th - low-ranking officers (lieutenants, captains)
17th - medium-ranking officers (majors, colonels)
21st+ - general officers
I wouldn't use this phraseology in-game necessarily, but it keeps my own mind focused on the general amount of influence or authority a character might have outside of what they can accomplish 'on the spot' with their skill checks.
With regard to Star Wars, this might make some sense at least when it comes to every main character seemingly promoted to a high rank in the Alliance above everyone else's heads .... Han Solo as a general might make a little more sense if he was near or past 21st level at that point in the second trilogy.
nerfherder
Adventurer
I like the general idea, but I can see where there may be problems. I think it's a question of finding the right balance between streamlining and customisation. Hopefully, other mechanics that we haven't really seen yet may make it work better (like the Wookie ability to re-roll Intimidation checks).Matthias said:
I like the sound of the Saga skill system but, again, I'll have to wait to see how it feels in play before making judgement.
Sir Brennen
Legend
Huh? Why? The mechanical distinction disappears, but cinematically, if a wookie is trying to use Persuasion on a bounty hunter, I'm guessing he's not trying to sweet talk the guy. If Obi-Wan is doing it, I'm thinking there's going to be a little wave of the hand involved, as well. Role-playing the mechanic moves to the fore-front, and that's a good thing, IMHO.Matthias said:
I will admit I'm ambivalant about Sense Motive being rolled into Spot and Search, but I can see the reasoning.
Similar Threads
