Star Wars Saga Edition [SECR] Preview #3 is Up

[Henry]

I can buy that Star Wars is typically a "breathless pace", but I hope we won't see Jedi healing all the characters back to full in 10 minutes' time just because they get their power back so quickly. Then again, I'm also a fan of the need for heroes to occasionally go on to the next challenge without all their powers intact and a little wounded, because they need to trudge on for the good of all. That's where force points, etc. come in to save the day.

Regardless of the Martial-adept-style power replenishment, I'm still eagerly waiting for this version of Star Wars to come out, and was just today at our regular game talking with our gaming group's biggest Star Wars fan, who has been following the new edition. In his words: "I didn't WANT to like this edition, because I love the last one, but the more I read, the more changes I'm seeing and liking."

 

[Twowolves]

Because the cost of movement is too high under such a system.

How so? A move is one action, a move and attack two, a double move is two actions, multiple attacks are multiple actions. How is this "too high"?

Full attack actions with iterative attacks is the real method that makes the cost of movement too high (ie: if you move more than 2m, you give up all but one attack, so stand still and slug it out).

 

[Shalimar]

If you get two actions per turn a vast majority of the time those two actions will be firing twice, unlike DnD ranged weapons are the majority of weapons, and clearly superior except for those specialied in melee combat(Jedi). Since you don't need to move into melee range to hit there is no benifit in getting close.

 

[Aussiegamer]

OK I have come in late....

So if I read this the newer version is going to dump full round actions?

That's

Thye are going to have to give a bigger move then for the MA as it was 4x and thus worked out reasonable close to the 10 sec 100m, I thought. Now thats gone its not even going to be close....

 

[Twowolves]

If you get two actions per turn a vast majority of the time those two actions will be firing twice, unlike DnD ranged weapons are the majority of weapons, and clearly superior except for those specialied in melee combat(Jedi). Since you don't need to move into melee range to hit there is no benifit in getting close.

So... a better system is to force characters into melee range during a firefight??

How is this different from SW:RCR now? The one class that will want to get into melee range (Jedi) already have a method to protect themselves from ranged fire. Everyone else should be firing away from behind cover. And feats like Double Tap/Rapid Shot/Multifire can still be used with a single action in the "two actions per turn" model. So what, again, is the problem exactly?

 

[Plane Sailing]

OK I have come in late....

So if I read this the newer version is going to dump full round actions?

That's

Thye are going to have to give a bigger move then for the MA as it was 4x and thus worked out reasonable close to the 10 sec 100m, I thought. Now thats gone its not even going to be close....

It's mostly speculation at the moment, but the speculation isn't that full round actions go - just that iterative attacks disappear (apparently, possibly replaced by a general bonus on damage)

Nothing has been said about full round actions per se, so there isn't any reason to think that movement is going to be impacted as you fear.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you get two actions per turn a vast majority of the time those two actions will be firing twice, unlike DnD ranged weapons are the majority of weapons, and clearly superior except for those specialied in melee combat(Jedi). Since you don't need to move into melee range to hit there is no benifit in getting close.

Well, that's only true if someone doesn't want to be ducking behind cover at every opportunity, which any sensible PC in a firefight is likely to be wanting to do. Or perhaps the opponents are moving to a flanking position where you would lose your cover, so you want to move to new cover?

There are lots of reasons why someone in a straight '2 actions' system doesn't just stand and blaze away.

In fact your argument is a bigger argument against the D&D 'full attack' model, since after 6th level or so the cost of not standing still and doing a full attack is much higher!

Cheers

 

[Victim]

Well, that's only true if someone doesn't want to be ducking behind cover at every opportunity, which any sensible PC in a firefight is likely to be wanting to do. Or perhaps the opponents are moving to a flanking position where you would lose your cover, so you want to move to new cover?

There are lots of reasons why someone in a straight '2 actions' system doesn't just stand and blaze away.

In fact your argument is a bigger argument against the D&D 'full attack' model, since after 6th level or so the cost of not standing still and doing a full attack is much higher!

Cheers

Not really. With separate actions, a 6th level character starts at +6/+6 on his "full attack." A DnD character starts at +6/+1. The declining nature of iterative attacks makes them somewhat less attractice most of the time. The second attack action literally provides double offense of a single attack, as opposed to a lesser effect.

But yeah, both full attacks and distinct actions discourage movement. The bonus from moving to flank or get into cover has to be rather significant to compare with the extra attacks, and without certain special abilities (eg, sneak attack reward flanking), it usually isn't.

I just find that the 2 actions system is even harsher, and can discourage genre appropriate actions. In a gritty SC game, seeking cover should definitely be preferable to standing in the open to get a second attack. And in a more cinematic one where being in the open isn't too bad, movement should be rewarded.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Not really. With separate actions, a 6th level character starts at +6/+6 on his "full attack." A DnD character starts at +6/+1. The declining nature of iterative attacks makes them somewhat less attractice most of the time. The second attack action literally provides double offense of a single attack, as opposed to a lesser effect.

Of course, at 11th level the +11/+6/+1 starts to look a lot more attractive than +11/+11 (especially once bonuses get factored in).

The other things that two standard actions do is:

a) puts everyone on the same footing. Both the 1st level and the 20th level guy can make two attacks if they want
b) Doesn't provide high level guys with a disproportionate disadvantage from being reduced to one action
c) does away with the plethora of different action types that plague the game at the moment (IMO)

Cheers

 

[McBard]

Not to get too far off the Saga discussion, but for those of you who have played in action/action systems (e.g. Spycraft, which I own, but have never played) does the problem arise where those who move into melee and then attack get the shaft because their foe then gets two attacks against him? (This happens in D&D, I suppose, but not until higher levels...)

It just seems an action/action system would really be hard on low-level characters...