Star Wars: Saga Edition

[virgil]

I'm curious to hear your opinion on the upcoming Star Wars revision to their d20 rules. There are some previews going on, 5 sneak peaks so far (with a little bit from their Jedi Counseling too). Here is where you can see the most recent stuff.

I played a little bit of the 'normal' d20 SW stuff, and it was about like playing normal D&D, only without spells and people died more often.

[Catharz]

As usual, it looks to have some good point and some bad points. I think many of the oogd points have already been discussed.

The new Reflex/Fortitude/Will thing is better than D&D's distinction between saves and AC. It also seems that you don't realy have to invest in it, which avoids the offence specialization problem. Unfortunately, you also are no longer able to make a lucky escape: It's always just an inept shot.
I think SAME would have been better (see HP below, also adding armor to reflex defense), but I may just be biased.

That they've removed dumb prerequisite feats (their example of Spring Attack only requiring Dexterity 13) is a relief. They've also given more feats in general.

They've also gotten rid of BAB-based attacks (and possibly extra attacks, period). This looks to be a good thing too.


Unfortunately the HP system sounds just as bad (or worse) as it was. One of the instances where the could really have benefited from implimenting a more SAME-like system, and didn't.

Over all though, they're doing pretty well in terms of SAME-like mechanics. The best part is that improving it towards that lofty goal will be almost trivialy easy.


The propagation of swift actions is a little lame, but what are you gonna do.

[Artless]

We'll just have to wait and see.

It seems like the dev's are using this as another beta test for what ideas they might use for 4th edition.

What's been released has at least reconciled what I've disliked about the d20 portfolio; chiefly the skill consolidation and flavorless base classes. I liked the way d20 Modern handled the latter, even though most of the choices presented were fuctionally retarded.

[micah]

The system seems to be designed with at least a vague awareness that diverging bonuses are problematic, which is good.

They got rid of the critical-threat mechanic, which is slightly bad.

The "take n swift actions to do stuff" thing is weird--I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I tentatively approve of the death mechanic (subject to possible stupidity regarding how it interacts with the growth rate of damage thresholds), but am agnostic about damage threshold stuff in general.

[bitnine]

Well, parts of this are very interesting. It goes so far as to sound like a cogent design mindset that might have seen some playtesting, swift action abundance notwithstanding. (I dunno, maybe that'll pan out great, but it sounds sort of odd to me at the moment, so I want to see more of what they're doing with that.) I wonder if that will fully bear out through implementation, or if we'll see some glaring things like boosts/rerolls combining with antisave or die effects and the like.

It is interesting to think that if you run up and whack someone in the face if they don't stop to clear their head, their powers will be a little less effective or more likely to fail. I don't think that the new system will probably take it far enough, but bringing damage closer to something that someone may actually care about at higher levels feels like a step in the right direction to me.

Actually, you don't have to go too far to be a step in the right direction, do you? I mean, "Sort of seems like these guys maybe possibly perhaps played (or even playtested!) a game or two above level 10," is a giant leap in the right direction, which is admittedly sort of sad.

[ckafrica]

Just wanted to bump this thread as I' m hoping to get a rundown of it if anyone actually bothers to pick it up. I live in Vietnam so the nearest RPG shop is a bit of a trek. Especially interested in the skill system they hinted at on the website

[RandomCasualty]

I kind of like the swift action thing, I've always thought swifts should be an action for everyone, not just a spellcaster thing.

The one attack with increased damage is problematic, and I'm not sure if I like it or not, as it greatly reduces the impact of abilities like DR and increases the entropy of the game by having concealment be a complete all-or-nothing affair. Most players kind of liked having more than one attack, of course four was pretty excessive.

I'm not sure if I like the new save system either. For the purposes of reroll powers and such, I think I'd rather have the benefit go to the defender, rather than the attacker.

Also the fact that they're keeping the HP system was rather disappointing.

[ckafrica]

Well saves are basically reverse AC anyways. Instead of mages rolling to hit you get to roll to defend. I just get casters to roll a d20 add the lvl and ability bonus and apply it to save + 10 against monsters anyway, saves on me rolling for loads of them and they get to roll instead. Less dice the DM rolls the better in my books.

HPs need a rework of some sort but Damage threshold they are talking about is good in my books though if only lightsaber damage goes up it will only matter for crits and jedis.

I just hope they fix the force because it was fvckt in the last ED.

[User3]

I just hope they fix the force because it was fvckt in the last ED.

Amazon just gave me my copy.

There is one skill called Use The Force, and you learn powers you can use with that skill by taking feats. Each feat gives you 1+WIS mod Force powers. I like this system better.

[User3]

So who all has read through the book, and if so what did they think?

[Crissa]

You think the armor as DR instead of AC is a usable transport directly to D&D?

-Crissa

[virgil]

There's a review concerning that particular house rule for Unearthed Arcana somewhere on these forums; and I believe the consensus was that the intended amounts they give were paltry at best compared to what you lose.

I read through most of the book, Saga, and I have the impression that if you don't have the Force then you still stink; but that's an initial assessment and I could be missing something awesome and not noticing.

Diverging bonii are still there, but not on the same level, and actually requires effort to do so rather than just being better by virtue of class.

Oh, and the game seems to emphasize combat where the players drastically outmatch their opponents for a more 'cinematic' feel.

[Cielingcat]

If you look at it like this, Armor and DR are impossible to balance. AC gives you a flat reduction in the amount of attacks that hit you, while DR reduces the damage you take from those hits; unless everyone does the same damage, you can't balance those.

[Catharz]

1181783337[/unixtime]]If you look at it like this, Armor and DR are impossible to balance. AC gives you a flat reduction in the amount of attacks that hit you, while DR reduces the damage you take from those hits; unless everyone does the same damage, you can't balance those.

Impossible might be too strong a word, as it's one of the basic assumptions of SAME.

[Cielingcat]

I mean that you can't balance DR with AC bonuses, not that you can't have armor give DR and be balanced. The former is impossible because the math doesn't work, the second is totally easy to do.

[Crissa]

So to do it, you need to rework the cost of ther things - like spells - which give AC normally.

Otherwise they'd be unbalanced in a system in which worn armor gives DR...

...But I don't see how that's 'impossible'.

-Crissa

[Cielingcat]

No, spells aren't the problem-it's that DR is a flat reduction while AC is a percentage reduction.

[Username17]

Yeah, the only reason that works in SAME is that Hit Points are defined as a percentage, thus retroactively making a flat reduction in damage equal to a percentage reduction in damage.

If Hit Points float, those numbers are not the same kind of number. You're comparing vectors to scalars.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I see how they're different. Didn't need that explained four times.

I don't see how this is a problem.

To change many AC bonuses means you're merely making edge combat more deadly, and lower level combat less deadly to certain sorts of armor. This is a broad change to the game - you don't want to be giving out AC bonuses, obviously, in replacement of DR bonuses instead, because AC bonuses are almost always better.

However, wouldn't this allow for bringing the attack/AC variable within the twenty-point spread of the die for longer, thereby extendign the game's lifetime?

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

In other news. I've been looking here and there through the new star wars book.

I'm not liking it.

Seriously there are like NINE MILLION talents that basically do nothing but +1 to attack or defence.

Thats pretty forgettable.

The prestige classes are pretty much hard wired to only enter as your 8th to 13th level MINIMUM of a boring highly restricted build (a single level of ANYTHING else on your jedi puts you at least a level further away from entering Jedi Knight)

Its not d20 modern, its not d20 modern on steroids, its d20 modern on horse tranquilizers.

Oh, and skills are STUPID. especially the ones that match up against peoples defence scores. Invest a class skill and a feat and have an extra +10 at level one, which makes you powerful!, until you still have the same extra +10 by level 20 when you feel weak...

[ckafrica]

Oh, and skills are STUPID. especially the ones that match up against peoples defence scores. Invest a class skill and a feat and have an extra +10 at level one, which makes you powerful!, until you still have the same extra +10 by level 20 when you feel weak...

Not that I've seen the book but this was my big concern with the skill system, you max out your bonus at level 1 and that's it folks. I like the idea of not having to place your skill points but getting everything up front doesn't make sense either

Seriously there are like NINE MILLION talents that basically do nothing but +1 to attack or defence.

But would the Talent system tend to work as a way of customizing characters without needing to have a new class for everything? If good talents were designed, would the mechanism allow to make the character you want?

[PhoneLobster]

My big concern with the skill system is as stated, you start out with skills that will be somewhat ahead of opposition (defenses early game are likely to be in the fifteens or under, a force stun or lightning jedi should be walking in with bonuses that big...) then they end up falling behind because the non static part of the bonus advances at half the rate of other scaling bonuses it has to compare against like those on attacks and defences.

But would the Talent system tend to work as a way of customizing characters without needing to have a new class for everything? If good talents were designed, would the mechanism allow to make the character you want?

The talent system will not work.

Could A talent system work? Maybe, I mean hey, take options that do stuff, yeah that sounds fine. But with the example of talents as written?

I mean on the one hand you get talents that add +1 to defence IF you spend a standard action to do so. And those are supposed to be equal to a talent that lets you make free action skill checks against attack rolls to nullify attacks. There is a high level "talent" you can only give to a jedi knight after jumping through numerous hoops such that you MUST have 7 levels of Jedi to qualify at all and it allows you, get this, to cut peoples arms off, IF you can knock them unconcsious/kill them (because you know, prior to 8 levels of character advancement you couldn't emulate that mighty power by knocking them unconcious/killing them and then putting the hurt on them while they were down...) Meanwhile other high level and conditional talents give you, well, things that actually DO something at all, though you still might not notice them...

Its all, hey, feats weren't restricted, inconsistent and weak enough, they needed something else that was like that only more so, and they found its corpse in D20 modern, they didn't bother reviving it, they just wacked on some lipstick and sold it to the public.

No, the talent system as presented balances the just barely OK with the completely irrelevant and pretends thats a system, you can't work from that, its so bad it taints the name "Talent" to the point that if you do your optional selectable class feature thing you shouldn't call it by the same name because people will shun your work for fear of the influence of Star Wars Modern.

Oh yeah. And as part of the talent system, they nerfed sneak attack. But hey, as far as I can tell this star wars edition may as well be titled "Star Wars: Nerf Edition" All the fun of fun until someone puts an eye out, only without the fun, but possibly still with the eye loss.

[RandomCasualty]

1181874737[/unixtime]]
Oh, and skills are STUPID. especially the ones that match up against peoples defence scores. Invest a class skill and a feat and have an extra +10 at level one, which makes you powerful!, until you still have the same extra +10 by level 20 when you feel weak...

Well, your skills scale by level don't they?

So you should stay competitive.

Oh yeah. And as part of the talent system, they nerfed sneak attack.

What'd they do to SA?

[PhoneLobster]

Well, your skills scale by level don't they?

So you should stay competitive.

Skills scale by level but alternately kick ass or don't stay competitive at all.

Because they scale at 1/2x level. While regular attacks and defences scale by 1x level.

Its probably no coincidence that the extra points training and focus add are the same ten points that are missing by level 20 but the thing is you can add those missing points on AT LEVEL ONE.

So in early game a character that invests high in shooty gets an attack bonus of about +7ish. against defences of about + 15ish. And a person investing high in using a skill as an attack, like a jedi can, is attacking at +16ish.

Of course then there are the nine million boring plus one talents from various sources, I'd need to draw a diagram to figure out precisely how many of those stack or not and how many actions worth of nobles and jedi standing behind you yelling "kill'em" would be required or reasonable, but at a glance it seems that as levels go up you are more likely to be stacking a few of those onto attack and defence rather than on skills by the rarity or restrictions of the talents/feats etc...

What'd they do to SA?

Aside from requiring a talent everytime you take it (so you can get as many as 1 dice per two levels of scoundrel but you then can't ever have anything else nice without losing out on dice) it also only seems to work on denied dex, I couldn't find anything about getting it on flanking.

So surprise only (pretty much), but you get about as punished as you possibly can be as a multiclasser to try and combine levels of scout for improved hiding, with levels of scoundrel for sneak attack stuff, with levels of jedi for the only hide while observed ability.

[Artless]

From the time I had with the book before I handed it off to my resident Star Wars nerd to run a game, I can safely say that the talents written are worse than feat trees.

Talents are supposed to be replacing class features. So why aren't they crazy-go-nuts instead of the transparent equivalent of another feat?

In other news, there are like, 4 feats that you use to increase your damage by 1 die. 1 die. With a lightsaber, that's 4.5 points. In a game where everybody starts out with a shitload of HP and continue to get better and better at not getting hit all the time because the offensive talents are shit.

There's a skimpy list of Force powers, and that list grows even shorter when you hack off the useless ones. Slam, Stun and the "fear" use of Mind Trick are the only things you will ever need in your entire career. You can seriously take Force Training like once, and have everything you'll ever need to win the goddamn game.