Sword and Sorcery Saga v. 1.02 and NEW Adventure Conversion!

[The_Gneech]

Hey John,

I've got some questions for you regarding the upcoming v2 of your S&S Saga conversion:

1) Would you be able to give me some sort of summary of the changes you're making with v2? What aspects of 4e are you adding to the conversion? What other changes are you making? Will you be fleshing out your prestige classes?

The only aspect of 4E I have in mind to move directly over is the XP Budget system, which I've already done here.

The general list of changes I have in mind:

• Revamp the races. The Horse Lords are underpowered and rather dull by comparison, and I'll probably remove negative stat mods and just go with bonuses.
• Change favored class to give you +1 hp/level of favored class, rather than an extra talent.
• Give the spells another pass at editing to find ways to simplify them; hopefully add a few more.
• Revise weapon and armor stats/rules. This part will also be in the monster doc, which will probably be done by the end of the coming weekend.

I probably won't address the prestige classes this time around, but will do them as a separate document later.

2) I'm not very familiar with "low magic" fantasies like Conan the Barbarian. I take it, though, that there aren't really magic items in these settings. How would you suggest I go about adding magic items to the Saga system?

ValhallahGH expressed it pretty well -- there are magic items, but they tend to be a lot less common and a lot more powerful -- sorta skipping the "+1 dagger" phase and jumping straight to the "artifact" phase. They also tend to not stick around very long.

Small-scale healing potions and the like can easily be put in; beyond that, when it comes to magic items, try to come up with neat and funky effects rather than numerical bonuses. For a weapon or armor, I wouldn't go above a +1 bonus -- the system is already scaled to balance without magic items. Instead, things like a gem of true seeing or a carpet of flying should be the kind of thing to look for.

3) Does the "clerical investment" scholar talent provide any mechanical benefit? I don't really see the point of it ...

No, it's a social benefit. It makes you a vested priest of an established church, which usually confers some authority and access to resources.

4) I'm curious as to your choice of prerequisites for some things ... for instance, why does the spell curse of the long death require the Remove Poison talent? Also, why did you choose to put minimum level requirements on some talents? AFAIK, there are no talents in SWSE that do this (although there is one Jedi talent that has a minimum BAB requirement). Just wondering why you chose to deviate from the SWSE standard?

I'd have to look at it again, but IIRC curse of the long death has Remove Poison as a prerequisite, because Remove Poison is a prerequisite of Brew Poison.

The minimum level prerequisites, as I recall, were usually for play balance, or because a certain talent didn't "feel right" below a given level. Again, I'd have to look at the specific talent to say.

5) How compatible/incompatible is 4e with the Saga d20 system? If I were to go with a fantasy-themed Saga conversion (whether it be yours or some other one), I would still like to be able to use 4e - particularly the monsters and magic items. The only stumbling blocks I can think of are AC and 30 vs 20 levels (as I realize that 4e isn't just the old 20 levels with another 10 stacked on top). The question is: how much of a stumbling block are those two things? Could I just take a 4e monster and just use their Reflex or would that mess things up? Could I just treat their AC as their Reflex score? And could I take a Saga class and tack another 10 levels onto it using the same progression and not have it mess things up too much? I'm not sure you can answer all of these questions, but I thought I'd put them out there anyway. Perhaps it would be best if I started a new thread on this topic.

It's not directly compatible at all; you'd be better off using 3.5 materials, which can be converted on-the-fly by flipping the saving throws to defense scores. (Again, the monster doc will have guidelines for this.)

I haven't examined how Saga will perform past 20th level, but it should be viable. There will be a slightly larger discrepancy between attacks and defenses, particularly for characters with the 3/4 BAB, but it won't completely break the way 3E does.

-The Gneech

 

[pukunui]

I'll probably remove negative stat mods and just go with bonuses.

That's a 4e thing, isn't it?

Change favored class to give you +1 hp/level of favored class, rather than an extra talent.

I've never liked the whole favored class thing anyway, so I'll most likely drop it just like they did with the actual SWSE rules.

Give the spells another pass at editing to find ways to simplify them; hopefully add a few more.

I was just looking at a few of them and I was wondering about "attack action". I assume that means you have to make an attack using the arcane attack bonus, but that's not really an action all of its own, is it? Should it read "standard action" or something?

On a related note, I see that some of your spells cost XP. One thing that I really like about 4e is that there is no way to lose XP any longer. If I wanted to use your system but get rid of all XP costs, what would you suggest I use instead? A monetary cost?

Revise weapon and armor stats/rules. This part will also be in the monster doc, which will probably be done by the end of the coming weekend.

Cool! Can't wait!

I probably won't address the prestige classes this time around, but will do them as a separate document later.

OK. If I do end up going with a SAGA fantasy game instead of 4e, it'll be a while before anyone needs a prestige class anyway ... and if I do need some before you've done yours, I'll probably just convert a SWSE one.

ValhallahGH expressed it pretty well -- there are magic items, but they tend to be a lot less common and a lot more powerful -- sorta skipping the "+1 dagger" phase and jumping straight to the "artifact" phase. They also tend to not stick around very long.

Yeah. That's cool. I've always loved artifacts but I've never gotten to use any in a game. The 4e ones look pretty cool. I doubt they're all that compatible with the Saga rules though.

Small-scale healing potions and the like can easily be put in; beyond that, when it comes to magic items, try to come up with neat and funky effects rather than numerical bonuses. For a weapon or armor, I wouldn't go above a +1 bonus -- the system is already scaled to balance without magic items. Instead, things like a gem of true seeing or a carpet of flying should be the kind of thing to look for.

Yeah, I don't like standard +x items anyway. It's the flaming in flaming sword that I like. Have you got any guidelines for potions? I know you've got that some of the spells can be turned into potions, but I don't see anything about healing potions (in fact, I don't really see any rules for healing at all in your pdf).

No, it's a social benefit. It makes you a vested priest of an established church, which usually confers some authority and access to resources.

OK. So it would be up to me as GM to determine if it has any mechanical benefit?

I'd have to look at it again, but IIRC curse of the long death has Remove Poison as a prerequisite, because Remove Poison is a prerequisite of Brew Poison.

OK. I see that now. My next question is thus: why does brew poison require remove poison as a prerequisite? Is that so you can't harm yourself with your own poisons? Also, do you have any rules for poisons or do you just use the 3.5 ones or something?

The minimum level prerequisites, as I recall, were usually for play balance, or because a certain talent didn't "feel right" below a given level. Again, I'd have to look at the specific talent to say.

I wonder if there's some other way to do it. I don't really like the idea of having minimum level requirements, at least not for base class talents. That is part of what I like about the SWSE talents -- that they don't have things like minimum level requirements. It's much more open-ended that way.

It's not directly compatible at all; you'd be better off using 3.5 materials, which can be converted on-the-fly by flipping the saving throws to defense scores. (Again, the monster doc will have guidelines for this.)

I was afraid you'd say that.

I'd be willing to consider using 3.5 classes that have been converted to talent-tree classes that use the Saga system in all other respects. But I would be hesitant to use anything else from 3.5, particularly the overly complicated monsters with their horrible statblocks and the overly complicated combat resolution mechanics. I seriously came to loathe 3.5 towards the end ... The primary reason I like 4e is that it's so much easier to DM - both in terms of the complexity of combat and the complexity and formatting of monsters and their statblocks. If only the 4e classes were the same ... but instead of simplifying them as well, they've only gone and made them more complex!

I haven't examined how Saga will perform past 20th level, but it should be viable. There will be a slightly larger discrepancy between attacks and defenses, particularly for characters with the 3/4 BAB, but it won't completely break the way 3E does.

Good to know.

 

[The_Gneech]

That's a 4e thing, isn't it?

True.

I was just looking at a few of them and I was wondering about "attack action". I assume that means you have to make an attack using the arcane attack bonus, but that's not really an action all of its own, is it? Should it read "standard action" or something?

It should be standard action, yes. One of the reasons I'm revising S&S Saga is because it was my first attempt and I was still learning the system, so there's a lot of stuff like that in there.

On a related note, I see that some of your spells cost XP. One thing that I really like about 4e is that there is no way to lose XP any longer. If I wanted to use your system but get rid of all XP costs, what would you suggest I use instead? A monetary cost?

The main purpose of XP costs is to make it REALLY expensive for PCs to cast a spell, in a way that hurts. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep high-level characters from wishing themselves crazy-high stats and so forth. XP is the one thing that players really hate to give up. Treasure? Pfah. Hit points? No problem! XP? Aaaah!

So if you don't want to charge XP, you're going to have to find something equally valuable for them to give up. The only real option I can see that comes close is ability scores, which are even more valuable. You can get new XP by slaying orcs. You can only get ability scores by slaying enough orcs to go up four levels...

Yeah. That's cool. I've always loved artifacts but I've never gotten to use any in a game. The 4e ones look pretty cool. I doubt they're all that compatible with the Saga rules though.

I haven't looked much at the 4E artifacts, so I can't really say. It might be that if you get rid of the plusses and just keep the wonky effects, they'd work.

Have you got any guidelines for potions? I know you've got that some of the spells can be turned into potions, but I don't see anything about healing potions (in fact, I don't really see any rules for healing at all in your pdf).

S&S Saga uses the same healing rules as SWSE for the most part. A healing potion would probably be equivalent to a SWSE medpack. Some of the creatures in the monster doc have potions of a sort, which are written up thus:

Healing Draught The lizardfolk witch doctor carries a flask of healing draught. As a standard action, the witch doctor can drink it or administer it to an ally; whoever drinks the healing draught immediately regains 1d8+3 hit points and moves +1 step on the condition track. (The healing draught is difficult to make and doesn’t retain its potency for long, so the witch doctor generally only has one available during any given encounter.)

Alternatively, you could say that one use of a healing potion confers a free second wind or the benefits of the Indomitable talent, or something similar.

OK. So it would be up to me as GM to determine if it has any mechanical benefit?

Pretty much. The role of priests varies wildly from campaign to campaign. In a Conan-esque campaign, they're more likely to be the badguys and get a sword up the gullet, while in a Robin Hood campaign even the lowliest brigand would think twice before attacking Friar Tuck.

OK. I see that now. My next question is thus: why does brew poison require remove poison as a prerequisite? Is that so you can't harm yourself with your own poisons? Also, do you have any rules for poisons or do you just use the 3.5 ones or something?

That was the idea, yes. Generally speaking, learning how to administer antidotes is more basic and widespread knowledge than learning precisely how to brew poisons. The rules for poison, such as they are, are the same as in SWSE -- generally an attack against Fort defense that either moves the target down the condition track, or confers some condition such as blind or slowed. (Fairly similar to the 4E method, as I understand it.) There's some more info on poisons in the monster doc as well.

I wonder if there's some other way to do it. I don't really like the idea of having minimum level requirements, at least not for base class talents. That is part of what I like about the SWSE talents -- that they don't have things like minimum level requirements. It's much more open-ended that way.

To get away from that model, actually, for the 3.5 conversion I've been giving some of the more magical abilities a minimum AAB requirement; as every class gets AAB, even though some get it slower than others, this provides flexibility while still keeping some of the more overpowering abilities in the "gotta earn it" category.

I was afraid you'd say that.

I'd be willing to consider using 3.5 classes that have been converted to talent-tree classes that use the Saga system in all other respects. But I would be hesitant to use anything else from 3.5, particularly the overly complicated monsters with their horrible statblocks and the overly complicated combat resolution mechanics. I seriously came to loathe 3.5 towards the end ... The primary reason I like 4e is that it's so much easier to DM - both in terms of the complexity of combat and the complexity and formatting of monsters and their statblocks. If only the 4e classes were the same ... but instead of simplifying them as well, they've only gone and made them more complex!

Converting them to talent trees was the first step for my 3E conversion; that part was fairly easy. It's just the spells that are slowing me down now.

Instinctive Reaction Talent Tree
Acute Senses Reroll any Perception check, but you must take the second result even if it’s worse.
Improved Initiative Reroll any Initiative check, but you must take the second result even if it’s worse.
Improved Uncanny Dodge You cannot be flanked. Prerequisite: Uncanny Dodge.
Trap Sense You gain a +1 bonus to Ref defense against attacks made by traps or hazards. Trap sense bonuses gained from multiple classes stack. This talent may be taken multiple times, up to a total of +6. Prerequisite: Uncanny Dodge.
Uncanny Dodge You retain your Dexterity bonus to Ref defense (if any) even if caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, you still lose your Dexterity bonus if immobilized or helpless.

As far as other game elements, take a look at the monster doc when it's done and let me know what you think. Keep in mind that some of the stat blocks in the monster doc will seem quite long because they've got the rules associated with a power in question right on them. (Things like "swallow whole" and "petrifying gaze" have been streamlined as best I can, but still take a good-sized paragraph to summarize.)

-The Gneech

 

[pukunui]

It should be standard action, yes. One of the reasons I'm revising S&S Saga is because it was my first attempt and I was still learning the system, so there's a lot of stuff like that in there.

OK cool.

Just curious as to where you got some of your spells -- are they from the Conan and Grim Tales games? They certainly don't look like 3.5 spells (and they don't - for the most part - look like Force powers ...). Did you just make some/all of them up from scratch?

The main purpose of XP costs is to make it REALLY expensive for PCs to cast a spell, in a way that hurts. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep high-level characters from wishing themselves crazy-high stats and so forth. XP is the one thing that players really hate to give up. Treasure? Pfah. Hit points? No problem! XP? Aaaah!

Fair enough. I guess the way they solved that issue with 4e was by simply removing things like wish altogether.

So if you don't want to charge XP, you're going to have to find something equally valuable for them to give up. The only real option I can see that comes close is ability scores, which are even more valuable. You can get new XP by slaying orcs. You can only get ability scores by slaying enough orcs to go up four levels...

Hmm. This is something I'll have to think about some more ...

I haven't looked much at the 4E artifacts, so I can't really say. It might be that if you get rid of the plusses and just keep the wonky effects, they'd work.

Essentially, they've made some "low-level" artifacts that you can put into your game earlier, so they're not all epic-level things. Also, every artifact is more or less intelligent, with its own goals and personality, and each one also has a concordance score. If you do stuff that it likes, your score goes up, and you unlock more of the artifact's abilities. If you do things that it doesn't like, the score goes down and it eventually tries to rid itself of you. Even if it likes you, though, it'll eventually leave.

S&S Saga uses the same healing rules as SWSE for the most part. A healing potion would probably be equivalent to a SWSE medpack. Some of the creatures in the monster doc have potions of a sort, which are written up thus:

OK. I think I would need to have some sort of healing potion that actually healed hit points. The healing in SWSE is the biggest thing that my group doesn't like about the rules. They would demand that I at least give them healing potions.

Alternatively, you could say that one use of a healing potion confers a free second wind or the benefits of the Indomitable talent, or something similar.

I could make healing potions that do these things as well as ones that heal hit points, too, couldn't I?

Pretty much. The role of priests varies wildly from campaign to campaign. In a Conan-esque campaign, they're more likely to be the badguys and get a sword up the gullet, while in a Robin Hood campaign even the lowliest brigand would think twice before attacking Friar Tuck.

Seems to me like in that context, "priest" should just be a roleplaying thing. I don't really see the point of having a mechanical feature (eg. a talent) that confers no obvious mechanical benefit.

I do, however, like the idea of priests largely being noncombatants. I've always kind of felt like clerics and paladins overlap as "holy warriors". There should be one or the other.

That was the idea, yes. Generally speaking, learning how to administer antidotes is more basic and widespread knowledge than learning precisely how to brew poisons.

OK. That makes sense.

The rules for poison, such as they are, are the same as in SWSE -- generally an attack against Fort defense that either moves the target down the condition track, or confers some condition such as blind or slowed. (Fairly similar to the 4E method, as I understand it.) There's some more info on poisons in the monster doc as well.

I didn't even know there were poisons in SWSE. Shows how much I know! EDIT: That's because they're in the GM's chapter and I hadn't ever looked at it before just now. Most of those things could be ported quite nicely over to fantasy ... off the top of my head, the only stuff that's "missing" is the other sorts of energy damage (electricity, sonic, cold).

To get away from that model, actually, for the 3.5 conversion I've been giving some of the more magical abilities a minimum AAB requirement; as every class gets AAB, even though some get it slower than others, this provides flexibility while still keeping some of the more overpowering abilities in the "gotta earn it" category.

That's a good idea and there is one precedent for it in the SWSE rules (there's a jedi talent that requires a minimum BAB).

Converting them to talent trees was the first step for my 3E conversion; that part was fairly easy. It's just the spells that are slowing me down now.

I'd only be interested in the classes, I think. Maybe the spells but I don't know.

As far as other game elements, take a look at the monster doc when it's done and let me know what you think. Keep in mind that some of the stat blocks in the monster doc will seem quite long because they've got the rules associated with a power in question right on them. (Things like "swallow whole" and "petrifying gaze" have been streamlined as best I can, but still take a good-sized paragraph to summarize.)

To be honest, the length of the statblock isn't such an issue. What I really hated about 3.5 statblocks was that they were essentially a wall of text and they can't be used as-is unless you've memorized all the rules because special abilities, spells, feats, immunities, and the like aren't listed in the statblock so you end up having to look stuff up all over the place. The nice thing about 4e statblocks is that everything is spelled out right there in the statblock so you don't have to look stuff up elsewhere in order to run a monster.


EDIT: With regard to switching to giving races only bonuses to stats instead of penalties ... I wonder how compatible the 4e races would be with the Saga rules? Racial encounter powers aside, it seems like they could work fairly well. I like the idea of having several different races of humans, but I don't know if I can manage without dwarves, elves and halflings. I also can't decide whether I prefer the old way or the new way of doing racial stats. The new way clearly has fewer balance issues, but at the same time, I like the idea that some creatures are worse at things as well as better ...


EDIT AGAIN: Would it work to take something like a stun grenade and reskin it as a thunderstone, or would it be too powerful? I was just thinking that something like that could be used with the condition track in mind.

 

[The_Gneech]

OK cool.

Just curious as to where you got some of your spells -- are they from the Conan and Grim Tales games? They certainly don't look like 3.5 spells (and they don't - for the most part - look like Force powers ...). Did you just make some/all of them up from scratch?

They're mostly my own creation, based on spells I remembered from Howard, Leiber, or Lovecraft, and/or Ray Harryhousen movies.

OK. I think I would need to have some sort of healing potion that actually healed hit points. The healing in SWSE is the biggest thing that my group doesn't like about the rules. They would demand that I at least give them healing potions.

I could make healing potions that do these things as well as ones that heal hit points, too, couldn't I?

Sure, no reason why you couldn't. The main reason S&S Saga doesn't is because it's a harsher implied setting.

Seems to me like in that context, "priest" should just be a roleplaying thing. I don't really see the point of having a mechanical feature (eg. a talent) that confers no obvious mechanical benefit.

I do, however, like the idea of priests largely being noncombatants. I've always kind of felt like clerics and paladins overlap as "holy warriors". There should be one or the other.

You could always give priests the ability to reroll Persuasion checks, to represent the "added weight" of their social status when it comes to haggling, intimidation, etc.

To be honest, the length of the statblock isn't such an issue. What I really hated about 3.5 statblocks was that they were essentially a wall of text and they can't be used as-is unless you've memorized all the rules because special abilities, spells, feats, immunities, and the like aren't listed in the statblock so you end up having to look stuff up all over the place. The nice thing about 4e statblocks is that everything is spelled out right there in the statblock so you don't have to look stuff up elsewhere in order to run a monster.

Saga Edition statblocks can still sometimes be a wall of text. Check out Emperor Palpatine's stat block sometime! But hopefully it's more useful text.

With regard to switching to giving races only bonuses to stats instead of penalties ... I wonder how compatible the 4e races would be with the Saga rules? Racial encounter powers aside, it seems like they could work fairly well. I like the idea of having several different races of humans, but I don't know if I can manage without dwarves, elves and halflings. I also can't decide whether I prefer the old way or the new way of doing racial stats. The new way clearly has fewer balance issues, but at the same time, I like the idea that some creatures are worse at things as well as better ...

I don't have a lot of experience with the 4E stat block, so I can't really say. Encounter powers could be handled like a talent tree if you were so inclined.

Would it work to take something like a stun grenade and reskin it as a thunderstone, or would it be too powerful? I was just thinking that something like that could be used with the condition track in mind.

Nope, a stun grenade would be a perfectly feasible thunderstone analogue. Just crank the price up a bit!

-The Gneech

 

[pukunui]

They're mostly my own creation, based on spells I remembered from Howard, Leiber, or Lovecraft, and/or Ray Harryhousen movies.

Oh ok. I think, for my own purposes, that I'm going to start with the Star Wars Force powers and then add stuff that I feel might be missing (as well as remove any Force powers that just don't fit a fantasy setting).

Sure, no reason why you couldn't. The main reason S&S Saga doesn't is because it's a harsher implied setting.

Right. I like harsh. I loved Dark Sun back in the 2e days. However, I've never liked the "15 minute adventuring day" phenomenon, which is something my group has struggled ever since 3.5. The SWSE healing rules only seem to make it worse ... and despite WotC's claims to the contrary, 4e's healing system does nothing to alleviate the problem either.

What I want is a healing system that will enable the PCs to keep on going and going just like the Energizer Bunny ... ha ha ha.

You could always give priests the ability to reroll Persuasion checks, to represent the "added weight" of their social status when it comes to haggling, intimidation, etc.

That's an idea.

Saga Edition statblocks can still sometimes be a wall of text. Check out Emperor Palpatine's stat block sometime! But hopefully it's more useful text.

Yeah, I have seen those. That's partly why I was hoping to be able to use 4e monsters ... the 4e statblock design, with its color coding and its rules inclusiveness, is better. However, if I have to go back to the 3.5/SWSE way of doing statblocks, I'll just have to put my graphic design diploma to good use ...

Nope, a stun grenade would be a perfectly feasible thunderstone analogue. Just crank the price up a bit!

Awesome.

Hey, here's a question (I'm just brimming with them!):

How compatible would the d20 Modern books (and, more specifically, the d20 Past supplement) be with Saga? I don't know if you're at all familiar with the crpg Arcanum (one of my favs, despite its flaws -- I regret misplacing my hardcopy), but it's got a fun blend of magic and steam-punk technology. I was actually thinking of trying something similar, and I figured the d20 Past supplement would be the best source for that kind of thing (unless you can think of a better one?). Thoughts?

 

[The_Gneech]

OHow compatible would the d20 Modern books (and, more specifically, the d20 Past supplement) be with Saga? I don't know if you're at all familiar with the crpg Arcanum (one of my favs, despite its flaws -- I regret misplacing my hardcopy), but it's got a fun blend of magic and steam-punk technology. I was actually thinking of trying something similar, and I figured the d20 Past supplement would be the best source for that kind of thing (unless you can think of a better one?). Thoughts?

Should work well enough, just flip the saves to defenses and replace weapon stats as appropriate. It won't be quite "system native" but should still be usable for an encounter or what-have-you.

-The Gneech

 

[pukunui]

Should work well enough, just flip the saves to defenses and replace weapon stats as appropriate. It won't be quite "system native" but should still be usable for an encounter or what-have-you.

-The Gneech

I was actually thinking in terms of "steampunk" type equipment ... I'm only assuming that there is any in d20 Past as I don't actually have a copy of the book. I was thinking it might be fun to have some techie stuff in the game. I was also thinking of converting SWSE's droids into varying levels of constructs/warforged type creatures.

Despite the bad graphics and such, Arcanum was a fun game. I really liked the mixing of magic and Victorian-era steam engine technology (which is funny considering that I didn't really like Eberron). I suppose that's also what I liked about the old Final Fantasy III game I had for SNES. LOL.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I seem to remember d20 Past having nothing like that at all, just equipment from the actual past, despite having other things (classes, etc.) decidedly not so. Well, one might assume.

There are, however, several 3rd party sources for 'd20 steampunk', if you have a hankering for that stuff in general. Most of it will be compatible with (because based on) d20 Modern, if not SWSE of course. The Imperial Age line is one place to look, for example.

 

[pukunui]

I seem to remember d20 Past having nothing like that at all, just equipment from the actual past, despite having other things (classes, etc.) decidedly not so. Well, one might assume.

There are, however, several 3rd party sources for 'd20 steampunk', if you have a hankering for that stuff in general. Most of it will be compatible with (because based on) d20 Modern, if not SWSE of course. The Imperial Age line is one place to look, for example.

OK thanks. I'll have a look around.