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

[ValhallaGH]

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

In my experience, not any more than any other system is.

Low level characters in almost every system are squishy. If they're running up to smack a guy, he's probably also low level, which means they've got as good a chance to drop him as he has to drop them.

Personally, I really enjoy the double action system for certain genres. Other times I prefer the standard/move system. Either way, I find myself enjoying the systems without iterative attacks far more than the systems with iterative attacks.

 

[Twowolves]

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

In 3.5 D&D, the reduced to hit chance from iterative attacks only really matters if you are using Power Attack or Combat Expertise. Often times, even with a -5 or -10 penalty to hit, the attacker will still hit, and the damage will just pile up anyway.

The difference between the level 1 guy and the level 20 guy in the action/action system comes from attack bonuses and from feats like Double Tap/Multifire, where one action is actually mutiple attacks. The higher level dedicated combat speciallist will still only get two actions, but will get more attacks out of those actions than the lower level guy.

Plus, the action/action system is SO much simpler and streamlined.

 

[Aussiegamer]

I am being to see the ease of the system. Though I think a feat should allow a second attack might be in order or I would apply a neg mod to the second attack, just as for FRA now.

The second attack is not going to be as accurate IMHO as the 1st.

I would be keeping aiming for mine.

 

[McBard]

Low level characters in almost every system are squishy. If they're running up to smack a guy, he's probably also low level, which means they've got as good a chance to drop him as he has to drop them.

I guess the point I was wondering about was that this is only true in D&D-modeled sytems (standard/move) and NOT true in Spycraft-modeled ones (action/action).

In D&D, yes, the "low level squishy" (nice term, btw) gets to move and attack--and if he fails to drop his foe, then he only suffers one attack in return (and, thus, there is a reward for winning initiative and moving quickly into combat to attack first...)

However, the low level squishy in the Spycraft-model faces a much greater risk in moving and attacking ('cause if he doesn't drop his foe, then he faces two attacks...he's almost punished for initiating melee...).

I admit I might be over-thinking the action-action system (I've never played it), and agree that there's something intuitive about it. On the other hand, why not just reduce the 6-second action/action model to a 3-second action one? That's the most intuitive...

 

[Dragonblade]

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...

Difficulty for low level characters is a function of how tough their opponents are. Standing in the open is fine in Spycraft 2.0. I have played it several times. The game is definitely geared towards James Bond/Matrix style cinematics (which IMO suits Star Wars just fine). Even a level 1 character can wade through mooks in that game because the rules make it easy to take mooks down. The rules encourage you to stand there with guns blazing, because thats what happens in cool gun fights in movies.

As far as combat rules systems for d20 based games goes, I see it like this:

D&D core: A full attack action to make multiple attacks with no movement (other than 5' step), a standard action (which can be a single attack or spell), and a move action (lost if a full action is done). These rules lend themself more to gritty fights where characters find a favorable position and then stay there to take advantage of all their iterative attacks. Fights are quick and brutal. Damage over time or delayed effects rarely come into play because fights usually end quickly due to how fast damage is dealt. Monsters with special abilities and tactics rarely get full use out of them. However, ranged and melee are pretty evenly balanced.

Spycraft core: 2 half actions per round, either of which can be move or attacks, heavily favors ranged combatants. Ranged combatants can blast away without having to waste attacks on movement. Melee combatants have to waste actions moving and when they do finally get into melee range they don't get any more attacks than the ranged guy gets. Spycraft compensates a little for this by allowing some melee builds to just be devastatingly effective once they do manage to get in close.

Mutants and Masterminds core (and possibly SW Saga): Everyone gets a standard action and a move action per round. This effectively limits all characters to a single attack per round plus they can move which doesn't affect the attack they get. This encourages a more cinematic play style since movement is free (i.e. no tradeoff between moving and attacking needs to be thought about). It brings ranged and melee attackers back into balance. Ranged attackers can stand and shoot, but only get one shot per round while melee attackers get two movement actions to get into position. This mitigates the advantage of ranged combatants over melee attackers who often have to position themselves before they can attack. It also brings back the utility of damage over time effects and allows opponents with different abilities or attacks ample time to bring them to bear because combat lasts longer.

 

[Henry]

Also, don't forget that Spycraft has a plethora of feats to allow combatants "final attacks" (poor name for it, they should be "free attacks") similar to the rapid shot feat -- Darting Weapon, Mobile offense, Follw-up shot, etc.

 

[Aussiegamer]

sounds like its feat dependant and not level dependant as D&D is.

 

[Ranger REG]

If I still want to include iterative attack, what problem might pop up in this game?

 

[Aussiegamer]

Since they would be FRA then ????

Though manyshot would mean that it would become maybe a waste of time as you could fire twice as much that the FRA, though within 30'.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Will there be AoO in Saga?