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

[Odhanan]

Maybe not -- they used to top out at 9th or 10th, remember?

I must say I'm curious on the "Reflex as AC" idea, and I'm curious to see (A) if it's a correct reading of the examples, and (B) how it plays.

I've no idea what kind of rules concept it'll turn out to be in the Saga edition, but in our D&D and d20 games, we've been rolling 1d20 instead of using the base "10" in the AC equation for years now, the only exception being when the defender is flat-footed. That sounds similar with what we've seen in the preview. I would love it if it actually became an "official" option. It opens the door to a lot of additional feats/abilities for characters relating to AC rolls, from experience.

 

[Ry]

Similarly, I use "players roll all the dice" - the random side is in the players' hands, the fixed side is over with the GM. Leaves my hands free for moving and describing and I do less math in my head.

 

[GreatLemur]

• Fewer yet more flexible base classes that have incorporated Talent Trees ala d20 Modern
  
• Flatter hit points curve--you start at 1st level with 3 HD, but advance more slowly and (presumably) top off lower in total hit points

This sounds very good, in my opinion. I've actually prefer even fewer classes with even greater flexibility--specifically, I'd like to see all those talents turned into feats--but it's definitely a step in the right direction. And a flatter HP curve is extremely, extremely welcome.

All Three Saves (For, Ref, Will) are Static numbers, not bonuses. It also eludes that offensive powers "roll" against these static numbers.

Ah, I dig that. I'd been thinking about trying the same thing, but at the same time I really love the idea of using reflex saves in place of initiative rolls (stolen from Conan d20), and obviously the two plans aren't very compatible.

 

[Jer]

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.

I think this is exactly right, and something that fits the current d20 mindset better than saving throws. I had already started thinking about a system like this for D&D recently, as the need for Saving Throws has diminished as the system has turned more skill-based.

Did you also notice that there is no separate "Defense" score here, and Reflex is listed with a "flat footed" score? I wonder if armor will be handled as DR instead of an armor bonus.

I doubt Talents would make it into D&D, and if they did, it would be a mistake. Feats cover the customization aspect of characters very well - although I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more class-specific feats in 4e.

Talents already exist in D&D, just under a different name and with a scattershot approach to their application. They're called "alternative class features", and if they were implemented right they'd be a better approach to class customization than either creating Prestige Classes willy-nilly OR expanding the Feat mechanism. Even in the core books, Monks and Rangers have a type of "Talent" progression where they get to pick among a few choices to customize your character a bit -- a full Talent system implemented coherently could cut the time I spend working with my players looking for those character cookies that make their characters the way they envision them to be.

They could eliminate classes completely at this point and just provide different 'costs' for skills and include combat ability (BAB) in those skill lists. Huge swatches of preconstructed talent trees to cut down on future bloat from feat/PrC combos would be great.

The first half of this I couldn't disagree more with - I want the system in some ways to be MORE class based instead of less. I want some more flexibility in how those class archetypes are interpreted, but I wouldn't be happy if the game turned into a d20 version of Runequest or GURPS - I can always go off and play those if I want. On the other hand I agree that adding a talent system would be highly beneficial to get rid of the need to construct (or find) a Prestige Class just to get the character working the way the player wants him to work. If you want to make a Swashbuckler you should be able to use a Fighter or a Rogue with abilities swapped for "Swashbuckler" abilities, rather than having your Swashbuckler have Trapfinding or Heavy Armor Proficiency just because, well, the class you built him with has Trapfinding or Heavy Armor Proficiency OR the alternative of making a completely separate "Swashbuckler" class altogether.

I like that the Star Wars Saga Edition looks like it might be collapsing a bunch of skills together -- anything that takes emphasis off of the nit-picky details of players deciding how points are going to be spent between levels is welcome in my book.

 

[Desdichado]

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.)

Presumably--according to archetype--they'll still wear armor which will either make them harder to hit, or cause them to take less damage from hits they do take.

I don't think that'll be a problem.

 

[Reynard]

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.

This isn't a terible idea so long as those "varied and versatile" ability trees were designed around the idea of building and maintaining an archetype.

For example, two Warrior archetypes might be The Master Swordsman and the Archer. Ancilliary skills aside (is the archer a woodsman? maybe, maybe not) such talent trees would have to, for me, be designed in such a way that you essentially got to pick one or the other. If you start the Master Swordsman track, it should be costly and difficult to dip into the Archer track or the Brawler track or whatever.

3E has entirely too much "customization" for my tastes at this point. Every time a new set of options comes out, it is geared toward weakening archetypes and destroying PC niches. Who needs a rogue when you can play a thug? That sort of thing.

Open ended character creation and development is fine for some genres -- although not as many as most people think -- but for other genres, like D&D's particular brand of fantasy, it just doesn't work.

 

[The Grackle]

I didn't care for D20Modern's talent-trees b/c they were kinda boring. BUT I do like the idea of talent trees alot, and putting class features in talent trees sounds good. We almost have it now, with alternate class features coming out in new books, and w/stuff like the ranger's "combat style". Talent trees can give a class its archetypal definition, but also just enough range so that all members of the class aren't mechanically the same.

 

[Desdichado]

3E has entirely too much "customization" for my tastes at this point. Every time a new set of options comes out, it is geared toward weakening archetypes and destroying PC niches. Who needs a rogue when you can play a thug? That sort of thing.

Open ended character creation and development is fine for some genres -- although not as many as most people think -- but for other genres, like D&D's particular brand of fantasy, it just doesn't work.

I read those words and I understand them all individually, but together they make absolutely no sense.

Why do you claim that D&D doesn't work with strong, narrow archetypes of Gary Gygax's interpretation?

I've got years of experience that suggest that's not true at all. 2e with it's kits, and 3e with it's multiplying core classes, easy multiclassing and prestige classes--are you seriously trying to say that they're designing the games that way in spite of the fact that they "don't work?"

 

[Reynard]

[b]Why[/b] do you claim that D&D doesn't work with strong, narrow archetypes of Gary Gygax's interpretation?[/QUOTE]

Um, I am saying that D&D works better with strong, narrow archetypes.

[QUOTE]I've got [b]years[/b] of experience that suggest that's not true at all. 2e with it's kits, and 3e with it's multiplying core classes, easy multiclassing and prestige classes--are you seriously trying to say that they're designing the games that way in spite of the fact that they "don't work?"[/QUOTE]

Kits are actually exactly what I was talking about -- variations on the archetypes, but not so much so that the archetype is lost. Rampant multiclassing, variant class abilities and other "cherry picking" in 3E weakens those archetypes and the niches they fill.

 

[GreatLemur]

This isn't a terible idea so long as those "varied and versatile" ability trees were designed around the idea of building and maintaining an archetype.

Personally, I'm a lot more interested in character concepts than archetypes.