The UNFUN change to Saving Throws

403 posts / 0 new
Last post
"What is unbalanced should be removed from D&D" was the mantra of 3ed.
"What is unfun should be removed from D&D" is the mantra of 4ed.

So why are we changing from saving throws to static defenses?

I can see the only benefit when you have a mass-target spell/effect and everyone needs to roll a saving throw. With static defense you roll only once (the caster does), and save some time.

But every other situation? A character stepping onto a trap? Someone getting poisoned? A single-target spell?

Do we realize that a PC's static defense is totally UNFUN?

What is more fun between the following:

a) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... QUICK! Make a Reflex save!!"

b) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... and miss"

Static defenses = every time you're going to stand and stare while the DM tells you if whatever hits you succeeds or not. No more thrill of making your own roll. No more watching you pal cursing himself for using an unlucky die. No more chanting and candles before the roll against the big evil spell...

A static number works very well for AC instead, because most of the time AC protects just against the usual damage. Nothing thrilling, and rolling AC defensively against every single arrow or axe swing is overkill.

But spells, traps, poisons, gaze attacks, magic items effects, crushing walls... these are usually important effects, it's a pity not to be able to get at least the feeling that it's YOUR OWN luck saving you, and not the DM's unluck!!!

Static defenses are ok for monsters, in which case maybe it's more fun for the player to roll a "spell attack roll", but certainly not for PC.
Is this confirmed knowledge, or is it supposition based on comparison to SW:SAGA?

In any case, it's not really any different than AC. A flaming sphere coming at you is as much an attack as a sword swing. But then, some people would rather not have the static defense for the sword swing, either.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
A static number works very well for AC instead, because most of the time AC protects just against the usual damage. Nothing thrilling, and rolling AC defensively against every single arrow or axe swing is overkill.

Somehow I bet that if someone were shooting arrows at you or trying to behead you with an axe in real life, you wouldn't find it quite so boring. I'd say the only reason spells seem more exciting than weapons are because you're used to rolling the saves against the spells.

Rolling dice was never that fun for me personally; in my opinion, anything that speeds up the resolution of actions in combat is a good thing. I suppose there might be some games where you say "The fireball races towards the three of you aaannnnd.... *everyone rolls* YOU ALL MADE IT!", but most of my games seem to go "The fireball races towards the three of you aaannnd.... *everyone rolls* ok, so... carry the one... and, then yeah, the plus from bless, and haste gives you a plus one as well i think, ok, and did everyone remember the minus one from the prayer? ok, and you've got cat's grace on as well... so..."
I forgot one thing.

When the fireball arrives, the rogue already knows that if it doesn't hurt the fighter, it can never hurt him as well. The fighter already knows that if it hurts the rogue, it will hurt him too.

Because with static saves, you can just put the characters in a list with descending saves; those above the caster's roll are all saved, those below are all affected. There is not much variety of results. No chance that once in a while the worse guy will succeed and the better guy will fail.
I forgot one thing.

When the fireball arrives, the rogue already knows that if it doesn't hurt the fighter, it can never hurt him as well. The fighter already knows that if it hurts the rogue, it will hurt him too.

Because with static saves, you can just put the characters in a list with descending saves; those above the caster's roll are all saved, those below are all affected. There is not much variety of results. No chance that once in a while the worse guy will succeed and the better guy will fail.

Which is a standard argument for multiple attack rolls with area effect spells and abilities, I believe.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
I think Save Defence is better than Saving Throws

For a variety of reasons, one being that it streamlines the rules with normal melee and ranged attacks. The other that it puts the effort squarely on the caster, instead of letting the caster be a non-participant in his own spell (you cast, wait for results vs. you cast, roll to hit, and determine results.)

I'd much rather see an active caster than a passive caster in this instance. Consider how it will be to PLAY it, than to how the DM is using it. It's the PLAY that will determine the fun.

And this is just a small part of why I think its better :D
Static defenses are in Star Wars: Saga Edition. Now repeat after me "Just because its in Star Wars doesn't mean it's in D&D 4th edition."

It might be, though. If the developers confirm it, then it'll be the time to complain, and I might even agree with you.
It is not sure that 4th édition will use static defense.

In one of the latest playtest reports, the author states about a character who can give a bonus on saving throws, which saves 2 PCs against an Entangle Spell.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070816a
Rolling saves is very thrilling, espacialy if its save or die. Everything stops when a save has to be rolled. There is a silence before, screems if its a succes or a bitter sigh echoes if a failure.

You don't always know why you're doing it but you want it so much. It really puts the destiny of the character in its player's hands.

But no more .

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Changing whether it is the attacker or the defender (or both) who roll is d20 is the easieset thing in the world to homebrew.
It is not sure that 4th édition will use static defense.

In one of the latest playtest reports, the author states about a character who can give a bonus on saving throws, which saves 2 PCs against an Entangle Spell.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070816a

Meaning at that point Saving Throws were still in the game. A good thing imho.
My group has been using static saves as Defences since UA (where Saga stole it from) – it makes it more proactive and fun for the player.
The flip side of this being that it's more fun for PCs that rely on saves... My beguiler never rolled a single die for 3 straight sessions -- everything in his arsenal requires a save from the target. *yawn*

Now spellcasters can "attack" their enemies by making rolls to overcome defenses to see if spells succeed or fail... i'm fine with that.
You know, the solution to both issues is completely and totally elegent.

Allow for both. Give Players a Save Bonus and allow them to roll a die for saves, and then give monsters a Save Defense, and allow players to roll to effect their opponents.

In general, the only problem I have with the solution is in mind control type effects... but as success or failure pretty much obvious quickly, this might not be as bad as I thought, really.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
Using the UA variant "players roll all the dice" seems to me to be where this is going.

The attacking PC rolls dice to overcome the static defense of his NPC opponents.

The defending PC rolls dice to resist/avoid the static attack of his NPC opponents.

In either case, this absolves the DM from having to spend too much of his time and energy rolling dice and calculating results.

I've already decided that in future sessions (3e and 4e), most NPC's will be "taking 10" on most skill checks (especially spot/listen), and any time 3 or more dice are rolled for damage I will be taking the mean rather than rolling. A 14d6 cone of cold? 49 points, pretty much every time. Or maybe 45+1d10 or 40+1d20. But you get the point.

An opposed d20 roll can create a spread of -19 (1 vs. 20) to +19 (20 vs 1), a whopping 38 points, far outweighing the modest modifiers that a typical character has, meaning that opposed rolls are determined by luck far more than by skill.

Let the players roll the dice. Abstract the meaning of the d20 roll to include not only the PC's action but the NPC's as well. An opposed check doesn't actually need to have 2 d20's rolled. Just let the single d20 roll (by the player) represent how well the PC did against the NPC. Assume the NPC "takes 10" and the d20 ends up generating a result of -9 (1 vs 10) to +10 (20 vs 10), which allows PC skill ranks to have a much greater influence on the outcome.

Before this gets off topic, I want to reiterate that I think that we're using the "players roll all the dice" idea, so that players WILL roll PC saving throws.
You know, the solution to both issues is completely and totally elegent.

Allow for both. Give Players a Save Bonus and allow them to roll a die for saves, and then give monsters a Save Defense, and allow players to roll to effect their opponents.

That's what my group did when we first implemented static Defences, but now we've gone for just pure Defences on both sides.
Well, in 3rd edition we had the problem of Reflex Saves and an AC. An AC was often based on how agile you were. Dragons had a Dex of 10 yet they had a high reflex save and could dodge fireballs with ease (for 1/2 damage, yes).

Now with static defenses, the same bonus to dodging hits is the same bonus to dodging traps which is very good.

Static defenses speed up gameplay which in my opinion is sorely needed. I for one, support it wholeheartedly.
Meh, the target rolls a save, the caster rolls a to hit. All the same to me.

I can see a slight advantage in the 'caster rolls to hit method' as I have seen a LOT of new players get confused when playing spell casters as to whether they roll a to hit (i.e. when casting an Orb spell) or if the target just rolls a save (i.e. with a fireball). If it's consistantly one or the other, that ought to make it easier for first time spell casters. Otherwise its six of one, half dozen of the other.
Also, in with the SWSE rules, if you don't roll a 10 or above on your AoE Attack roll then the attack goes off on some wild tangent and doesn't do any damage to anything that matters.
The difference likes in "responsibility". So you either curse your DM and his good luck or you curse yourself and your bad luck. That's the difference, hehe.
Interesting note: The rules do not have to be the same for the different sides of the table.

If it's more fun for players to roll saving throws against an effect, they can do that.

If it's more fun for the DM to have the player roll a single attack against his army of mooks' magic defense, he can do that.

A split like this doesn't even need to be a houserule, it could be the way the basic game is written. Converting from a saving throw bonus to an attack DC is one of the easiest and least painless things I can think of to do, so it could easily go either way, or as above, both... depending on which turn out to be more fun.

We're still years advanced from rods/staves/wands... which is a very very good thing.
Personally, I think I will probably try out what is written and a players make all the rolls, if only because them making the rolls is less work for me when running a game. :D

Will it suck that all of the skeletons will either save or die (or at least get hit for full) because they have the same defense, *shrug*, do we want much variance in terms of skeletons anyway?

However I do second the point having some spells (in 3.5) require the attacker to roll and most others require the defender to roll is confusing to new players.

The only reason I can see for non-static defense is to help eliminate those "everyone fails and goes unconscious because they have defenses in the same 2-4 point area" moments. But that is only because the odds of everyone failing (rolling low) is lower than a single attacker beating the highest defense (rolling high, or a natural 20).

That said, I do prefer how Saga calculates Defenses over how 3.X (and d20M and earlier SW d20 versions) calculates Saves. Especially the tying in of AC/Defense with Reflex.

Heroic Level + highest appropriate Class Defense is just really nice. And it prevents the problem of multi-classed characters having a few saves really stacked and another save be truly hosed.
Will it suck that all of the skeletons will either save or die (or at least get hit for full) because they have the same defense, *shrug*, do we want much variance in terms of skeletons anyway?

Well I would just have the PC roll for each Skeleton. Its really no difference than when the Fighter does a WW attack.
Well I would just have the PC roll for each Skeleton. Its really no difference than when the Fighter does a WW attack.

You are looking at 3.5 still. In SW Saga, Whirlwind Attack says "you make one attack roll and apply the result to every target in range."
Meaning at that point Saving Throws were still in the game. A good thing imho.

Not necessarily, that really could be a left over of old lingo as they haven't revealed what the combat format is. In the sense of streamlining, AC and saves are a poorer format than 3 defenses. In addition, that ability is very similar to the Nobles/Officers abilities...

I personally like the Static Defense if you have to have a static position, as the other form has quirky redundancies (I'm looking at you AC and Reflex). I also like that the caster has a more active role than being a fire and forget Rocket Launcher. Magic has always been soo boring in D&D that Psionics 3.0 was refreshing in that there power level was on a die roll. I want magic/psi to be interactive, not simple powers that go off automatically without a hitch.

The static defenses while not as fun in the defensive end, is more dramatic for the attackers end especially for the casters so nothing is lost and more is gained.
Static defenses = every time you're going to stand and stare while the DM tells you if whatever hits you succeeds or not.

Sort of like physical attacks targeting your Static AC?
The DM rolls and either hits or misses and the player has no input.

One advantage is that you no longer have invincible targets because a "lucky" player (often helped by misreading the actual fall of the die) always "makes his save"
It also allows the DM to "fudge" dice rolls on "spell targeting" - something which sounds like it occurs regularly in certain campaigns.
sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't believe that the Saving throws would be reduced to being defenses like armor or the Saga over simplification. It may work in the setting of Star Wars, but it isn't a given to be in 4th ed just because it is in Saga.

Saga doesn't equal cannon for 4th ed. How many times must I repeat this?
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
Using the UA variant "players roll all the dice" seems to me to be where this is going.
...
Before this gets off topic, I want to reiterate that I think that we're using the "players roll all the dice" idea, so that players WILL roll PC saving throws.

I hope so, for all the reasons you outlined and then some:

As DM it would mean that my attention would be more focussed on what the monsters are *doing* ("The bloodied orc screams a curdling cry and swings at you with his axe, roll for dodge!) rather than what they are rolling.

As a DM it means that every time a monster takes action against a player, that individual is involved. As it is now, I notice that some players sort of sit back and only really react if they actually take a hit. Sometimes their attention can wander so that they need to be notified of this circumstance. Now I have good players, but it is only natural when you only get to *do* something every few minutes in a complex combat.

As a DM it would mean that I could quickly describe many creature's actions and have multiple players resolving outcomes (I only play with folks I would trust with this anyway). This has the potential to massively speed up combat.

The only reason I haven't gone to the system now is that we play with some beginners who are in several campaigns and struggle with keeping track of the rules as is. Changing something this fundamental would be over the top in terms of explaining how today's D&D game is different from tomorrows for them, they want to just have fun once a week, not become a rules encyclopedia.
Faster gameplay = More fun.
Old system "The wizard casts as spell at you give me a saveing throw. What type? A Will save. Is it mind affecting, cus I have a bonus against mind affecting? Ya it is. Ok so D20 plus my save bonus plus my racial bonus plus that spell bonus. Whats the DC? 15. O I made it. What did you roll? A 17. Hmm".

New system "The wizard casts a spell, you feel an affect in your mind but it fails to take holde. Next."
Faster gameplay = More fun.
Old system "The wizard casts as spell at you give me a saveing throw. What type? A Will save. Is it mind affecting, cus I have a bonus against mind affecting? Ya it is. Ok so D20 plus my save bonus plus my racial bonus plus that spell bonus. Whats the DC? 15. O I made it. What did you roll? A 17. Hmm".

New system "The wizard casts a spell, you feel an affect in your mind but it fails to take holde. Next."

um well if you speak that way...I can make the other one just as fast and thother really slow to.

Old system: "The wizard cast a spell at you make a will save it is mind affecting so your x bonus kicks in. I got a 21. Ok you make it."

New system" A wizard cast a spell at you. What is you mental defense since well you are getting bonus because well Bob over there has the 'coolness' talent tree...and well you are getting bonus from your own iron will talent tree...um..wait a second aha the wizard has the talent tree 'anti-coolness'...so Bob's bonus doesn't count. Ok mmmm....the spells fails to overcome your defense. Oh your Iron Will talent tree goes off..."

You guys want to speed up your game...learn the rules and what is on your character sheet...honestly we don't know what 4th edition mechanics will be like. But sorry it doesn't matter. I hope they put in a guide on common sense DMing.

Also I like monsters making invidual rolls it keeps one effect from just winning the day. So what it take a little slower if the wizards rolls good the fighter or anybody else might noty get to go. Also mind effect should not be universal effective that is just retarded.

Also I see stactic defense as a more effective tool for DMs to railroad PCs. Thus it is a crappy rule.
Saga doesn't equal cannon for 4th ed. How many times must I repeat this?

I hope so too. Now can you asure me WoW doesn't equal cannon for 4th ed.
If it's really that big of a deal, you can always remember Rule Number 0.5...

"Defense" is what they call Taking 10 on your Saves.
This change would seem a bit more fun to casters, then, wouldn't it? Now instead of just casting a spell and waiting to see who dodges it, he gets to ROLL A DIE! Woo!

It's really the same mechanic as melee attacks. Would it be more "fun" if players rolled to dodge rather than rolling to hit?

I like the idea of one consistent mechanic: you only roll a d20 when you're trying to DO something. Not having something done to you.

My only real concern is that things would get a bit odd if reflex saves and AC were merged, since that's a major difference between fighters and rogues in D&D.
sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't believe that the Saving throws would be reduced to being defenses like armor or the Saga over simplification. It may work in the setting of Star Wars, but it isn't a given to be in 4th ed just because it is in Saga.

Saga doesn't equal cannon for 4th ed. How many times must I repeat this?

I sorry, but the old system is clunky. They are streamlining the game, just like Saga did (not to mention that many of Saga's mechanics were from the 4e playbook). Sooo...

Which is quicker? Saga.

Which saves the DM time? Saga.

Which is easy for multiclassing? Saga.

Which has the fewest complications? Saga.

Which is more exciting for the caster? Saga.

Which makes more sense, 3.x's AC and reflex saves to avoid damage or Saga's Reflex Defense? Saga.

Which is easier to build high level characters? Saga.

Which is more balanced between classes? Saga.

That's 8 for Saga and a big 0 for 3.x, I find it hard to believe that they are not going in this direction, especially how successful it's been for the Star Wars RPG (considering it had rules that were almost the same for 3.x).

The goal of streamlining is to reduce rolls, complications in leveling, balance, and ease of use. The Defense system fits this to much greater degree than AC and Saves.
I also have to say I am tired of hearing that Star Wars is a different animal than D&D. It's not, the themes are really similar. All you have to do is look at ANH and you'll see a classic dungeon crawl to rescue the captured princess from the Evil Wizard's dark knight. Many dungeon crawls revolve around taking down a bunch of speed bumps before the facing the BBEG, not unlike SW.

The difference is simply the trappings.
Faster gameplay = More fun.
Old system "The wizard casts as spell at you give me a saveing throw. What type? A Will save. Is it mind affecting, cus I have a bonus against mind affecting? Ya it is. Ok so D20 plus my save bonus plus my racial bonus plus that spell bonus. Whats the DC? 15. O I made it. What did you roll? A 17. Hmm".

New system "The wizard casts a spell, you feel an affect in your mind but it fails to take holde. Next."

The DM still has to make the same kind of calculations, only flipped on the attacker's side. Still require the same time.

Furthermore, it's not actually ALWAYS a nice thing to remove rolls to speed up play. You must focus on removing unnecessary things. Now just because the designers have teached you (correctly) that simplifying is good, that doesn't equal to remove everything

Otherwise what's the next step? Remove combat to speed up the game, toss a coin to decide who wins because it's faster and easier? ;) Rolling saving throws is a fun part of the game!
"What is unbalanced should be removed from D&D" was the mantra of 3ed.
"What is unfun should be removed from D&D" is the mantra of 4ed.

So why are we changing from saving throws to static defenses?

I can see the only benefit when you have a mass-target spell/effect and everyone needs to roll a saving throw. With static defense you roll only once (the caster does), and save some time.

But every other situation? A character stepping onto a trap? Someone getting poisoned? A single-target spell?

Do we realize that a PC's static defense is totally UNFUN?

What is more fun between the following:

a) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... QUICK! Make a Reflex save!!"

b) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... and miss"

Static defenses = every time you're going to stand and stare while the DM tells you if whatever hits you succeeds or not. No more thrill of making your own roll. No more watching you pal cursing himself for using an unlucky die. No more chanting and candles before the roll against the big evil spell...

A static number works very well for AC instead, because most of the time AC protects just against the usual damage. Nothing thrilling, and rolling AC defensively against every single arrow or axe swing is overkill.

But spells, traps, poisons, gaze attacks, magic items effects, crushing walls... these are usually important effects, it's a pity not to be able to get at least the feeling that it's YOUR OWN luck saving you, and not the DM's unluck!!!

Static defenses are ok for monsters, in which case maybe it's more fun for the player to roll a "spell attack roll", but certainly not for PC.

Another blow.
The more I know about 4E, the less enthusiastic I am about it. Really, it's not just the usual "oh-my-god-they-change-the-rules-I-will-never-buy-the-new-books" crap. It's that I like less and less what I see.

It seems to me that they are trying to bend D&D rules to a faster video-game-like pace. That's an error: D&D (I am speaking about the one played with paper and pencil and dice) is not a video game, should not be a video game and will never be a video game.
The result of making rules more and more similar to authomatic video-game mechanics will be that the players will have no reason to play the table game (it will be no different and it will never have things as graphics etc.) and will resort to play only the video games. Farewell to the books?
My vote is only use static defenses when play NEEDS to sped up. Otherwise always let the pcs roll their defenses.
Let's not forget that the "speed up" happens only with mass spells. Every other spell, trap, poison, etc. will not see any speed up at all.

I'm only wondering if this is really worth...

Because when I cast a spell I am not passive even in 3ed, I am never passive. I was active in the first place when I choose to cast, what spell to cast, against what target/area, what metamagic to apply (if I'm a spontaneous caster), and maybe some extra ability to apply on the fly or special effect to choose...

An extra roll to succeed with the spell is already often required (touch spells, rays, caster check vs spell resistance...). Having to roll for ST makes it perhaps tiny slightly bit more exciting, but it has never been "passive" before!

So for me the loss when I'm on the receiving end of the spell far outruns the benefit when I'm casting it.

I'd prefer it worked two different ways for PCs and the DM, and who cares about the rules being equal.
Another blow.
The more I know about 4E, the less enthusiastic I am about it. Really, it's not just the usual "oh-my-god-they-change-the-rules-I-will-never-buy-the-new-books" crap. It's that I like less and less what I see.

It seems to me that they are trying to bend D&D rules to a faster video-game-like pace. That's an error: D&D (I am speaking about the one played with paper and pencil and dice) is not a video game, should not be a video game and will never be a video game.
The result of making rules more and more similar to authomatic video-game mechanics will be that the players will have no reason to play the table game (it will be no different and it will never have things as graphics etc.) and will resort to play only the video games. Farewell to the books?

Making the game run faster has nothing to do with being like a video game; it has to do with being a better game. Last night we spent so much time rolling for the traps and having the monster pop out and attack us. We were really playing Dungeons and Hacking not Dungeons and Dragons. I've got better things to do than roleplay and roll for breaking down doors and wait while the DM counts initiative so that the Bugbear can die in one round.

All these areas can be fixed. But, making spells go faster rather than having to wait for the Dm to have to pick up his die and roll and then look. That's a good thing!!
I sorry, but the old system is clunky. They are streamlining the game, just like Saga did (not to mention that many of Saga's mechanics were from the 4e playbook). Sooo...

Which is quicker? Saga.

Which saves the DM time? Saga.

Which is easy for multiclassing? Saga.

Which has the fewest complications? Saga.

Which is more exciting for the caster? Saga.

Which makes more sense, 3.x's AC and reflex saves to avoid damage or Saga's Reflex Defense? Saga.

Which is easier to build high level characters? Saga.

Which is more balanced between classes? Saga.

That's 8 for Saga and a big 0 for 3.x, I find it hard to believe that they are not going in this direction, especially how successful it's been for the Star Wars RPG (considering it had rules that were almost the same for 3.x).

The goal of streamlining is to reduce rolls, complications in leveling, balance, and ease of use. The Defense system fits this to much greater degree than AC and Saves.

There is simplifying, then there is breaking.

Saga, while alright for the futuristic "blasters and lightsabers" game, has some mechanics that simply will not work within a true D&D system. This is one of them. Trained skills is another.

The multi classing is already confirmed as being different than what is in Saga, having spell power be reflected off of character level instead of class level (which makes sense) being an improvement that I applaud.

If you over simplify the game, it will degenerate into something not unlike playing a card game like Hearts or Magic.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
I like the idea of attackers always rolling an attack roll for either melee, range, or spells.

The only way I can see this being a real problem is with AE death spells. Say someone casts Wierd at the party and rolls a 20. Goodbye, party.