totoro, you are posting on the wrong board. You should go to the Star Wars area to post your fixes for SWS.
I like Saga a lot, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that 4e can't (and shouldn't) be too much like it.
I can't see how to make a "Crit and Ally is Healed" thing work with Saga. (In reference to a play test report.) And that is just the beginning.
However, it does look like Fighters are going to have Weapon Talents, probably something like "With (One-Handed/Two-Handed/Light) (Sword/Axe/Spear/Pick/Mace/Flail/Kitchen Sink) I can do fancy things" abilities. But then again the bit about Fighters seemed to imply that some weapon tricks applies to multiple weapons (or perhaps that weapons filled different roles with Swords being the most versatile and unspecialized).
P.S.: What this thread needs the most is for the O.P. to remove the quote tags from your signature to get rid of the squished formatting. :P
Turning now to SWSE. NPC classes still advance like PCs. The level of an NPC has nothing to do with whether they match up with a PC.
The NonHeroic class is used for mooks, like Stormtroopers and Battle Droids. Tougher NPCs, like Commandos and Officers, usually have a mix of the NonHeroic and Heroic (PC) levels. Really tough NPCs/Major players, like Palpatine and Vader, have all PC levels. But you can't think about enemies in SW Saga like Monsters because they're two entirely different things. Monsters get monstrous abilities that are different and in some ways more powerful than People abilities. SW NPCs use the Heroes' own tricks against them.
Regarding the 'noble vs. soldier in combat' argument. It is looking like the closest thing we'll have in 4e to the noble will be the warlord and while he doesn't necessarily have to be "as good as" the fighter, he better be damn useful in combat. :D
totoro wrote:
One more: Armor.
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.
Personally I think this is where you can say, "star wars is not D&D". Saga seems to duplicate the armor aspect of the movies pretty well and it makes sense for that setting. And while I am hoping the unarmored swordsman type will be supported in 4e, I don't want that to be the norm. It all depends however. Who knows how much of an impact armor enchantments will play. I agree that folding the armor talents with armor proficiencies probably wouldn't be a bad way to go. Also, I'm not sure the defense bonus (to reflex/AC whatever) has to be as good as it is in Saga. God there are so many variables that I can't really say ATM.
JosephKell wrote:
totoro, you are posting on the wrong board. You should go to the Star Wars area to post your fixes for SWS.
I haven't read all his posts but the armor one seems to be geared towards 4e at least. That reminds me, does anybody know how I can edit the thread title?
JosephKell wrote:
I like Saga a lot, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that 4e can't (and shouldn't) be too much like it.
I can't see how to make a "Crit and Ally is Healed" thing work with Saga. (In reference to a play test report.) And that is just the beginning.
I thought there was a noble talent that was similar. I'd have to double check however.
JosephKell wrote:
However, it does look like Fighters are going to have Weapon Talents, probably something like "With (One-Handed/Two-Handed/Light) (Sword/Axe/Spear/Pick/Mace/Flail/Kitchen Sink) I can do fancy things" abilities. But then again the bit about Fighters seemed to imply that some weapon tricks applies to multiple weapons (or perhaps that weapons filled different roles with Swords being the most versatile and unspecialized).
I really hope that you can use your tricks with 'other' weapons (and I'd be fine if there was a substantial penalty). I don't want the fighter to be useless without his weapon.
JosephKell wrote:
P.S.: What this thread needs the most is for the O.P. to remove the quote tags from your signature to get rid of the squished formatting. :P
LOL! The main reason I did this is so people could go to the original post. I suppose I could just supply the link...
The NonHeroic class is used for mooks, like Stormtroopers and Battle Droids. Tougher NPCs, like Commandos and Officers, usually have a mix of the NonHeroic and Heroic (PC) levels. Really tough NPCs/Major players, like Palpatine and Vader, have all PC levels. But you can't think about enemies in SW Saga like Monsters because they're two entirely different things. Monsters get monstrous abilities that are different and in some ways more powerful than People abilities. SW NPCs use the Heroes' own tricks against them.
I understand the principle. It has been that way since we had NPC classes. That's not really where I'm going, though.
Monsters are being redone so that Monster Level = Character Level. So, if you pull up a monster in the MM of Level 4, you know it is at least arguably balanced with a character of level 4 (kind of like the old CR).
NPC class levels are largely meaningless in SWSE, as they were in 3e. There is some meaning (i.e., a 6th level warrior is tougher than a 4th level warrior), but the level-2 formula to translate into character level difficulty was not at all effective for determining how tough an NPC really is. In SWSE, they don't even try to tell you how tough an NPC is based upon level. Indeed, a 1st level PC can beat up just about any NPC, up to a reasonably respectable level.
So, I think the whole NPC class level thing ought to be scrapped. If you say "NPC level 4", that should mean it is balanced against a 4th level character. I would argue this should mean the NPC level 4 character should be as competent in some aspect as the PC, but not nearly as versatile. And, for the same reason the designers are eliminating a bunch of the monster abilities you never use, NPC classes should have a limited number of special abilities regardless of level (no need to give a 20th level NPC character, who is about as tough as a 3rd level PC, 10 feats).
totoro, you are posting on the wrong board. You should go to the Star Wars area to post your fixes for SWS.
I would comply if I thought you were right. I am not interested in fixing SWSE. I am (or at least I think I am) talking about 4e in the context of the advertised "precursor" rule set of SWSE.
Not true. A CR 3 Stormtrooper is going to have a BAB of +6 to +9, in addition to other things like Dex and Weapon Focus. He may not be able to take more than 2 hits, but he can hit you and will put a hurt on you.
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.)
I think that making all these talent trees part of the base classes is essentially making each base class a "forest" of talent trees. They become 10-15 pages of the book, and its very difficult to remember where each ability comes from. Lumping those talent trees into "prestige classes" makes them modular, especially when the PrC doesn't require a specific base class.
Then again, with this system, I dislike the use of the term "prestige class". I am a believer that taking a prestige class requires a certain amount of prestige, and Elite Trooper, for example, just doesn't inspire that. I think d20 Modern got it right with "Advanced Class". No one ever takes a lot of levels of the base class; you are meant to move to one or more advanced classes once you qualify for them. This doesn't necessarily preclude PrCs either; they and Advanced classes can still coexist, it would just be harder to qualify for the PrC.
Having those talent trees as part of the base class also creates hell when supplements are released, as it just adds more and more to an already overloaded class. In 3.5, I have the progressions of all 11 of the classes committed to memory because looking up stuff takes away from DMing. With so many talent trees, this system would completely take away from the fun of the game.
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.
I suspect this is one of the things that won't carry over into 4e from Saga. Because it is based upon the movies, they tried to make it where PCs could feasibly wear no armor whatsoever and still be effective; yet, if you have that guy who wants to play the Mandalorian, he can still be an armored beast.
D&D has never had that theme, so I believe they will go another route. That's not to say that they won't have defense bonuses based upon class/level. I just think that armor will play a different role, probably using DR for armor and still have the defense bonus.
I think that making all these talent trees part of the base classes is essentially making each base class a "forest" of talent trees. They become 10-15 pages of the book, and its very difficult to remember where each ability comes from. Lumping those talent trees into "prestige classes" makes them modular, especially when the PrC doesn't require a specific base class.
Then again, with this system, I dislike the use of the term "prestige class". I am a believer that taking a prestige class requires a certain amount of prestige, and Elite Trooper, for example, just doesn't inspire that. I think d20 Modern got it right with "Advanced Class". No one ever takes a lot of levels of the base class; you are meant to move to one or more advanced classes once you qualify for them. This doesn't necessarily preclude PrCs either; they and Advanced classes can still coexist, it would just be harder to qualify for the PrC.
Having those talent trees as part of the base class also creates hell when supplements are released, as it just adds more and more to an already overloaded class. In 3.5, I have the progressions of all 11 of the classes committed to memory because looking up stuff takes away from DMing. With so many talent trees, this system would completely take away from the fun of the game.
I agree to some extent. Still, I don't see why it would matter if you had a lot of talent trees. They can still be listed as "Gunslinger Talent Tree" or whatever, giving it some modularity. Then you can save prestige classes for something really prestigious. And if you look at the prestige classes, a lot of them just say "you can take something from this talent tree, or from one of these two talent trees normally reserved for the Soldier." Obviously, there were some exceptions. Nevertheless, you would actually save a lot of space just turning the classes into talent trees.
Plus, I wouldn't mind having "advanced" talent trees. For example, there wouldn't be a Gunslinger prestige class, but in order to take from the Gunslinger talent tree, you have to meet certain prerequisites.
I thought d20 Modern did a nice job, too. However, I would have liked to have seen the base classes represented as Advanced Classes. So, in 4e, you could have basically 10 levels of Heroic Wizard, 10 levels of Paragon Wizard, and 10+ levels of Epic Wizard. Each is arguably a different class, but you keep the same name.
I suspect this is one of the things that won't carry over into 4e from Saga. Because it is based upon the movies, they tried to make it where PCs could feasibly wear no armor whatsoever and still be effective; yet, if you have that guy who wants to play the Mandalorian, he can still be an armored beast.
D&D has never had that theme, so I believe they will go another route. That's not to say that they won't have defense bonuses based upon class/level. I just think that armor will play a different role, probably using DR for armor and still have the defense bonus.
Personally, I disagree with the bolded statement. Let me clarify that, though. D&D is based on heroic fantasy, which is replete with heroes avoiding damage in battle by dint of superior reflexes & swordsmanship instead of armor and/or crap-tons of magic.
Saga's armor system reflects that brilliantly. I think that D&D would do well to get back to its roots in that respect, as opposed to simply resembling earlier versions of itself.
