Yeah, you really don't get it. The Noble isn't about dealing damage. The Noble is about leading his allies and handling all social affairs. Think social affairs are meaningless. Lets see what your Soldier with his BFG does when goes to a Civilized world. Whoops! Can't tote that portable armory around.
I don't think we are going to get anywhere so there is no reason to continue this "debate."
Well DUH! If you single class, you're going to eventually run out of new options. This is why PrCs exist. And a Noble that multiclasses into Crime Lord/Officer becomes even more effective at bolstering his allies.
Hehe, yeah. This is the funniest part of Totoro's argument.
Even the Soldier and the Jedi he touts as the only "useful" classes aren't good for a full 20 levels. Soldiers are much better served becoming Elite Troopers, Bounty Hunters, Gunslingers or Officers. Jedi, after hitting Lv. 7, have absolutely zero reason not to take Jedi Knight and Jedi Master as long as they're in the Jedi Order (or Sith Apprentice/Sith Lord if they're with the Sith). Even those in the Jedi class that aren't in the Jedi or Sith traditions (say, they're Dathomiri or Jensaarai) are better off as Force Adepts and Force Disciples once they qualify.
Then again, this is one of the ways that Star Wars is not D&D. Prestige classes are essentially narrative progression in Star Wars, whereas in D&D they're more alternatives and specializations.
Hehe, yeah. This is the funniest part of Totoro's argument.
Even the Soldier and the Jedi he touts as the only "useful" classes aren't good for a full 20 levels. Soldiers are much better served becoming Elite Troopers, Bounty Hunters, Gunslingers or Officers. Jedi, after hitting Lv. 7, have absolutely zero reason not to take Jedi Knight and Jedi Master as long as they're in the Jedi Order (or Sith Apprentice/Sith Lord if they're with the Sith). Even those in the Jedi class that aren't in the Jedi or Sith traditions (say, they're Dathomiri or Jensaarai) are better off as Force Adepts and Force Disciples once they qualify.
Then again, this is one of the ways that Star Wars is not D&D. Prestige classes are essentially narrative progression in Star Wars, whereas in D&D they're more alternatives and specializations.
You are again missing my point. However, any efforts on my part to help you understand would simply be restatements of what I have said before. I think we should drop this pointless argument to make the thread more readable and less offensive.
You do bring up another thing I dislike in SWSE, and that I hope will not appear in 4e. That is, unnecessary prestige classes. There is no reason for the Elite Trooper. It would be better to just put the Elite Trooper abilities in the Soldier's talent tree set. Some of the prestige classes arguably make sense (e.g., Gunslinger) because they could conceivably stem from more than one class (e.g., Soldier and Scoundrel). Of course, you could have a Gunslinger talent tree that is available to both the Soldier and the Scoundrel, without adding a new prestige class.
IMO, in SWSE, only the Force-related prestige classes really "deserve" to exist. I would like to get rid of all of the specialization prestige classes, and instead focus only on story-related prestige classes. Specialization prestige classes are easily handled with talent trees that enable you to, well, specialize more. You could even allow certain talents to open up new bonus feat options for a class. (E.g., If you take a Gunslinger talent, you get a relevant ability, plus you can add a few listed feats to your bonus feat list.)
Keep in mind that I am accepting as an assumption that all classes are supposed to be specialized in one of the four combat roles. The ONLY reason I accept this assumption is because that is what WotC has said at multiple times in multiple ways. One thing that appears certain about 4e is that every character will have equivalent (but different) impact on combat. Paraphrasing some WotC statement I can't recall word-for-word, "it will be easier for a party of four to have one of each of the 4 combat roles represented. You can do without one or more of the roles, but it is just going to be a bit harder." That can only logically mean that if you have a leader in a combat role, combat is going to be easier for the group.
So, I am not confusing SWSE with D&D. I am pointing out what I don't like about SWSE that may work its way into 4e, which is the very topic of this thread. Specifically, I do not believe that the Noble makes it easier for the group, and the abilities of the Noble diminish in this regard the higher level you go.
Please note that I am NOT talking about balancing classes with in- and out-of-combat capabilities. I'm perfectly fine with you doing that, and perfectly fine with a game that attempts to do just that (like, for example, D&D 2e). However, that is not the stated goal of 4e so you'll just have to adapt your arguments so we can even get on the same page to start to disagree with one another. If you don't, you will just keep saying I'm wrong, and I will keep scratching my head wondering why you won't accept that all characters have equivalent combat effectiveness.
Ah, there was a bit of nuance I missed there.
However, I don't think 4e will have Rogues that are "just as much impact in combat" as Fighters. If they had that much impact, even indirectly, or even situationally, they'd be as good as fighters, which the basic idea of the fighter being the master of combat does not permit them to be. They are *almost* as useful as fighters in the right situation. But not as good. They make up for this in their non-combat usefulness.
In addition, some classes are "bad at combat" but in fact the masters of combat -- wizards. There is no similar way to have a character really suck in combat and yet actually be AWESOME at it in star wars. The wizards in Star Wars are Jedi, of course, and they're great in combat.
I apologize for missing your nuance. However, I think you're 1) wrong to think SAGA will be similar to 4e in having weak combatants in the mix, because 4e's "weak combatants" are actually AWESOME combatants, and 2) I think you're wrong to buy the hype that a Rogue will ever have the impact in combat, whether directly or indirectly, subtly or crudely, of the fighter, let alone the wizard.
Please take WotC's hyping of the improvements of the product with a grain of salt. A guy who is just as useful in combat as a fighter should not have three more trained skills than him, which is the minimum difference I think we can expect between the fighter and rogue.
And also bear in mind it's flat-out impossible to make a Noble as impactful (I hate that word but can't think up a substitute) in combat as a Jedi. It's just. Not. Possible. It would undo the core assumption of the game world. even though you're talking about subtle buff-type effects, if there were EVER a day a general could choose between a Jedi and a Noble to round out his strike party and said "Eh, six of one, half a dozen of the other, they're basically equal in how much they contribute to combat success," then you've just gutted the entire conceit of the star wars universe that Jedi are wicked awesome.
I like the new SWSE skill system, though I would like to see Climb, Jump, and Swim combined into an Athletics skill (perhaps with some advantage for training in Athletics when attempting to swim). Unfortunately, this cuts down on the number of skills available in SWSE, and even if it does not get implemented, the number is still pretty low. Indeed, I bet the designers considered combining climb/jump/swim, but noticed how few skills were left. In SWSE, characters go to 20th and have few ways to increase INT. So, a human Noble can have up to a 23 INT, if INT is increased at each level, 6 starting trained skills and 1 for racial ability puts the total at 13. The total number of skills in the game is 19 (though Knowledge is actually broken into 7 skills).
If this is applied to 4e, we will lose at least 3 skills (Pilot, Use Computer, and Use the Force), dropping the total number to 16. Plus, since we go to 30th level, that's another 2 trained skills if you increase INT, for a total of 15 skills. Combine Climb/Jump/Swim into Athletics (as they should be, IMO), and you don't have many skills to choose from. Presumably, you could also increase INT with magic, and some god-like beings may well have INT in the 50 range (that's 20 bonus trained skills).
This is a long-winded way of saying, we need more skills in 4e than were available in SWSE. You could also allow the bonus for INT to be spent on either Skill Training (perhaps even for cross-class skills) OR Skill Focus (perhaps only for class skills). That makes your INT bonus slightly better than the straight starting Trained Skills, and expands the way your high INT character can represent his ability with skills, whether that is through breadth or depth.
In any case, since the breaking point (where you start to run out of skills) is for very high INT characters, I think INT-based skills, like Knowledge and Craft, are natural choices. I would add the following (advantageously, almost all of the additional suggestions are appropriate as INT-based skills, and would probably be taken by high INT characters):
Monster Lore: 1 skill for each creature type. A successful check should grant some decent in-game benefits. Science: Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology. Planescapes: 1 skill for each plane. Includes world lore, meteorology, geography, and the like. Crafts: There are any number of ways to divide the various craft skills, but I would keep the number down to around 8 or so. Engineering: Architecture and Fortifications, Shipwright, Siege Engines, Mining. Knowledge: History, Leaders, Local, Religion. Manacraft: Alchemy, Constructs, Item Enchantment, Spellcraft.
I would pull Bureacracy and Tactics out of the Knowledge skill from SWSE, and rename them Admin (business, law, etc.) and Tactics, along with some DCs to accomplish a few things like open bribery negotiations, get a license; and grant a few combat bonuses for setting an ambush and assaulting a formation.
And I would add a few singles: Handle Animal (wasn't in SWSE) Literacy Language (a check will determine whether you know a language when you hear it for the first time) Profession (one skill covers all professions, and you just add new ones when you gain familiarity with them) Perform (one skill covers all types, and you just add new ones when you gain familiarity with them) Area Knowledge (one skill covers all areas, and you just add new ones when you gain familiarity with them)
About PrCs in SW Saga. They are not unnecessary. The reason you stay in a Base class is for Feats. If you don't need Feats, you can trade them away for more powerful Talents of PrCs.
An insightful response would have, for example, corrected me on my misunderstanding of what "roles" are supposed to entail. As it stands, I still believe that you simply don't understand the stated goal of combat roles in 4e. Of course, I am not staff at WotC. If you have some real insight, pray tell. I'm going on snippets like everyone else.
I think the roles and classes are supposed to be balanced and just as effective overall through the encounters. But not all encounters are combat, and overcoming an encounter without fighting is supposed to get you just as much XP. The roles striker and defender may almost entirely be combat roles and may end up adding more to combat than the other roles, while the leader(AKA noble) adds less to combat encounters but more to non combat encounters. While still being useful but not equal in combat encounters.
I would not have come up with this minor complaint, but since WotC is going to build monsters using a more fun, useful mechanic than a PC-style system (e.g., 1 feat every 3 levels, skill points at each level,...). I like it a lot. Monsters will now have levels that correspond to their power, but will not have hit dice, or numbers of feats, etc. that you have to pick to reach that level. Indeed, presumably, a 10th level monster might have only one or two feats/special abilities. Still, match that monster up against a 10th level character, and it will presumably be a good match.
Turning now to SWSE (and 3e, for that matter). NPC classes still advance like PCs. The level of an NPC has nothing to do with whether they match up with a PC. Instead of a single NPC class, as in SWSE, I think they should keep a large number of classes, but have them advance differently than PCs. For example, a warrior might have a couple of powers from which to choose that grow in effectiveness as they advance levels, but you do not have to fill out their feats. Same with BAB, hit points, etc. While they do not gain feats every 3 levels, or ability boosts every 4, force points (action points, whatever), they will be every bit as effective as a PC of the same level.
So, if you pit a 4th level NPC archer against a 4th level ranger, they should be equally matched, though the NPC archer will likely have no capabilities outside of combat, and most particularly outside of ranged combat.
While this may make NPC classes seem "as good as" PC classes, it does not mean that NPCs are "as good as" PCs. NPC classes should be very focused on one particular aspect of combat or expertise that a PC could obtain in addition to other aspects. So an NPC class adept may be able to throw certain types of spells as competently as a Wizard, but not as broad an array of spells, few or no skills outside of magic, and just fewer options in general.
If we do this, no longer will it be necessary to "translate" NPC levels into CR (ineffectively, if you use the formula level-2 = CR, I might add). And as you learn the one or two capabilities of an Archer NPC, you can pretty much throw them in on the fly as a DM.
I like the SWSE system. I admit I had to get used to the idea of gaining armor bonus OR level bonus to AC (not both). However, I have made my peace with it, and now I like it.
Anyway, I think the Armored Defense talent of the Soldier should be rolled into the Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor proficiencies. That is, if you are proficient with, say, Heavy Armor, you get the better of your Armor or level-based AC bonus. It does not seem at all unbalancing.
Now, the Improved Armor Defense talent (grants better of Armor Bonus or Level + 1/2 Armor Bonus) may well be too good to be available as the first talent in a string. So, you might want to add a talent in front of it. I think changing Armored Defense (such that it grants a +1 Armor Bonus) is a good choice.
Alternatively, you could make Improved Armored Defense start with Light, then work its way up. It is least valuable for Light Armor, after all. So, you could take Improved Light Armor Defense, Improved Medium Armor Defense, and Improved Heavy Armor Defense. It would work out to granting a +1 Armor bonus +1 with each talent (since Light Armor has a +4 Armor Bonus, Medium +6, and Heavy +8, and since you get level + 1/2 Armor Bonus if you take the feats).
I think there should be a Very Light Armor category. You don't need a feat to use it, and since Armored Defense is rolled into the armor proficiencies anyway, if I get my way, you don't have to take off the Very Light Armor when you advance past 2nd level (2nd level is when the Armor Bonus for Very Light Armor would match the level-based bonus). It seems to me that anybody should be able to wear Leather Armor up to any level without penalty, or just wear some really nice Explorer's gear, with, e.g., plates on the elbows and knees, that grants a +2 armor bonus, but is not good enough to matter if you are of even moderate level.
At the other end of the scale, I would add unrealistically heavy "Very Heavy Armor" for dwarves or human "juggernauts." However, this is exceptionally easy to house rule, so it doesn't matter that much.
