|
13 months ago ::
Jul 01, 2012 - 6:04PM
#31
|
|
|
The best "fix" for skills v. Defenses, in my opinion, is to start characters at around 5th-7th level, when the problem isn't really much of a problem anymore.
The game is most enjoyable with mid-level characters, so my solution is to take advantages of the strengths of the system instead of worrying so much about its weaknesses.
Apart from my issues with the surge Force power, I don't really use any house rules. I think this is due to 1) playing at mid-level where the game mechanics are naturally at their best, and 2) not overly optimizing with character builds.
Yeah that would work fine, but I would be concerned that it would be overwhelming since we're new to the game. Even a 5th-7th level SWSE character has quite a few feats and talents.
But are you saying that the "Force User problem" described above doesn't exist at mid-levels somehow? Why not?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jul 01, 2012 - 10:09PM
#32
|
|
|
If you've played other d20 games or 4e, I don't think you'll have a problem picking up saga edition quickly, but you could always do a couple of one shot adventures at lower level to test the waters.
The Force user problem is less at mid level because Defenses have had a chance to catch up to skill modifiers. Say at 1st level you've got a guy with Cha 14 and Skill Focus (Use the Force), his skill modifier will be +12 versus an average Defense of around 12-14, thus any "attack" powers he has are going to be practically auto-success. Skill modifiers only go up at even numbered levels, but defenses (for heroic class characters) go up every level. So at 7th level you're looking at +15 versus Defense of maybe 21-22. Still a better than even chance of success, but no longer guaranteed. Now, if the PC didn't have Skill Focus, it would be +10 instead of +15, basically even odds. At 10th level you'd be looking at +12/+17 versus probably 25+ Defense, so the mechanics tend to even out as you gain in levels (eventually tilting to favor Defenses over Force powers, even with Skill Focus).
A lot depends, though, on whether your players min-max a lot. If they're willing to work with the system rather than just try to build the most optimized possible character, you'll need fewer house rules.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 7:45AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2006
|
I'm new to SWSE, can someone explain what these mistakes / rules flaws are? Or maybe point me to a thread or blog where they're discussed in detail? Thanks!
Check out TrappedSlider's "Links to FAQ, Errata, useful sites" thread. Each of the early sourcebooks has an official errata. The lattermost ones have none, but there are threads in the Mess Hall with proposed changes for potential errata. A search for the term "errata" in the Mess Hall forum will reveal these threads.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 9:20AM
#34
|
|
|
To be clear, skill vs. defense only comes up for Force Users, correct?
So a solution would be to do what 4e does and reduce the Defense bonus to +1 / 2 levels? And forbid Skill Focus (Use the Force)?
No. The "problem" can actually come up in a few areas where a skill check is rolled against a defense score it is just that it is most obvious when dealing with Force Powers. There are a number of skill checks which target a character's WILL defense but while these can be devestating they don't cause actual damage and often get ignored.
I quiver to think about using that solution. Now you could argue that defense scores could go up less quickly (although BAB should also be reduced as well) but that really doesn't solve things at low levels when the problem is the greatest. Even taking out Skill Focus will not "solve" the problem because +7 or +8 against DEF 12 is still close to automatic. A houserule "fix" to the problem is to use what I coined as a SAM (Skill Attack Modifier) although there are a couple slightly different variations on it.
I'll also agree with some of what fairytalejedi has been saying. In a mid level game things don't need to be so bad and often aren't unless a character is trying to "break" some part of the game. I believe the game works best with characters between levels 5 and 13 and think most game play should happen there. I'm starting at level 5 because you can progress there very quickly as you earn full XP for everything. After that I believe in a "realist" world where you'll still be fighting low CL things which will not earn you nearly as much XP as it once did and as you level you'll face fewer and fewer higher CL opponents. I'm stopping at 13th-level (although it could be a little higher) because I still want to leave room for an occasional super-villian or superhero.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 10:25AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2008
|
I think we can see that "routinely" being able to hit a 40 result at 8th-level isn't very reasonable. Now if you try to break the system you probably will be able to do so. This is going to be true of almost any game as complex as most RPGs.
To use one of my favorite quotes, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Skills are much more than just a D20 plus modifier plus 1/2 level plus training and focus. There are force powers, force points and equipment bonuses, which you are completely ignoring, that play into all of this.
Take stealth. The force power cloak can add +5 with a DC 30 (something easy to accomplish at level 8 if you take skill training and skill focus in UTF). Then add a +5 bonus for a shadowskin. Meaning that if you roll a 20+3(max dex)+ 4 +10 + another 10 for cloak and shadowskin and you get 47.
It takes no time at all to see these kinds of combinations.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 8:39PM
#36
|
|
|
If it's a well edited, extensively playtested game like Warhammer FRP, I won't buy it. (And if it were a well edited, extensively playtested game from Margaret Weis Productions, I wouldn't go near it with a 10 foot pole.  ) So while I'd generally like to see a well edited, extensively playtested game, there's a lot more that would go into my decision making process than that. I'm not opposed to grid maps, but I'm not married to them either. Saga definitely runs better with them than without them (no surprise there) but I have just as much fun (with a lot less prep time) playing our Marvel Super-Heroes game with no maps. So I handle more tactical or less tactical just fine. What I don't want is a big box full of special cards, special dice and other fiddly bits, or a game where my character's sense of humor stat helps determine whether or not I hit the Sith Lord in a lightsaber duel.
I heart TSR Marvel Super Heroes. It's one of my favorite games, and like you, I never used maps for it.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 8:47PM
#37
|
|
|
I count myself on the side of those who are feeling some Saga fatigue, or have issues with the rules. I've put my Old Republic campaign on hold until the new RPG from FFG comes out in the hopes that I'll like it better, and that it feels more cinematic nad narrative rather than crunchy and detailed. I don't think tactical combat grids is the right way to go for a space opera game, personally, but I also won't deny that Saga is better than the horrible d20 Revised Core Rulebook WotC put out there.
Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. I know Saga has a lot of fans here, and I have had some fun with it, but I cannot deny that the more I've played it, the less I've liked it. My fingers are crossed that FFG produces a product which better fits fits my own vision for what a Star Wars role-playing game can and should be.
The beauty of it is, though, role-playing games are never invalidated by new editions. FFG's game will just give us, the Star Wars RPG community, one more option. If you love Saga, great, play that. If you liked WEG's D6 version, awesome, stick with that instead. Now there will be one more choice to put on that list.
|
|
|
