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

[ohGr]

It's worth noting, though, that -10 penalty is without any feats; TWF without feats in DnD is at -6/-10. Add TWF and probably Ambidexterity (with Saga's removal of iterative attacks and its plethora of bonus feats, getting extra attacks should be feat intensive) and you're probably looking at -4 or -2.

 

[RodneyThompson]

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

The game is designed such that encounters will usually feature a mix of lower-level mooks (stormtroopers, battle droids, etc.), tougher augmenters (officers and the like), and comparably-leveled individual foes (Dark Jedi, big creature, super tough droid, etc.). Even at high levels, people want to mow down stormtroopers and battle droids, so the game focuses on making that a core part of the encounter rather than just "throwaway" encounters.

 

[Frostmarrow]

It's worth noting, though, that -10 penalty is without any feats; TWF without feats in DnD is at -6/-10. Add TWF and probably Ambidexterity (with Saga's removal of iterative attacks and its plethora of bonus feats, getting extra attacks should be feat intensive) and you're probably looking at -4 or -2.

I get a Toughness-vibe here. Remember when 3E was published and we learned that Toughness granted a measly 3 extra hp? What a shock. Toughness just was a bottle stopper. A lame feat that was included so not a more powerful feat could be created had it been absent. Pretty cool move by the designers.

I suspect they want to do away with multiple attacks entirely but keep the two weapon fighting style just so no one will "invent" it later. The feats you mention might lower the penalty to -8/-8 or something just as weak.

Otherwise I just don't get it. If I had been responsible for the Two Weapon Fighting feat in StarWars I would have made it to be +1 to Ref and +1 to hit when wielding a melee weapon in every hand.

 

[Frostmarrow]

The game is designed such that encounters will usually feature a mix of lower-level mooks (stormtroopers, battle droids, etc.), tougher augmenters (officers and the like), and comparably-leveled individual foes (Dark Jedi, big creature, super tough droid, etc.). Even at high levels, people want to mow down stormtroopers and battle droids, so the game focuses on making that a core part of the encounter rather than just "throwaway" encounters.

This is interesting news. I sense that there will be system for building encounters. Of course you can always mix monsters but if you want to encourage this in the game then a system would emphasize this.

I'm shuffling my DDM-deck and i realise that model cost could be the easiest way to accomplish this. It might be heresy to even suggest that here, though. I wonder if model cost of the minis game will be equal to a character cost in the RPG?

Let's see:

8 points = CL -
9 points = CL 2
10 points = CL 3
14 points = CL 4

That's the costs so far. Nope, no immediate pattern jumps out that I can see. That suggest a table of some sort that says a CL X dude can bring a long # CL Y:s and become an EL Z (or even remain a CL X).

 

[Stalker0]

So no preview 5? I thought it would be up by now.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

So no preview 5? I thought it would be up by now.

Not this week. Seems it didn't get through the approvals process in time.

Speaking of previews, the third Alliance vs. Empire preview lists a Force Adept (Scout 3) and again lists an option to make two attacks (this time with a double weapon), each at a -10 penalty.

I'm starting to wonder if the way two-weapon fighting works is thus:
No TWF feat: -10 to both attacks
Have 1st TWF feat: -5 to both attacks
Have 2nd TWF feat: No penalty to both attacks.

TWF feats probably have a pretty high Dexterity requirement (much like D&D3.5e and d20 Modern require Dexterity 15+), hence why the Trando and Force Adept don't have it. And based on their stat blocks the off-hand weapon's size is irrelevant.

Would fall in line with the "KISS" principle the game is focused on, as it makes remembering the penalties for using two weapons very easy.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

If I had been responsible for the Two Weapon Fighting feat in StarWars I would have made it to be +1 to Ref and +1 to hit when wielding a melee weapon in every hand.

Problem with that approach is you'd still have the people who would argue that if you're fighting with more than one weapon, you should get more than one attack roll. It's very likely that the designers thought of something like you suggested (I've read enough of the assorted author's and editor's stuff to know they aren't a bunch of blockheads). But they concluded it would make more sense to simply have two-weapon fighting provide an extra attack, though at a whopper of a penalty.

There's already been plenty of outcry about iterative attacks going the way of the dodo. I don't want to even think about the backlash that might be generated if multiple attacks were done away with entirely.

Besides, there may very well be a TWF-related feat that does something similar to what you suggested. If not, it wouldn't be too hard to cook one up using the base TWF feat as a prereq with a minimum BAB attached.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Problem with that approach is you'd still have the people who would argue that if you're fighting with more than one weapon, you should get more than one attack roll. It's very likely that the designers thought of something like you suggested (I've read enough of the assorted author's and editor's stuff to know they aren't a bunch of blockheads). But they concluded it would make more sense to simply have two-weapon fighting provide an extra attack, though at a whopper of a penalty.

There's already been plenty of outcry about iterative attacks going the way of the dodo. I don't want to even think about the backlash that might be generated if multiple attacks were done away with entirely.

Besides, there may very well be a TWF-related feat that does something similar to what you suggested. If not, it wouldn't be too hard to cook one up using the base TWF feat as a prereq with a minimum BAB attached.

I wouldn't mind but I do see your point. The two weapon fighting granting two attacks might be far too ingrained in the gamers psyche to be changed.

Also if I don't understand it's hardly the designers fault, I don't think they are anything but dedicated gamers with their heads screwed on properly.

 

[hobgoblin]

removing multiple attacks should not be a problem. have they not already done so with ranged attacks? why not do the same for melee? as in, if you have the right weapon or weapons, you get more damage but less chance to hit...

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd be happy to see TWF always have a -10 penalty, thus being great against mooks but not the tactic you'd use against your main foes.