PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars Saga Edition vs. 4e D&D



fireinthedust
2009-03-03, 12:20 AM
I'm enjoying 4e D&D a lot, mostly because as a DM I can make and run a game with much more ease than I could with earlier editions (monsters are what I need for the encounter right now; and change stats if the NPC fulfills a different role later in the "film").

I've looked over saga edition, and I'm a fan of Star Wars (or my version of it ;) ), so I'm wondering how easy it would be to... well, compare the two.

obviously they're both built with entirely different design goals (ie: D&D grows characters to epic level; though not as explosively as 3e epic levels were, as 4e can still fit the action on my battle grid). I did hear a rumour that WOTC was trying out design elements of 4e in it, though (like static defenses).

Play style, though:

1) has anyone used SAGA edition for a tabletop game?

2) Is gameplay good with it? Can you tell the stories you want to?

3) Could 4e design principles as we know them work for Star Wars? If a few SW classes were built for 4e (say, strikers, and some versions of Jedi, and Noble as a ranged Leader?), could it work?

I mean, sci-fi would likely need options for ranged combat for most non-Jedi; so simply using 4e classes to sub in would be, well, problematic.

...Any thoughts?

Kiero
2009-03-03, 05:21 AM
Here's what someone with experience of both systems said:


SWSE is the furthest and best development of the original d20 system (assuming, for purposes of argument, that Mutants and Masterminds, being noncompatible, represents an entirely separate branch of this family tree). It is dramatically simpler and faster than D&D 3.5 and even moreso than d20 Modern.

D&D 4 takes some of the concepts from the original d20 system and rebuilds it from scratch. It's perhaps not "simpler" so much as "streamlined." It is much, much faster (on a round-to-round or player-to-player basis) than any branch of the original, including SWSE and even M&M.

SWSE is a very well done incoherent system, but it's still incoherent. There are nods to game balance, nods to world building, nods to storytelling. It's not at all clear which, if any, were prioritized in its design. Its probably the best such system ever made; you can use it to do a reasonably good job as a game or as a world simulation tool, and it's not bad at storytelling, either. This makes it flexible, but at the same time means it never does one thing superbly.

D&D 4 is a very focused system. It's one of the best, if not the best, role-playing GAMES ever made. Its balance is excellent (the warlock is probably the only outlier, being fairly weak) and its tactical engine encourages interesting decisions every round, especially emphasizing teamwork. Its secondary focus is storytelling, and as long as you engage with its genre and setting expectations it does at least as good a job as SWSE, despite the veneer of less support. It has essentially no world simulation support and actively discourages this playstyle. Its tight focus makes it the best there is at what it does, but if you don't want that style, look elsewhere.

SWSE makes "winning" its tactical engine largely dependent on effective character creation. It's better about providing interesting choices in play than D&D 3.5 and d20 Modern, and has few intentional "newbie traps" compared D&D 3.5, but it's still possible to build characters whose effectiveness in a given situation dramatically outstrips other characters of the same level, and "a given situation" can mean "the game's core tactical engine."

D&D 4 makes "winning" its tactical engine almost entirely dependent on effective teamwork. It offers essentially no "newbie traps" in character creation, certainly no intentional ones, and is very transparent about character options. On the other hand, if you follow the encounter guidelines it is a MUCH more difficult game than any of the prior iterations of d20, and poor teamwork or poor individual play can cause you to lose more encounters than you win.

SWSE encourages multiclassing and divorces class from character concept every bit as much as d20 Modern - although this is not obvious from the outset. The Jedi class, for example, does not have to be a Jedi, while some Jedi may have at most one or two levels in it out of twenty. Same with the Noble, Scoundrel, Soldier and Scout.

D&D 4 completely changes the multiclassing paradigm; your first, primary class is extremely important to what your character can do in the game, and this is one of the only decisions you can't change after the fact. Multiclassing essentially "modifies" your original class rather than mixing the two.

SWSE is essentially 100% compatible with d20 Modern, and probably about 75% compatible with D&D 3.5. All you have to do to use d20 Modern material or non-caster 3.5 material is triple the starting HP and convert saves to defenses. This opens up a wealth of pre-generated material, and SWSE is by FAR the best system to use the thousands of d20 system books with.

D&D 4's being rebuilt from the ground up sacrificed compatibility with prior d20 material. You'll either have to use the more limited pool of 4e material, or come up with more stuff yourself.

SWSE's improvements over the first version of d20 are almost all on the player end. It makes things better balanced and more flexible than D&D 3.5, more balanced than d20 Modern, and faster in play than either. On the GM side, however, it retains at least all of the problems d20 Modern offered up; you pretty much need to either backport the NPC creation rules from 4e or Spycraft 2.0, or to have a TON of pre-generated NPCs, or the GM workload will bog you down immensely. The guidelines for designing encounters are sloppy, inconsistent and produce questionable results.

D&D 4 has the best GM backend of any crunchy RPG ever; using this system, I've generated monsters on the fly at the table, with only a laptop for a "GM screen," without players realizing I was doing it. It is, in my view, by FAR the most fun game to GM ever, too, because the system is designed to allow the GM to engage in serious tactical combat just as the players can. The guidelines for designing encounters are, again, the best ever, and produce engaging, interesting results.

SWSE has an untrained/trained/focused skill system (1/2 level +0/+5/+10). It's a solid system, although at low levels skills tend to outstrip other abilities (mostly notable with "Use the Force"). Attack bonus and defenses scale separately, the former at variable rates, the latter on a 1:1 basis. As a result, defenses tend to start out low but outstrip both attacks and skills over time, so skill checks against defenses get progressively more difficult as you gain levels.

D&D 4 has a very similar system, except that it's (1/2 level +0/+5/+8). This seems to have been a direct reaction to the above problem seen in SWSE. Attacks and defenses scale at the same rate as skills. 4e also introduces the Skill Challenge system, which provides a framework for extended skill-based "encounters." It's a great concept, but unlike most of 4e the execution is lacking. Both official and unofficial fixes exist for this system, syncing its play up with its potential.

SWSE has a powerful, if not especially flexible, action point system with two layers: Force Points are plentiful and refresh when you level, can add to d20 rolls and give various small, codified benefits, about on par with d20 Modern action points (but weaker than M&M hero points). Destiny Points are more limited, but have more dramatic and varied effects. Certain character options unlock more uses for both types.

D&D 4 has a simplistic, very limited action point system. Action points refresh on a daily basis and again during the course of multiple encounters, and grant an extra action. Certain character options unlock more uses for action points or, more commonly, give bonuses to characters who use them.

SWSE provides character options in the form of feats (powerful and universal) and talents (somewhat less powerful and limited by class). Multiple attacks are unlocked by feats and made effective by a combination of both (a major part of the streamlining process). Unless given feats or talents to change it, characters mostly use the "attack" action to damage enemies.

D&D 4 provides character options in the form of feats (weak and fairly universal) and powers (strong and limited by class). Powers are divided up into at will/encounter/daily, with the more limited powers being progressively stronger. All classes have the same number and level of powers. The at will powers are characters' default attacks. 4e also has a robust stunting system, although it's not immediately obvious; the "Page 42" rules allow for better-than-at-will, weaker-than-encounter attacks for characters who interface with their environment.

SWSE is a much improved version of the first version of d20. I would play it in either its default setting or the various other d20 settings available, and because of its superiority I would only use d20 Modern and D&D 3.5 as resources for SWSE. It speeds up gameplay from the players' perspective and provides more interesting, balanced options.
However, I would not GM SWSE, because the workload is not at all commensurate with the return.

D&D 4 is a totally new version of d20. It's the first version of D&D I actively seek out games of, rather than accepting as a compromise candidate when another system can't be agreed on. I would either play it or run it gladly, understanding that I would be doing so within the game's established genre and mode of play.
D&D 4 is by far the best crunchy system to GM, dramatically improving both adventure design and actual play from that side of the (metaphorical) screen.

For me, personally, I think SE is the better system, mostly because it's a hell of a lot simpler. I think it's a vastly superior fit to Star Wars/sci fi than 4e would be.

Although it was still too crunchy and too D20 for our group, after about six sessions we ported the campaign to FATE/SotC and haven't looked back.

Uin
2009-03-03, 08:45 AM
Having played and run 4e and played and run (alot) of Saga I can agree with a lot of the large quote above. However I find Saga easy to run, untrained/trained/focused skills and standardised defenses make is easy to think up DCs and character toughness on the fly.

Saga is also great of for customising characters. The ever expanding numbers of talents and free multiclassing give you a huge range of choice in your class features. Its also very hard to make a truely awful character, there are no CW Samurai in Saga.

I only own PHB, DMG and MM out of 4e and while fun in its own right, as a tactical space control game, playing 1 character feels like playing them all and they don't have enough powers to make them interesting individually. There are no spells anymore in 4e, not as we know them.

In the end, if Saga was retextured 4e, I'd be a very happy chappy.

Talya
2009-03-03, 09:51 AM
Saga Edition is what 4e should have been. It has all the best qualities of both 3.5 and 4e, with none of the weaknesses of either.

Ascension
2009-03-03, 10:12 AM
The only thing I'll say against MoogleEmpMog's wall of text there is that in my experience with SWSE talents have proven stronger than feats, though in some cases that's only due to their exclusivity.

Uin
2009-03-03, 10:13 AM
This post has made me think of running a classical D&D adventure with a Noble, a Thief, a Ranger, a Fighter (Noble, Scoundrel, Scout and Soldier respectively). Anyone would have access to magic (force), but the number of different spells (powers) would be based on mental stats and perhaps the noble has more magic related talents.

EDIT: Perhaps Nobles could have all force talents, maybe the more offensively powerful alter tree, and you narrow the selection more and more for Thieves, Rangers and maybe block it of Fighters.

Kiero
2009-03-03, 11:10 AM
This post has made me think of running a classical D&D adventure with a Noble, a Thief, a Ranger, a Fighter (Noble, Scoundrel, Scout and Soldier respectively). Anyone would have access to magic (force), but the number of different spells (powers) would be based on mental stats and perhaps the noble has more magic related talents.

EDIT: Perhaps Nobles could have all force talents, maybe the more offensively powerful alter tree, and you narrow the selection more and more for Thieves, Rangers and maybe block it of Fighters.

Have you seen The Gneech's Sword & Sorcery adpatation (http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/index.html) of SE?

I have to agree with the people who say SE is what 4e should have been. I much prefer SE's modularity to 4e's focus. Anyone can build almost any character they like, provided they have the levels and a notion how to string them together. There aren't even that many dead ends either.

Starshade
2009-03-03, 02:47 PM
I got the Revised core rulebook, not the Saga Edition, but i'm a bit puzzled by some of the skills:

Take Craft (capital ships). What would you do as a capital ships crafter? pretend to be Qwi Xux and go bananas and sit and toss a tons of dice, after buying 10k astromech droids, and sit and craft your own capitals? or, simply sit and weld armor plates like some extended universe wookie slave?

The skill system in the Revised Edition, at least, seems... odd. Might be i'm a bit hard on it, since i feel like doing the skills the GURPS way would be better, but i think it look like they didnt think trough what fits in a scifi game in the edition i got. Is Saga Edition better?

Talya
2009-03-03, 03:44 PM
I got the Revised core rulebook, not the Saga Edition... Is Saga Edition better?


At first glance, they are both Star Wars RPGs based loosely on d20 rules, so you might think they're the same. However, at first glance, chocolate and poo might look much the same, too.

Hint: SW Saga Edition is the chocolate part of the analogy. Previous star wars d20 RPGs were truly crappy.

Lycan 01
2009-03-03, 04:19 PM
Let me tell you something.


I have played 4e. And I have played Star Wars Saga Edition. I cannot say that Star Wars is the better game. No, that is not the choice for me to make, as they both have their strengths and weakness. But I can tell you this. It is my personal opinion, and the opinion of my entire gaming group, that Star Wars Saga Edition is the easiest of the two. Its easy to understand, easy to get into, and easy to play.

But the most important thing I can tell you is this: Star Wars Saga Edition is fun.

Because when you see the look of shock in your players eyes, and the grins slowly growing faces as you describe how their two bullet-riddled clone troopers leap out of an exploding cliff-side hangar and grab onto the side of a passing gunship and barely manage to claw their way inside, you know you've got yourself a good game on your hands.



Need I go on? :smallbiggrin:

Kiero
2009-03-03, 04:25 PM
I got the Revised core rulebook, not the Saga Edition...

There's very little similarity between the two, even if they are both nominally D20 systems.

Saga Edition is miles better for Star Wars.

fireinthedust
2009-03-03, 04:28 PM
At first glance, they are both Star Wars RPGs based loosely on d20 rules, so you might think they're the same. However, at first glance, chocolate and poo might look much the same, too.

Hint: SW Saga Edition is the chocolate part of the analogy. Previous star wars d20 RPGs were truly crappy.

Heh. The best part is your avatar is this lovely, serene, bikini-clad girl.
You're right about the differences. I can see SE being a better game for players than SWd20 revised has been.

I really like what MoogleEmpMod said (thanks, Kiero).

My thinking is that I like tactical combat. I actually like SE, but running it right would be hard until I could have really simple cards for each ship/droid/stormtrooper: speed, attack, defenses (like that part), damage.

I do think that 4e elements wouldn't work for a SW game, though. SW is all about action scenes, but the characters are often ranged or with multi-roles.

the main issue I see is that Ranged fights work differently than Melee. You can have a Defender engage with backup from the others. However, for SW, only the Jedi really work out front; so we don't really have a Defender unless they're a Jedi, and Jedi can be Strikers as well as Controllers. But where does that leave Techies? And do we need five types of Strikers when they all use Blasters?

**I suppose having a wider array of powers to choose for Jedi (ie: defender/deflect build, mind control build, striker build) could work. Also multiple Classes with Jedi as a power source...

Also, SW is very much Skill Challenges vs. Combat: two different arenas for characters to work in.

I agree some skills are useless, especially craft skills. Class features, maybe, or Feats; like Ritual Caster, but with "designs" in their "design book".

I just think that a Game Night should always have the Players *doing something* rather than waiting for another player to finish "winning". That's why 4e works so well.

In a way, it's kinda like SWd20's ship combat: everyone could roll every round to boost the engines, fire the guns, roll out of the way (defenses boosted, or ignore a hit), etc.

Knaight
2009-03-03, 06:01 PM
In Saga Edition, you don't need the whole striker, defender, leader, controller thing. Besides, soldiers can work pretty well up front. The whole four roles thing isn't strictly necessary in all games. For instance, Fudge, a classless game, can work with the whole four rolls thing. To make a tank, high combat skills, heavy armor, high toughness, damage capacity, stamina, whatever attribute or gift correlates in your game, the attribute aren't fixed anyways, etc. But if you have two lightweight people, they can do just fine. Its just being swarmed is more lethal(hitting full defensive stance isn't going to save you like it will a tank). But if your getting swarmed then you screwed something up anyways. Put your back to a wall, fight in a staircase, etc.

Kiero
2009-03-03, 07:07 PM
Skill challenges are quite easy to port into Saga Edition, we had some good times with them while we stuck with it.

In the end, it was still too D20 for my group; we ported to a FATE/SotC adaptation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103051) and haven't looked back.

Ascension
2009-03-03, 08:22 PM
In Saga Edition, you don't need the whole striker, defender, leader, controller thing.

This. Also, Saga parties don't... or at least shouldn't... operate the same way a D&D party does. It doesn't fit the SW flavor. You only need a representative of each class if you want all skills trained. I've seen parties primarily composed of Nobles, parties primarily composed of Jedi, parties without either Nobles or Jedi, all sorts of things. All of them were able to progress through the game, they just solved their problems in different ways. Plus, even if you try to confine a Saga class to a single role, that will in no way confine a character to that role... the game is definitely designed to encourage a lot of multiclassing.

Knaight
2009-03-03, 09:31 PM
Agreed. Multiclassing is pretty much assumed, and it works well. That said, Saga Edition could have worked just fine as a classless system.

fireinthedust
2009-03-04, 01:17 AM
I'm reading SE in more depth.

I like it generally, and I really like what I think I understand Force Powers to be like. I want to understand the Space Ship options better, but they look fun. overall, if the GM side was better, it could be *the* sci-fi game for simplicity's sake. Really good elements in there. My understanding of RPGs is that, like in 4e, combat and skills are where decisions are up in the air. Working other areas isn't as important, and may be details I don't need.
I'll have to try this out some time, to be sure.

but, for now, I would change a few things:

1) attack bonus: prefer 1/2 level+modifiers (ability, weapon proficiency, etc.). Keeps everyone of the level on the level, in their own arenas, whatever those may be.

2) racial ability penalties: I don't think they're necessary, compared to bonuses. 4e won me over on that.

3) Classes: I'm on the fence here. I can understand why it'd be a good classless system, actually. Even for Jedi, it makes sense; Jedi class doesn't add anything to the way using the force works, except a suit of skills and bonus feats. I think Bounty Hunter would be more relevant than Scout for a class name, though, if classes are to be had.

4) static HP gain, so it's even (I never roll hp, it's silly).

5) Monster/NPC generation: here it could have used 4e simplicity. As a GM I don't have time to use unnecessary details, and the pre-gen options aren't always great.

6) ac/level bonus to Reflex: swap in should be AC or Dex to level bonus, not AC or Level. If I'm wearing armor or not, my experience doesn't change; whether I can dodge fast enough in plate mail does.

7) More in-combat options for Nobles, like the Warlord in 4e.

Kiero
2009-03-04, 04:52 AM
1) Remove the class-based BAB and you unbalance the Soldier. There's no reason to play them (or a Jedi, for that matter) over a Scout if the only thing you get is slightly more hit points.

2) Penalties keep attribute inflation down. Also, how will you balance out some of the more outlanding and powerful abilities some species get?

3) An easy fix is to remove the Jedi class, and allow anyone to switch one of their WPs (not Simple) for Lightsaber. Maybe allow a switch of one other starting Feat for Force Sensetivity (though I'd be careful about that). Then make Skill Training open - as in if you spend a Feat on it, you can get any Skill, not just one from your class list. You'd still need to decide what to do about the Bonus Feats, though.

4) The Dawn of Defiance campaign has static hit points; they go Scoundrel and Noble 3, Scout 5, Jedi and Soldier 7.

5) This one is painful.

6) Remove this, and you invalidate Armoured Defense. That's the whole point of it, it lets you choose. Without it, you have to take the bonus from the armour instead of 1/2 your level, regardless of whether or not it's better.

7) Nobles aren't Warlords, though. And they already have some in-combat abilities like them.

fireinthedust
2009-03-04, 01:59 PM
1) Remove the class-based BAB and you unbalance the Soldier. There's no reason to play them (or a Jedi, for that matter) over a Scout if the only thing you get is slightly more hit points.

Not strictly true. For 4e you simply find what the soldier is supposed to do, and get them to do it as easily as the rogue does the rogue's job.
The BAB is currently unbalanced: soldiers are limited to "I hit, I miss, I hit" rather than "I hit, and push him 2 squares; now the Jedi is flanking him". Meanwhile everyone else is currently stuck with "ok, I can't hit this guy, so why bother trying?"


2) Penalties keep attribute inflation down. Also, how will you balance out some of the more outlanding and powerful abilities some species get?

Change the abilities so everyone gets the bonus scores, like in 4e: non-humans get two stats with bonuses.
If classes are based around particular types of attacks, or at least skill uses, those races will naturally tend to be picked for that. It's why Dwarven Rogues aren't common in 4e. Penalties don't stop someone from being good at something: they force them to be bad at something. So a PC can't be that one rare Wookie Noble, as they'll fail at everything. (3e example: no dwarven sorcerers, despite the cool concept; no half-orc wizards either)



5) This one is painful.

if you mean lots of work: Um, yeah. But with standard stats for Brute, soldier, skirmisher, etc., like there are on the DM screen, it's actually easier than following the current rules for making up NPCs or Creatures.

If not: ?


6) Remove this, and you invalidate Armoured Defense. That's the whole point of it, it lets you choose. Without it, you have to take the bonus from the armour instead of 1/2 your level, regardless of whether or not it's better.

What I meant is that they should have the option of Dex bonus or Armour, and always keep that 1/2 level bonus. It's always been Dex or AC as the tradeoff. I wonder if it was a typo to use 1/2 level as the tradeoff.


7) Nobles aren't Warlords, though. And they already have some in-combat abilities like them.

Which is good. Thing is, do they have the same number of in-combat options *for what they do* that Jedi or Soldiers have? Or are they a one-trick pony?
And while they aren't Warlords, there is something to be said for a Leader/Commander role in SW situations, granting other characters bonuses (actions, saves, bonuses, etc.).
Also: other than Leah and Padme, are there Nobles who aren't simply NPCs? Like, what do they do that's so special? Most of the nobles stand there waiting for a rescue. Those in the action leap to the front and yell orders to the troops or shoot stuff. In the books all sorts of people are nobles, from old soldiers to jedi to whoever. Statistically it doesn't make sense that Palpatine was a Noble *and* Sith Lord, in RAW for the old edition.
Meh, I could go on but I won't :D

There could be a Talent tree, for times when Jedi lead troops or when soldiers do, that let them give bonuses like that. I dunno.

Kiero
2009-03-05, 05:07 AM
I have to wonder; if you want SE to be like 4e, why not just stick with 4e? Surely it's going to be easier to make some small changes to 4e, than make a sweeping lot of potentially game-breaking changes to SE?

On 1) actual experience didn't have people just saying "I hit" and "I miss", you don't need 4e's overly-complicated sliding and pushing and whatever else to make combat interesting.

On 2) actual experience of people playing doesn't bear this out. The penalties don't mean no one plays them, outside of those concerned solely with optimality.

On 6) you've just made armour the most optimal choice. The whole point of the way it's done in SE is that higher-level characters don't need to wear armour to be safe. Because most of the characters we see don't wear it.

On 7) Nobles do already have Talents that boost their companions. Have you read their Talent trees?

SE is not like 4e through design choices. Personally I much prefer it, because it removes a lot of the annoyingly intrusive combat stuff that assumes you've got a battlemat and minis.

I don't know what you'll achieve besides frustration in basically trying to make SE the game it wasn't intended to be.

Attilargh
2009-03-05, 05:12 AM
What I meant is that they should have the option of Dex bonus or Armour, and always keep that 1/2 level bonus. It's always been Dex or AC as the tradeoff. I wonder if it was a typo to use 1/2 level as the tradeoff.
It wasn't. The designers noticed how next to no-one important bothers with body armour in the movies, so they decided a character can either have a flat bonus from armour or a level-based "character shield".

Ędit: Kiero, you scoundrel.

Ascension
2009-03-05, 05:17 AM
If you want a better understanding of space combat, you need Starships of the Galaxy. Really, the core book vehicular combat section is just a teaser for Starships, which is next to necessary if you want to have a lot of space combat in your game. Scum and Villainy also has some nice options. If you want ground-based vehicular combat, check out the Clone Wars Campaign Guide.

fireinthedust
2009-03-05, 11:55 PM
I have to wonder; if you want SE to be like 4e, why not just stick with 4e? Surely it's going to be easier to make some small changes to 4e, than make a sweeping lot of potentially game-breaking changes to SE?

A very good point, sir, a very good point.


On 1) actual experience didn't have people just saying "I hit" and "I miss", you don't need 4e's overly-complicated sliding and pushing and whatever else to make combat interesting.
AND
SE is not like 4e through design choices. Personally I much prefer it, because it removes a lot of the annoyingly intrusive combat stuff that assumes you've got a battlemat and minis.

Admittedly, I'm a battlemat junkie when it comes to games. Also I enjoy chess, and for me 4e does that well.
I'm in psychology right now, and people learn in different ways: visual learners and auditory learners. I find my players respond very well to visual stimuli, such as the D&D minis and the poster maps that go with that. When we play M&M they respond less well, as there is much less "merchandise" to go with the game to help their visual learning.
That's why I like 4e so much, but frankly I have been trying to get away from the grid maps and more into the mind's-eye style of problem solving. The current adventure has the PCs sneaking into places to steal items rather than fight, meaning they have to lie, flirt, distract, climb, etc. around otherwise normal NPCs. It's a lot of fun.
In fact, I can see SWSE involving that in a big way, so the more I read it the more interested I get.
I have known GMs who really hate the maps and charts, though, as they have a great picture in their minds and can really spatially map the entire battle and what's going on. (I met this one at GenCon 2005 who was like that, who ran this Rakshasa demo for, I think, Goodman Games; fun stuff)

The other hand of this, though, is that I like the orderly nature of the grid combat system. I like how the powers are spelled out on cards and right there for the players. I mean, *I* can get by with the book, but my players are gagging to use the 4e power cards. Otherwise they spend 5 minutes flipping pages before deciding.



On 2) actual experience of people playing doesn't bear this out. The penalties don't mean no one plays them, outside of those concerned solely with optimality.

Possibly for SW, but I think. I think optimality players would go for the bonuses anyways, simply because they're counting modifier pluses; a penalty or a blank, it's often the same thing, or a question of degrees. I think penalties (considered dump stats for optimization as it is) simply hinder "role-players" who want to play unusual choices. That's what I'm getting at with that.



On 6) you've just made armour the most optimal choice. The whole point of the way it's done in SE is that higher-level characters don't need to wear armour to be safe. Because most of the characters we see don't wear it.


On 7) Nobles do already have Talents that boost their companions. Have you read their Talent trees?

As of this writing, yes. I like them, though there is obviously room for more talents, I think. Maybe one that's a battlefield command tree, where you slide allies around the field. In the name of changing the shape of the battle, I think it's worth it.



I don't know what you'll achieve besides frustration in basically trying to make SE the game it wasn't intended to be.

You obviously havn't GM'd enough, or you'd know that frustration is one of the goals of any GM (alongside disappointment, dashed hopes, hair loss, insomnia, meticulous care to follow SW cannon, and obsessing over the details of every encounter... either that or repulsive body odor and procrastinating from work/school), obviously. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, tho: I think they're very similar (having read it some more now). If you took every maneuver a given character can try, and write it out on the card, it'd look similar to the Powers of 4e.
Attack bonus (or persuations skill mod for Nobles' demand surrender, for example) + d20 vs. Defense; effect (damage); range... etc.

I need to read more for this, but I'll try in a few days to have a SWSE PC fight some 4e monsters. I'm doing this between work and school, but I'll see.

If it works, I'll use it as a break for my 4e players when I'm writing up their next module! :smallsmile:
(that or continue the M&M game...)

Ascension
2009-03-06, 12:25 AM
As of this writing, yes. I like them, though there is obviously room for more talents, I think. Maybe one that's a battlefield command tree, where you slide allies around the field. In the name of changing the shape of the battle, I think it's worth it.

I'm curious, how many of the Saga books do you have? At the rate talents are being added the game is very quickly transitioning from "obviously room for more talents" to "please god make it stop I can't handle all these options!"

I love the degree of customization Saga talents allow, but I remember one of the things that I enjoyed about Saga over 3.5 D&D when I first got it was the decreased complexity of character generation. That was when I had Core + the KotOR Campaign Guide. Now I've got, well, every book that's been released so far, and while I'm still loving the system, the options are beginning to overwhelm again.

Kiero
2009-03-06, 05:13 AM
That's why I like 4e so much, but frankly I have been trying to get away from the grid maps and more into the mind's-eye style of problem solving. The current adventure has the PCs sneaking into places to steal items rather than fight, meaning they have to lie, flirt, distract, climb, etc. around otherwise normal NPCs. It's a lot of fun.
In fact, I can see SWSE involving that in a big way, so the more I read it the more interested I get.

I'm just picking out this point because it's most pertinent. If you want to get away from what you've been doing before, how about not trying to make SE like 4e in the first place? This might be a revolutionary idea, but how about just playing SE as it is, and then making a judgement about what you might change?

It does still require physical representation of where people are and such in combat (we used a whiteboard), but it's much less focused on minis than 4e is. And by adding in Skill Challenges, you've immediately got all the non-combat interesting mechanics you need.

Somebloke
2009-03-06, 08:17 AM
1) Remove the class-based BAB and you unbalance the Soldier. There's no reason to play them (or a Jedi, for that matter) over a Scout if the only thing you get is slightly more hit points.

2) Penalties keep attribute inflation down. Also, how will you balance out some of the more outlanding and powerful abilities some species get?

3) An easy fix is to remove the Jedi class, and allow anyone to switch one of their WPs (not Simple) for Lightsaber. Maybe allow a switch of one other starting Feat for Force Sensetivity (though I'd be careful about that). Then make Skill Training open - as in if you spend a Feat on it, you can get any Skill, not just one from your class list. You'd still need to decide what to do about the Bonus Feats, though.

4) The Dawn of Defiance campaign has static hit points; they go Scoundrel and Noble 3, Scout 5, Jedi and Soldier 7.

5) This one is painful.

6) Remove this, and you invalidate Armoured Defense. That's the whole point of it, it lets you choose. Without it, you have to take the bonus from the armour instead of 1/2 your level, regardless of whether or not it's better.

7) Nobles aren't Warlords, though. And they already have some in-combat abilities like them.For 1) and 7)....

1) I have been looking to use a 1/2 level bonus for all classes, but add a flat +2 bonus to the soldier (and Jedi; I'm looking to run a fantasy version that replaces the Jedi). This is gained at first level; those that multiclass into soldier gain a +1 bonus (thus simulating the "midway point"). Treat AC similarly (I may have to make defenses at 12 or 13 base to compensate since the game assumes a low AC to begin with and then compensates). This gives the "combat only" classes a significant but not overwhelming boost.

7) Isn't there some sort of fencer talent tree in the Knights of the Old Republic Sourcebook?

I'm also using a nice mix of 4th ed and saga skills (Jump, climb. etc are utterly redundant and can be folded; intiative, ride, craft are not).

Oh, and Keiro- you and Gneech have just saved me a LOT of effort.

Kiero
2009-03-06, 08:28 AM
For 1) and 7)....

1) I have been looking to use a 1/2 level bonus for all classes, but add a flat +2 bonus to the soldier (and Jedi; I'm looking to run a fantasy version that replaces the Jedi). This is gained at first level; those that multiclass into soldier gain a +1 bonus (thus simulating the "midway point"). Treat AC similarly (I may have to make defenses at 12 or 13 base to compensate since the game assumes a low AC to begin with and then compensates). This gives the "combat only" classes a significant but not overwhelming boost.

I'm not one to ask about that sort of thing. Sounds like you're effectively giving the Soldier their full BAB difference up-front.


7) Isn't there some sort of fencer talent tree in the Knights of the Old Republic Sourcebook?

Yep, Noble Fencing. Useful for Nobles and Jedi/Nobles who don't want to sink lots of resources into melee combat, but don't want to completely suck at it either.


I'm also using a nice mix of 4th ed and saga skills (Jump, climb. etc are utterly redundant and can be folded; intiative, ride, craft are not).

I really don't know why they didn't merge Climb, Jump and Swim into one Athletics right at the start. And Ride could do with being rolled into either Athletics or Survival.


Oh, and Keiro- you and Gneech have just saved me a LOT of effort.

I just pointed the way. Gneech did all the work. :smalltongue:

The Minx
2009-03-06, 09:12 AM
Personally, I'm not really sure what the point of eliminating ability score penalties is. From a logical perspective, they make far more sense than just having bonuses. And while they are not crucial in order to create variation among races, but they are certainly a potent tool in that respect, and variation, or at least potential for variation, is undeniably diminished without them.

For instance, humans having two bonuses in 4e which can be assigned at will and the other races having two bonuses on specific ability scores... what is the difference between a given human and a representative from a specific member of each of the other races, exactly? I mean, in terms of their ability scores, and assuming that they made the same points buy decisions? The race becomes reduced to little more than the special ability the character gets, which is a bit of a shame IMHO.

Knaight
2009-03-06, 09:18 AM
I really don't know why they didn't merge Climb, Jump and Swim into one Athletics right at the start. And Ride could do with being rolled into either Athletics or Survival.

I like having Climb and Swim separate, although Jump is absurd. That should probably just be a strength check or something, or it could be rolled into something else where it fits, which is hard to do if you keep Climb and Swim separate. That said, the 3.5 skill system could use some merging. Use rope. Seriously. Tie it into survival, sailing, whatever, just don't have it as its own skill. I would let you use Climb for rope use(at a penalty), as climbers need to know knots.

Person_Man
2009-03-06, 12:15 PM
I've played both, DM'd both, and have enjoyed both. They are very, very different games, and I don't think they can be combined without re-writing every class.

4E is essentially the world's greatest board game - Heroclix on steroids. Game balance is easy. Creating a character is easy. Setting up balanced and enjoyable encounters is easy. People get bogged down in rules less, because it's hard to combine anything. But that also makes things somewhat boring in the long run. Virtually all of the class abilities, feats, and magic items are essentially X[W] damage + minor effect + minor bonus, or + minor bonus to ally(s) or + minor bonus when you do Whatever. There is very little fluff connected to any class ability, and the fluff that's there is cartoonish, so you pretty much have to come up with it on your own or do without. If I was going to play a game at a convention or as a pick up game at the local gaming store, this would be my choice.

SWSE is the pinnacle of d20. I agree with Talya in that SWSE is what 4e should have been. You can customize your character to do almost anything. Some class abilities and Force Powers are of the holy freaking cow that's awesome variety, though there are tons of mundane bonuses sitting around if that's what you want to do. It requires a much higher level of game mastery, much more time to prepare for, and a seasoned DM to run the show, and as a party's power level can vary drastically by level. If I was going to play a long term campaign, this would be my choice.

The core mechanics for 4E are far better IMO. But they did a mediocre job of writing the classes and feats. So I'm hoping that when 5th edition comes out (2012?) they combine the two. My dream:


Have a liberal OGL, so that independent publishers can add their creativity to the mix. Remember that if every other company is publishing material that requires your core product, they're not publishing material that would compete with your core product.
Make class abilities more unique, interesting, and powerful.
Scale back to 20 levels to avoid the need for 100 class abilities, (to support #2).
Kill paragon paths and bring back prestige classes. Again, this supports point #2, and allows for greater customization without the crazyness of 3.X multi-classing.


Of course when they do this I expect WotC to botch the marketing again, split their customer base, and lay off another 100 employees. No matter how great their ideas may be, they've really sucked at the nuts and bolts of running a business over the past few years.

Darth Stabber
2009-03-06, 01:10 PM
Yeah, I am considering doing a fantasy D&D3.5/SWSE combined System. I did a little experimental business at home of trying to do this with just Sorcerer, rogue, cleric and fighter, and the whole ordeal ended up with fighters still being fairly linear, and Sorcerers still being fairly exponential, but the tipping point of caster > meatshield didn't come until about lvl 12. And rogues extreme skillfulness + SA kept them in the lead starting at lvl 3, up until the sorc hit 14. I miss the idea of the targeted rolling their save as opposed to static defenses when Save or Die comes into play, so either SoD has to go, or i need another solution. If I decide to do it i would want to balance in Psionics, Binder, and Incarnum, and this is going to be a lot of work, but it may pan out into something. Heck i might even be able to sell it to a publisher and get it sold under OGL.

Talya
2009-03-06, 02:28 PM
I think i've been a little too "glowing" in my commendation of Saga. I do have a complaint.

Skill Focus (Use the Force) is godlike power in the hands of a level one Padawan learner. I think it needs to provide a more graduated bonus, perhaps not avalable until level 4, and providing 1/2 your heroic level up to +5.

i initially thought it should be up to +10 at 20, since defenses scale upward so quickly it makes them very hard to hit even with +20 to a skill, but then I realized...people need to make heavier use of the "Destiny" system in the game. It provides many opportunities for permanent bonuses...granting up to a +5 destiny bonus to a skill. If that's used, then skill focus should still be capped at +5.

fireinthedust
2009-03-06, 11:30 PM
Personally, I'm not really sure what the point of eliminating ability score penalties is. From a logical perspective, they make far more sense than just having bonuses. And while they are not crucial in order to create variation among races, but they are certainly a potent tool in that respect, and variation, or at least potential for variation, is undeniably diminished without them.

For instance, humans having two bonuses in 4e which can be assigned at will and the other races having two bonuses on specific ability scores... what is the difference between a given human and a representative from a specific member of each of the other races, exactly? I mean, in terms of their ability scores, and assuming that they made the same points buy decisions? The race becomes reduced to little more than the special ability the character gets, which is a bit of a shame IMHO.

Humans get a +2 bonus to one stat, that's it, but they can pick it. Other races get more of a bonus.

The point of penalties, I think, is twofold:

1) illustrate how this race is weak compared to how they're strong (ie: elves have that +2 bonus to Dex and -2 to Con; or +1/-1 from AD&D, which is where I started) or at least isn't better than a human, and
2) cannibalize the current ability stats, so players don't complain about how one race is uber-powerful over humans; why? because DMs are stingy :D
I think they're a hold over from the days of THAC0, and stats that didn't go past 25 (despite having things like 18-01 to 18-00 STR so that PCs with 18 STR could brag about how much stronger their fighter was than someone else's fighter); when having an INT of 19+ meant you were immune to successive levels of illusion spells; and when there were neither skills nor feats, merely weapon proficiencies and non-weapon proficiencies. You rolled your stats, and you never got increases as you leveled up, unless through magic or wishes or DM niceness (but boy could you lose them from monsters, in horrible, horrible ways).

I think having a racial "flaw" or trait that they have to get around (like Kel Dor needing breathing gear), could serve the same purpose. Like having Elves take 5 damage when struck by Cold Iron, or even touching it. I just think, and this is only my opinion, that it frees up races to have more interesting class choices rather than being pigeon-holed by a penalty. I mean hey, why don't we see more Dwarven Paladins when they have so many Clerics and Fighters? I would argue that it actually adds to the potential variation of race/class combos and what a game world would "realistically" have available.

Think of it this way: remember the "rule" that women had to take a -1 Str/+1 Dex stat adjustment? I do. Why was it there? Sexist prejudice that women weren't as strong as men, ergo they didn't get the same opportunity to be fighters as men. Some DMs are like that, and think a stat penalty has to be there to illustrate a general cultural trend in a gender (read: racial penalty). *However* since these adjustments affect PCs rather than NPC commoners (who generally don't need stats), it hamstrings PC paragons and stuffs them into stereotypical roles.
Sorry if I'm going on about it, but I had a DM who did a lot of annoying, arbitrary penalties when I started gaming, so things like that bug me. Basically, I'll make up things like allergies or phobias myself to round out a character; I don't need some rule clamping down on my with a penalty out of a need for "accuracy".

I would scale back some bonuses, though, like for Wookies.


Ascension: just the core RPG, starships, threats, and the GM screen. Also a looooot of the d20 sourcebooks, which were pretty fun. None of the d6 ones.

Kiero: Actually, I think I will play a session with my group, to see how everyone likes it.
The problem is my group is made of mostly new players, so even for games like 4e we tend to... think outside the box rather than use the RAW for some situations, as I and one other are the only ones who are familiar with the rules. Going through a session, they likely wouldn't notice subtle differences, especially mathematical ones.
Combat is where we need rules, and 4e does that well. But: 4e isn't "star wars". I just like a lot of the design elements, and how I can go from drama/role-play to organized combat quickly.
If I do run a game, I'll post my observations.

Friv
2009-03-07, 12:09 AM
I'm just going to chime in, with my admittedly limited experience. I've bought the game, designed some adventures, and run a couple of sessions, but I haven't had extensive play experience yet.

In my experience, SWSE is a brilliant sci-fi pulp RPG, and I recommend it. Oddly enough, however, it is utter crap at replicating Star Wars.

This is because Star Wars, as a setting, basically puts everyone on two power levels:

1) Mooks.
2) Heroes. Heroes are almost (but not quite) immune to mooks, but always vunerable against each other. There is almost no situation in which one hero can effectively beat two enemy heroes, regardless of supposed skill or difference in power.

Gaining experience in setting just increases the breadth of your capabilities, most of the time, letting you affect more people in more ways. Your actual ability to take out one guy doesn't change much. Luke can beat Vader. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gonn are equal to Darth Maul. Qui-Gonn is Obi-Wan's master, but they have the same capabilities - ditto for Obi-Wan and Anakin, and then for Anakin and Ahsoka.

This, of course, works poorly in a level-based system. Per the rules, Luke in RotJ couldn't actually hit Vader without a natural 20, while Vader is almost guaranteed to kill Luke around Round 3. Similar problems happen when you look at most of the fights in the system.

So, yeah. Kind of weird that way. Good system, though.

(And as an aside with the armor - in my own games, I houseruled that you always use the higher of your level or your armor, and then made Second Skin the base Talent needed for the Armor Mastery tree. It seems to have worked out well, and didn't leave us with weirdness like "A level 9 pilot who gets into uniform loses 4 Reflex unless he has that one Talent that does nothing else".)

Off-topic Edit:


I just think, and this is only my opinion, that it frees up races to have more interesting class choices rather than being pigeon-holed by a penalty. I mean hey, why don't we see more Dwarven Paladins when they have so many Clerics and Fighters? I would argue that it actually adds to the potential variation of race/class combos and what a game world would "realistically" have available.

While the perception may exist, the truth is that there is no effective difference.

In 3.5, dwarves had a -2 Charisma penalty. Humans did not. This meant that humans were better bards than dwarves.

In 4.0, dwarves do not have a Charisma bonus. Humans, Dragonborn, Half-Elves, Halflings, and tieflings do. This means that all those races are better bards than dwarves, by the exact same margin. It's just a difference of a bonus instead of a penalty.

The difference is less dramatic now that the margin is only 2, instead of the theoretical maximum of 4, but that's it (and only applies to Strength and Constitution if you're going by the core rules of each game).

fireinthedust
2009-03-07, 12:23 AM
Has anyone tried to run other genres of Sci-Fi than SW using SE? Or at least alternate settings using Jedi, etc., but not the movie setting?

I'm trying to think of a way to run a SW game where I don't have to be hemmed in by the movie timeline in any way; but without having it in totally unfamiliar parts of the galaxy.

What to run, what to run...


Another question: how good are the SW miniatures? Are they as good as the recent D&D miniatures that have come out?

Friv
2009-03-07, 12:28 AM
Set it five hundred or a thousand years in the future, if you want a really easy way of doing it. A lot can change in several centuries. Races can be gone, changed, or new, people's historical records might not be accurate, meaning that even your history doesn't have to be fully canon, and you can still throw in references to the movies and EU when you feel like it. :)

Ascension
2009-03-07, 12:39 AM
(And as an aside with the armor - in my own games, I houseruled that you always use the higher of your level or your armor, and then made Second Skin the base Talent needed for the Armor Mastery tree. It seems to have worked out well, and didn't leave us with weirdness like "A level 9 pilot who gets into uniform loses 4 Reflex unless he has that one Talent that does nothing else".)

Only if they put on an armored flight suit. A regular flight suit won't make any difference. So a high leveled TIE pilot in uniform would suffer the penalty, a high leveled X-Wing pilot wouldn't have to worry... and since most TIE pilots are mooks, that shouldn't matter too often. Now put the X-Wing pilot in the TIE pilot's uniform... well, it makes sense for him to feel awkward in it.

Or at least that's how I'm rationalizing it all at this moment.


Has anyone tried to run other genres of Sci-Fi than SW using SE? Or at least alternate settings using Jedi, etc., but not the movie setting?

I'm trying to think of a way to run a SW game where I don't have to be hemmed in by the movie timeline in any way; but without having it in totally unfamiliar parts of the galaxy.

What to run, what to run...

There's plenty of space in the SW universe that isn't cluttered by canon. And if you want to have some link to the established universe, there are plenty of references to events that aren't fleshed out much at all. You could run a thousand Star Wars games without ever touching the movies.

NEO|Phyte
2009-03-07, 12:44 AM
Has anyone tried to run other genres of Sci-Fi than SW using SE? Or at least alternate settings using Jedi, etc., but not the movie setting?

I've been in a Halo-themed game, it seemed to work pretty well. Had an AI, a SPARTAN, and an ODST (me). I wasn't the best at shooting stuff, but I made up for it with a robust skillset. Not entirely sure what the workings of the AI were (I know there was a homebrewed class for SPARTANS), but he was fond of handing out extra actions as well as extra dice of damage.

Friv
2009-03-07, 01:23 AM
Only if they put on an armored flight suit. A regular flight suit won't make any difference. So a high leveled TIE pilot in uniform would suffer the penalty, a high leveled X-Wing pilot wouldn't have to worry... and since most TIE pilots are mooks, that shouldn't matter too often. Now put the X-Wing pilot in the TIE pilot's uniform... well, it makes sense for him to feel awkward in it.

Or at least that's how I'm rationalizing it all at this moment.

*checks the list* :smallconfused: There is a flight suit in the equipment list, isn't there? Never saw that before - I always assumed that the "padded flight suit", claiming as it does to be favored by starfighters all over the galaxy, was what rebel pilots wore. I may be wrong.

My point remains in principle, though. When Leia and Han put on their blast helmets and vests in Return of the Jedi, they lose eight and ten points of defense, respectively. That's just plain wrong. I like the idea that at high levels, armor is just fancy clothes. I don't like that it's actively counter-productive.

Knaight
2009-03-07, 01:39 AM
I was under the impression that you used the higher of the two values, if it was armor, then you used armor bonuses. If it was the character, the character gave the bonuses. But I might be wrong.

Uin
2009-03-07, 03:28 AM
(And as an aside with the armor - in my own games, I houseruled that you always use the higher of your level or your armor, and then made Second Skin the base Talent needed for the Armor Mastery tree. It seems to have worked out well, and didn't leave us with weirdness like "A level 9 pilot who gets into uniform loses 4 Reflex unless he has that one Talent that does nothing else".)

I notice that people are not liking how armour works. If it even remotely fits my character I have them wear light armour, then it can be modded to hell and back to be incredibly useful. The current BBEG tech specialist Sith Lord I'm using has light armour like the following:

Light Powered Armour (Tech Spec [+1Fort], Reflec [+10 Stealth], Integrated Equipment [Lightsaber, Sith Shortsword, Blaster Pistol, Comlink], Helmet Package [Tech Spec, +1Percep], Environmental Seals)

He now has extra Fort Defense, huge Stealth check, increased Perception and Low Light Vision, the ability to survive if blown out into a vacuum and can draw equipment without worrying about actions which is handy when trying to create a cool solo BBEG fight where the action economy is harsh on a single enemy.

Worth the price of a talent.

Kiero
2009-03-07, 07:49 AM
I was under the impression that you used the higher of the two values, if it was armor, then you used armor bonuses. If it was the character, the character gave the bonuses. But I might be wrong.

Nope, if you put on armour, you use it's Reflex bonus, regardless of whether or not your heroic level bonus is higher.

You have to get Armoured Defense to get a choice.

Dauntless
2009-04-26, 01:54 PM
I have been gaming for over 30 years now and have played nearly every obscure and mainstream game ever published. I have to say that most class based games in my opinion are a waste of time. That being said I have to admit the Star Wars Saga has managed to create a fun, fast paced game, with simple rules, easy conversion from other systems, and fast monster/character generation.
As a RPG it is an exciting balance of table top action and true role playing.

4E on the otherhand is a great system for table top combat but drops the ball as an RPG. It offer few options for the story driven campaign and even fewer for the player who likes social interaction as opposed to combat. The designers have stated that if you want social interaction simply role play it. I personally like feats, talents, etc. that allow my character to have a greater range of ability than I do as an orator, negatiator, etc.

If you like hack and slash dungeon crawls, then 4e is the game for you. If you like a more intelligent yet action packed game go for Star Wars Saga Edition.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-04-26, 02:15 PM
I much prefer SE's modularity to 4e's focus. Anyone can build almost any character they like, provided they have the levels and a notion how to string them together.

Indeed. Extremely limited multiclassing is why I don't play 4e. Nothing wrong with the way they handle it, but the approach happens to get under my skin. Playing 4e might be using a good system, but it's not fun for me. Call it illogical if you wish.

And, just in general, Saga Edition is well-constructed and well-marketed. 4e is ambiguous on both counts. I have a few nitpicks with Reflex Defense, critical hits, et cetera; but far less than I have with 3.5 - and given that I play 3.5 almost exclusively, that's a statement there.

TheCountAlucard
2009-04-26, 02:18 PM
1) has anyone used SAGA edition for a tabletop game?Almost every Thursday. :smallcool:


2) Is gameplay good with it? Can you tell the stories you want to?I'm not the GM of the Saga game we play, but it's been tons of fun. :smallsmile:


I personally like feats, talents, etc. that allow my character to have a greater range of ability than I do as an orator, negatiator, etc....because despite my Twi'lek's awesome charisma, there is no way that I could successfully convince a Sith that running away is the best course of action.


I have a few nitpicks with Reflex Defense, critical hits, et cetera; but far less than I have with 3.5 - and given that I play 3.5 almost exclusively, that's a statement there.This.