D&D 4E What Star Wars Saga E. features would you like to see incorporated in 4E D&D and why?

[comrade raoul]

All of them. I'm really impressed.

As far as I'm concerned, AD&D : 3e :: 3e: Saga Edition. From what I've seen so far, it's that good.

 

[comrade raoul]

I forgot about the removal of iterative attacks. I like the idea of replacing iterative attacks with a flat bonus to damage in principle, but am bit worried about the effect this will have on fighters and other warrior types. Spellcasters get exponential power-increases with level, and iterative attacks provided a form of quasi-exponential power increases with level for warriors too. If this is removed and all classes get a flat per level damage bonus, the relative power of warrior-types will suffer, unless they are compensated with some other benefits. Hence, I like this one in principle, but care must be taken so that warrior classes retain some major advantages in their field: combat.

The other side of this could be that the power curve for spellcasters would get flatter, too. There are good reasons to like flatter power curves, in general: characters can develop organically, over time, and their abilities can improve in ways that make fewer of their older abilities obsolete. And, if characters of different levels were closer in power, DMs would have more freedom about the kind of challenges they posed.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Roman matey!

I really like the skill system, but I suppose anything would be an improvement over the current jumble.

Some of the other stuff has potential, although I am not sure about their solution to iterative attacks. I think from what little I know, Castles & Crusades solution to multiple attacks (whereby all attacks take the same penalty) seems to be the way forward.

 

[Gold Roger]

I'm a big, big, big fan of the removal of iterative attacks/full attacks. I wanted to see them removed for some time now. Way to boring, way to static, way to much damage.

Basically, everything they did to shorten individual rounds, while lengthening the actual combats.

I'm indifferent to changes like defenses, new skill system and triple hd at first level. They seem fine, but I need to see them in action first.

I'm not a fan of the condition track, seems way to much effort for gain to me.

 

[scourger]

I'll have to wait & see. I like the idea of making things simpler and SWSE looks like it's ont he right track. But, some things like condition tracking and talent trees seem to make more bookeeping work instead of less. I'll get the book, read it & then decide.

 

[Droogie]

I forgot about the removal of iterative attacks. I like the idea of replacing iterative attacks with a flat bonus to damage in principle, but am bit worried about the effect this will have on fighters and other warrior types. Spellcasters get exponential power-increases with level, and iterative attacks provided a form of quasi-exponential power increases with level for warriors too. If this is removed and all classes get a flat per level damage bonus, the relative power of warrior-types will suffer, unless they are compensated with some other benefits. Hence, I like this one in principle, but care must be taken so that warrior classes retain some major advantages in their field: combat.

Maybe there will be a "combat bonus" in 4e? Maybe mages would only get an attack bonus = half their level and a dmg bonus = 1/4 level?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can only go by the things I have read so far online, as I don't own the book, and most likely won't get it, either.

The concepts of the new skill system I do like.
If they're really good when they design the 4th edition, they will manage to fit BAB, Saves and Spellcasting into this advancement type, too (provided they just aim for a simplified approach).
Basically, the new skill system is a kind of Base Attack Bonus system for skills, and I like the idea. I would prefer three types of advancement (maybe 1/2, 3/4 and full level as bonus) instead of just two, but that's details.
The only reasonable alternative would be to make everything a skill, and I don't think that would do D&D (as we know and hack & slash it) any good.


I don't think the damage track should or needs to be incorporated, even though I like the mechanics. If they want to keep the 5d6-206d6 fireballs along with 2d6 greatswords, the system won't work as well as it might do in Starwars.

Triple hitpoints at 1st level are only needed if you regular 1st level attacks deal 3dx points of damage instead of 1dx. Still, it might not be such a bad idea. (After all, in 3.x, you still got quadruple skillpoints, why not triple hit dice?)

I like the idea of having all types of defense being a DC, including the saves. I am not convinced that using Reflex for AC is such a good idea, but armor class/defense rules are always hard to do well.

 

[Reaper Steve]

I like everything advertised about SWSE so far and would love to see it as the basis for 4e.

A few minor points:
1. I am a huge fan of the new skill system. After some thought (mainly because I can't think of a better alternative) I can even accept Sense Motive as part of Perception. (SM is too narrow to stand alone and it doesn't fit under any other broad catergory, so Perception is it.)
2. I've never liked hit points, but now that attack, defense, and damage, scale with level, they suddenly make more sense. I like the condition track, but it looks like Threshold may be a little high... characters will run out of HP before they progress through all the conditions.
3. I love how defense goes up with level, but I don't like the SWSE armor rules. I understand the design from a SW flavor perspective, but that won't fit w/ D&D. For D&D, I think that armor should provide DR, with the offset being a penalty to Defense, attack, and physical skills.

The triple hit dice at first level is really nice and will make the hit point progression flatter, while making low level characters less vulnerable. This is great and again I would love to see it in the 4th Edition of D&D. A minor nitpick is that I would also allow triple constitution bonus to count here. A somewhat bigger nitpick is that I think the first two hit dice should be racial, rather than class, hit dice (but with class skills of the class). This would avoid Barbarian 4/Wizard 4 being automatically better than Wizard 4/Barbarian 4, since the Barbarian has higher hit dice, so choosing this class first will give a better triple hit die, while starting with a wizard does not present any advantage.

4. I agree. I made a houserule like this a while back. All characters and monsters get a racial hit die before any levels. For humans, that was a d8. So, a first level human character got 8+Con and max class hit die + Con.

I've already decided that my next D&D game will be a version of SWSE as opposed to 3.5

 

[Greg K]

The talent trees for classes (I like them in d20Modern) and maybe the force system (for psionics). I think there is something else that I might be forgeting, but I don't recall what it is. So, there is not very much. Then, I am not impressed with the majority of Star wars changes that have been mentioned. I'd rather more d20modern and third pary ideas be brought over to dnd including:

1) True20 toughness save
2) The Brawl, Combat MA and Defensive MA chains from d20 Modern
3) Allegiances from d20 Modern
4) d20 Modern class defense
5) Book of Iron Might combat maneuvers
5) Blood and Fists style for martial arts
6) elements of magic: Mythic Earth for magic
7) Armor as DR

 

[WayneLigon]

Some of the ideas sound cool, but we don't have the whole story yet. I'd like to see at least some of the ideas make it into 4E if even as options mentioned in the core books, if such things would translate well to a quicker resolution to combat or character creation. Whether these changes will work well in play is something we can't know until we have the complete book.