PDA

View Full Version : D&D with SW Saga edition rules



Inquisitor Tremayne
12-03-2008, 01:09 PM
This has been something I have been thinking about for awhile now.

The thing I like about 3.5 is that it seems much more humble in regards to PC abilities and at the same time more realistic.

The thing I don't like about 3.5 is there is very little exciting, fun, creative abilities for the PCs unless they start taking PrCs or are a spell caster.

The thing I don't like about 4e is how super-fantastical it is, every ability has some super duper awesome name and does something kind of extreme.

The thing I do like about 4e is that PCs now have TONS of options.

What I like about SW Saga is that characters generally have basic attacks but to keep it from getting boring they have TONS of options by way of talents AND PrCs.

I also like that you get force powers by taking a feat and then getting 1+Wisdom modifier in powers and that powers are usable once per encounter, but you can get them back sometimes.

So combining the two I think something like Saga can be done.

Take the powers from 4e and turn them into talent trees and or feats.

Make Paragon and Epic paths something like PrCs.

Make spells learnable by taking the spell feat where you get 1+Wisdom, or Intelligence, or Charisma, in spells of your level. Maybe something like gain that number of spells per level or something, and each spell is usable once per encounter but you get them back by rolling a natural 20 or spending an action point.

Maybe increase the number of action points PCs get.

I really like the x+Constitution score way of determining starting hit points that 4e uses too.

I don't know, just brainstorming right now.

What does everyone think?

Webhead
12-03-2008, 01:51 PM
This has been on my brain for a while too. There would be some real promise there for sure, but it would take a lot (read A LOT) of work to plug everything in that doesn't otherwise fit the Star Wars Saga mold. Converting classes and spells is probably the biggest undertaking.

Using the "Force Training" rules for spells is an interesting idea though. There's some potential there. One thought I have about that is regarding spell assortment. In Saga, Force Powers, once selected, are fixed. You cannot change them out. Since there are FAR many more spells in D&D than Force Powers in SW, as players advance in level you would probably have to allow either 1) spell swapping, allowing players to replace "old" spells with new ones if they choose, 2) spells scalable by level, aka Burning Hands becomes Flame Arrow becomes Fireball becomes Meteor Swarm, etc. or 3) give more spells per "Training" feat.

Just some thoughts.

Windrider687
12-03-2008, 04:59 PM
A fantastic set of ideas, and something I had also been thinking of...I think Webhead's ideas in conjunction would be great too. I don't think it actually would be too big of a leap to adjust and adapt the two systems together, and I'm surprised that the Wizards folks didn't think to do something more akin to that.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-03-2008, 05:28 PM
I agree.

Given the simplicity of the monster system in 4e and the very simple nonheroic system in Saga, I don't think there would really be THAT much work for creatures that is.

i think converting class powers to some sort of scalable talent system would be the most difficult.

But simply converting the classes to the Saga talent every odd level and feat every even level would work out fine.

The armor system would need a complete overhaul though. Saga is very much geared toward no armor unless the PC invests heavily in it. Providing DR may be more the way to go with armor in Saga-4e.

keep it going! good stuff.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 10:37 AM
What do you think of making all the class features (like turn undead) into talents?

For one, our new 4e would need to give 1st level PCs more talents than a first level PC is going to get in Saga due to all the class features that D&D classes get. Although this can probably be paired down some simply by getting rid of some class features.

I would bring back Bab also and add in adding half level to damage.

Magic items would need to be significantly paired down to keep the focus on the characters and not their gear like 4e and Saga have been going for. I would keep the only use one magic item per day rule too.

I would get rid of all the attribute boosts as well.

I will try to work up the fighter and the wizard this weekend.

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 11:53 AM
What do you think of making all the class features (like turn undead) into talents?

For one, our new 4e would need to give 1st level PCs more talents than a first level PC is going to get in Saga due to all the class features that D&D classes get. Although this can probably be paired down some simply by getting rid of some class features.

I'll admit that I don't know much about SWSE, but I know a good deal about 3.5/4E. In 4E, the class features are balanced pretty well against each other and the core mechanics of the system. If you start adjusting them by allowing other classes to take them, you are fundamentally changing the balance of the system.

I'm not saying it's not possible to do, but it is something that needs to be kept in mind.


I would bring back Bab also and add in adding half level to damage.

BAB in terms of what? Iterative attacks? As a lover of 4E's design goal of a more streamlined combat system, I do not advocate bringing back BAB. It was an abusive system in 3.5e that was at the core of many broken builds. Plus, it was a mechanic that made the game slow down as you increased in power. (Ever play in a high level 3.5e game with several fighters? Each round takes longer and longer...)

Magic items would need to be significantly paired down to keep the focus on the characters and not their gear like 4e and Saga have been going for. I would keep the only use one magic item per day rule too.


I would get rid of all the attribute boosts as well.

I assume you mean attribute boosts to skills as they are in 4E? What benefit would you gain by removing them? If I assumed incorrectly, what exactly do you mean by "get rid of all the attribute boosts"?

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 12:14 PM
The thing I like about 3.5 is that it seems much more humble in regards to PC abilities and at the same time more realistic.

The thing I don't like about 3.5 is there is very little exciting, fun, creative abilities for the PCs unless they start taking PrCs or are a spell caster.

The thing I don't like about 4e is how super-fantastical it is, every ability has some super duper awesome name and does something kind of extreme.


One thing to think about when playing 4E is that all of the powers, as written, can really be fluff that is changeable. If you don't care for how flamboyant or super-power-y a power is, then change the fluff and/or description. It's the mechanics behind it that matters. Unless you don't care for the mechanics... then that's another problem.

I personally believe that it's more of a paradigm shift from prior editions. In 3.0/3.5E, when I built a 1st level character, I knew that he was a chump. A chump that could get curb stomped by the local trollop if she got a lucky hit in or two. My casters felt fragile and impotent with the lack of repeatable powers. My meleers felt uninspired and dull until I started getting into a PrC or wielding items that changed how I played my toon.

In 4E, I like -- no, I love -- how my character feels at 1st level. I feel like an adventurer walking down the road. I'm not afraid of a rock getting a lucky crit and killing my guy. I know that I've got some special attacks that separate me from the common rabble. And some of them, I can do all day long! For my casters, I don't feel pigeon-holed into using my crossbow until I can blow my load on my 1-3 spells per day and then hope that the rest of the party accepts the fact that I'm useless until I rest.

I don't mean to get into a discussion between 3.5E and 4E, but rather just to point out one of the strong merits of 4E that I feel is one of the crowning achievements of the system: the "feel" of your character, from the mechanics on up.


So combining the two I think something like Saga can be done.

Take the powers from 4e and turn them into talent trees and or feats.

I like the idea of talent trees. I think there is some of that already built into the system.

PowerName
Minimum Level; requisite feat or level
condition to use

Those things are already built into the 4E system for all of the powers. If you extract them, you can sort of build a branching tree of powers from that. Though, once you start making powers dependant upon each other, you create limitations in choices.

Even the warlock in 4E, who is bound to two static At-Wills based on their Pact choice is still able to choose any pact-based powers as they level up. It's the openness of the system that allows for creative builds that I see as a big plus; it'd be hard to retain that feel with a branching tree of powers, I'd think.


Make Paragon and Epic paths something like PrCs.

I'm not a fan of how PrCs were implemented and then expanded upon in 3rd Edition. It became the very essence of power-creep as new crunch came out. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I don't see what would be gained by merging PP/EDs with PrCs.


Make spells learnable by taking the spell feat where you get 1+Wisdom, or Intelligence, or Charisma, in spells of your level. Maybe something like gain that number of spells per level or something, and each spell is usable once per encounter but you get them back by rolling a natural 20 or spending an action point.

Maybe increase the number of action points PCs get.

Explain more about how this works. It sounds interesting. My first thought is that this adds to more powers being known earlier. There are already a bunch of options, even for a 1st-level character. Do we increase the fun by adding in more? Or do we dilute it by bogging down the pace of combat through power-choice / selection each round?


I really like the x+Constitution score way of determining starting hit points that 4e uses too.

Hell yeah! :p

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 01:46 PM
I'll admit that I don't know much about SWSE, but I know a good deal about 3.5/4E. In 4E, the class features are balanced pretty well against each other and the core mechanics of the system. If you start adjusting them by allowing other classes to take them, you are fundamentally changing the balance of the system.

Which is why I am now thinking we need to change Saga edition into D&D instead of trying to engineer 4e into Saga.

Either way, allowing other classes to gain another classes features is the point of multiclassing, and that is something that Saga does very well, multiclassing is very open and actually encouraged.



BAB in terms of what? Iterative attacks? As a lover of 4E's design goal of a more streamlined combat system, I do not advocate bringing back BAB. It was an abusive system in 3.5e that was at the core of many broken builds. Plus, it was a mechanic that made the game slow down as you increased in power. (Ever play in a high level 3.5e game with several fighters? Each round takes longer and longer...)

Heck no to iterative attacks! The Bab system in Saga works well.



I assume you mean attribute boosts to skills as they are in 4E? What benefit would you gain by removing them? If I assumed incorrectly, what exactly do you mean by "get rid of all the attribute boosts"?

I mean the +1 to 2 attributes and the +1 to all attributes at certain levels in 4e. Its this sort of thing that screams super-heroism in your fantasy game. I would actually get rid of the +1 to all attributes. It seems very arbitrary to have that mechanic in there anyway.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 02:19 PM
One thing to think about when playing 4E is that all of the powers, as written, can really be fluff that is changeable. If you don't care for how flamboyant or super-power-y a power is, then change the fluff and/or description. It's the mechanics behind it that matters. Unless you don't care for the mechanics... then that's another problem.

It has been my experience that the fluff has very little impact on the actual game at the game table. My concern is that by their very names, and constant use that the game, or more specifically the combats, "devolve" into something much more grandiose or ultra-fantastical to the extent that it is difficult to bring into the game any sort of realism or grittyness. Yes that is a debatable issue and a lot of it hinges on what the players bring into the story, but the fact these powers have astonishing names like, Curse of the Dark Dream, it takes away from the verisimilitude of the game.


I personally believe that it's more of a paradigm shift from prior editions. In 3.0/3.5E, when I built a 1st level character, I knew that he was a chump. A chump that could get curb stomped by the local trollop if she got a lucky hit in or two. My casters felt fragile and impotent with the lack of repeatable powers. My meleers felt uninspired and dull until I started getting into a PrC or wielding items that changed how I played my toon.

In 4E, I like -- no, I love -- how my character feels at 1st level. I feel like an adventurer walking down the road. I'm not afraid of a rock getting a lucky crit and killing my guy. I know that I've got some special attacks that separate me from the common rabble. And some of them, I can do all day long! For my casters, I don't feel pigeon-holed into using my crossbow until I can blow my load on my 1-3 spells per day and then hope that the rest of the party accepts the fact that I'm useless until I rest.

I agree to a point. It is the reason I love Saga edition so much is because the characters at first level feel much tougher, much more heroic, yet at the same time there is that gritty realism that they can be taken down. Its that feel I am trying to capture.

As far as having "special" attacks every round, I don't think it is necessary. As Saga demonstrates, its your character's talents that make him/her unique in so much as you can have 2 1st level soldiers one with Melee Smash and one with Devastating Attack, they both have a "special attack" and they are both significantly different.


I don't mean to get into a discussion between 3.5E and 4E, but rather just to point out one of the strong merits of 4E that I feel is one of the crowning achievements of the system: the "feel" of your character, from the mechanics on up.

I agree, I just think Saga does it better.



I like the idea of talent trees. I think there is some of that already built into the system.

PowerName
Minimum Level; requisite feat or level
condition to use

Those things are already built into the 4E system for all of the powers. If you extract them, you can sort of build a branching tree of powers from that. Though, once you start making powers dependant upon each other, you create limitations in choices.

Even the warlock in 4E, who is bound to two static At-Wills based on their Pact choice is still able to choose any pact-based powers as they level up. It's the openness of the system that allows for creative builds that I see as a big plus; it'd be hard to retain that feel with a branching tree of powers, I'd think.

This I disagree with that right now. I haven't taken that close of a look at ALL of the powers from all of the classes.

Most classes in Saga have 4+ talent trees available to that class and with more books coming out they are able to just simply make a new talent tree instead of adding a new class or PrC.

This has the effect of completely opening up the customizability of your character, your character can end up at 20th level looking like this: Noble 5/Scout 5/Scoundrel 5/Soldier 5 and you would still be an effective and powerful character as someone who took a PrC and was more focused on one area. The above combo nets you 12 talents, even if you take even just the first tier talents your character is still playable, effective, and fun, AND super customized to that specific unique character! Yeah, Saga is AWESOME!



I'm not a fan of how PrCs were implemented and then expanded upon in 3rd Edition. It became the very essence of power-creep as new crunch came out. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I don't see what would be gained by merging PP/EDs with PrCs.

My main issue with paragon paths is that you HAVE to take one. Unless I am wrong but I haven't seen anything to the contrary. I also haven't seen that many paragon paths that I would ever want to take for a character of that class that I was building.

Combining PPs with PrCs makes them optional. Like I mentioned above, a character in SW Saga need not ever take a PrC and they would be just as effective as a character who did. The only difference is that one who takes a PrC is narrowing their focus and one who doesn't take a PrC keeps their customization options open.



Explain more about how this works. It sounds interesting. My first thought is that this adds to more powers being known earlier. There are already a bunch of options, even for a 1st-level character. Do we increase the fun by adding in more? Or do we dilute it by bogging down the pace of combat through power-choice / selection each round?

The way they work in Saga is a character first must have the Force Sensitivity feat, then at every 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc level when they would gain a feat they may take Force Training. This gives them 1 + Wis modifier in Force Powers to choose and add to their suite of Force Powers. Then during an encounter the Force user may use those powers during that encounter. They can also select multiple uses of a power so they may use it multiple times during an encounter. Once it is used they cannot use it again unless they take specific actions to do so. Those actions are spending a Force Point (similar to action points in 3.5 Eberron) and gaining a single power, rolling a natural 20 on a Use the Force skill check to activate a Force power which gets them their full suite of powers back, or there are a few talents that allow you to gain powers back when certain conditions are met. Then after the encounter and 1 minute of rest you get all of your Force Powers back.

I strongly think something like this can work in D&D. While it does add more powers being known, its not the same powers that you are thinking of in 4e. It would be crazy to get lots of daily, encounter or utility powers every encounter but this would only apply to spells from the casting classes, clerics, warlocks, and wizards, their spells would become Force Powers essentially.



Hell yeah! :p

Yes, more Force points at 1st level IS a good thing!

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 02:47 PM
Heck no to iterative attacks! The Bab system in Saga works well.
What does the BAB system do in Saga that works so well? (Or maybe I should just grab that PDF from you and delay this question. ;))


I mean the +1 to 2 attributes and the +1 to all attributes at certain levels in 4e. Its this sort of thing that screams super-heroism in your fantasy game. I would actually get rid of the +1 to all attributes. It seems very arbitrary to have that mechanic in there anyway.
I've always enjoyed systems that allowed your character to grow. This is just another method to allow that. It represents knowledge, experience, personal insights and generally knowing yourself better. I don't see that as arbitrary one bit. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd hope most systems have some method of allowing my 1st-level character's core abilities to be different than that same character when it's 20th-level.

Isn't there a method within Saga that allows for growth in the same regard? Maybe it's not level-based attribute increases... but something else?

When you find that, is it that much different, in effect, than 4E's method of "growth"?

Webhead
12-12-2008, 03:15 PM
What does the BAB system do in Saga that works so well? (Or maybe I should just grab that PDF from you and delay this question. ;))

Class-based BAB still exists in Saga, but iterative attacks were removed. For example, Soldier and Jedi classes gain +1 BAB per level. At level 10, a Soldier or Jedi has a BAB of +10. That's it. They don't gain additional attacks.

The Noble, Scoundrel and Scout classes however, gains BAB equivalent to a 3e Cleric. So, at level 10, a Scoundrel only has a BAB of +7. Still no additional attacks, but he has less baseline attack proficiency (not counting feats, talents, etc.) than a more martially oriented class like the Soldier.

That's what Tremayne is referring to.



...I've always enjoyed systems that allowed your character to grow. This is just another method to allow that. It represents knowledge, experience, personal insights and generally knowing yourself better. I don't see that as arbitrary one bit. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd hope most systems have some method of allowing my 1st-level character's core abilities to be different than that same character when it's 20th-level.

Isn't there a method within Saga that allows for growth in the same regard? Maybe it's not level-based attribute increases... but something else?...

Saga keeps the "+1 to two different attributes" every 4 levels. Thus, by level 20, Saga characters have applied an additional 10 attribute points amongst 2 or more of their stats. More that that probably isn't called for a la the "+1 to all attributes" at select levels that Tremayne is referring to. I think his comments in that regard are just to remove those instances of stat "power ups" and leave the "+1 to two atts. every 4 levels".

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 03:15 PM
What does the BAB system do in Saga that works so well? (Or maybe I should just grab that PDF from you and delay this question. ;))

Well Saga did get rid of iterative attacks. Only Soldiers and Jedi get full Bab progressions plus they made multiclassing MUCH more viable an option. So those with full Bab are rarer. Multiple attacks are harder to pull off unless you are a ranged focused character and take the Double Attack feat, which means melee characters are moving around the board much more and using that beloved terrain that 4e likes so much a lot more.

It doesn't sound like it should work but it does. Yes you will find lots of threads at wizards about there is no reason to take any other class other than Jedi or Soldier but that is rubbish because the other classes (noble, scout, scoundrel) tend to have the better talents.


I've always enjoyed systems that allowed your character to grow. This is just another method to allow that. It represents knowledge, experience, personal insights and generally knowing yourself better. I don't see that as arbitrary one bit. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd hope most systems have some method of allowing my 1st-level character's core abilities to be different than that same character when it's 20th-level.

Isn't there a method within Saga that allows for growth in the same regard? Maybe it's not level-based attribute increases... but something else?

When you find that, is it that much different, in effect, than 4E's method of "growth"?

Increasing ALL your attributes I don't see as growth, I see it as gaining even more bonuses to make your character uber.

I think one of the best things d20 has done is their aging system, decrese physical stats and increase mental stats as your character physically ages. That is growth.

Saga gives +1 to 2 attributes every 4 levels and it still uses the aging effects table.

Also if you use the optional Destiny mechanic in Saga, upon completeing your destiny you (usually) gain attribute bumps in the form of a +1 to 2 stats or a +2 to one stat. And a character usually has more than one destiny over their 20 level career, depends on the campaign though.

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 03:27 PM
It has been my experience that the fluff has very little impact on the actual game at the game table. My concern is that by their very names, and constant use that the game, or more specifically the combats, "devolve" into something much more grandiose or ultra-fantastical to the extent that it is difficult to bring into the game any sort of realism or grittyness. Yes that is a debatable issue and a lot of it hinges on what the players bring into the story, but the fact these powers have astonishing names like, Curse of the Dark Dream, it takes away from the verisimilitude of the game.

Ooh, lots of subjective terms in that paragraph. ;) Realism, grittyness, verisimilitude... I know you acknowledge they are debatable. I believe that all of this is up to the players and the GM.

I play with you and know how you can feel in our games. There's a lot of time spent still on the mechanics of what is going on, so there's not a lot of time to invest ourselves in the action of combat. Maybe down the road, when the mechanics are old-hat and we get the pace of things up a bit, we can "evolve" into a more gritty, lucid type of game.

By the way, I think that a warlock evoking a powerful curse of the dark dream draws me deeper into the truth of the game, not away from it. And a fighter cleaving through his enemies pushes me more into the role. What draws me out of the game is "I attack. I hit. I do 12 damage."


I agree to a point. It is the reason I love Saga edition so much is because the characters at first level feel much tougher, much more heroic, yet at the same time there is that gritty realism that they can be taken down. Its that feel I am trying to capture.
Let me come to the next game early, you sit in the player's chair and roll up a 1st-level whatever. I'll pit you against a lowly goblin and make the combat feel tough, heroic and gritty. (And since 4E wasn't really built on 1v1 encounters, it'll be really swingy as to who will win -- so you'll have a good chance at being taken down pretty easily.)

Again, it's my opinion that the system is new to most people. Due to that, we're still focusing on the mechanics and not playing into the system as much as we have with prior / alternate systems that we may be more familiar with. Personally, the draw to 4E is the simple fact that I can RP the same type of game that I did in 3.5E but have more traction from my player base due to the lack of what I call "complexity withdrawal" from noobs or players of other more streamlined (or simpler) systems.


My main issue with paragon paths is that you HAVE to take one. Unless I am wrong but I haven't seen anything to the contrary. I also haven't seen that many paragon paths that I would ever want to take for a character of that class that I was building.

Combining PPs with PrCs makes them optional. Like I mentioned above, a character in SW Saga need not ever take a PrC and they would be just as effective as a character who did. The only difference is that one who takes a PrC is narrowing their focus and one who doesn't take a PrC keeps their customization options open.
You can take a PMC (Paragon MC), which is described on pg 208 of the PHB. But yeah, you must take a path. If the issue that you have with PPs is that there's nothing that appeals to you, then wait some. The system is still in it's growing stage. Not all of the core books have even been released (PHB2, DMG2, Arcane and Divine Power). Those books will open up new paths for you to explore. There's also new ones located in the Dragon magazine issues (most of which you have to subscribe to, unfortunately).

Though, in all honesty, I'm surprised that you can't find something that whets your appetite in any of the PPs. Do you find yourself wanting to just not gain additional powers when you hit 11th and 21st and just continue with the core class?

There's always the option of house-ruling stuff. Got an idea for something exciting that you want to evolve into when you hit Paragon tier? Write it up! The format is established and pretty easy to build for.


The way they work in Saga is a character first must have the Force Sensitivity feat, then at every 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc level when they would gain a feat they may take Force Training. This gives them 1 + Wis modifier in Force Powers to choose and add to their suite of Force Powers. Then during an encounter the Force user may use those powers during that encounter. They can also select multiple uses of a power so they may use it multiple times during an encounter. Once it is used they cannot use it again unless they take specific actions to do so. Those actions are spending a Force Point (similar to action points in 3.5 Eberron) and gaining a single power, rolling a natural 20 on a Use the Force skill check to activate a Force power which gets them their full suite of powers back, or there are a few talents that allow you to gain powers back when certain conditions are met. Then after the encounter and 1 minute of rest you get all of your Force Powers back.

I strongly think something like this can work in D&D. While it does add more powers being known, its not the same powers that you are thinking of in 4e. It would be crazy to get lots of daily, encounter or utility powers every encounter but this would only apply to spells from the casting classes, clerics, warlocks, and wizards, their spells would become Force Powers essentially.

I'm a natural debater, so don't take this the wrong way, but Why? Why add more powers to the game? How does that make it more fun? Why add them only to half of the classes? Doesn't that skew balance? There seems to be a definite favor in what I read towards spellcasting classes. While this is great, what balance would there be for the non-casting (martial) classes?

Again, just some questions to understand where your coming from.



Yes, more Force points at 1st level IS a good thing!

While I mostly agree, where does it stop being a good thing and become power-creep like in 3rd edition? I don't have that answer, but I definitely don't want 4e to succumb to it as badly as 3e did.

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Class-based BAB still exists in Saga, but iterative attacks were removed. For example, Soldier and Jedi classes gain +1 BAB per level. At level 10, a Soldier or Jedi has a BAB of +10. That's it. They don't gain additional attacks.

That's what Tremayne is referring to.
Is there a different mechanic governing the use of Force Powers (which I assume are the Saga equivalent of spells)?


Saga keeps the "+1 to two different attributes" every 4 levels... <snipped for brevity>
Excellent, Webhead. Thanks for the primer on Saga's way of doing it. It's pretty much on par with how 4E deals with things, just a little toned down.

Some questions to hone this discussion some, then:


What is it that you like about the Saga's BAB system?
Do you enjoy having a difference between your Jedi and your nobles BAB? Why do you enjoy the difference?
Would it be bad if there was no difference?
What effect would there be there were no difference, within the context of the Saga system?

Thank you for helping me understand where you guys are coming from.

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 03:49 PM
Increasing ALL your attributes I don't see as growth, I see it as gaining even more bonuses to make your character uber.

I think one of the best things d20 has done is their aging system, decrese physical stats and increase mental stats as your character physically ages. That is growth.

Saga gives +1 to 2 attributes every 4 levels and it still uses the aging effects table.

Also if you use the optional Destiny mechanic in Saga, upon completeing your destiny you (usually) gain attribute bumps in the form of a +1 to 2 stats or a +2 to one stat. And a character usually has more than one destiny over their 20 level career, depends on the campaign though.
As to increasing all stats at a specific point vs not: that is a style thing. Remove it or keep it, it doesn't imbalance things too much (though monsters past 8th level are built with math that takes into account those boosts).

As to aging, it sounds like you really like it. Implement it in your 4E game. For me, I can go either way. Typically, my games (more those I play in, but those that I run as well) hardly ever take aging into account. Why? Because the span of years just doesn't happen. When's the last time you've been in a game where you've sat idly for 20 in-game years? How about 10? 5? 1? (I've GM'd one game where we've let time slide by, but by then the PCs had castles and we were playing more of a country-management game by then -- which was fun, but more of a divergence from D&D, than actual D&D, imo.)

Plus, you have to factor in racial aging characteristics and it becomes a mini-game of sorts that typically is only used for meta-game purposes. (Hmm, I'll be a human, since I'm a spellcaster, since I only have to hit 60 before I get that cool bonus to my mental stats. As opposed to the fighter that will probably choose a longer-lived race so as to increase the time frame where he isn't a gimp.)

Yes, it's realistic, but is it fun? Lopping off limbs ALA Hackmaster is realistic (to a degree, of course), but that definitely can be trite when you've lost your 2nd leg and have major wounds to your lungs, throat and right eye. :P

Again, it's the fine line between adding in systems / mechanical tidbits that are fun for the whole family and maintain balance within the system.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 04:06 PM
First, sorry for this:


. That is growth.

I didn't mean to sound snippy!


Ooh, lots of subjective terms in that paragraph. ;) Realism, grittyness, verisimilitude... I know you acknowledge they are debatable. I believe that all of this is up to the players and the GM.

I think it is debatable and not ALL left up to the GM and players (even though my sig line says differently!;) And that is for a different thread.


I play with you and know how you can feel in our games. There's a lot of time spent still on the mechanics of what is going on, so there's not a lot of time to invest ourselves in the action of combat. Maybe down the road, when the mechanics are old-hat and we get the pace of things up a bit, we can "evolve" into a more gritty, lucid type of game.

By the way, I think that a warlock evoking a powerful curse of the dark dream draws me deeper into the truth of the game, not away from it. And a fighter cleaving through his enemies pushes me more into the role. What draws me out of the game is "I attack. I hit. I do 12 damage."

Hashing out mechanics doesn't bother me and neither does "I attack, I hit, I roll damage" either. Those are as much a part of roleplaying as creating a character or having a DM/GM/Storyteller is. And to a certain extent neither does spells like Curse of the Dark Dream.

Perhaps it is a lack of the mundane in 4e that is it. For it doesn't really feel that there is any mundaneness in 4e games nor is it encouraged. I think it is very clear what sorts of games are encouraged in 4e, fast paced exciting games and I am fine with that as long as they are based somewhat in a fantasy realism.



Let me come to the next game early, you sit in the player's chair and roll up a 1st-level whatever. I'll pit you against a lowly goblin and make the combat feel tough, heroic and gritty. (And since 4E wasn't really built on 1v1 encounters, it'll be really swingy as to who will win -- so you'll have a good chance at being taken down pretty easily.)

I don't have to, I have enough trouble keeping enemies around longer than 2 rounds unless they are really beefed up or they use all their specials right way or spend action points.


Again, it's my opinion that the system is new to most people. Due to that, we're still focusing on the mechanics and not playing into the system as much as we have with prior / alternate systems that we may be more familiar with. Personally, the draw to 4E is the simple fact that I can RP the same type of game that I did in 3.5E but have more traction from my player base due to the lack of what I call "complexity withdrawal" from noobs or players of other more streamlined (or simpler) systems.

I agree and my intent is not to make the game more complicated.



You can take a PMC (Paragon MC), which is described on pg 208 of the PHB. But yeah, you must take a path. If the issue that you have with PPs is that there's nothing that appeals to you, then wait some. The system is still in it's growing stage. Not all of the core books have even been released (PHB2, DMG2, Arcane and Divine Power). Those books will open up new paths for you to explore. There's also new ones located in the Dragon magazine issues (most of which you have to subscribe to, unfortunately).

I know, its just a personal thing.


Though, in all honesty, I'm surprised that you can't find something that whets your appetite in any of the PPs. Do you find yourself wanting to just not gain additional powers when you hit 11th and 21st and just continue with the core class?

Its the flavor of the PP (gross!). None of the PP descriptions would fit any idea I had for various characters I was thinking of. But again, personal flavoring.


There's always the option of house-ruling stuff. Got an idea for something exciting that you want to evolve into when you hit Paragon tier? Write it up! The format is established and pretty easy to build for.

That is what I am trying to do with this thread!

Super house ruled 4e!



I'm a natural debater, so don't take this the wrong way, but Why? Why add more powers to the game? How does that make it more fun? Why add them only to half of the classes? Doesn't that skew balance? There seems to be a definite favor in what I read towards spellcasting classes. While this is great, what balance would there be for the non-casting (martial) classes?

I think we are not understanding each other or I have an optimistic and naive view of how this would work, let me try to explain better.

Your typical level progression will look like this if you stick with core classes:

Level 1 Starting Feats, talent
Level 2 bonus feat
Level 3 level feat, talent
Level 4 bonus feat
Level 5 talent
Level 6 level feat, bonus feat
Level 7 talent
Level 8 bonus feat
Level 9 level feat, talent
Level 10 bonus feat
level 11 talent
Level 12 level feat, bonus feat
Level 13 talent
Level 14 bonus feat
Level 15 level feat, talent
level 16 bonus feat
level 17 talent
Level 18 level feat, bonus feat
level 19 talent
Level 20 bonus feat

If we apply 4e to this template we need to change some class features to talents. I also suggest changing spells (powers) to specials that are selected by taking a feat. A feat that may or may not be on the classes bonus feat list, I am thinking not.

To make things very D&D we are going to need to give the classes their special powers right off the bat, the only example I can think of that is critical right now is Turn Undead for clerics. The +1 to selected weapons for fighters can simply be a free weapon focus feat at 1st level for that class.

So in this scenario, aside from the very specific and special class features a class is gaining, every class will essentially gain the same number of talents, and feats over their career OR at least have the option to do IF paragon paths become PrCs.

I would also suggest that each class only gain 1 special class feature otherwise multiclassing might become too tempting.



While I mostly agree, where does it stop being a good thing and become power-creep like in 3rd edition? I don't have that answer, but I definitely don't want 4e to succumb to it as badly as 3e did.

I meant to say hit points! More hit points at 1st level is good!

Now, we are starting to diverge a bit with the subjective discussions about whether 4e needs to be modified or not, lets turn this car around and talk about how to make ti work!

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 04:20 PM
Is there a different mechanic governing the use of Force Powers (which I assume are the Saga equivalent of spells)?

Yes see my description above.





What is it that you like about the Saga's BAB system?
Do you enjoy having a difference between your Jedi and your nobles BAB? Why do you enjoy the difference?
Would it be bad if there was no difference?
What effect would there be there were no difference, within the context of the Saga system?

Thank you for helping me understand where you guys are coming from.

1. That it is still intact, I don't mind the half-level to attack, I just think Star Wars would be difficult to manage a mechanic that didn't have Bab.
2. Yes very much so, because the classes are then put more into roles similar to 4e class roles. The difference being Jedi. Jedi due to their force powers and available talents can pretty much fill all roles.
3. For Star Wars, yes it would be bad. Because everyone would play a Jedi or Soldier and the nobles, scouts, and scoundrels would be worthless and ineffective.


As to increasing all stats at a specific point vs not: that is a style thing. Remove it or keep it, it doesn't imbalance things too much (though monsters past 8th level are built with math that takes into account those boosts).

As to aging, it sounds like you really like it. Implement it in your 4E game. For me, I can go either way. Typically, my games (more those I play in, but those that I run as well) hardly ever take aging into account. Why? Because the span of years just doesn't happen. When's the last time you've been in a game where you've sat idly for 20 in-game years? How about 10? 5? 1? (I've GM'd one game where we've let time slide by, but by then the PCs had castles and we were playing more of a country-management game by then -- which was fun, but more of a divergence from D&D, than actual D&D, imo.)

I do time and level jumps all the time, especially in Star Wars. Just because there is a time jump it doesn't mean the PCs should instantly get a castle. In fact in my SW game, over the summer I jumped the timeline a year, and we might be due for another one, and they are only level 7.


Plus, you have to factor in racial aging characteristics and it becomes a mini-game of sorts that typically is only used for meta-game purposes. (Hmm, I'll be a human, since I'm a spellcaster, since I only have to hit 60 before I get that cool bonus to my mental stats. As opposed to the fighter that will probably choose a longer-lived race so as to increase the time frame where he isn't a gimp.)

I have never had anyone do that, but I guess it does happen. Its a poor way to roleplay if you ask me.


Yes, it's realistic, but is it fun? Lopping off limbs ALA Hackmaster is realistic (to a degree, of course), but that definitely can be trite when you've lost your 2nd leg and have major wounds to your lungs, throat and right eye. :P

:ohwell:

Are you asking if it is fun to see your character's career span the life of the character? I would say yes. Especially in a game like Star Wars where you can live 5-600 years or 900 years even and STILL not have seen the whole galaxy!


Again, it's the fine line between adding in systems / mechanical tidbits that are fun for the whole family and maintain balance within the system.

True, I am trying to take a system I love, Saga, and make it into a fantasy game!

Kazinsky
12-12-2008, 05:01 PM
I didn't mean to sound snippy! No need to apologize, I took no offense to it and I have a remarkably thick hide (like +4 magical reflective Hide of Thickness!).




I think it is debatable and not ALL left up to the GM and players (even though my sig line says differently!;) And that is for a different thread.
I agree with you that not all of it is left to the GM/Players.


Perhaps it is a lack of the mundane in 4e that is it. For it doesn't really feel that there is any mundaneness in 4e games nor is it encouraged. I think it is very clear what sorts of games are encouraged in 4e, fast paced exciting games and I am fine with that as long as they are based somewhat in a fantasy realism.
Yep, I think that's the hallmark of what D&D is: exciting, fast-paced heroic fantasy. Heh, using those subjective words again: what does realism mean to you? :biggrin:



I don't have to, I have enough trouble keeping enemies around longer than 2 rounds unless they are really beefed up or they use all their specials right way or spend action points.
I think you missed the point that I was trying to make here. It's not that I can beat up a character quicker than another person can, but rather I believe that I can emulate the "feel" that I assume is lacking from this system. It's not a question of how long the mechanics of the combat go on for, but rather the atmosphere of it and how it plays out can be dramatically different.


Its the flavor of the PP (gross!). None of the PP descriptions would fit any idea I had for various characters I was thinking of. But again, personal flavoring.
Have you seen some of the nifty stuff from Forgotten Realms? From the User Creation forums on WotC or the EN Boards? I love the flavor of PP, by the way! (haha)


I think we are not understanding each other or I have an optimistic and naive view of how this would work, let me try to explain better.

Your typical level progression will look like this if you stick with core classes:

<snipped progression chart>

If we apply 4e to this template we need to change some class features to talents. I also suggest changing spells (powers) to specials that are selected by taking a feat. A feat that may or may not be on the classes bonus feat list, I am thinking not.
I can see the merging that you're talking of now. With the addition of the feats that grant access to another tier of "powers" that are akin to Saga's Force Powers. I think I'd need to see it either more hashed out or actually working to make further comment.


To make things very D&D we are going to need to give the classes their special powers right off the bat, the only example I can think of that is critical right now is Turn Undead for clerics. The +1 to selected weapons for fighters can simply be a free weapon focus feat at 1st level for that class.
I differ from you here. I get the impression that from your wording, they are special powers. From my PoV, they are just core components to the class. Not necessarily "special", just features of the class. I suppose they are special in the respect that they make them stand apart from the rest of the classes...


So in this scenario, aside from the very specific and special class features a class is gaining, every class will essentially gain the same number of talents, and feats over their career OR at least have the option to do IF paragon paths become PrCs.

I would also suggest that each class only gain 1 special class feature otherwise multiclassing might become too tempting.
I may not be following you, but isn't that how 4E works now?



1. That it is still intact, I don't mind the half-level to attack, I just think Star Wars would be difficult to manage a mechanic that didn't have Bab.
What would make it difficult to manage if the BAB mechanic was removed? How about if all classes gained their attack ratings the same way, but some powers emphasized a better hit rating than others?



2. Yes very much so, because the classes are then put more into roles similar to 4e class roles. The difference being Jedi. Jedi due to their force powers and available talents can pretty much fill all roles.
Ok. So there doesn't sound like much of a change is needed for 4E to mimic what you like about Saga, in this regard.


3. For Star Wars, yes it would be bad. Because everyone would play a Jedi or Soldier and the nobles, scouts, and scoundrels would be worthless and ineffective.
That shouldn't be the case considering you mentioned that Nobles, Scouts and Scoundrels tend to get the better powers/feats/talents.


I do time and level jumps all the time...over the summer I jumped the timeline a year.
This illustrates my point about time in games effectively. You've progressed time 1 year over the course of 7 levels of gameplay. I don't mean to corner you into assuming all of your games will mimic this same style, but even if you jumped time double or triple that rate, you still wouldn't hit human age categories much, if at all (unless someone built a character with an age right at the cusp of an age category).


I have never had anyone do that, but I guess it does happen. Its a poor way to roleplay if you ask me.
You can look at it the other way around and say that if you don't take advantage of the mechanic then it's not worth implementing, thus it's a poor mechanic. No?


Are you asking if it is fun to see your character's career span the life of the character? I would say yes. Especially in a game like Star Wars where you can live 5-600 years or 900 years even and STILL not have seen the whole galaxy!
I agree that it's fun, if you're reading a book or a biography of your character. How do you make it fun, in practice, with a group of players sitting around a table, and span 50 years? 600 or 900? I'm not questioning how much exploration you can accomplish in that time. I'm just wondering if you'd have fun during a session where you're macro-managing your character across great leaps of time instead of playing the specific fun parts in a micro-setting.

(I'm sorry, this is starting to get into a tangential topic and should probably be branched, if you want to continue it.)


True, I am trying to take a system I love, Saga, and make it into a fantasy game!
Let's find out the other things that you love about Saga, define them and then see how we can apply those to 4E or a fantasy setting.

Inquisitor Tremayne
12-12-2008, 06:12 PM
No need to apologize, I took no offense to it and I have a remarkably thick hide (like +4 magical reflective Hide of Thickness!).

Hilarious.


I agree with you that not all of it is left to the GM/Players.

Good, good, give in to the Dark side! :evil:



Yep, I think that's the hallmark of what D&D is: exciting, fast-paced heroic fantasy. Heh, using those subjective words again: what does realism mean to you? :biggrin:

Lord of the Rings. Everything having that "lived in" feel while still being exciting.



I think you missed the point that I was trying to make here. It's not that I can beat up a character quicker than another person can, but rather I believe that I can emulate the "feel" that I assume is lacking from this system. It's not a question of how long the mechanics of the combat go on for, but rather the atmosphere of it and how it plays out can be dramatically different.

This will also throw you for a loop, I think it is situational. I don't feel that the feel is missing 100% of the time just that there are small things that seem to detract from that feel.



Have you seen some of the nifty stuff from Forgotten Realms? From the User Creation forums on WotC or the EN Boards? I love the flavor of PP, by the way! (haha)

Gross! No I have not and I am against pretty much anything Forgotten Realms due to the uberness it had in 3.5.



I can see the merging that you're talking of now. With the addition of the feats that grant access to another tier of "powers" that are akin to Saga's Force Powers. I think I'd need to see it either more hashed out or actually working to make further comment.

Um, hello!? That is what I am trying to get accomplished in this thread Mr. De-railer!:p



I differ from you here. I get the impression that from your wording, they are special powers. From my PoV, they are just core components to the class. Not necessarily "special", just features of the class. I suppose they are special in the respect that they make them stand apart from the rest of the classes...

Yes, they make that class stand apart from the rest, that is what I mean. They are special to that class.



I may not be following you, but isn't that how 4E works now?

No, each class in 4e gets 3+ class features, which I feel aren't all necessary for the game to work. With Saga's system you pick and choose which talents you want and those define your character so cleric #1 can be VERY different from cleric #2 at 1st level.



What would make it difficult to manage if the BAB mechanic was removed? How about if all classes gained their attack ratings the same way, but some powers emphasized a better hit rating than others?

Well, you would basically be in the opposite situation that we are in right now, trying to make Saga edition work with 4e rules, so you would have to change a lot of the mechanics in Saga to make it work, thus more difficult to manage. It could be done though, just like what I am trying to do here!!

Hint hint!



Ok. So there doesn't sound like much of a change is needed for 4E to mimic what you like about Saga, in this regard.

I don't mind the roles too much, it seems more flexible in Star Wars than it does in 4e though.



That shouldn't be the case considering you mentioned that Nobles, Scouts and Scoundrels tend to get the better powers/feats/talents.

This would create the problem the last version of the game had though, Jedi Guardians ruled hands down, there was very little reason to NOT play a Jedi in the previous version of the game, soldiers were only slightly less uber, but nobles, scouts, scoundrels and tech specialists were pointless to play.


Moved this part to here (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8469).



You can look at it the other way around and say that if you don't take advantage of the mechanic then it's not worth implementing, thus it's a poor mechanic. No?

Man, are you playing devils advocate! I guess it depends on the players and GM, I personally like campaigns to span time and a characters life span, doesn't happen often but it is still cool.





Let's find out the other things that you love about Saga, define them and then see how we can apply those to 4E or a fantasy setting.

Trying to!

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-14-2009, 09:37 AM
So some random thoughts about making this happen while I am thinking about it...

We can stick with the 30 level model of 4e.
Characters gain a new feat every 3 levels.
Characters may raise 2 stats by one point every 4 levels.
Every class gets 1 talent at every odd level.
Every class gets a bonus feat at every even level.
Every class gains a certain amount of class features and starting feats at 1st level.

So a normal 30 level chart looks like this:

Level 1 1st level feat
Level 2
Level 3 Level feat
Level 4 Ability score increase
Level 5
Level 6 Level Feat
Level 7
Level 8 Ability score increase
Level 9 Level Feat
Level 10
Level 11
Level 12 Level Feat, Ability score increase
Level 13
Level 14
Level 15 Level feat
Level 16 Ability score increase
Level 17
Level 18 Level feat
Level 19
Level 20 Ability score increase
Level 21 Level feat
Level 22
Level 23
Level 24 Level feat, Ability score increase
Level 25
Level 26
Level 27 Level feat
Level 28 Ability score increase
Level 29
Level 30 Level feat


A normal class chart would look like this:

Level 1 Starting feats, starting class features, talent
Level 2 Bonus feat
Level 3 Talent
Level 4 Bonus feat
Level 5 Talent
Level 6 Bonus feat
Level 7 Talent
Level 8 Bonus feat
Level 9 Talent
Level 10 Bonus Feat
Level 11 Talent
Level 12 Bonus Feat
Level 13 Talent
Level 14 Bonus feat
Level 15 Talent
Level 16 Bonus feat
Level 17 Talent
Level 18 Bonus feat
Level 19 Talent
Level 20 Bonus feat
Level 21 Talent
Level 22 Bonus feat
Level 23 Talent
Level 24 Bonus feat
Level 25 Talent
Level 26 Bonus feat
Level 27 Talent
Level 28 Bonus feat
Level 29 Talent
Level 30 Bonus feat


Every class has access to specific talent trees.
There are no multiclassing penalties, when you multiclass into another class you gain one of its class features and one of its starting feats. In place of its starting feat you can choose to take skill training instead.

Sample class features off the top of my head, they would take some tweaking to be usable at all levels, each class only gets like 1 or 2 features:

Barbarian: Rage, Fast movement

Bard: Bardic Knowledge, Bard songs

Cleric: Cleric spells, turn undead, domain spells

Druid: wild shape, druid spells, animal companion, trackless step, wild empathy

Fighter: weapon focus, weapon specialization, armor focus, tactics (something to give some fighters advantages to tactical combat, don't know what yet.)

Paladin: paladin spells, weapon focus, mount abilities, lay on hands, divine health

Ranger: combat style, wild empathy, animal companion, weapon focus

Rogue: trap sense, sneak attack, weapon flourish

Sorcerer: Sorcerer spells, bloodline, summoning

Warlock: Eldritch blast, evocations, bloodline, curse, shadow step

Wizard: Wizard spells, familiar, spell power


I'll flesh out some of that stuff later.

As for spells, spells are selected by taking the feat Spell Training.

If you are a Bard you gain a number of spells/songs equal to 1+Charisma modifier.

If you are a Cleric you gain a number of spells equal to 2 or 3+ Wisdom modifier.

If you are a Druid you gain a number of spells equal to 2+Wisdom modifier.

If you are a Paladin you gain a number of spells equal to 1+Charisma modifier.

If you are a Sorcerer you gain a number of spells equal to 2+Charisma modifier.

If you are a Warlock you gain a number of spells equal to 1+Wisdom modifier.

If you are a Wizard you gain a number of spells equal to 3 or 4+Intelligence modifier.

All spells are usable once per encounter. When you take the Spell Training feat you can choose to learn a spell more than once allowing you to cast it more than once per encounter. You gain all your spells back after an encounter and after 1 minute. There will be a way or ways to gain your spells back during an encounter but I am not sure what that should be yet.

Thats all I have right now, just brainstorming.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
More thoughts...

Some spells may have a level prerequisite, I'll get into that later when I have more time to hash out each spell and what it does.

Probably all of the heroic tier powers will get converted into class talent trees. Paragon paths will probably get converted into prestige classes with paragon powers being converted into talents for that PrC.

Epic destinies might get converted into the destiny mechanic from Saga edition. Not quite sure how to work that out yet, just an idea, obviously it would include destiny points.

I think the core spell casting classes should probably get a free Spell Training at first level. Meaning every first level character could possibly have two Spell Trainings at 1st level, so that is like 6 - 12 spells at first level! That should be plenty to keep those casters busy during an encounter. I don't know, might change that. In Saga you have to take Force Training as a bonus feat.

Spell Training will have a class prerequisite.

Fighter types will probably get a lot of access to the Jedi and Soldier talents from Saga.

Clerics and Paladins will probably get a diplomacy talent tree or talent trees from Nobles in Saga.

Rangers will get Scout type talents.

Rogues will get Scoundrel type talents.

Spell casters are going to have to have new talent trees made up probably and/or possibly draw heavily from various Force Tradition talent trees.

The skills will be a condensing of the 3.5 skill list, kind of into the Saga and 4e skill list. I am considering using the skill point system again but with a more generous distribution of skill points overall. I will probably keep the half level to skills also.

Iterative attacks will be gone but I will probably stick with having a Bab for each class. Probably just port over the current Babs for 3.5 classes.

Combat will be slimmed down to use Saga's combat system. Not sure how all that will work mechanically yet, I just know I want Saga's combat system.


Brainstorming!:rain:
--- Merged from Double Post ---


Sample class features off the top of my head, they would take some tweaking to be usable at all levels, each class only gets like 1 or 2 features:

Barbarian: Rage, Fast movement

Bard: Bardic Knowledge, Bard songs

Cleric: Cleric spells, turn undead, domain spells

Druid: wild shape, druid spells, animal companion, trackless step, wild empathy

Fighter: weapon focus, weapon specialization, armor focus, tactics (something to give some fighters advantages to tactical combat, don't know what yet.)

Paladin: paladin spells, weapon focus, mount abilities, lay on hands, divine health

Ranger: combat style, wild empathy, animal companion, weapon focus

Rogue: trap sense, sneak attack, weapon flourish

Sorcerer: Sorcerer spells, bloodline, summoning

Warlock: Eldritch blast, evocations, bloodline, curse, shadow step

Wizard: Wizard spells, familiar, spell power

Weapon flourish for a rouge could be something along the lines of "tricks" introduced later in 3.5. I'll have to look those up again.

Bloodlines should give some sort of special bonus similar to Fey Step and things like that.

Summoning would be or could be based on a characters bloodline, summoning creatures that level up as your character levels or is just a little bit tougher than your character and last for just a few rounds, possibly equal to the characters level. Or possibly summoning weapons.

Spell power should give a boost to spell casting, possibly granting additional castings or something. I don't want to make it too good so it doesn't get chosen over other class features ALL the time.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
I will keep the 3 defenses, Reflex Defense, Fortitude Defense, and Will Defense and add-in/keep AC also.

However, AC will be strictly governed by your half-level and the armor's bonus. It will also be the target of most standard attacks.

Armor will negatively affect Reflex Defense and possibly add to Fortitude Defense.

There will be feats and/or talents that offset and enhance those who use armor.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-15-2009, 08:07 AM
Here is a brief write up of the Ranger class:

Ranger

Starting feats: Armor Proficiency (light, Medium), Shield Proficiency (light), Weapon Proficiency (simple, martial) <Yes armor, shields, and weapons are divided into simple categories>

Defense bonus: +1 to Fortitude, +1 to Reflex, +1 to Will <subject to change, but seems to make sense>

Hit points: 12+ Constitution score at 1st level, 5 hit points every level after. <another thing I do like about 4e, their starting hit point system>

Class Features (choose two): Favored Enemy, Swift Tracker, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Combat Style <this is something I don't think you can take away from D&D, the classes are so individualistic that they each MUST have their own traits that set them apart from the other classes. Afterall, what is a cleric who doesn't turn undead right?>

Skills: 4+ Intelligence in trained skills from the following list;

Athletics, Endurance, Gather Information, Initiative, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (nature), Perception , Ride, Stealth, Survival, Treat Injury <I decided to stick with the trained vs. untrained system for skills. I didn't want to get into the math involved by using skill points>

Class Features:

Favored Enemy: As a swift action designate one target for the rest of the encounter, that target becomes the focus of the ranger. The Ranger gains a +1 bonus to attacks and all defenses for the rest of the encounter versus that target. <I like favored enemy over 4e's Hunter's quarry. I am considering some way to scale the bonus up.>

Swift Tracker: The ranger takes no penalty to survival checks made to follow tracks while moving his normal speed. <pretty standard and self-explanatory>

Animal Companion: The Ranger gains an animal companion. <still need to hash out the details of this>

Woodland Stride: The ranger is not hampered by difficult terrain. <will probably gain an additional bonus if this is combined with the sure-footed talent>

Combat Style: The Ranger may choose a combat style from the following 3 styles; archery, two-weapon combat, or single weapon combat.

Archery: At 1st level the ranger gains the feat Precise Shot even if he doesn't meet the prerequisites for the feat. At 6th level the ranger gains the feat Rapid Shot even if he doesn't meet the prerequisites for the feat. At 11th level the ranger gains the feat Manyshot even if he doesn't meet the prerequisites for the feat.

Single Weapon Combat: At 1st level the ranger gains ___________________ with a single one-handed weapon. This feat applies if the ranger is only wielding that weapon and does not have another weapon or shield in their off-hand. At 6st level the ranger gains _________________ with a single one-handed weapon. This feat applies if the ranger is only wielding that weapon and does not have another weapon or shield in their off-hand. At 11th level the ranger gains ___________________with a single one-handed weapon. This feat applies if the ranger is only wielding that weapon and does not have another weapon or shield in their off-hand.

Two-weapon Combat: At 1st level the ranger gains Dual Weapon Fighting I. At 6ht level the ranger gains Dual Weapon Fighting II. At 11th level the ranger gains Dual Weapon Fighting III.

<this is the meat of being a Ranger. I would prefer to give them some sort of other bonus depending on their combat style, other than bonus feats, but thats just what I threw down on paper. Any other suggestions for bonuses to these styles would be appreciated.>


Talent trees

The Ranger may choose from the following talent trees:


AWARENESS TALENT TREE

Acute Senses - reroll perception checks
Improved Initiative - reroll initiative checks
Keen Shot

OUTCAST TALENT TREE
Barter - reroll Persuasion checks to haggle
Outcast Savant
Long Stride - gain +2 squares of movement

SURVIVOR TALENT TREE
Extreme Effort
Sprint - run x5 instead of x4
Surefooted - movement doesn't count as double when moving over difficult terrain.

<pretty much lifted right out of Saga edition and subject to change.>

Bonus feats??? TBA

Webhead
01-15-2009, 09:55 AM
Interesting stuff. Keep it coming.

McCummhail
01-15-2009, 12:12 PM
I like the idea of choosing two of the slew of class features, but would you be able to acquire the other class features through feats or some other method later?
Additionally, will you be able to get a 2nd class feature from multi-classing?

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-15-2009, 12:38 PM
I like the idea of choosing two of the slew of class features, but would you be able to acquire the other class features through feats or some other method later?
Additionally, will you be able to get a 2nd class feature from multi-classing?

Yes, multiclassing, I intend, for it to be very friendly. Currently I would say that you only get 1 class feature from the class you mulitclass into.

In addition you would get 1 of the starting feats as well or you can choose to take Skill Training in order to learn a new skill in place of selecting one of the starting feats.

Make sense?

I am thinking spellcasting ability should be an option for 1st level casters. Although, there will need to be some reason as to why you would want to take the wizard class and NOT choose to cast spells...

So much to ponder!
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Interesting stuff. Keep it coming.

Thanks! I am really having fun with this!

workape
01-15-2009, 02:03 PM
I like the idea of switching things up, but one of the things that I don't like are the way that Casters are dealt with in 4e. There doesn't seem to be much variation unless you get into really high levels. Also there isn't much breadth in the types of spells available.

Something that I would like to see would be something along the lines of a spell bucket that you have access into. You would still get your spell book, and known spells. But instead of memorizing the same spell to cast multiple times, you have a number of spells you can use per day. Based upon a feat of some time. Spellcasting Progression or something else. And out of those spells you have effects that scale based upon the spell levels that you use.

Say you have a Spellcasting level bucket of 10. You could cast Magic Missle 10 times at 1st level, or you could throw out there a Fireball that is at level 10. Or you could do a fireball at level 5, an acid arrow at level 2, a magic missle at level 1 and then a bulls strength at level 2.

This would allow for a more rounded spell caster, plus it would get away from the retarded nature that one you have cast a spell it is gone from your mind.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-15-2009, 04:56 PM
Okay, okay, the magic/spell system seems to be a big issue for everyone so lets hammer it out.

Spell casting classes:

Bard
Cleric
Druid
Paladin (maybe?)
Sorcerer
Wizard

(I am dropping the warlock. Never really liked them anyway, and the Monk as well.)

Bards sing songs, therefore they should have a focus/requirement of having and playing their instrument while casting their spells/songs.

Clerics channel divine power and their focus should be their holy symbol.

Druids draw their power from the natural world and should have ???? what as their focus?

Paladins divine power channeled through their weapon or holy symbol?

Sorcerers have innate ability with the arcane arts due to their bloodline thus their body is their focus.

Wizards require an orb, wand, or staff. Get rid of the wizards focus and you significantly weaken the wizard!

So Bards should rely on Charisma.

Clerics on their Wisdom.

Druids on their Wisdom.

Paladins on their Charisma or Constitution.

Sorcerers on their Constitution.

Wizards on their Intelligence.


I am very much set on using a Feat for each class to gain more spells. However different conditions will be in effect based on your class.

Going the level pool/bucket route you could end up with a wizard at level 1 possibly able to cast 12th level spells, which could end an encounter in one round. Don't think that would work.

Upon taking the Spell Training feat, a Bards will learn a number of different songs equal to 2+ their Charisma modifier. This number also sets the number of songs a Bard can play per encounter. So if a Bard knows 5 songs he can play 5 songs per encounter also, meaning he can play the same song 5 times that encounter. I may add in the stipulation that it takes x number of rounds to play certain songs!!

Will post more later.

McCummhail
01-16-2009, 12:09 AM
You are inevitably going to hit a wall with balancing spells as force powers work at all levels and spells have been sorted into arbitrary 'levels' based on their relative power.
With the current notion there seems to be no differentiation of spells levels.
Either spells will have to be grouped into tiered series dependent on caster level, or spells will have to be all the same level with scaling power, or another idea is that every spell 'level' is a feat with the previous as a prereq.
I would bet money that this dilemma is how we have 4e mages as they are.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-16-2009, 11:10 AM
You are inevitably going to hit a wall with balancing spells as force powers work at all levels and spells have been sorted into arbitrary 'levels' based on their relative power.
With the current notion there seems to be no differentiation of spells levels.
Either spells will have to be grouped into tiered series dependent on caster level, or spells will have to be all the same level with scaling power, or another idea is that every spell 'level' is a feat with the previous as a prereq.
I would bet money that this dilemma is how we have 4e mages as they are.

Unless we steal even more from Saga and make it a caster level or skill (like Spellcraft or something) check vs. a defense and damage is decided upon how well the wizard rolled.

Just a thought.

Which, gives me an idea for the wizards "spell power" class feature, choosing that class feature gives them skill focus with Spellcraft!

Just throwing some ideas out there.

Webhead
01-16-2009, 11:52 AM
Unless we steal even more from Saga and make it a caster level or skill (like Spellcraft or something) check vs. a defense and damage is decided upon how well the wizard rolled.

Just a thought...

That's probably how I would do it. It makes spells scalable without having to seperate out 5 different versions of each spell and it allows even the lowly wizard to occasionally surprise everybody with a phenominal Spellcraft roll. One could even go so far as to allowing the option to select different levels of "effect" based on the skill check total (i.e. affects a larger area, affects a cone instead of a radius, etc.).

I like it. I like it a lot.

workape
01-16-2009, 12:28 PM
There is some differentiation in what I was talking about. You have no limit on what spells you can pick with learning, you do have a limited based upon the amount of Spell training/conditioning you have. Spellcasting should be physically exerting and exhausting.

Think about it like this, you have the following spells in your spell book and each has a minimum amount of mana required for a lack of a better term for now.

Spell Minimum Cost
Magic Missle (1 Mana)
Acid Arrow (2 Mana)
Fireball (3 Mana)
Obscuring Mist (1 Mana)

Now, each wizard to start with would get a set amount of Mana from a starting feat that would give them 1+Int Modifier of Mana. You could repeatedly take this feat and each time giving you 1+Int Modifier of Mana. As you grow in level, you also get 1/2 of your level in Mana as well. So a level 6 Wizard with an 18 Intelligence, with just the starting feat, would have 1+4(Int)+3(1/2 Level) = 8 Mana.

Using the above spell list, he would be able to cast a pair of fireballs and an acid arrow at minimum cost. Or a stronger version of fireball or any of the other spells so long as the total encounter cost does not exceed the mana that the caster has available.

Considering that by level 6, the caster would have had the opportunity to select feats at 3rd and 6th levels, as well as the class bonus feats at 2nd, 4th and 6th levels. You would be able to get more mana and at the same time things would scale nicely.

Gone would be the automatic increases in damage based upon level. You want it to hit harder, it should require more effort. There could be feats that would increase your damage on specific spell types or something along those lines as well. But it is lunch time and all I can think about is food right now.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-16-2009, 02:07 PM
There is some differentiation in what I was talking about. You have no limit on what spells you can pick with learning, you do have a limited based upon the amount of Spell training/conditioning you have. Spellcasting should be physically exerting and exhausting.

Think about it like this, you have the following spells in your spell book and each has a minimum amount of mana required for a lack of a better term for now.

Spell Minimum Cost
Magic Missle (1 Mana)
Acid Arrow (2 Mana)
Fireball (3 Mana)
Obscuring Mist (1 Mana)

Now, each wizard to start with would get a set amount of Mana from a starting feat that would give them 1+Int Modifier of Mana. You could repeatedly take this feat and each time giving you 1+Int Modifier of Mana. As you grow in level, you also get 1/2 of your level in Mana as well. So a level 6 Wizard with an 18 Intelligence, with just the starting feat, would have 1+4(Int)+3(1/2 Level) = 8 Mana.

Using the above spell list, he would be able to cast a pair of fireballs and an acid arrow at minimum cost. Or a stronger version of fireball or any of the other spells so long as the total encounter cost does not exceed the mana that the caster has available.

Considering that by level 6, the caster would have had the opportunity to select feats at 3rd and 6th levels, as well as the class bonus feats at 2nd, 4th and 6th levels. You would be able to get more mana and at the same time things would scale nicely.

Gone would be the automatic increases in damage based upon level. You want it to hit harder, it should require more effort. There could be feats that would increase your damage on specific spell types or something along those lines as well. But it is lunch time and all I can think about is food right now.

No I understand what you are saying but this forces the GM/DM to have even tighter control over the spells he allows the caster know/learn. An idea that I am not keen on.

Because if you don't, every caster is going to be taking the highest level spells and blowing their load on that one spell which could potentially be an encounter-ender in the 1st round of combat.

See what I am saying?

If you have say 12 mana that means you could cast one spell that requires 12 mana. That seems like A LOT for one spell to cost which means it is going to be a powerful spell, meaning it could be an encounter-ender. And that is something a 1st level wizard could get up to. Unless you hose them on the mana points...

It sounds good in theory but I can see it back-firing if it isn't tightly controlled by the GM/DM.

Your method also really limits the casters almost as bad as 3.5, 8 mana at level 6?
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Okay, wizards...

they must take the feat, Spell Training (i'm fine with this name or if anyone has something better). When they do they get 3-5+Intelligence modifier in spells to choose from.

While I am thinking about it, the Spell Power class feature could also be extra spells...

I think for wizards the distinction should be made that their spells, unlike a bard, cleric, sorcerer, or druid are limited in use. Meaning that number of spells that they choose, that is all they can cast per encounter. Whereas the other classes can cast any of their spells a number of times per encounter equal to their number of spell training feats they take. This should also be the reason why wizards gain more spells, because they are more versatile.

Also while I am thinking about it Spellcraft should be the governing skill for wizards, perform for bards, religion or faith for clerics and paladins, and nature for druids? What do you think of that?

Back to wizards, so a wizard gets 3-5+Int mod. in spells. That is how many spells they cast per encounter and once it is used they can only get it back by rolling a natural 20 on a Spellcraft check to use a spell or by spending an action point to bring one back.

Yeah, I really like Force points and action points in Eberron so why not use them? Might even use destiny points too!

Anyway, here are some popular spells...

Magic missile
standard action to cast
Make a spellcraft check and compare it to the either Reflex Defense or AC of the target. (haven't decided which defense it should target). On a hit you deal damage according to the spellcraft check rolled. On a miss you still deal half damage.
DC 10 1 missile 1d4+1
DC 15 2 missiles 1d4+1 each
DC 20 3 missiles 1d4+1 each
DC 25 4 missiles 1d4+1 each
DC 30 5 missiles 1d4+1 each
If you roll high enough to gain multiple missiles you can have them attack different targets, comparing your spellcraft check against each targets defense score.

Easy!:D

How about...

Fireball
standard action to cast
make a spellcraft check and compare the result against the reflex defense of all creatures within a __ square area. On a hit those creatures take damage based on the spellcraft check rolled. On a miss they take half damage.
DC 15 2d6 damage
DC 20 4d6 damage
DC 25 6d6 damage
DC 30 8d6 damage
DC 35 10d6 damage


this is fun! and easy!! only 9999999 more spells to go!!!!!!!!!!!:biggrin:

McCummhail
01-17-2009, 09:01 AM
they must take the feat, Spell Training (i'm fine with this name or if anyone has something better). When they do they get 3-5+Intelligence modifier in spells to choose from.

While I am thinking about it, the Spell Power class feature could also be extra spells...

I think for wizards the distinction should be made that their spells, unlike a bard, cleric, sorcerer, or druid are limited in use. Meaning that number of spells that they choose, that is all they can cast per encounter. Whereas the other classes can cast any of their spells a number of times per encounter equal to their number of spell training feats they take. This should also be the reason why wizards gain more spells, because they are more versatile.
As the spell book has long been the artifice of their spell breadth, I think it might be worthwhile to make the spell book a feature.
Spell training (wizardly): I might recommend spell training giving them 2+INTmod spells/encounter and them only being able to cast each chosen spell once /encounter. (I like spell training, just differentiate with parenthesis seems fine to me).
Spell Book: Choosing the spell book gives them INTmod+wizard levels additional spells (with new one upon gaining a wizard level?) and allows them to freely define their 'spell list' between encounters.
Arcane Specialization: The wizard chooses a school of magic as his specialization and a prohibited school. The wizard gains an additional 2 spells /encounter (from his specialized school only). The wizard also gains +2 to all checks regarding spells from his specialization (casting, counterspelling, etc).


Also while I am thinking about it Spellcraft should be the governing skill for wizards, perform for bards, religion or faith for clerics and paladins, and nature for druids? What do you think of that?
I actually prefer spellcraft as the necessary skill for all casters. It streamlines the mechanic and standardizes it. Also, choosing to cast spells is a definitive character choice, so they should definitively choose the skills to do so. A bard, for example, will perform regardless of choosing spells. Separating them allows me to define the character more.




Anyway, here are some popular spells...

Magic missile
standard action to cast
Make a spellcraft check and compare it to the either Reflex Defense or AC of the target. (haven't decided which defense it should target). On a hit you deal damage according to the spellcraft check rolled. On a miss you still deal half damage.
DC 10 1 missile 1d4+1
DC 15 2 missiles 1d4+1 each
DC 20 3 missiles 1d4+1 each
DC 25 4 missiles 1d4+1 each
DC 30 5 missiles 1d4+1 each
If you roll high enough to gain multiple missiles you can have them attack different targets, comparing your spellcraft check against each targets defense score.

Easy!:D

How about...

Fireball
standard action to cast
make a spellcraft check and compare the result against the reflex defense of all creatures within a __ square area. On a hit those creatures take damage based on the spellcraft check rolled. On a miss they take half damage.
DC 15 2d6 damage
DC 20 4d6 damage
DC 25 6d6 damage
DC 30 8d6 damage
DC 35 10d6 damage


this is fun! and easy!! only 9999999 more spells to go!!!!!!!!!!!:biggrin:
I was curious what criteria you were using to set the DC.
The DC in this case becomes paramount to balance. A low level character with a Nat. 20 becomes a powerhouse with a fireball. Fireball + Crit = Encounter over.
Choosing your DC when you cast a spell might make for an interesting risk reward mechanic for a talent or something.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-17-2009, 11:54 AM
I was curious what criteria you were using to set the DC.
The DC in this case becomes paramount to balance. A low level character with a Nat. 20 becomes a powerhouse with a fireball. Fireball + Crit = Encounter over.
Choosing your DC when you cast a spell might make for an interesting risk reward mechanic for a talent or something.

My criteria is the typical 1st level wizard who is going to have a +14 to spellcraft (5 from trained +5 from skill focus +4 Int). But I have no problem boosting the DCs.

There also wouldn't be any crits because it is a skill check, not an attack roll, only attack rolls crit.

McCummhail
01-18-2009, 08:13 AM
My criteria is the typical 1st level wizard who is going to have a +14 to spellcraft (5 from trained +5 from skill focus +4 Int). But I have no problem boosting the DCs.

There also wouldn't be any crits because it is a skill check, not an attack roll, only attack rolls crit.
Excellent. Those were the details I was curious about and I am fully with you.

Here is an idea for a Talent:
Spell gamble: Before casting a spell, the caster may choose a DC target for their spell. Then the caster makes their spellcraft check as normal. If the check does not reach the target DC, the spell fails. If the check succeeds, the spell is cast at the DC target (but not higher) with a +3 to the save DC.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-18-2009, 09:31 AM
Excellent. Those were the details I was curious about and I am fully with you.

Here is an idea for a Talent:
Spell gamble: Before casting a spell, the caster may choose a DC target for their spell. Then the caster makes their spellcraft check as normal. If the check does not reach the target DC, the spell fails. If the check succeeds, the spell is cast at the DC target (but not higher) with a +3 to the save DC.

I like the idea but there also aren't saves anymore. Using Saga edition rules there are static defenses, AC, Reflex Defense, Fortitude Defense, and Will Defense. I am not sure about how to calculate all of these for this version I (we) are creating.

In Saga there isn't an AC score but I like the idea of an AC being strictly modified by a characters Armor or lack of armor. So I am thinking most melee and ranged attacks will affect AC and AC will be determined by this formula:

10 + half character level + armor bonus + shield bonus + dodge bonuses + natural armor

In Saga edition all of these things affect and target your Reflex defense, and while I have no problem with that, I can see the issue with Armor being directly applied to and affecting one's Reflex Defense.

The other Defenses will be calculated like this:

10 + character level + ability modifier + other modifiers

This is going to be hard to gauge I think. Adding half character level + armor bonus may push things a bit too high for those characters that wear armor.

I don't know:confused:

Something to think about.

McCummhail
01-19-2009, 12:42 PM
Regarding armor and AC:
One possible method would be to calculate AC in the same manner as the other defenses, and leave shields as an AC bonus.
Take the existing armor statistics as is but change the AC bonus to DR, halve it if you think it is too much. Certain weapons and spells will be designated as armor piercing to reduce or ignore DR (like lightsabers do).
Talents and feats could be used to increase AC, fort, ref, will, etc.

Webhead
01-19-2009, 12:53 PM
Though it would definately require a bit more close analysis, on the subject of armor in a "Saga Edition D&D", I might be inclined to keep it close to the way the system treats armor currently, as an alternate bonus to Reflex Defense instead of your level. Afterall, why should Conan the Barbarian be penalized on survivability for choosing not to walk around in platemail?

Plus, one can port over the Armor Talent Tree for warriors who can turn those sets of armor to significant benefits, the same way characters like Boba Fett do in Star Wars. This also serves to keep traditionally non-armor wearing classes from slapping on armor simply to gain some bonuses as, for the un-specialized wearer, your level bonus will start to outstrip the armor bonus.

If anything, armor may provide a level or two of DR as suggested above but I would keep it minimal, again to discourage people from slapping on chainmail simply for statistical advantage.

Just thoughts...

Kazinsky
01-19-2009, 04:30 PM
Maybe the best thing to start with, Inquisitor, would be to layout a sort of design goals document before you dive in with changes.

Make up a listing of things that you want to change, noting specifically what you don't like about it and what direction you're wanting to change it in (eg. I don't like HPs in 4e. Want to make it more like Saga's vitality system. Make sure this reflects a tiring out of the character, etc.).

Then you can address each area in a concise manner with your goals to always fall back on. (I get sort of lost dealing with changes that are unguided, but that just may be me.)

To be on point with your recent posts, I would comment this: be wary of adjusting your attack mechanic to a skill check away from the attack roll. Since you are mainly altering the core of 4e to fit your playstyle, I would respect some of the ingrained balance that is core to 4e. Skills are not as tightly balanced as attacks, so this may be an area you have to consider.

I like the concept of mixing and matching core features though. It would feel more like a freeform system, where you could have dual-wielding casters or plate-wearing rogues. I enjoy removing iconic structures from my games and relying more on role-playing and experience to understand what you're coming up against, rather than just knowing that the broadsword-wielding plate guy is a paladin and the robed dude with a stick is a wizard at-a-glance.

Webhead
01-19-2009, 04:57 PM
...Make up a listing of things that you want to change, noting specifically what you don't like about it and what direction you're wanting to change it in (eg. I don't like HPs in 4e. Want to make it more like Saga's vitality system. Make sure this reflects a tiring out of the character, etc.)...

Star Wars Saga doesn't have the "Vitality" mechanics that the previous d20 versions did. It instead uses "Hit Points" with the addition of the "Damage Threshold/Condition Track" mechanic where taking large amounts of damage at once will fatigue and impair your character.

I liked the "Vitality" system in concept but it had flaws. I think the "Condition Track" mechanic is quite clever and was surprised that it wasn't included in D&D 4e.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-19-2009, 05:23 PM
Maybe the best thing to start with, Inquisitor, would be to layout a sort of design goals document before you dive in with changes.

Make up a listing of things that you want to change, noting specifically what you don't like about it and what direction you're wanting to change it in (eg. I don't like HPs in 4e. Want to make it more like Saga's vitality system. Make sure this reflects a tiring out of the character, etc.).

Then you can address each area in a concise manner with your goals to always fall back on. (I get sort of lost dealing with changes that are unguided, but that just may be me.)

To be on point with your recent posts, I would comment this: be wary of adjusting your attack mechanic to a skill check away from the attack roll. Since you are mainly altering the core of 4e to fit your playstyle, I would respect some of the ingrained balance that is core to 4e. Skills are not as tightly balanced as attacks, so this may be an area you have to consider.

I like the concept of mixing and matching core features though. It would feel more like a freeform system, where you could have dual-wielding casters or plate-wearing rogues. I enjoy removing iconic structures from my games and relying more on role-playing and experience to understand what you're coming up against, rather than just knowing that the broadsword-wielding plate guy is a paladin and the robed dude with a stick is a wizard at-a-glance.

I think I am really modifying Saga editions rules at this point to fit an abstract sense of D&D why borrowing heavily from 3.5 and 4e. I think if you look at it from that angle it will start to make more sense. However, you do need to have some familiarity about Saga edition to know what is what.

Since Saga is my holy grail of RPG systems, I want to make that system fit a fantasy framework that I can call D&D.

I was attempting do do something orderly with my posts but everyone kept bringing up spells. I think I will make chapter sections of PDFs and then post those links for people to pursue. That will take more work than me throwing out random ideas though!;)

Kazinsky
01-20-2009, 04:41 PM
Star Wars Saga doesn't have the "Vitality" mechanics that the previous d20 versions did. It instead uses "Hit Points" with the addition of the "Damage Threshold/Condition Track" mechanic where taking large amounts of damage at once will fatigue and impair your character.

I liked the "Vitality" system in concept but it had flaws. I think the "Condition Track" mechanic is quite clever and was surprised that it wasn't included in D&D 4e.
Ah, good point. I have the SRD for Saga, but haven't had time to review it yet. I was just assuming there, but really pointing out the framework that could be used to construct a working goals document to build up from.

I'll have to take a look at the HP + condition track system that is in Saga. I knew that the old vitality had some flaws and I really like the condition track included in 4e for diseases... so maybe there's some real merit in merging (or adopting more of) Saga's system into 4e. (In my case, that is.)
--- Merged from Double Post ---

I think I am really modifying Saga editions rules at this point to fit an abstract sense of D&D why borrowing heavily from 3.5 and 4e. I think if you look at it from that angle it will start to make more sense. However, you do need to have some familiarity about Saga edition to know what is what.

Since Saga is my holy grail of RPG systems, I want to make that system fit a fantasy framework that I can call D&D.

I was attempting do do something orderly with my posts but everyone kept bringing up spells. I think I will make chapter sections of PDFs and then post those links for people to pursue. That will take more work than me throwing out random ideas though!;)
I see where you're coming from now. I agree, that if you want to work towards a Saga base that can be used solidly to play "D&D", then that's the direction that you want to come from.

I was just getting a little confounded by the different tangents that were coming up in the thread. I look forward to seeing your design goals doc, though. Take your time. If you get some structure down, then you can start petitioning the community to take up chunks and run with them, since your idea definitely has a following here.

You work on the MC systems while a couple of other chew away at coming up with those power/skill trees, while someone else... you get the point.

OT: Are you up in Chicago now? I just noticed that you're avatar's location changed. I hope all is well.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-22-2009, 12:27 PM
Design goals. (Gonna do this chapter by chapter)

Overall goal: to create a fantasy RPG using Star Wars Saga Edition rules that I (or we) can call D&D.

1) Races
Goal: To change the racial traits listed in 3.5 and 4e to be balanced within a Saga edition-like system

2) Classes
Goal: To change the 3.5 and 4e classes in to classes that look more like classes in Saga edition. Utilizing class features, starting feats, and talent tress. As well as everything else, defense scores and hit points.

3) Skills
Goal: To pair down the 3.5 skill list, using a mish-mash of 4e and Saga editions skill descriptions but using Saga editions mechanics.

4) Feats
Goal: Yes. These can really come last, mostly going to be enhancements to your character, etc. Can probably just port in a lot of Saga and 4e feats.

5) Heroic Qualities
Goal: a big open area for exploration! An alternate alignment system, possibly similar to the dark side point system. Figure out some way to work the destiny point and force point systems in. Height/weight and all that good stuff.

6) Equipment
Goal: I prefer the equipment tables in 3.5 so it will be a matter of converting that stuff to the new rules being developed.

7) Combat
Goal: Basically want to stick with Saga editions combat system. So it is really a matter of making it work. Could actually be the place to start, to make everything work around it. Or at least feats and talents.

8) Monsters
Goal: to develop an easy method for monster creation similar to Saga's nonheroic creation. Will mish-mash Saga and 4e. Possibly develop a list of special traits for monsters to choose from as well as detailing a lot of the notable monsters from D&D, dragons anyone?!

9) Whatever else!
Goal: For whatever else, basically a good area for notes and brainstorming.

canadiansatan
01-29-2009, 09:31 PM
Love the idea inquisitor. Be sure to post a semi full spell list when you get around to it.

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-29-2009, 10:19 PM
Love the idea inquisitor. Be sure to post a semi full spell list when you get around to it.

Since you mention it! If anyone wants to try their hand at writing any of the above sections or sections of those sections, then have at it.

I think I am going to start or finish with the classes section. Of which I could use help developing talent trees for, hint-hint!

Ashler
02-05-2009, 05:58 PM
Hey great work you guys! I don't know if your familiar with The Order 66 Podcast but one of the hosts, GM Chris, created a rule set for this. I created a wiki for it, you can find it HERE (http://fantasy-saga.wikidot.com/start). You can also download a pdf of it too from the wiki. If you like what you see or if you have some things to add there is a forum to do so.

On a side note I am looking for playtesters! The Game will be ran on Saturdays from 7pm-11ish (Mountain Time) bi-weekly. The first two game (which would fall on February 14th and 28th) will be moved to the Fridays before (the 13th and 27th) due to Valentines day and Ill be out of town on the 28th but after those two they will be moved back to saturdays and should be on a regular bases.

Later
Ash

Inquisitor Tremayne
02-05-2009, 10:42 PM
Hey great work you guys! I don't know if your familiar with The Order 66 Podcast but one of the hosts, GM Chris, created a rule set for this. I created a wiki for you can find it HERE (http://fantasy-saga.wikidot.com/start). You can also download a pdf of it too from the wiki. If you like what you see or if you have some things to add there is a forum to do so.

That is awesome, I love the Order 66 podcast I never listen to it!

I just downloaded the pdf, I'll give it a once over!

Thanks!

Ashler
02-06-2009, 12:09 AM
Great!! I sent you a PM but forgot to mention that this will be a Skype game. But you can read more about it in the forums on the Saga Fantasy site under Skype Game.

Later
Ash

nijineko
02-06-2009, 03:10 PM
with regards to the spell scaling and/or swapping idea, perhaps instead use spell chains. the feat in question grants access to the spell chain, allowing successively better versions at higher levels. or some such.