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

[Desdichado]

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.

Ah. So you see D&D as a small hand-picked hit team based tactical wargame then?

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

In which case he's filling the thief niche.

In any case, the "core niches" of D&D are somewhat arbitrarily defined, so I'm having a hard time seeing how they're in any way integral to the game.

 

[Desdichado]

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

Huh? That's your reasoning? There's a fair amount of material published for the d20 Modern SRD, I hope you're aware.

If you want another one, how about Grim Tales?

 

[Gundark]

Hmmm I have to say that I'm really looking forward to the new star wars. And I would welcome these changes to 4th ed. D&D.

I was especially happy to read this "High-level play is much more streamlined and efficient in Saga Edition, and combat runs just as smoothly at 20th level as it does at 1st level. Furthermore, the new character creation rules let you build a high-level NPC in 5 to 10 minutes instead of an hour. Because generating enemies and allies on the fly is fast and simple, it's easier for Gamemasters to improvise when players diverge from the planned session."

I would be all over 4th ed. if they did this.

 

[Nifft]

Maybe not -- {hit dice} used to top out at 9th or 10th, remember?

Ah yes, excellent point! And Rangers used to start out with two of them. Hmm. Ye olde schoole indeed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Is there a difference between a talent and a class-specific feat?

 

[RangerWickett]

Edit: I see I've just repeated what was already said. That'll teach me to reply after only reading the first page. And for the record, I prefer flexibility. Archetypes get boring.

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.

The easiest solution is to have the base classes be flexible, and then list archetypes -- combinations of talent trees (or whatever) using those classes. So the book might list the classes Warrior, Expert, and Mage, each of which is flexible. And then at the end of the chapter you have maybe a half-page devoted to each of X different character archetypes like bard, monk, paladin, ranger, and rogue, explaining the talent trees you need to make them, and giving ideas of how to roleplay them.

You get both flexibility and classic archetypes. Easy.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Is there a difference between a talent and a class-specific feat?

Or even with class abilities, the line is pretty blurred, really.

 

[Victim]

Is there a difference between a talent and a class-specific feat?

A class specific feat is the option to take something with one of your more general resources. It doesn't do anything if you don't have the feats to take it. Talents would be more equivalent to say class specific feats granted by bonus feats.

 

[nerfherder]

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.

Rolling dice for your AC is actually the opposite to the Saga Edition rules, where saving throw rolls are replaced with DC numbers for an attack to overcome.

With current D&D, sometimes the attacker has to roll against a DC to effect (e.g. melee attack vs AC) and sometimes it is the defender who makes a roll against a DC to resist the effect (e.g. Reflex save vs spell caster DC). What the Saga edition does is make it consistent that it is always the attacker who is rolling.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Is there a difference between a talent and a class-specific feat?

Only that you have to spend one of your feat allotments to get a "class specific feat". I'd welcome the inclusion of talents into D&D, since I think feats should be reserved for more universal abilities. If something requires a certain class or class based ability as a prerequisite, it should be a class option (i.e. talent), not a feat.