Star Wars Saga Edition [SECR] Preview #4 is Up

[iwatt]

My guess is that it's either supposed to be +3/+3 (a -4 penalty, which is still pretty harsh, admittedly - but perhaps fair if it's the only way to get multiple attacks) or each attack is at a -3 penalty.

That was my first thought as well. A -10 penalty in a system with escalating defenses is tantamount to just saying: you miss!

A -4 penalty, without reducing strength in the offhand would have some interesting effect on damage output. Without accounting for crits, TWF would be a better choice whenever you have a better than 40% chance of hitting with a single strike.

Keeping it at -2 would make it way to powerful, IMO

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Or, maybe he's just Two-Weapon Fighting without the feats? I mean, it still wouldn't make sense that way; beins though the penalty would be -4/-8 for "Offhand Weapon is Light w/o the Two Weapon Fighting feat".

-TRRW

 

[iwatt]

Or, maybe he's just Two-Weapon Fighting without the feats? I mean, it still wouldn't make sense that way; beins though the penalty would be -4/-8 for "Offhand Weapon is Light w/o the Two Weapon Fighting feat".

-TRRW

Well, if they removed the half strength to the offhand bit, I could see them keeping things simple and making both hands take the same penalty.

But seriously, I think Moogle has the right of it and it should be +3/+3

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

Well, if they removed the half strength to the offhand bit, I could see them keeping things simple and making both hands take the same penalty.

But seriously, I think Moogle has the right of it and it should be +3/+3

For not having TWF feat and using natural weapons, which are automatically considered "light", I agree it should read +3/+3 for the double claw.

 

[Ranger REG]

It looks like they've eliminated the off-hand. If that two attack routine the trando has is Two-Weapon Fighting, he's adding his full Strength bonus to the attack with his off hand, and his off hand has the same attack bonus as his primary hand.

If that's the case, this feat goes beyond the ability of the 3.5e and d20 Modern TWF feat.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

If that's the case, this feat goes beyond the ability of the 3.5e and d20 Modern TWF feat.

I thought both of those rolled Ambidexterity into TWF, thus negating the off-hand penalty to attack rolls outright, leaving it -4/-4 for when the off-hand weapon is non-light, and -2/-2 if the off-hand weapon was 'light.' All the Improved/Advanced TWF did was give you yet another attack with your off-hand weapon.

As for the damage bonus being the same for both the primary and off-hand attacks, it does simplify things (which has been the designers' mantra) as I've seen many players, myself included, forgot to reduce the Strength bonus to the off-hand attack's damage. So not having to worry about that anymore is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[gribble]

Theoretically, D&D rules would word Mighty Swing as "take a full-round action to make a single melee attack, and gain +1 die of damage on the attack", or something. So, it seems Saga could potentially do away with full-round actions...

The difference is that 2 swift actions + standard action to attack is slightly more than a full round action - it's a full round action *plus* your swift action for the round. Effectively it takes your *entire* round (excepting free actions, if they still exist) to use Mighty Swing with your attack.

 

[gribble]

I wonder if they are formalising some form of 'fumble' for checks?

I wondered about this before. Doing away with rolled saving throws combined with the fact that some skills will be used (at least "Use the Force") for attack rolls vs static defences made me think that they must be introducing a natural 1/natural 20 critical success/failure mechanism for skill checks.

Otherwise, (unless Use the Force is a special type of skill, which I wouldn't like) it will be possible for some Jedi powers to work "automatically" - without needing to roll - on some opponents.

 

[Ranger REG]

I thought both of those rolled Ambidexterity into TWF, thus negating the off-hand penalty to attack rolls outright, leaving it -4/-4 for when the off-hand weapon is non-light, and -2/-2 if the off-hand weapon was 'light.' All the Improved/Advanced TWF did was give you yet another attack with your off-hand weapon.

As for the damage bonus being the same for both the primary and off-hand attacks, it does simplify things (which has been the designers' mantra) as I've seen many players, myself included, forgot to reduce the Strength bonus to the off-hand attack's damage. So not having to worry about that anymore is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

That's what I meant. Allowing full Str bonus on your off-hand attack, even if the off-hand weapon is light (be it a vibro-dagger or a designated "off-hand" end of a quarterstaff).

 

[Frostmarrow]

That was my first thought as well. A -10 penalty in a system with escalating defenses is tantamount to just saying: you miss!

I guess you are right. The penalty is indeed -10 as you can see here. The low level force user uses a quarterstaff at either +4 or -6/-6. Same damage output on both ends of the staff.

On higher levels it might be a good tactic to make two attacks on stormtroopers so you can cut a swathe through their ranks.