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

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.

Here's what I was thinking:

Warrior
Weapon Specialist - Choose a weapon. Get significant bonuses with that weapon.
Tactician - You get abilities that focus on disarming, breaking an enemies' weapon, tripping, grappling, setting up and making the most of AoOs, etc.
Martial artist - Monk-like abilities
Commander - Gain abilities that make you an effective leader. Get some diplomacy and maybe something like the auras we've seen from other classes.
Knight? - Specialized in mounted combat.

Rogue
Stealth Specialist - Sneak Attacks, Move Silently bonuses, Hide bonuses, etc.
Jack-of-All-Trades - Gets a LOT of skill points.
Con Artist - Lots of Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy type skills.
Ranger - Woodland based abilties


Mage
Wizard - Wizard based spellcasting.
Sorcerer - Sorcerer based spellcasting.
Warlock - Warlock based spellcasting.
Bard - Bard based abilities.

Priest
Cleric - Clerical abilities.
Druid - Druidic abilties.
Shaman - "primitive" abilities.

And then later....

Psychic
Psion - Psion abilities.
Wilder - Wilder abilities.

Feats:
A feat that allows you to pick abilities from another list. This would make "multiclassing" possible.
Specialist Wizard abilities take the form of a feat chain.

 

[Desdichado]

Yes, but you still haven't explained why the game "doesn't work" without strong archetypes. You just say that it does and expect me to believe you even though I've played it successfully all the while trying to weaken archetypes because I don't like the way they're presented in the game.

To be fair, you'd probably also better explain how flexible classes equals lack of archetypes, but I can handwave that away for the moment if you like.

 

[SteveC]

Here's what I was thinking:

Warrior
Weapon Specialist - Choose a weapon. Get significant bonuses with that weapon.
Tactician - You get abilities that focus on disarming, breaking an enemies' weapon, tripping, grappling, setting up and making the most of AoOs, etc.
Martial artist - Monk-like abilities
Commander - Gain abilities that make you an effective leader. Get some diplomacy and maybe something like the auras we've seen from other classes.
Knight? - Specialized in mounted combat.

Rogue
Stealth Specialist - Sneak Attacks, Move Silently bonuses, Hide bonuses, etc.
Jack-of-All-Trades - Gets a LOT of skill points.
Con Artist - Lots of Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy type skills.
Ranger - Woodland based abilties


Mage
Wizard - Wizard based spellcasting.
Sorcerer - Sorcerer based spellcasting.
Warlock - Warlock based spellcasting.
Bard - Bard based abilities.

Priest
Cleric - Clerical abilities.
Druid - Druidic abilties.
Shaman - "primitive" abilities.

And then later....

Psychic
Psion - Psion abilities.
Wilder - Wilder abilities.

Feats:
A feat that allows you to pick abilities from another list. This would make "multiclassing" possible.
Specialist Wizard abilities take the form of a feat chain.

I just wanted to say "yep, those are my thoughts too." Actually, I've been designing something like that for a while now, too.

--Steve

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I just wanted to say "yep, those are my thoughts too." Actually, I've been designing something like that for a while now, too.

--Steve

Since I stated that you should get a feat at every even level, you could also add these two to the mix:

Practiced Warrior - Add +1 to your Base Attack Bonus. Total BAB can't exceed your level.

Practiced Spellcaster - The number of spells you know and can cast, in addition to your caster level, increases as if you had gained a level in a spellcasting class of your choice. You may only take this feat if your caster level is less than your character level.

So by burning through your feats, you could make effective multiclass caster and fighter/caster hybrids that didn't get gimped, you'd just lose out of a number of feats.

 

[Remathilis]

I actually considered something similar using the "generic" template classes from UA. It wouldn't be hard to design talent tree's instead.

WARRIOR
Weapon Master: Offensive attacks w/ one weapon (replaces the specialization feat tree)
Tank/Knight: Defensive Abilities (like Knights Challenge/Aggro Control)
Archer: Ranged Weapons specialist
Beserker: Strength/Damage-based attacks at cost of defense.
Cavalier: Horsemanship
Swashbuckler: Finesse/Movement-based attacks
Brawler: Unarmed Attacker

PRIEST
Healer: Healing/Defensive Magic
Exorcist: Turning/Undead Bane
Druid: Nature Magic/Wild Shape
Deathmaster: Undead/Evil Magic

WIZARD
Blaster: Evocation/Attack Magic
Beguiler: Enchant and Illusions
Summoner: Calling Creatures
Necromancer: Death Magic
Elemenalist: Air/Earth/Water/Fire magic

ROGUE
Thief: Sneaky Skills & Backstab
Scout: Wilderness Skills & Skirmish
Bard: Charisma Skills & Buffs
Artisan: Creation Skills & Temp Magic
Acrobat: Movement Skills & Defense
Assaasin: Sneaky & Offensive attacks

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

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.

I agree with Ashrem. I'd like to see some base classes with feat and talent trees for 4e. I also agree that this is a sort of test drive for 4e, IMO.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but you still haven't explained why the game "doesn't work" without strong archetypes. You just say that it does and expect me to believe you even though I've played it successfully all the while trying to weaken archetypes because I don't like the way they're presented in the game.

I thought it was implicit that I was expressing my opinion and own personal preferences, not making a statement of fact. But I'll explain anyway -- in my opinion D&D, as a team based game, is better served by niche filling, archetype representing characters that fit the milieu of high fantasy/sword and sorcery/small squad tactics/thinly veiled technothriller that is D&D. Strong archetypes and niche protection make sure everyone is contributing and everyone has a chance to shine.

To be fair, you'd probably also better explain how flexible classes equals lack of archetypes, but I can handwave that away for the moment if you like.

Well, when your fighter trades away all of his fighteriness for theifiness, the archetype is diluted and the niche is no longer filled.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Deathmaster: Undead/Evil Magic

Specific classes like this I think would be better served as a series of feats you could stack onto a Mage or Priest class.

Class = Baseline
Abilities = Theme
Feat = Specifics

For a necormancer type...

Class = Does he use magic?
Abilities = What method does he use to practice magic?
Feat = What kind of magic is he good with and how does he use it?

 

[Jer]

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

This gets at the very heart of the matter, actually. The struggle between unique character concept and representing archetypal character concept is what a lot of these "D&D doesn't work with ... / I want to be able to model ..." arguments boil down to.

Some folks want a D&D experience where their vision of archetypes is reinforced by the rules - where fighters are burly folks who wade into battle in heavy armor wielding heavy weapons, thieves skulk quietly down the corridors, wizards throw spells from the back of the group, and clerics get in their licks while throwing healing spells onto their compatriots. Anything that deviates too much from this archetypal group -- that causes, say, fighters to take on attributes of thieves, or clerics to seem too much like wizards -- messes with the game aspects and alters the way the game is played.

On the other hand, many folks want a D&D experience that models the fantasy characters that they read or watch (or, yes, play on their computers or Playstations). For these folks, the archetypal grouping up there often doesn't make a lot of sense. Why not a character concept that is the lithe fighter-type who can't find traps worth a darn but avoids blows and doesn't wear heavy armor? Or the cleric of the god of fire who doesn't join his compatriots on the front lines or throw healing spells but instead stands at the back and throws fireballs into the mix? For these player, game aspect like "who fills what role in a dungeon expedition" take a back seat to "how can I make my character like the one who sits in my head".

Both groups are playing D&D. Both groups pull at the rules to make the game better fit their particular play style. And neither group will ever totally be happy with any set of rules that come out because the goals aren't just incompatible, they're almost mutually exclusive. Things that allow a higher degree of character customization are going to necessarily allow those characters to break out of their archetypal roles, and things that force characters to conform more to the archetypal roles originally outlined for the game are going to restrict the choices that a player can make in modeling a character. Therefore, fights will continue on messageboards across the internets unto the heat death of the universe (or to the extinction of mankind, I suppose, whichever comes first.)

 

[pawsplay]

Where'd you hear that?

Name one OGL game that modifies the d20 core that uses them.