SWd20 vs Revised (differences?)

Aristotle

First Post
I'm thinking of running a Star Wars game. Yeah, even after I said I wouldn't until they start releasing books again. Anyway, I have the original rulebook but not the revised. I can get the revised book by the time I start playing, but my players want to draw up characters now. Has anything substantial changed in the way characters are drawn up from the first book in the revised edition, or am I mostly safe using the old book for character generation?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The Revised edition has an entirely new class...AND all the classes went through some fairly major changes. Certain Force Feats became Skills, and other things like that.

Its really best to build the character with the Revised rules instead of trying to convert it, especially if you're new to the game.
 

Is the old game still playable? Were the issues so bad that it would ruin a game? The reason I ask is that I have the original (and don't really want to buy the revised edition).

So, D&D 3.0 is perfectly playable even though a lot of people--including me--thought that the 3.5 update improves the game somewhat. Is Star Wars RPG the same, or is the original version so bad that I shouldn't waste my time?
 

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
Is the old game still playable? Were the issues so bad that it would ruin a game? The reason I ask is that I have the original (and don't really want to buy the revised edition).

So, D&D 3.0 is perfectly playable even though a lot of people--including me--thought that the 3.5 update improves the game somewhat. Is Star Wars RPG the same, or is the original version so bad that I shouldn't waste my time?
Its still playable...but the change from pre-Revised to Revised was MUCH more expansive than 3.0 to 3.5.

The entire system for Vehicle/Starship combat has changed, in addition to other things. Really, the Revised edition is leaps and bounds better.
 

Thanks for the speedy reply! I was hoping to get the book online (less expensive). Let's hope the FLGS has a copy. I'm catching the movie today, for the first time, and then possibly drawing up characters tonight. Somewhere in there I'll find time to get a copy of the revised rules.
 



Khorod said:
Warn people off from the Tech-Specialist. A couple levels is okay, but otherwise its really an NPC sort of class.
Despite hearing many people say this, I've seen multiple Tech Specialists in play that really are the core of the group. Combat? Of course not! They aren't combatants! But they can do anything from doctor to mechanic to slicer...all very good roles in the party.
 

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
Despite hearing many people say this, I've seen multiple Tech Specialists in play that really are the core of the group. Combat? Of course not! They aren't combatants! But they can do anything from doctor to mechanic to slicer...all very good roles in the party.

As long as the players of said PCs are happy with that role (which, I agree, can be a cool role). If players recognize that:
a) the Tech Specialist is going to be weak in combat (worse BAB progression than any other PC class, weak saves)
b) the TS is meant to really specialize in a couple of areas (the class doesn't get a ton of skill points, though most TS PCs have high Int, which counterbalanaces that), rather than be a master of tons of skills

...they can have a blast.
 

Star Wars is a genre where the PCs can do a little tech stuff, and a droid in the corner (or a hired specialist) does the rest. It can be a playable class, but it presses against the genre a little. Particularly computer tech-specs. Star Wars is not supposed to be a game where Hackers are gods, but based on the rules, a hero Tech-Spec hacker can do a lot.

From the GM perspective, I'd rather attach a droid to the group to be that specialist. Seeing the PC in action, well, the player figured +18 was enough in Computer Use at 2nd level or so, and wanted to have fun in the swashbuckling that the universe is about.

You can certainly play the class.
 

Remove ads

Top