PDA

View Full Version : D&D 4.0 What do you want to play?



Yeril
2007-09-06, 01:02 PM
4th Edition is on its way and Ive been vaugly keeping up the news, I read about the Ranger/Scout Direction and since then I decided "The first character I play in 4th edition is gonner be a ranger."

And just now I thought "Hey I wonder if other people have decided their first class too?"

So here it is, I want to play a Ranger.

What do You Want to Play?

OzymandiasVolt
2007-09-06, 01:03 PM
I don't know because it hasn't been released yet.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-06, 01:04 PM
Half-Elf Monk.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-06, 01:05 PM
A Bard, probably human, assuming the class survives. (Dear Lord let the Bard survive and not suck)

Grey Paladin
2007-09-06, 01:06 PM
Fighter/Wizard

Starsinger
2007-09-06, 01:07 PM
So far Bard... I dunno why. My first 3e character was a bard.

TSGames
2007-09-06, 01:08 PM
What do You Want to Play?

Not a gnome, that's for sure!

Indon
2007-09-06, 01:13 PM
Whatever my "Next character" concept for 3.5 will be at the time.

At present, it's a blaster-sorceror with Energy Substitution for everything (Ice Ball, Acid Shout, Burning Fog, Sonic Bolt, Electrocuting Ray).

AKA_Bait
2007-09-06, 01:15 PM
Gotta be a Human Wizard. I want to see if they managed to keep it from being overpowered. They seem to be folding 3 classes that already overpower almost everything melee into the new Wizard and I'm skeptical if they actually managed to achieve some better balance.

TroyXavier
2007-09-06, 01:18 PM
Won't know till the book is out but I'm definitely curious about the Warlord.

Spiryt
2007-09-06, 01:21 PM
I think I'm gonna play Ranger too .

If he's going to be have more "scout-like" it can be cool.

(I never liked animal companion, altough spells were OK (mostly)).

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-06, 01:21 PM
Sigil Prep 4e!

But in terms of an actual character, a no-LA Tiefling will be nice to play with.

Dausuul
2007-09-06, 01:21 PM
Either a wizard or a sorceror, almost certainly. I love the arcane casters, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens when they're freed from the icy clutch of Jack Vance's withered hand.

Morty
2007-09-06, 01:23 PM
A wizard. They'll be no longer Vancian, which is bad, but they'll still be wizards, and that's important. Really, I never have a "what to play first" dilemma when trying out a new system, because I always play wizard first. However, if they screw magic system up really bad, I'll play Warlord, as this class seems like something new.

Glaivemaster
2007-09-06, 01:26 PM
A rogue, because the first character of any game I play is always a rogue of some sort, and I want to see what new l33t skillz they get. As for race, I'm not really bothered. I might go for the halfling, to see if they've made the interaction for a halfling/rogue classic

Kyle
2007-09-06, 01:38 PM
First I'll have to carefully look through each race, figure out what's new, and what's the same, try and get a sense of it's strengths and weaknesses of each one.

Then I'll go through the classes, with an eye towards what role they're designed to fill in the overall sense of the game,.

After that, I'll examine the skills and feats--or whatever the 4th Edition equivalents are--and make a rough map in my head of how certain ones fit together in various combinations to produce differant affects.

Then I'll roll up a human fighter with the biggest weapon in the equipment guide.

Zincorium
2007-09-06, 01:43 PM
Dwarven ranger or barbarian, not sure if barbarians will survive the change so ranger is a nice backup option (hopefully they won't be stuck with the choice of bow, two weapons, or wasted class feature).

Matthew
2007-09-06, 01:47 PM
Two weapon Fighting Human Samurai. :smallwink:

Flawless
2007-09-06, 01:48 PM
Human or dwarven Cleric FTW!

I really love playing clerics, so I'm curious as to how they'll work in 4th edition. And I love nwe mechanics ;)

Pokemaster
2007-09-06, 01:49 PM
I'd like to try a Rogue/Paladin/Duelist-type build. I figured it'd be a pretty good measure of how effective the 4th Edition is at doing what I want it to do.

Hopeless
2007-09-06, 01:52 PM
4th Edition is on its way and Ive been vaugly keeping up the news, I read about the Ranger/Scout Direction and since then I decided "The first character I play in 4th edition is gonner be a ranger."

And just now I thought "Hey I wonder if other people have decided their first class too?"

So here it is, I want to play a Ranger.

What do You Want to Play?

Human Barbarian who appears male but is actually female (courtesy of watching anime shows specifically Princess Minerva and Louie the Rune Soldier) I just want to run a character using the reverse rules of bishonen where a bloke looks like a girl (and yes I've probably got the reference wrong but you should know what i mean).

Other than that just run a character who fights either with paired weapons or axe and shield (and by paired I mean sword & dagger, unarmed, especially unarmed and by that i means the Gamers special move of groin kick...)

Well that and I want to see how that game table works...

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-06, 01:53 PM
3.5 for the first half year or so while I make up my mind about transitioning.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-06, 02:05 PM
I'll go with the classic. Anything about paladins, knights, or plainly fighter, whatever they have in that style.

Overlard
2007-09-06, 02:11 PM
Now that they're finally getting rid of vancian spellcasting, probably a wizard. I'm interested to see what the hell the warlord is though.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-06, 02:21 PM
Now that they're finally getting rid of vancian spellcasting, probably a wizard. I'm interested to see what the hell the warlord is though.
This is pure speculation, but I feel like it'll be some kind of more martial Marshal. Boosts allies' combat ability while being able to stand on the front lines. Possibly some healing, based on the "Leader Role" description, so perhaps it'll be something like the Crusader, with their healing and buffing Maneuvers.

Just guessing on all counts, though.

Overlard
2007-09-06, 02:39 PM
This is pure speculation, but I feel like it'll be some kind of more martial Marshal. Boosts allies' combat ability while being able to stand on the front lines. Possibly some healing, based on the "Leader Role" description, so perhaps it'll be something like the Crusader, with their healing and buffing Maneuvers.

Just guessing on all counts, though.
Yeah, I'm thinking it's likely to be a fighter-type with bardic boosts, rather than the jack-of-all-trades the bard tries to be.

Still a terrible class name though.

Green Bean
2007-09-06, 02:48 PM
I gonna play a spiky-haired martial adept who carries a sword bigger than he is, capable of leaping around like a deranged frog. After all, that's pretty much the only option 4e has to offer. Note: Satire :smalltongue:


Seriously, though, I'm probably going to go straight for the Sorcerer class. I love the flavour, and not having to plan what I'm going to cast every single encounter. I like the 3.5 version, but from the way it sounds, 4e will be moving away from the 'wizard lite' paradigm, which is good in my books. Either that, or cleric.

Ceres
2007-09-06, 02:54 PM
Gnome barbarian/monk :smallbiggrin:

Tormsskull
2007-09-06, 02:58 PM
Lesbian stripper ninja (its going to be a PrC)

Starbuck_II
2007-09-06, 03:06 PM
Lesbian stripper ninja (its going to be a PrC)

Ninja is going to be a Prc or Lesbian stripper?

ufo
2007-09-06, 03:08 PM
I'm going to play 3.5.

I just spend almost 50 bucks (converted to US dollars, for your convenience) buying all the books and stuff.

Also, TormsSkull, if you ever make that PrC, please please send it to me.

Yeril
2007-09-06, 03:25 PM
Lesbian stripper ninja (its going to be a PrC)

Whats the Prerequisites :smallconfused: :smallamused:

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-06, 03:30 PM
Ninja is going to be a Prc or Lesbian stripper?
No, lesbian is. Ninja and Stripper are base classes.

Nota Biene
2007-09-06, 03:34 PM
Wizard. It will be fun to walk into a bar and know I can blast any little mouthy peasant I want without worrying about wasting spells.

For a less evil character... I don't know. I'd have to see.

AkodoKoji
2007-09-06, 03:46 PM
Assuming that Paladins can be any alignment and that warlords are buffers, I intend to to play a CG human warlord/paladin with the 4e version of leadership. Hopefully in the same way that the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff the paladin killed the crusader and took his stuff.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-06, 03:56 PM
I want to play a Dwarf Rat Catcher.

Wait ... this is about Warhammer FRP, right?

Irreverent Fool
2007-09-06, 04:20 PM
3.5 for the first half year or so while I make up my mind about transitioning.

Beat me to it, Mike.

grinner666
2007-09-06, 04:50 PM
Druid. I've loved that class since 1E. In fact it's my FIRST love. :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2007-09-06, 05:57 PM
Wizard. As always.

Dhavaer
2007-09-06, 06:18 PM
No, lesbian is. Ninja and Stripper are base classes.

Really? Wow. So the girls from The L Word are all pretty high level, then.

And I'd play a tiefling. I want to see how they've changed them.

ForzaFiori
2007-09-06, 06:23 PM
Monk.
not sure what race.

but i wanna see if they've fixed the monk yet.

also plan on playing wizard and warlord soon off.

probably make a little of every race too.

puppyavenger
2007-09-06, 08:07 PM
sorceror unless they kill it in which case WOD

John Campbell
2007-09-06, 11:56 PM
Well, given what I know of D&D 3.x, and what I expect from what I've heard of D&D 4...

Third edition.

Shadowrun.

Machete
2007-09-07, 12:04 AM
Catfolk Barb 1/Scout whatever

Unarmed charge and spring attack monkey

Badgerish
2007-09-07, 03:52 AM
either:
one of everything!
or
need to read and re-read the rules first
or
a dwarven (or maybe human) cleric or fighter/cleric. (this is what i tend towards playing)
or
a underage female tiefling wizard or rogue/wizard. just 'cos i like the idea of being the 'scary little devil girl' (this would have to be in an online game of course)
or
the DM :)

Thanatos 51-50
2007-09-07, 07:02 AM
Half-elf Rogue.

By rogue, I of course mean "gentleman thief"

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-07, 07:03 AM
Assuming I do transition to 4e (however unlikely, but lets do this hypothetically) I plan on playing...everything at once as npcs, yes I will DM because no else wants to and I don't minnd much. However, I don't like the way 4e is going so far in the combat department so I might stick with 3.5.

Arlanthe
2007-09-07, 07:49 AM
Tauren Shaman with 20 ranks in metagaming.

Crow
2007-09-07, 10:45 AM
Well, given what I know of D&D 3.x, and what I expect from what I've heard of D&D 4...

Third edition.

Shadowrun.

What, you didn't switch to Shadowrun 4e???

Hell, I didn't. It sucks.

OverdrivePrime
2007-09-07, 11:19 AM
<3 Shadowrun 3, <3 Shadowrun 4. They're basically two different, excellent games.


Anyway, I'm gonna be playin' a human ranger and praying to all that's holy that I'm not pigeon-holed into stupid TWF or mildly useful archery tree. I carry a greatsword and hunt giants. Shortswords and bow tricks just don't cut it.

If they've still got that lame TWF/Archery tree restriction on rangers, I'm gonna go barbarian/druid.

Indon
2007-09-07, 11:24 AM
Tauren Shaman with 20 ranks in metagaming.

Ah, decided to emulate a WoW character, have you?

Crow
2007-09-07, 11:30 AM
<3 Shadowrun 3, <3 Shadowrun 4. They're basically two different, excellent games.


Anyway, I'm gonna be playin' a human ranger and praying to all that's holy that I'm not pigeon-holed into stupid TWF or mildly useful archery tree. I carry a greatsword and hunt giants. Shortswords and bow tricks just don't cut it.

If they've still got that lame TWF/Archery tree restriction on rangers, I'm gonna go barbarian/druid.

You are right. They are basically two different games. For me 3rd Edition is "Shadowrun", while 4th to me is "Something Else".

I like the idea of the greatsword-wielding giant-hunter btw...

The 6th Side
2007-09-07, 11:58 AM
I cant wait to play cleric / druid, s gonna be aweshome! :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2007-09-07, 12:34 PM
Fighter. I want to see if it no longer sucks. Specifically Sword&Board Fighter.

Now when I actually get around to buying 4e is a completely different story. As I write this, I'm filled with hate and fury towards WotC, mainly because i bought the last issue of Dragon this morning and have read through it, knowing all the while that it's the last one. Ergot, I'm not really in the mindset to be looking forward to buying anything from the people that pulled the magazine license.

Yeah, I was tearing up reading the OOTS and Phil&Dixie at the end. Poor Phil never did get his "Sex in D&D" article outside of BoEF...

Macrovore
2007-09-07, 12:45 PM
Either:

pyromaniac wizard. See what he can burn.

Swashbuckler-type. Fighter, or rogue, or both. something with light to no armor, skill points, and lots of attack power.

John Campbell
2007-09-07, 01:45 PM
What, you didn't switch to Shadowrun 4e???

Hell, I didn't. It sucks.

My reaction to the SR4 announcement was, "Woo! New edition! Maybe it'll fix these minor problems with the current edition, and, somehow, be as much awesomer than SR3 as SR3 was awesomer than SR2!"

... followed by this sinking feeling as more and more news came out and they started answering questions and I realized that not only were they not fixing the things that needed to be fixed, they were breaking all of the things that were perfect the way they were, and generally tossing out entirely the best system I've ever played with. The only bit of the final SR4 that I thought was an improvement was that they seem to have gone a long way towards making network use both rational and relevant, which cyberpunk-type games have always had trouble with (I blame Gibson and his computer-illiteracy), and the tradeoff for that was the dumbing-down and fragging-up of everything else.

My reaction to the D&D4 announcement's been pretty similar, except with the initial excitement replaced by the cynical realization that WotC will never fix any of the things that I hate most about D&D3 because they're doing it deliberately to put money in their pockets, and with the "best system ever" replaced with "yeah, it kind of sucks, but I've been playing it for 25 years". (I'm still bitter about them inverting AC. Lower numbers should be better! It's the way the gods intended it!)

WhiteHarness
2007-09-07, 04:00 PM
I want to play a classic Knight in Shining Armour. Armour that I can actually expect to work fairly often and protect him from most of the damage that comes his way. And not just by making him "harder to hit," either--I want it to lessen the severity of the damage he takes too.

Is that so much to ask?

adanedhel9
2007-09-07, 04:01 PM
My first thought will be a Wizard... I have never enjoyed playing them in 3.x, and I look forward to seeing if they come out with a different feel in 4e.

Failing that, I really don't know. It'll depend on the first 4e game that I get to play in. Maybe a Paladin.

knightsaline
2007-09-07, 10:50 PM
A knight in tarnished armor. The one who broke his knightly vows to save someone. Now freed from the restricting vows he had to make to queen and goddess, he now does good deeds because its the right thing to do.

So in other words, a Fighter who is a failed paladin, but still does the right thing, only doing it his way.

If it survives, a Warlock with some feats from Dragon. I like the claws feat, where you can shape your blast into claws for a few rounds. Background is that he is descended from a (very drizz't like) blue dragon who didn't like the way his blue dragon kin just caused chaos. He made a deal with an elder god to gain powers beyond a normal blue dragons grasp. The blue dragon had a thing for human females and as a result, has many human descendants with powers mimicking his.

TheOOB
2007-09-07, 11:06 PM
Probably a halfling wizard, reminiscent of one of my favorite characters ever, hafling luck bonus saved my life three times in one session.

Ahh, who am I kidding, I'm going to DM first, so I can play whatever I want, they'll just die soon anyways :P

Vincentrose91
2007-09-07, 11:20 PM
Would totally have to read the book 4 times to decide.

Kurtulmak
2007-09-07, 11:37 PM
A KOBOLD.

Anything past that is just gravy. :D

DSCrankshaw
2007-09-07, 11:50 PM
Dwarf paladin

At least I'd like to, if the paladin isn't quite so charisma dependent as it is now (in other words, if it's more like crusader).

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-09-08, 12:23 AM
Because the laws of posting decree that it must be done...

I want to attempt to create the first 4e pun-pun if only to highlight the fact that no matter how hard they try, WotC is going to screw up. Hard.

After that is out of my system though, I'm going to do just as TheOOB will and DM like a fiend to get a bunch of experimentation out of the way so I can settle into what kyle said, and just play a simple fighter. :smallamused:


-or who the heck am I kidding? Half-elf samurai/monk.

Kiero
2007-09-08, 04:29 AM
If I can finally play a Ranger who doesn't have pointless spells or an animal companion, I'll be happy. Even better if not taking those means they're a tougher combatant.

Xuincherguixe
2007-09-08, 06:23 AM
Farmer.

Or maybe a baker.

Leaning towards farmer.

warmachine
2007-09-08, 07:20 AM
I got this idea from another member of the forum. A camp half-orc bard who plays a portable, baby piano, hits the enemy with it and wears Elton John style glasses.

HOO
2007-09-08, 07:29 AM
From what I've read so far it could actually be fun to play a cleric. I do it right now in another campaign and it's not that cool. Oh! Unstoppable power awaits at/after level 7 - but who cares? It's mostly boring to buff and heal people (not the DM's fault..).

Ranger would indeed be my top choice so far.
But I'm also looking forward to the new Sorcerer....we'll see

Orzel
2007-09-08, 08:29 AM
ranger/wizard

A ranger/wizard

Talya
2007-09-08, 08:37 AM
Depending how much they keep threatening to change "fluff" that should be left alone, or how badly they skewer our ability to customize and create the style we want in crunch to match the fluff, for what I want to play, I'm currently leaning toward, "Anything in 3.5."

Crow
2007-09-08, 08:44 AM
Depending how much they keep threatening to change "fluff" that should be left alone, or how badly they skewer our ability to customize and create the style we want in crunch to match the fluff, for what I want to play, I'm currently leaning toward, "Anything in 3.5."

Is it just me, or does your avatar have a pot-belly?

Anyhow, as much as I like building gish characters, it seems like they are going to make that more difficult to do (and still be viable). Soooo, it'll probably be a straight-up Fighter.

Spiryt
2007-09-08, 08:53 AM
If I can finally play a Ranger who doesn't have pointless spells or an animal companion, I'll be happy. Even better if not taking those means they're a tougher combatant.

I don't have anything against Rangers with spells, as long as their are well develop (not snakes instead of hands or changing into centaur :smallyuk: ), but yes, animal companion is a horrible idea. I want to be a Ranger not some sick animal fights freak.




I got this idea from another member of the forum. A camp half-orc bard who plays a portable, baby piano, hits the enemy with it and wears Elton John style glasses.

Hey, my freaky idea still lives. (Although I didn't posted it, my well know guy, als Pole did it.)


And ranger/wizard sounds juicy.

I hope that in 4ed such mixes will have sense.

Talya
2007-09-08, 09:09 AM
Is it just me, or does your avatar have a pot-belly?

Blame Rich! All his female characters look that way.


Anyhow, as much as I like building gish characters, it seems like they are going to make that more difficult to do (and still be viable). Soooo, it'll probably be a straight-up Fighter.

Lots of stuff looks like it won't be as viable in 4.0.

Morty
2007-09-08, 09:13 AM
Lots of stuff looks like it won't be as viable in 4.0.

I don't think we know enough of 4ed to judge if something will be viable or not, or even if it looks like that or not.

Talya
2007-09-08, 09:30 AM
I don't think we know enough of 4ed to judge if something will be viable or not, or even if it looks like that or not.

I agree. Heck, the design team doesn't even know yet, half of what they're doing could be changed before they release it.


Lots of stuff looks like it won't be as viable in 4.0.

Depending how much they keep threatening to change "fluff" that should be left alone, or how badly they skewer our ability to customize and create the style we want in crunch to match the fluff

Based only on what they've said so far, and the ugly mess that is Star Wars Saga Edition (which, oddly, seems to mostly work for star wars, albeit with some serious flaws, but would never work for a D&D setting), I'm not optimistic.

The direction they appear to be going in so far looks like a huge change, rather than the minor tweaking the system needs.

Anxe
2007-09-08, 09:37 AM
Definitely an Elven Rogue. That was my first character in AD&D and 3.0. Gonna make it first in 4th also.

Morty
2007-09-08, 09:40 AM
Based only on what they've said so far, and the ugly mess that is Star Wars Saga Edition (which, oddly, seems to mostly work for star wars, albeit with some serious flaws, but would never work for a D&D setting), I'm not optimistic.

The direction they appear to be going in so far looks like a huge change, rather than the minor tweaking the system needs.

Well, if they were going to do only minor tweaking, it wouldn't be called 4ed but rather 3.75.
I've never seen Star Wars Saga in my life, so I don't know it. Besides, we don't know how much of this they're going to adapt into 4ed. Probably not much, since it's going to be new system, not copy of another.

Talya
2007-09-08, 09:48 AM
Well, if they were going to do only minor tweaking, it wouldn't be called 4ed but rather 3.75.
I've never seen Star Wars Saga in my life, so I don't know it. Besides, we don't know how much of this they're going to adapt into 4ed. Probably not much, since it's going to be new system, not copy of another.


It's worth looking at. Saga just came out a couple months ago, and a LOT of what they're talking about for 4e rule changes is already in use in Saga edition. Wizards completely revamped d20 rules for it. Some of it is brilliant. Other parts, not so much. Some of the rule changes are sorely needed, others feel overly simplified. Some seem boneheaded.

Talya
2007-09-08, 10:05 AM
Hmm. I might as well post a few of the more major rule changes for Star Wars Saga edition:

There are no saving throws, or armor class. These have been replaced with three items that will look eerily familiar to you, called "Defenses." These function like an armor class target, but are named like the previous saving throws: Fortitude Defense, Reflex Defense, Will Defense. Note that they are not bonuses, you never make a fortitude save. Your Fort. Defense = 10 + your level + con modifier + any other bonuses from class or chosen feats/talents. Your Reflex Defense (which functions like armor class, but also performs the previous role of "reflex save") is 10 + your level + dex modifier + other bonuses from class or chosen feats/talents. Will Defense is the same, only with Wisdom. All defensive stats are target DCs, not bonuses. Therefore, someone using a force power to manipulate your mind must break your Will Defense, but you get no saving throw. They either beat your defense or fail to beat it. (I like this revision.)

Force Powers act like maneuvers in TOB. They are per-encounter uses. I'm not sure I like this at all.

Skills are either trained or untrained. There are no ranks, and you cannot "cross-class." Trained skills operate at +5, untrained have no bonus. You also receive 1/2 your character level as a bonus to skills, and the "Skill Focus" feat adds another +5. Since some skills directly oppose certain defenses, this is very bad. Early on, you can have between +10 and +15 to a skill with ease, and break an average defense score with a d20 roll of 1. Skill focus needs a higher level requirement. But then later on, as defenses go up 1 per level and skills go up only 0.5 per level, defenses surpass skills and the skills - with no way to raise them further - become almost impossible to use.

Starting hit points are 3x your maximum roll on your class hit die type. This is pretty good. I usually houseruled in D&D that characters get max hit die for the first three levels anyway.

Everyone gets +1/2 their level to damage. This whole mechanic of directly adding a level-based bonus to anything works well as it lowers the importance of ability scores slightly, however, since these things oppose each other (Damage opposes a score called Damage Threshold which is based on Fort Defense), and advance at different rates (either 1/2 level or full level), there are balance issues.

My biggest issue is the inability to intentionally stack multiclass abilities on top of each other synergisticly. Building a character in 3.5 is a fun task in its own right...fitting puzzle peices together synergisticly to create something unique. However, the feat and talent system in 3.5 seems to assume everyone is going to take a particular path, and lock you into that path if you want to be effective. The talents are also diverse, and single-purposed, and you never get enough of them.

With no 5' step rule, and just about every essential thing you do using a move or standard action, melee combat is darned near impossible. While star wars IS mostly ranged...it screws over Jedi royally. It also would be tremendously ugly in the mostly melee D&D settings. There also are no iterative attacks, and dual weilding sucks worse than before (and still uses up 3 feats.)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-08, 10:27 AM
Based only on what they've said so far, and the ugly mess that is Star Wars Saga Edition (which, oddly, seems to mostly work for star wars, albeit with some serious flaws, but would never work for a D&D setting), I'm not optimistic.

The direction they appear to be going in so far looks like a huge change, rather than the minor tweaking the system needs.

Don't worry it will all be fixed in 4.5. :smallamused:

Elderac
2007-09-08, 10:42 AM
I'm a GM more often than a player. I get to try them all! :smallbiggrin:

DSCrankshaw
2007-09-08, 03:16 PM
Hmm. I might as well post a few of the more major rule changes for Star Wars Saga edition:

<cut a lot of stuff--read the original>

With no 5' step rule, and just about every essential thing you do using a move or standard action, melee combat is darned near impossible. While star wars IS mostly ranged...it screws over Jedi royally. It also would be tremendously ugly in the mostly melee D&D settings. There also are no iterative attacks, and dual weilding sucks worse than before (and still uses up 3 feats.)
I've only read through the rules for SWSE, but I agree with a lot of what you say. The skill vs. defense is going to have to be better balanced to work for D&D. The reasoning in SWSE is, I think, that skills used against other heroic characters are supposed to work better at lower levels than higher levels--so at high levels, other heroic characters are pretty resistant to save-or-suck force powers or intimidate attempts or whatever. One possibility for D&D is that defenses will progress at half the rate they do in SWSE, but magic and equipment bonuses are more common (armor will definitely need to stack differently than it does in SWSE). Another is that Skill Focus will become part of a progression with Improved and Greater versions, which don't become available until higher levels--I think the initial Skill Focus should have a CL 5 requirement as well. Or it could work similarly to how it does now, with individual spells granting bonuses. Anyway, I fully expect that to be different in D&D, as the SWSE design is made to even out at 20th level, and 4th edition D&D is meant to run to 30th level.

Where I don't agree is that dual weapon use is worse. I think it's better. Once you accept that most characters have only one attack per round, then any feat which gives you two attacks is an excellent one, even if it means all attacks until your next turn (even attacks of opportunity) are at -5, and both Dual Weapon Mastery and Double Attack do this. And if two more feats reduce that penalty all the way to 0 (which only works with the Dual Weapon Mastery tree), that's a decent trade considering the increased number of feats granted, although I think I'd be happy to take just the second one to get to -2. Of course, this only means that it isn't really worse than the 3.5 version, in the context of the current game. What makes it better is the fact that your off-hand weapon no longer has to be light and no longer does half strength damage. There are only two things I'd change. I'd reduce the BAB requirements on the second two feats so that a straight 3/4 BAB character could gain them at 6th and 12th (while a full BAB character can gain them at 4th (if they have the bonus feat) and 9th. And I'd make multiple attacks a standard action rather than a full action. Considering their design philosophy, WotC may consider this too powerful, but I think it's a fair exchange considering the feat cost and attack penalty applied.

Talya
2007-09-08, 04:29 PM
Where I don't agree is that dual weapon use is worse. I think it's better. Once you accept that most characters have only one attack per round, then any feat which gives you two attacks is an excellent one, even if it means all attacks until your next turn (even attacks of opportunity) are at -5, and both Dual Weapon Mastery and Double Attack do this. And if two more feats reduce that penalty all the way to 0 (which only works with the Dual Weapon Mastery tree), that's a decent trade considering the increased number of feats granted, although I think I'd be happy to take just the second one to get to -2.


That's an extra attack that you will never have an opportunity to take.

Running Attack has no prerequisites. Anyone who stands still and trades blows is going to lose. Unless you lock two combatants in a 3x3 or smaller square room, they won't be taking full attacks. The only people who can take full attacks in saga edition are ranged combatants (and I should have qualified, dual weilding for melee sucks. Dual weilding pistols rocks.)

As for 1/2 level progression abilities vs. full level progression abilities, it's not all "save or suck" force abilities vs. defenses, by the way. It also includes lightsaber block/deflect rolls vs. attacks...admittedly, BAB progresses a bit more slowly for some, but for soldiers and other jedi, blocking/deflecting becomes progressively harder the higher level you become. Even the 3/4 BAB classes progress attack bonus faster than you progress at your Use the Force skill used for blocking.

DSCrankshaw
2007-09-08, 04:39 PM
That's an extra attack that you will never have an opportunity to take.

Running Attack has no prerequisites. Anyone who stands still and trades blows is going to lose. Unless you lock two combatants in a 3x3 or smaller square room, they won't be taking full attacks. The only people who can take full attacks in saga edition are ranged combatants (and I should have qualified, dual weilding for melee sucks. Dual wielding pistols rocks.)
Fair enough. Although, if I understand correctly, Running Attack doesn't prevent attacks of opportunities, so you still get two attacks against them if they're meleers ;) Anyway, like I said, I do think that if multiple attacks are going to be rare, they should be standard actions rather than full actions.