D&D with SW Saga edition rules

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

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]

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!

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

[Kazinsky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

1. What is it that you like about the Saga's BAB system?
2. Do you enjoy having a difference between your Jedi and your nobles BAB? Why do you enjoy the difference?
3. Would it be bad if there was no difference?
4. 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]

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.