# Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project



## Flynn

Good Morning, All,

Based on discussion in the following thread, I've volunteered to put together a streamlined OGL Fantasy variant, incorporating many of the basic elements of Star Wars Saga Edition that can be traced to OGL products:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200428

This thread is intended to cover a majority of the discussion on what is considered "sacred" to such a project, and similar topics. Your input is welcome. Please keep in mind that we want to maintain an experience that is as close to the standard game as possible, within the context of the new streamlined system.

I call this project "Fantasy Concepts". I am aiming for a delivery date of October 2007. When done, the finished product will be available in both PDF and Print On Demand.

One thing to remember: in order to stay legal, we should avoid using anything that we cannot back up as having derived from Open Game Content. This limitation will probably drive a number of decisions about what is put into the system. However, I am sure that there will be few, if any, problems in finding precedent within the vast volume of Open Game Content.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> Please keep in mind that we want to maintain an experience that is as close to the standard game as possible, within the context of the new streamlined system.



We do? Could you clarify this, please? Is the goal to play D&D with one attack, 3 types of defense and the rest being D&D tropes?

By OGL Saga Fantasy I understand using the Saga system for fantasy - not shoehorning Saga to play D&D. D&D IMO is its own genre, with it does just fine. The way Saga does things allows IMO for a different feel - and not just streamlined gameplay - and I'm after both. In other words: I want Saga fantasy, not house ruled D&D 

But no matter the goal, here are a few issues I feel are essential to using Saga for fantasy:

   •Magic, of course. Using the Force powers as a baseline, one will get a nice magic feel, IMO. However, spellcasters do enjoy fireballs and the like, and we need a system for allowing such things, keeping them viable and still not just playing D&D. As has been discussed in the E6 threads, it would be nice if 'D&D spells', that is those spells that sooner or later more or less controls the way the DM can construct his scenarios (Commune, Teleport, Raise Dead, Save or Die spells, and others) could be kept optional. 

   •Classes. Warriors, Scoundrels etc. And we need a dedicated Spellcaster (Magic-User) Class.

   •Equipment. In Saga, characters seem much less dependant on equipment, which is nice. But we need to make different kinds of armor and weapons viable choices. Otherwise, no one will use anything but a long sword since you only crit on a 20. Rapier and such needs to be viable.

   •Healing. How hard? How easy. Reserve points, perhaps.

   •Stunts and challenges from Iron Heroes/Mythic Heroes would fit Saga Fantasy well, I think. So would action zones.

   •Monsters. I feel Beasts fill that role for a vast majority of monsters. The different kinds of monsters (giants, vermin, predators, etc.) could get a template that modifies certain abilities (so that Vermin are immune to mind affecting, Predators might get an attack bonus etc.) - I would certainly do something for outsiders (since demons must be powerful) and dragons (even more so). Undeads as well. The True20 Bestiary might be a good source for ideas.

   •Mass Combat. I had an idea about having companies/armies have stats like vehicles do and fighting it out like two vehicles or something like that. I think it could work really nice.

At the same time, we need to keep Saga's streamlined play. So the above mentioned should (must) be doable without rules by exception or whatever it's called.

Anyway, just some thoughts. I'm looking forward to seeing this evolve


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> •Magic, of course. Using the Force powers as a baseline, one will get a nice magic feel, IMO. However, spellcasters do enjoy fireballs and the like, and we need a system for allowing such things, keeping them viable and still not just playing D&D. As has been discussed in the E6 threads, it would be nice if 'D&D spells', that is those spells that sooner or later more or less controls the way the DM can construct his scenarios (Commune, Teleport, Raise Dead, Save or Die spells, and others) could be kept optional.




Let's nip this one in the bud right now: I'm not devising a new magic system based on action points for this project. That's too much work for the deliverable date we're aiming for, and not everyone will agree to the final implementation. Also, there's little, if any, precedence in Open Game Content for us to fall back on in these regards, so there are legal issues I'd be concerned with.

While people don't necessarily like the Vancian system, at least everyone can agree that it's considered somewhat core to the majority of the D20-based fantasy experience, and it is definitely considered Open Game Content.

Someone may surprise me with something I haven't considered that's OGL, but otherwise, it's a matter of CYA, if you catch my drift. Since I'm taking the legal risk, I have to make decisions based on that.

My Apologies For Any Disappointment,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> We do? Could you clarify this, please? Is the goal to play D&D with one attack, 3 types of defense and the rest being D&D tropes?
> 
> By OGL Saga Fantasy I understand using the Saga system for fantasy - not shoehorning Saga to play D&D. D&D IMO is its own genre, with it does just fine. The way Saga does things allows IMO for a different feel - and not just streamlined gameplay - and I'm after both. In other words: I want Saga fantasy, not house ruled D&D




From my perspective, if I'm going to do the work to create something like this, it should appeal to the most people that it can. A certain degree of D&D tropes are necessary in those regards, because the more you drift from that model, the less appeal the product has overall. That's where I'm coming from.

There's still plenty of room for customization by individuals through the use of new talent trees, etc. The core system should be built to support that. Indeed, the Vancian magic system I'm considering is purely talent tree-based, and so can be dropped and replaced by another other talent/feat/action point system one might create on their own. The approach makes it modular, and that gives you power as the GM.

I think you will find that the rules will allow you the versatility to capture a different feel for your fantasy gaming, the Saga Fantasy you seek, and it will not be just a house ruled D&D clone. But for those that want D&D shoehorned into Saga, there should be some capacity for them to get what they seek as well.

It's a balancing act,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> Someone may surprise me with something I haven't considered that's OGL, but otherwise, it's a matter of CYA, if you catch my drift. Since I'm taking the legal risk, I have to make decisions based on that.



True20 powers?



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> My Apologies For Any Disappointment,
> Flynn



No need for that 



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> From my perspective, if I'm going to do the work to create something like this, it should appeal to the most people that it can. A certain degree of D&D tropes are necessary in those regards, because the more you drift from that model, the less appeal the product has overall. That's where I'm coming from.
> 
> There's still plenty of room for customization by individuals through the use of new talent trees, etc. The core system should be built to support that. Indeed, the Vancian magic system I'm considering is purely talent tree-based, and so can be dropped and replaced by another other talent/feat/action point system one might create on their own. The approach makes it modular, and that gives you power as the GM.
> 
> I think you will find that the rules will allow you the versatility to capture a different feel for your fantasy gaming, the Saga Fantasy you seek, and it will not be just a house ruled D&D clone. But for those that want D&D shoehorned into Saga, there should be some capacity for them to get what they seek as well.
> 
> It's a balancing act,
> Flynn



That sounds fine with me. Must say, I really don't mind the Vancian system, but I really like the per encounter vibe that's been prominent lately.
Are you familiar with Legends of Sorcery and/or BESM advanced Magic? They allow AFAIK the Vancian spells to be used with a Use The Magic skill.


----------



## Particle_Man

I did notice that the Rogue got depowered a bit in some ways in SWSE.  If you can only get 10 talents by level 20 in scoundrel, you can't get 10d6 sneak attack *and* both versions of uncanny dodge *and* evasion in less than 13 talents. 

On the other hand, sneak attack is not limited by the type of creature it can affect.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> True20 powers?




Those are really the balliwick of True20, aren't they?  If I were to use any other system other than a traditional Vancian, my first thought would be to use _E. N. Publishing's_ *Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth* system. It is feat and skill based, and works pretty well.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> That sounds fine with me. Must say, I really don't mind the Vancian system, but I really like the per encounter vibe that's been prominent lately.
> Are you familiar with Legends of Sorcery and/or BESM advanced Magic? They allow AFAIK the Vancian spells to be used with a Use The Magic skill.




I don't have the WOTC sourcebooks that promote a lot of the per encounter vibe, so I'm afraid I'm missing out. I'm not acquainted with either system you've mentioned, but what little I have heard about Legends of Sorcery is filled with high praise.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I did notice that the Rogue got depowered a bit in some ways in SWSE.  If you can only get 10 talents by level 20 in scoundrel, you can't get 10d6 sneak attack *and* both versions of uncanny dodge *and* evasion in less than 13 talents.
> 
> On the other hand, sneak attack is not limited by the type of creature it can affect.




That will happen, but truth be told, that's not so bad a thing, when you consider the addition of a low Massive Damage Threshold and a Conditions chart. It doesn't take as much to take your foes down a notch or two. Also, it opens the Rogue to pursue other types of concepts, such as an improved Expert class, which could be more skill-based.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Acid_crash

Why would you try and shoehorn in a Vancian magic system into a Saga Fantasy game when the Force system in SWSE works just fine and much better?

If I want Vancian magic, I would play D&D.  You put in Vancian magic, than that is too close to D&D, and part of what makes Saga edition so great is that it is different.

Just rename Force = Magic.  Rename the Force Power = Magic Spells.  

Create new Magic Spells.

Here an example that is by no means really playtested, but just for kicks:
Fireball is an area effect attack, with a radius of 4 squares, that does 6d6 damage on a successful hit and half damage if the attack roll is less than the Reflex Defense.  The range of the fireball can be 20 squares, must make an attack roll and compare to all Reflex Defenses in the radius.  

I mean, just one way of creating a spell.  This was spur of the moment.

Rename Force Training = Spell Training.  Take the Jedi = Spellcaster/Mystic.

Create a couple of new Talent trees, possibly all based on the major classes of spells in D&D, for those who might want to specialize.

But please don't use Vancian magic, because there is no need at all.  I got D&D, and all the house rules for that.  I don't need another Vancian magic system game.  It's been done to death for the last 30 years, why replace something new and exciting with something as old as this.  Boring.

Just my opinion, my .02


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Must say I agree with Acid Chrash  - hence my suggestion to be inspired by True20 Powers for 'spell' ideas when using a Use the Force/Magic skill.

I can completely understand why you would keep the Vancian system, to make it more broadly appealing. But I think Acid Chash is right.


----------



## Flynn

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> Why would you try and shoehorn in a Vancian magic system into a Saga Fantasy game when the Force system in SWSE works just fine and much better?
> 
> If I want Vancian magic, I would play D&D.  You put in Vancian magic, than that is too close to D&D, and part of what makes Saga edition so great is that it is different.
> 
> Just rename Force = Magic.  Rename the Force Power = Magic Spells.
> 
> Create new Magic Spells.
> 
> Here an example that is by no means really playtested, but just for kicks:
> Fireball is an area effect attack, with a radius of 4 squares, that does 6d6 damage on a successful hit and half damage if the attack roll is less than the Reflex Defense.  The range of the fireball can be 20 squares, must make an attack roll and compare to all Reflex Defenses in the radius.
> 
> I mean, just one way of creating a spell.  This was spur of the moment.
> 
> Rename Force Training = Spell Training.  Take the Jedi = Spellcaster/Mystic.
> 
> Create a couple of new Talent trees, possibly all based on the major classes of spells in D&D, for those who might want to specialize.
> 
> But please don't use Vancian magic, because there is no need at all.  I got D&D, and all the house rules for that.  I don't need another Vancian magic system game.  It's been done to death for the last 30 years, why replace something new and exciting with something as old as this.  Boring.
> 
> Just my opinion, my .02




Here's the official reason why I wouldn't do what you are suggesting: What's the OGL reference I can use to bring the Force point system into this project, so that I don't suffer a lawsuit at the hands of the big corporation that owns the rights to the Force system you want to use? To my knowledge, there is no such OGL reference, and therefore, the system cannot be used in an OGL publication.

What I am proposing is simply a talent tree that covers the basics of a magic system. In your games, you could remove the talent tree and use Saga's Force mechanics all you desire, because you don't have to worry about the legalities of such things in your home game.

If there's something else you'd like to see, I'm going to ask that you create the magic system you'd like to see and then share it under the OGL. Several people have said they'd help in this project, so this would be one area in which they could. Until I see a complete magic system, though, I'm likely to take the easy way out, and let you house rule it as you wish.

Here's the unofficial reason: Personally, I'm not interested in redoing the Force into Magic. That concept just doesn't do it for me, and the amount of work I'd have to put in to create something that doesn't work for me isn't a motivation to do it.

Besides, I can almost guarantee that 4E won't change from a Vancian magic system, so it's not going away. It's a "sacred cow", and will be until another magic system becomes overwhelmingly popular. So far, there isn't such a system as yet.

Looking Forward To More,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

I may as well get this out for discussion as well...

*Classes*
I'm currently thinking about five core classes: Fighter, Expert (the Rogue with additional talent trees for alternate skill-based character concepts), Wizard, Cleric and Aristocrat.

These cover the four classic archetypes in fantasy gaming, and also gives us a noble/charismatic leader as well.

Thoughts?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> I may as well get this out for discussion as well...
> 
> *Classes*
> I'm currently thinking about five core classes: Fighter, Expert (the Rogue with additional talent trees for alternate skill-based character concepts), Wizard, Cleric and Aristocrat.
> 
> These cover the four classic archetypes in fantasy gaming, and also gives us a noble/charismatic leader as well.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




Just something I thought of....

One of the things I liked about d20 Modern was that they embraced the six attributes as character classes.  With 5 classes, you are very close to that ideal.

Fighter -- Strength
Expert (Rogue) -- Dexterity
Wizard -- Intelligence
Cleric -- Wisdom
Aristocrat -- Charisma

All your missing is a class that runs off Constitution...

This might allow you to tailor the talent trees to specific attributes easier.

Just a thought though...


----------



## EditorBFG

Having followed this and the other thread, I contacted the head honcho of Big Finger Games, and I have been authorized to reveal that a new fantasy game using some Saga inspired OGC analog content has been in active development for the past month or so. A natural outgrowth from our work with Fantastic Classes, our plan was in some ways more ambitious, but in other ways less, than what you seem to be planning.

So, after some discussion, we wanted to know: Should we just press on separately and offer different versions, or is Samardan Press interested in some kind of intra-publisher collaboration?


----------



## Kunimatyu

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought specific game mechanics were uncopyrightable?

In other words, while you can't have "Force Points" per se, there's nothing wrong with "Mana Points" using a similar mechanic.

I mean, honestly, if SWSE itself was being held to the same standard as you're proposing, Green Ronin could probably have sued WotC over a number of the mechanics originally in True20 and adapted to Saga Edition.


----------



## Baron Opal

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> Why would you try and shoehorn in a Vancian magic system into a Saga Fantasy game when the Force system in SWSE works just fine and much better?




Because Flynn can't use the SWSE system due to legal concerns. He has to be able to show that the mechanics in the document he is working on came from some other OGL document. OGL documents have explicit permissions that he needs since I presume this fantasy document is going to be for sale. SWSE is most definatly not OGL, and I presume that Flynn does not want to argue with WotC and Skywalker Ranch lawyers.

If you want the SWSE "magic" system, find its predecessor in OGL format and I'm sure that Flynn will be happy to oblige your request.

Edit: Beat to the punch. Several times. Oww....


----------



## smootrk

Cant you just wait for 4th Edition D&D which comes out next month?... or so I've heard over and over and over and over and over.


----------



## kaomera

First of all: Thank You.

I love the concept of a Saga-style fantasy system. I'll be buying a copy as soon as you'll take my money (or at least shortly after the first payday following). Beyond voting with my pennies, however, I wanted to say that I appreciate the work that you (and pretty much all other game designers) do so that I can have something cool to run for my players.   

As for what I'd like to see in the product: I'd like something modular. The more outside material that I can adapt to the system, the more stuff from this product that I can adapt to outside material, and the ease with which this adaptation can be accomplished, the better, IMHO.

With regards to classes: I actually like that Scout and Scoundrel are split up.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> So, after some discussion, we wanted to know: Should we just press on separately and offer different versions, or is Samardan Press interested in some kind of intra-publisher collaboration?



Obviously you're not asking me, but I'd just like to chime in and say that I'd be happy to buy both products. Having more of a good thing can't be bad.


----------



## catsclaw227

I'd like to see this done with a powers system instead of vancian magic as well.  Not necessarily a rehash of True20, but maybe a simplified Elements of Magic?


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Having followed this and the other thread, I contacted the head honcho of Big Finger Games, and I have been authorized to reveal that a new fantasy game using some Saga inspired OGC analog content has been in active development for the past month or so. A natural outgrowth from our work with Fantastic Classes, our plan was in some ways more ambitious, but in other ways less, than what you seem to be planning.
> 
> So, after some discussion, we wanted to know: Should we just press on separately and offer different versions, or is Samardan Press interested in some kind of intra-publisher collaboration?




I would definitely be interested in some kind of intra-publisher collaboration. Please feel free to contact me via jason.flynn.kemp ~AT~ gmail.com if you'd like to discuss this offline.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> Just something I thought of....
> 
> One of the things I liked about d20 Modern was that they embraced the six attributes as character classes.  With 5 classes, you are very close to that ideal.
> 
> Fighter -- Strength
> Expert (Rogue) -- Dexterity
> Wizard -- Intelligence
> Cleric -- Wisdom
> Aristocrat -- Charisma
> 
> All your missing is a class that runs off Constitution...
> 
> This might allow you to tailor the talent trees to specific attributes easier.
> 
> Just a thought though...




And therein lies the basis for the second generation product, a Modern Saga system... 

Seriously, I'd thought about it, but then it would be D20 Modern and not D&D, and D&D is what most people seem to be looking for when they start discussing house ruling Saga into their campaign.

It's definitely a thought, though,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*About Monsters...*

In regards to *Monsters*:

It would be my preference to avoid having to recreate monsters for the new system. Why invalidate all those great monster tomes out there? I'm certainly not going to spend the next three years republishing them for a new system. Instead, I'd rather build a system that allows you to use your monster tomes with minimal, if any, adjustments. I'd much rather be gaming once this project is over, in whatever manner it gets completed.

In short, compatibility within reason is a personal goal. I am willing to stray from this one to a certain degree, but the further one strays, the less general appeal the product has.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## w_earle_wheeler

So this is going to be a freely available document when finished, correct?


----------



## Emryys

Another cool thread to follow... now which to play, this or E6... Hmmm


----------



## Flynn

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> So this is going to be a freely available document when finished, correct?




I never said it would be free. In fact, in the original thread I said I would do this only if I found that at least five people would buy it. Now, while this won't be freely available, I'm sure it will be very reasonably priced. In addition, it should be available in both PDF and Print On Demand format, so you can have either a soft copy or hard copy, depending on your preferences.

That's the biggest reason why I am making sure that everything has an OGL reference. Otherwise, if it were just a fan-based netbook that would be freely available, we wouldn't have to worry about that at all.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

smootrk said:
			
		

> Cant you just wait for 4th Edition D&D which comes out next month?... or so I've heard over and over and over and over and over.




Because I'm tired of waiting...   

Hehehe,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> ... but then it would be D20 Modern and not D&D, and D&D is what most people seem to be looking for when they start discussing house ruling Saga into their campaign.



Hmmm... I would be very curious if BFGEditor would chime in with their opinion on this. Because, as I said above when I agreed with Acid Crash, the impression I've gotten from Enworld, RPGNet and the Wizard boards is that many people would like to use Saga to play fantasy - not necessarily to play D&D.

Like AC and I have said, we are really just beginning to talk D&D with houserules, then (like when you, I and Baby Samurai were discussing no iterative attacks in D&D - that's just house rules). IMO, the goal should be to be able to use the Saga system for fantasy, not to play D&D with some elements from Saga thrown in for good measure.

I can perfectly understand you not being keen on too many talks with Wotc/Lucas' legal department, but Action points is OGL, using them to power abilities is OGL, Powers from True20 is OGL and so on.

Anyway, D&D is very good at being D&D - but it _is D&D_ and thus has that D&D feel. They changed that feel to fit the d20 system to Star Wars. Now, if you import all those D&D tropes to Saga, it will just be D&D again.



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> It would be my preference to avoid having to recreate monsters for the new system. Why invalidate all those great monster tomes out there? I'm certainly not going to spend the next three years republishing them for a new system. Instead, I'd rather build a system that allows you to use your monster tomes with minimal, if any, adjustments. I'd much rather be gaming once this project is over, in whatever manner it gets completed.
> 
> In short, compatibility within reason is a personal goal. I am willing to stray from this one to a certain degree, but the further one strays, the less general appeal the product has.



This I can perfectly understand!   


I'm sorry, if I'm sounding all negative. It's not my intention. I just feel this could be a great product (and I will pay much attention to BFG as well, whether or not you decide to coorporate) and I just feel it's taking the wrong direction.


----------



## Baron Opal

For what it's worth, I'm in the Saga-izing D&D camp. I don't particularly care for d20 Modern, but I do like the talent tree concept and how SWSE has incorporated it into classes. Of course, part of my dislike is a visceral reaction to "Smart Hero", "Tough Hero", &c.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I'm in the Saga-izing D&D camp. I don't particularly care for d20 Modern, but I do like the talent tree concept and how SWSE has incorporated it into classes. Of course, part of my dislike is a visceral reaction to "Smart Hero", "Tough Hero", &c.



But isn't this what we're aiming for. Or is the camp in reality divided by Vancian magic or Force powers?


----------



## Flynn

Okay, I think some people view fantasy D20 as being related to D&D (and define their experience with fantasy gaming by comparing it to that game), and others think that Saga fantasy has to be some total other kind of animal, because they could care less about using Saga with D&D. The basic division *SO FAR* seems to be along the lines of whether or not the system uses Vancian magic or not (where Vancian magic is defined in the form of discreet spells you know that accomplish a specific task, and spell slots are expended to cast them).

The people that don't want Vancian magic have plenty of scattered ideas, and no one can really agree on how to move forward. In addition, there's not a complete system that has been presented, just random thoughts. No one can tell me what exactly this system should be, and then get everyone else to agree on a single concept, but apparently it's either building-block magic or effect-based magic, neither of which thrill me, but that's only my opinion. There's also a cry for encounter-based magic, but no one can give me any OGL ideas to look at to understand that, as I don't have any books on that subject at all.

I've already stated that I'm not making up a new magic system, since that's not what will motivate me to do this project. I'm okay with Vancian magic, and with being able to use my existing D20 spell books with only some minor to moderate changes as needed to be useful. I am also intending to make the system modular enough so that people can tack on whatever they want instead of the talent tree that provides for casting spells. Just drop the talent tree and add in your own stuff.

Forgive me, but is the magic system the only thing I'm going to get flak for on this project? Is that the stumbling block? Or are there more problems here between what I envision and what a vocal few say they don't want to see? I don't want this project to be shot down before it really begins just because of the dislikes they have with the traditional D20 magic system.

It definitely would make things easier is the non-Vancian proponents would come up with a complete magic system they'd want to see in this, and then agree on it. Ideas are great, but without a complete system written up that's OGL, I'm much less likely to act. I kinda figure that if it's really something you want bad enough, you'll be able to provide the system you want (or sell it on your own, and then point me to the PDF you're selling).

In short, I believe that it is easy to say "this isn't right", but it's a lot harder to do the work that shows "this is better".

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn--

I emailed you off list. Please let me know if you receive it and if you reply, as I recently had some email difficulties with Morrus.

Everyone Else--

If I may comment:







			
				w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> So this is going to be a freely available document when finished, correct?



I do not know whether Flynn and I will be collaborating yet (as you can see above, we've just begun to communicate) but I can tell you that at one point BFG discussed releasing the "nuts and bolts" of our version in pieces over time as sort of an SRD, and finding a way for other publishers to indicate compatibility. This is still in the discussion stage internally at BFG as of this writing, yet alone for Flynn, but I wanted to mention it.







			
				acid_crash said:
			
		

> Just rename Force = Magic. Rename the Force Power = Magic Spells.
> 
> Create new Magic Spells.



Even with the concept of algorithms/game mechanics vs. product identity, this does not strike me as 100% legally safe. Also, the Force does not _feel_ like fantasy magic to me. If anything, it feels like psionics. So to my mind, a powers system (based on existing OGC rather than Saga itself) would be a better fit for a psionics supplement than the core-spellcasting mechanics.

That said, I know BFG's plans currrently include a synthesis of some existing OGC magic systems to create a system that uses the existing spells but in a spell-slot free way. I agree that D&D magic needs an overhaul, but re-writing every spell would be an expenditure of time and effort better applied elsewhere.

It goes without saying that at this stage, this is all tenuous.


----------



## Baron Opal

Flynn said:
			
		

> *Classes*
> I'm currently thinking about five core classes: Fighter, Expert (the Rogue with additional talent trees for alternate skill-based character concepts), Wizard, Cleric and Aristocrat.
> 
> These cover the four classic archetypes in fantasy gaming, and also gives us a noble/charismatic leader as well.




This works for me. Regarding expansion into rangers and druids, would you consider a "wilderness class" with martial or magical talent trees? Or is your preference alternate talent trees for fighters and clerics, respectively?

(This could be your "constitution class" for your d20 modern analog.)

Sorcica: I'm definately Vancian in my magical preferences. Mostly due to the ease of portability between this potential system and Arcana Evolved. I would certainly be interested in a magic system based on SWSE force powers, but my motivation concerning this product is to improve an existing home game.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Flynn--
> 
> I emailed you off list. Please let me know if you receive it and if you reply, as I recently had some email difficulties with Morrus.




I have received your email and responded. 



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Everyone Else--
> 
> If I may comment:I do not know whether Flynn and I will be collaborating yet (as you can see above, we've just begun to communicate) but I can tell you that at one point BFG discussed releasing the "nuts and bolts" of our version in pieces over time as sort of an SRD, and finding a way for other publishers to indicate compatibility. This is still in the discussion stage internally at BFG as of this writing, yet alone for Flynn, but I wanted to mention it.




If things work out between us, I think I could support something like this. We can work out the details, easily enough.

Hmmm, an SRD of sorts...

-Flynn


----------



## w_earle_wheeler

Flynn said:
			
		

> I never said it would be free. In fact, in the original thread I said I would do this only if I found that at least five people would buy it.




Sorry, I didn't see the original thread, only this one.

I'm working on a similar project.


----------



## Flynn

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Sorry, I didn't see the original thread, only this one.
> 
> I'm working on a similar project.




No worries. If it turns out that BFG and I end up working on a collaboration on this project, then there may be some changes in the release date, content, etc. Either way, I'd definitely be interested in your work, even if only in discussions, should you be willing to share your thoughts.

The original thread is linked in the first post of this one, if that helps.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I love the idea of a Fantasy Saga product, and sympathize with the desire to have this be unquestionably 100 percent OGL from other sources. I'm eagerly looking forward to the final product.


----------



## Baron Opal

*Healing the wounds.*

How would you handle healing?

In the current SWSE rules there is a very cinematic method of merely resting for condition track penalties along with Second Wind. Granted, Second Wind is only usable once per day and it is limited in how much it can heal the character. Force healing is fairly limited in that the jedi suffers half of the damage healed. (And as stun? I don't remember.) Would there be any limits to what healing magic is available to spell casters? Would reserve points from _Iron Heroes_ be a better fit?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Well, if spells from D&D port over, I guess that's how healing's handled. 
Otherwise, like I mentioned in my first post, I think reserve points is a good way to go, combined with second wind.

Regarding Vancian magic: Like I said, I don't really have a problem with it. It' just that Saga gives another _feel_ - which I feel will be diminished by Vancian magic. However, I will stop beating this poor dead horse.


----------



## EditorBFG

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Well, if spells from D&D port over, I guess that's how healing's handled.
> Otherwise, like I mentioned in my first post, I think reserve points is a good way to go, combined with second wind.



I do think that reserve points and D&D healing are compatible ideas. Reserve points keep PCs adventuring longer without stopping the fun, and that is a good thing to my mind. Since reserve points do not increase the damage a character can withstand in a single fight, I do not foresee balance issues from including them.


----------



## HeinorNY

I think it's a very nice idea, actually, I can't stop thinking about a fantasy game based on the saga rules.
If you allow me to give a very personal opinion: I enjoy a more "realistic" (to me, D&D is realistic enough for that matter) game, that allows a more immersive roleplay and a deeper roleplaying atmosphere. I like games that you can play with the "tailored" or "status quo" styles.  Saga rules are excessive cinematic. They are all about "simulating" the movies and lack many RPG elements. Also, the saga core book  is much more focused on combat than PHB, that it almost turned into a miniature rulebook.
So, if you are able to bring the SAGA rules to a medieval fantasy setting without bringing all the design concept and phylosophy behind the SWSE and the style of gaming it exclusively enforces, you will have success, for my taste.

And if you also happen to allow me to give specific ideas about anything, i'll be glad


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I'd just like to point out that an Open Content project obviously does not have to come _exclusively_ from OGL sources-- otherwise nobody would ever create anything new.

You seem to have overlooked both original content and derivative content.

I think you can manage to create an Action Point = Force Point analog (ie, mechanics that are derivative of existing Open Content) without violating copyrights. 

If WOTC sent you a letter tomorrow, having read not a single word of your project, and they politely asked you to abandon it, you'd abandon it. No threat of lawsuit, no strongly worded letter, just a "Please, we'd rather you not pursue this..."

If WOTC has a serious problem with your Fantasy Saga Edition, whether they are right or wrong, they'll find a way to lean on you, and you'll fold. Let's be realistic: Neither BFG nor Samardan is going to be the first to step up and challenge the OGL in court.

Avoid _copyright_ issues and I don't think you have much to worry about with respect to derivative content.

That's not legal advice, just practical advice.


----------



## Kunimatyu

ainatan said:
			
		

> I think it's a very nice idea, actually, I can't stop thinking about a fantasy game based on the saga rules.
> If you allow me to give a very personal opinion: I enjoy a more "realistic" (to me, D&D is realistic enough for that matter) game, that allows a more immersive roleplay and a deeper roleplaying atmosphere. I like games that you can play with the "tailored" or "status quo" styles.  Saga rules are excessive cinematic. They are all about "simulating" the movies and lack many RPG elements. Also, the saga core book  is much more focused on combat than PHB, that it almost turned into a miniature rulebook.
> So, if you are able to bring the SAGA rules to a medieval fantasy setting without bringing all the design concept and phylosophy behind the SWSE and the style of gaming it exclusively enforces, you will have success, for my taste.
> 
> And if you also happen to allow me to give specific ideas about anything, i'll be glad




I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, man -- most of the innovations of the Saga system involve making things more cinematic, and removing those, well, removes the innovations that people like about it.

I'm also a bit confused on "more immersive roleplaying" and "deeper roleplaying atmosphere" - do those even have a definition applicable to a new rules set?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that an Open Content project obviously does not have to come _exclusively_ from OGL sources-- otherwise nobody would ever create anything new.
> 
> You seem to have overlooked both original content and derivative content.
> 
> I think you can manage to create an Action Point = Force Point analog (ie, mechanics that are derivative of existing Open Content) without violating copyrights.
> 
> If WOTC sent you a letter tomorrow, having read not a single word of your project, and they politely asked you to abandon it, you'd abandon it. No threat of lawsuit, no strongly worded letter, just a "Please, we'd rather you not pursue this..."
> 
> If WOTC has a serious problem with your Fantasy Saga Edition, whether they are right or wrong, they'll find a way to lean on you, and you'll fold. Let's be realistic: Neither BFG nor Samardan is going to be the first to step up and challenge the OGL in court.
> 
> Avoid _copyright_ issues and I don't think you have much to worry about with respect to derivative content.
> 
> That's not legal advice, just practical advice.



Wulff speaks wisdom.

But, this thread was supposedly for discussing elements in Saga that need the fantasy (or in some cases, D&D) treatment.

So what can be added to my first post, quoted here for convenience?



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> But no matter the goal, here are a few issues I feel are essential to using Saga for fantasy:
> 
> •Magic, of course. Using the Force powers as a baseline, one will get a nice magic feel, IMO. However, spellcasters do enjoy fireballs and the like, and we need a system for allowing such things, keeping them viable and still not just playing D&D. As has been discussed in the E6 threads, it would be nice if 'D&D spells', that is those spells that sooner or later more or less controls the way the DM can construct his scenarios (Commune, Teleport, Raise Dead, Save or Die spells, and others) could be kept optional.
> 
> •Classes. Warriors, Scoundrels etc. And we need a dedicated Spellcaster (Magic-User) Class.
> 
> •Equipment. In Saga, characters seem much less dependant on equipment, which is nice. But we need to make different kinds of armor and weapons viable choices. Otherwise, no one will use anything but a long sword since you only crit on a 20. Rapier and such needs to be viable.
> 
> •Healing. How hard? How easy. Reserve points, perhaps.
> 
> •Stunts and challenges from Iron Heroes/Mythic Heroes would fit Saga Fantasy well, I think. So would action zones.
> 
> •Monsters. I feel Beasts fill that role for a vast majority of monsters. The different kinds of monsters (giants, vermin, predators, etc.) could get a template that modifies certain abilities (so that Vermin are immune to mind affecting, Predators might get an attack bonus etc.) - I would certainly do something for outsiders (since demons must be powerful) and dragons (even more so). Undeads as well. The True20 Bestiary might be a good source for ideas.
> 
> •Mass Combat. I had an idea about having companies/armies have stats like vehicles do and fighting it out like two vehicles or something like that. I think it could work really nice.
> 
> At the same time, we need to keep Saga's streamlined play. So the above mentioned should (must) be doable without rules by exception or whatever it's called.


----------



## EditorBFG

Sorcica said:
			
		

> So what can be added to my first post, quoted here for convenience?



I think Wulf is saying that, in the quest to avoid deriving from copyrighted material, it is important that this not just be a mad-lib of existing OGC. New things must be invented.

And he's right.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think Wulf is saying that, in the quest to avoid deriving from copyrighted material, it is important that this not just be a mad-lib of existing OGC. New things must be invented.
> 
> And he's right.



Uhm.. yes. But how is that related to the quote?  :\  I'm referring to a lot of OGL, sure, but the point is identifying those areas that need addressing to use Saga for fantasy.

Nevermind, let's start inventing


----------



## Flynn

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that an Open Content project obviously does not have to come _exclusively_ from OGL sources-- otherwise nobody would ever create anything new.
> 
> You seem to have overlooked both original content and derivative content.
> 
> I think you can manage to create an Action Point = Force Point analog (ie, mechanics that are derivative of existing Open Content) without violating copyrights.
> 
> If WOTC sent you a letter tomorrow, having read not a single word of your project, and they politely asked you to abandon it, you'd abandon it. No threat of lawsuit, no strongly worded letter, just a "Please, we'd rather you not pursue this..."
> 
> If WOTC has a serious problem with your Fantasy Saga Edition, whether they are right or wrong, they'll find a way to lean on you, and you'll fold. Let's be realistic: Neither BFG nor Samardan is going to be the first to step up and challenge the OGL in court.
> 
> Avoid _copyright_ issues and I don't think you have much to worry about with respect to derivative content.
> 
> That's not legal advice, just practical advice.




I haven't forgotten, but I just want to make sure that I can point to something and say "my work is derivative of this OGC." Just being overly cautious, I guess. Grim Tales struck me as the same kind of approach, a synthesis of great ideas combined with some newly created material with roots in existing OGC. I will definitely take your words into consideration.

Thanks for dropping in,
Flynn


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Flynn said:
			
		

> I haven't forgotten, but I just want to make sure that I can point to something and say "my work is derivative of this OGC."




I guess my point-- not having seen Saga, mind you-- would be that you could look at the Force Point mechanic, whatever it may be and however it ties into the existing d20 mechanics, and clearly show that it is, itself, derivative of Open Content.

And that surely you could get to the same point through much the same route without violating any copyrights.


----------



## HeinorNY

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, man -- most of the innovations of the Saga system involve making things more cinematic, and removing those, well, removes the innovations that people like about it.
> 
> I'm also a bit confused on "more immersive roleplaying" and "deeper roleplaying atmosphere" - do those even have a definition applicable to a new rules set?




Making things too cinematic kills some of the verossimilitude that any RPG(even in aminimum level) needs to, well, be considered a RPG. I like SAGA rules by what they can be, not for what they are now.

And also, making things more cinematic requires a cinematic "source". I wonder what source this project would rely on.

BTW, as a RPG book, SAGA is a very advanced miniatures game!!


----------



## Kunimatyu

ainatan said:
			
		

> Making things too cinematic kills some of the verossimilitude that any RPG(even in aminimum level) needs to, well, be considered a RPG. I like SAGA rules by what they can be, not for what they are now.
> 
> And also, making things more cinematic requires a cinematic "source". I wonder what source this project would rely on.
> 
> BTW, as a RPG book, SAGA is a very advanced miniatures game!!




Is there another way you can phrase this? I'm not understanding you at all here.


----------



## Flynn

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I guess my point-- not having seen Saga, mind you-- would be that you could look at the Force Point mechanic, whatever it may be and however it ties into the existing d20 mechanics, and clearly show that it is, itself, derivative of Open Content.
> 
> And that surely you could get to the same point through much the same route without violating any copyrights.




I think we're on the same wavelength here, but in my desire to bring that to the forethought of those that would be reading the thread and who might not be considering such details, my emphasis came across incorrectly.

In short, you have put my concerns in much better words that I have been able to muster.

Thanks, Wulf,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Advanced and Prestige Classes*

Here's something that no one has posted much about as yet: Advanced and Prestige classes.

Following the Saga guidelines, Advanced classes are not available until 7th character level, and Prestige classes are not available until 12th character level. Generally, I have to admit that I'm not a fan of advanced and prestige classes, unless they are bound to the milieu and the setting. However, as our inspiration for this project has a few of these special classes (and they fit very well with the Star Wars milieu), it makes sense to at least consider such classes for inclusion in the Fantasy Concepts project.

I would imagine that each of the core classes would need at least two advanced classes they can move into, if the player so desires, and some of these classes progress naturally into prestige classes as appropriate. Making sure that all the bases are covered, not just the obvious ones, might potentially be a challenge.

First question, though: Are advanced and prestige classes needed for the game?

If so, what would you suggest? Please offer suggestions associated with the base class roles you see them deriving from, as that will help everyone see your thought progression. For prestige classes, I'd like to see the base class(es) and advanced class(es) through which characters might advance to get to the prestige class, again to see the thought process of character development.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

I'm not a fan of Advanced and prestige classes, though I must admit they fit well within the SW mllieu. IF we include them in Fantasy Concepts, I think classes like Paladin, Ranger,Bard are obivious (see unearthed arcana). Also Archwizard (Jedi master) and Sorceror (Sith Lord) are viable.

However, I would just prefer Talent Trees that have certain prerequisites


----------



## Cam Banks

SWSE has advanced classes? I thought all of them were prestige classes!

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

*This may turn into a long post*

Hey again Flynn, I've been following the thread with interest and thought I'd voice my thoughts!

I'm not particularly interested in using all aspects of the Saga system to create a fantasy game. In particular, when taking a typical D&D game as a starting point, some aspects of it would not fit, such as using the same statistic for reflex saves and defense/AC - classically it's the warriors with the AC and the rogues who avoid taking area of effect damage and such. Similarly we mustn't forget that the skill system in Saga is designed with Star Wars cinematic-type situations in mind and so for a more D&D-esque game it will need adjustment.

Wizards have obviously been experimenting (and probably watching threads like this) carefully with other systems since they more or less finished everything they could do with basic 3.5e. We've seen d20 Modern, which has some excellent concepts, a bunch of different magic systems, fighting styles and that sort of thing from complete books, and now Saga. If they're working on 4e, which they ought to be, they'll be combining everything they've seen and heard about from the community over the years. It wouldn't surprise me if something that either Flynn or BFG create is a nice precursor to the official system. I don't want to put you guys off, but if you're thinking commericially, consider your payoffs as well as legalities!

Now for the crunchy bits! With regards to classes, I think you have to go with a 4 or 6 class system. 4 classes provides a warrior, a rogue (including all the charismatic stuff), a mage and a priest or holy type (priest doesn't sound right, there must be a more generic name). A bit like the old 2e class sets. 6 classes would be more the stat-based d20 Modern point of view, I guess with constitution representing the wilderness type abilities (barbarian, ranger, druid). Within those classes you need talent trees to cover most of the 3.5e abilities that currently exist. Don't be afraid to get rid of some, or make some into feats, or move some feats into talents, or just make up entirely new ones that still fit an archetype of the class. Also consider that sticking the talent/feat/repeat advancement doesn't work well if you make +1d6 sneak attack a talent, so why not key it to something (class level, base attack bonus, defense bonus, whatever) and have it advance to some level as the character does. This works nicely for spellcasting, as you can make a talent tree which is 'cast levels 1-3', 'cast levels 4-6' and cast levels '7-9' (or split that to 7-8 and 9 if you feel). The only challenge I've found in thinking in these terms is deciding how an ability will advance, to what level before another talent is needed and whether it's horribly exploitable.

With regards to the magic system, Vancian all the way baby. It allows for wonderful resource management, gives you quirky individual spells and provided you balance spells in a given level, provably works. As for prestige/advanced classes, yes, they're needed. However, I don't think they should be necessary. Make your base classes span 20 levels, with high level generic talents (high-level spells, extra attacks, amazing healing or domain abilities, assassination etc..). Then advanced classes can represent something specific, paladins, rangers, bards, for instance, a bit like the old days there. Prestige classes really should be annoying to qualify for but have decent abilities for the trade-off, so archmage, hierophant, etc.

I've got about a dozen more ideas. If it wasn't for a full time (well, more than full-time really) job, I'd have made my own complete version about a year ago. Instead I'll pester you guys . If I don't sound like a madman and you're interested in my thoughts, then do email me! Sneak previews - making PCs harder to kill outright with a small easy fix, fixing healing/resurrection so it doesn't, well, suck, separating racial abilities into inherent and background (dwarf raised by elves anyone?) as well as other suitable backgrounds which give players customised skills and feats to begin with, wizards who have more to do than shoot a crossbow at 1st level, a narrowed skill set from 3.5e and caster levels even when you're not levelling up as a caster (shock horror, no 500 prestige classes to cover every combination of 2 spellcasting classes).

One more thing. From an obssessive compulsive point of view, and just because it's neat, do everything in threes. Ability, improved, greater, it's worked so far, it looks good in d20 Modern and I just darned like it!


----------



## Flynn

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> SWSE has advanced classes? I thought all of them were prestige classes!
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Perhaps I should review my SECR when I get home. I do remember that there are 10-level classes that start at 7th level. There are also 5-level classes that start at 12th. In D20 Modern, we used to call those "advanced" and "prestige" classes. Are they all called prestige classes now? If anyone has the book handy, would you mind checking right quick for us?

Thanks,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Hey again Flynn, I've been following the thread with interest and thought I'd voice my thoughts!




I didn't want to fill up most of my post by quoting yours, Chris, but I wanted to say thanks for posting. There are definitely some interesting points you've brought up in regards to the system, and I'll have to ponder them for a bit.

Thanks, All, For Your Enthusiasm And Support,
Flynn


----------



## Baron Opal

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I'm not particularly interested in using all aspects of the Saga system to create a fantasy game. In particular, when taking a typical D&D game as a starting point, some aspects of it would not fit, such as using the same statistic for reflex saves and defense/AC - classically it's the warriors with the AC and the rogues who avoid taking area of effect damage and such.




I agree with you here, but I really like the elegance of reflex and AC being combined. One thing I noticed at the SWSE system is that, at high level, only soldiers are going to wear armor; everyone else is going to have the same "AC" give or take a dex mod. This doesn't quite sit well with me for a fantasy game. Giving every one a defense bonus equal to BAB rather than level I believe would be better suited. But then, our reflex saves are hampered and we lose the elegance of using a combined AC and reflex for our fireballs.


----------



## Shane_Leahy

For advanced Classes and such...

Go old school.

Knight, Avenger, Paladin 
Druid

Those are the ones off the top of my head from older versions of D&D.  You had to be a certain level fighter before you could become a paladin.


----------



## Baron Opal

If we do tie AC to a save, why does it have to be reflex? Could not a warrior trained in how to deflect and absorb blow with his armor use fortitude defense? Would a wizard with powers eldritch and dire not have some ward that protects him with his will defense?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

I wouldn't mind seeing a Saga-ized version of _Elements of Magic_. Start with a feat called "The Gift" (a free feat for Wizards and Clerics), which lets the character do cantrip level magic, have access to spell list talents, and adds the various effect skills to the their class skill list. One could then spend feats on skill training and skill focus, which depending on the effect would be on the wizard or clerics bonus feat list, other classes would have to use general feats.


----------



## Kunimatyu

As I've been reading this thread, the key question, in my mind, is not what elements of D&D get added in, but what is the basic "Saga Paradigm" that's going to be transplanted into D&D?

Here are some possibilities: (in no particular order)

I've bolded the Saga baseline for ease of comparison.

Classes: *Soldier, Scout, Noble, Scoundrel, (Jedi)* or should they be retooled into different classes entirely (Warrior, Expert, Adept or Warrior, Expert, Arcane, Divine)?

Talent trees: *Unique talent trees for each class* or, class-specific bonus feats chosen from a list, fixed abilities gained at each level, etc.

Skills: *Massively consolidated - Spot/Search/Sense Motive -> Perception, etc.
* or granular (Spot, Search, and Sense Motive), or Skill Groups (Perception group of Spot, Sense Motive, and Search).
*
Initiative and Endurance as skills*, or not?

*Skills constantly rising at 1/2 per level, with Trained and Skill Focus providing a +5 bonus, *or the standard system of trained skills at 3+level?

*Instead of saves, rising Defenses: Fort, Ref, Will* -- or, Fort/Ref/Will/AC like normal, or, Combat Bonus governing Attack and Defense, etc.
*
A unified condition track covering the majority of conditions, with Unconscious at the end*, or a bunch of similar-but-not-identical conditions?

Magic: *Feat-like "powers" usable once per combat* and only usable more with resource expenditure, or Vancian casting or True20 feat-like Powers usuable all day but with Will saves to resist fatigue?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> If we do tie AC to a save, why does it have to be reflex? Could not a warrior trained in how to deflect and absorb blow with his armor use fortitude defense? Would a wizard with powers eldritch and dire not have some ward that protects him with his will defense?




That is rather awesome, but I think from a mechanical point of view the poor Wizard would never hit anyone, and be as hard to hit as most others which removes their classic weakness. For a non-D&D cinematic fantasy game though, truly this is the way forward.

In reply to another post, I kinda like skill points. With fewer skills there would be fewer points, so less to fiddle around with. I do think it adds a trade-off when multiclassing, instead of just gaining a whole new set that are class skills at your character level (which makes the rogue looking damned tempting for one level but not much beyond).


----------



## EditorBFG

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of Advanced and prestige classes, though I must admit they fit well within the SW mllieu. IF we include them in Fantasy Concepts, I think classes like Paladin, Ranger,Bard are obivious (see unearthed arcana). Also Archwizard (Jedi master) and Sorceror (Sith Lord) are viable.
> 
> However, I would just prefer Talent Trees that have certain prerequisites



I think that we can do high-end talents, as Sorcica says, but that Prestige Classes should be specific to the individual home campaign, and include specific talent trees.

The real use of prestige classes in such as system is for high-end focused classes that have better numerical level-based advantages (base attack, saves, etc.) and a chance to pick up a new skill or two, rather than classes with cool new class abilities. High end talents cover those.

BTW, Sorcica: Sorry for quoting you in my above post. It just made my post confusing, because it had nothing to do with your quote. I just sometimes instinctively quote the last post in the thread on a specific subject (In this case, Wulf's post.)


----------



## tsadkiel

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Talent trees: *Unique talent trees for each class*
> 
> Skills: *Massively consolidated - Spot/Search/Sense Motive -> Perception, etc.
> *
> 
> *Initiative and Endurance as skills*
> 
> *Skills constantly rising at 1/2 per level, with Trained and Skill Focus providing a +5 bonus, *
> 
> *Instead of saves, rising Defenses: Fort, Ref, Will*
> 
> *
> A unified condition track covering the majority of conditions, with Unconscious at the end*




As far as I'm concerned, the above is what I would like to see.  I like the five class model proposed earlier, and I'm not tied to a particular magic system, but I love the mechanical tweaks of Saga, and that's what I'll be looking for.


----------



## Kunimatyu

I'd like to speak out in favor of the Force-powers-like setup, but with a D&D twist:

Namely, I'll bet that all of D&D's signature spells can be condensed into about 20(or fewer) powers.

Here's an example of how they could work:

Fire Magic:
Scorching Ray: (Standard) With a DC X Magic check, you may fire a ray of 4d6 fire at your target's Reflex defense.

Fireball: If you expend this power for the rest of combat, create a 20ft radius burst in your line of sight that deals damage equal to your caster level, half damage if it does not exceed their Reflex save.

Basically, you have a delination between at-will spells (Scorching Ray, Magic Missle), and expendable powers, but a mage might have to choose to expend his capacity for more scorching rays(which aren't great, but don't run out) or a devastating Fireball that removes his ability to use the Scorching Ray for the rest of the encounter unless he spends a Mana Point to get the feat back.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

I was looking at both True20 powers and Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth yesterday, and just spending an hour fiddling gave me the rough basics of using one or both systems as a base for saga-magic.
It's really not that hard - I guess a really nice system could be whipped together pretty fast, given some dedication and sparring.

I agree with tsadkiel  - those are elements I'll be looking for as well.

I also like either the 4 class or 6 class set-up. Oh, and Paladin, Knight and Avenger. Yeah!


----------



## Flynn

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> If we do tie AC to a save, why does it have to be reflex? Could not a warrior trained in how to deflect and absorb blow with his armor use fortitude defense? Would a wizard with powers eldritch and dire not have some ward that protects him with his will defense?




While there's a certain consistency that works with this approach, in that Warriors and Priests would likely have the higher Fortitude saves and thus have higher ACs (reflecting the likelihood of these two core classes to be more defensive in nature), there comes a problem when you start looking at flat-footed situations.

I imagine a re-written Mage Armor spell might possibly do something similar to your suggestion, or perhaps a new spell might offer that in place of normal armor modifiers.

Things are still early on in the creation process, but comments like this one are very good at helping us to know what you are looking for.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> *A unified condition track covering the majority of conditions, with Unconscious at the end*




Okay, quick thought exercise: Using only OGC from the start, how would one derive a condition track similar in concept to the one found in Saga?

Hmm... ah ha! The Anime D20 System Reference Document has the following, which could be formalized into a condition track, easily enough:



			
				Anime D20 SRD said:
			
		

> Wound Difficulty Penalties
> The Game Master may wish to assign difficulty penalties to characters who have been injured in combat. When the character’s Hit Points are reduced to 75% of their original value or less, all tasks suffer a -2 penalty. This penalty applies to all Ability, Skill, and combat checks. At 50% Hit Points, tasks suffer a -4 penalty; at 25%, tasks suffer a -6 penalty.




In fact, there's a lot of good stuff that can be derived from that document:
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/animesrd/Combat.htm

The rest of the trip could be made by applying the concept of Massive Damage Threshold to the wound track, and formalizing the presentation.

Interesting,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

*Saga Skill System*



			
				Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Skills: *Massively consolidated - Spot/Search/Sense Motive -> Perception, etc.
> * or granular (Spot, Search, and Sense Motive), or Skill Groups (Perception group of Spot, Sense Motive, and Search).
> *
> Initiative and Endurance as skills*, or not?
> 
> *Skills constantly rising at 1/2 per level, with Trained and Skill Focus providing a +5 bonus, *or the standard system of trained skills at 3+level?





			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> In reply to another post, I kinda like skill points. With fewer skills there would be fewer points, so less to fiddle around with. I do think it adds a trade-off when multiclassing, instead of just gaining a whole new set that are class skills at your character level (which makes the rogue looking damned tempting for one level but not much beyond).



The massively simplified skill list (above referred to as "consolidated") and no skill points is one of the most important innovations of _Saga_ rules.  Spending skill points each level and tracking ranks bought at class versus cross class rates is annoying for multi-class characters.  I dare say it also contributes to the long time it takes to make NPCs in *D&D*.

Without _Saga_-style rules for skills I'd probably just convert _Saga_ to fantasy myself instead of buying something that isn't different enough from *Dungeons & Dragons*.

With _Saga_ skill rules...

20th level fighter could have a +20 skill check.  Compare that to the +26 skill check a similar *D&D* fighter has (remember the _Saga_ fighter has the skill focus feat).

That same 20th level fighter can move silently with a +10 compared to a *D&D* fighter at +0 (both would take penalties for armor).  Any requirement of stealth in *D&D* currently requires magic unless you split up the party and send the Rogue in alone.  I personally dislike only giving one character the ability to participate in the adventure (such as when something other than crushing skulls is involved).

The DC of skill checks in *D&D* have to be very high in order to make skill points an effective resource to manage.  This leads to save-or-die style skill results where it's either easy or impossible but not much between those two extremes.  _Saga_ rules avoid this pitfall by restricting certain skill actions to trained users.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

You have a good point, I can see the advantages. You'll have to fill me in on how Saga deals with skills in multiclass situations. Would a Mage with one level of Rogue effectively use nearly all the skills at full class level, or is it such that you get +1 for levels in the right class and +0.5 for the wrong class, total across all classes? That would work fine. Especially giving Rogues a nifty skill-based talent tree so they really excel. Restricting some activities to trained users also sounds good. I'd also add feats that allow skills to be used in even more special ways - for instance consider wrapping Use Magic Device into Spellcraft, but require it to be both a class skill and have the feat that lets you start fiddling with explosive wands.


----------



## Mokona

*Saga Links*

I highly recommend everyone read the following so that we can have an informed and meaningful discussion:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview1 - Classes and character creation
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2 - Skill system
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview3 - Using the Force
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview4 - Combat
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview5 - Advanced combat
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview6 - Droids
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview7 - Sample combat scene
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview8 - Vehicle combat


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sagaenhancement1 - Tech specialist
  Basically covers how to add another "character class" to the _Saga_ system by just adding a talent tree to the existing Scoundrel class.


----------



## Mokona

*More Saga Links*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20061214jc100 - Saga Edition overview
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070322jc101 - Hit points
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070502jc102 - Heroic classes (and more about skills)
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070531jc103 - AC and attacks
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070614jc104 - Streamlining
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070705jc105 - Q&A


----------



## Baron Opal

To answer Kunimatyu...

*Classes:* The five or so mentioned previously; Cleric, Fighter, Noble, Thief, Wizard. These should be general enough so that it is feasable to have multiple themes for each class. (Noble for rich merchant's son, influential miner's daughter, &c.)

*Talent trees:* 3-4 unique trees for each of the five or so classes. I particularly like the division in SWSE between the scout and scoundrel. As I was reading it I could see how I could adapt it to a futuristic _Iron Heroes_ game.

*Skills:* Twenty consolidated skills would be great. I would like to combine Climb and Jump, and perhaps Swim, into an Athletics skill. Still, we do need to resist combining all skills tied to a particular attribute into the same skill. I like the simplicity of the system as well. Half my group are hard-core gamers, the other half casual. Simplifing the skills, particularly removing the synergies, benefits me greatly due to the decreased teaching load.

*
Initiative and Endurance as skills:* I think it's great that Endurance is a skill, but I'm not sure about Initiative. I do see the theme in that higher level people have an advantage over lower levels.

*Defensive Attributes:* I really like the unified, static defenses. The biggest bag-a-boo for me is wizards, or other people who are classically ill-defended, and how to reconcile their AC vs saves.

*Adverse status condition:* The combination of a "major wound" number and the track I think is a great resource. Sometimes the death spiral is just the most appropriate description for a situation. The only thing that I think would be inappropriate would be level / energy drain.

*Magic:* Vancian magic as the mainstay. I would like a feat / skill system as an alternate path to power, but I'll derive that from the psionic's handbook from Green Ronin if I need to.


----------



## EditorBFG

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> To answer Kunimatyu...
> 
> *Classes:* The five or so mentioned previously; Cleric, Fighter, Noble, Thief, Wizard. These should be general enough so that it is feasable to have multiple themes for each class. (Noble for rich merchant's son, influential miner's daughter, &c.)



It seems to me that for fantasy, all you need is Cleric, Fighter, Expert, Wizard. Noble and Thief can be both be Experts.


----------



## Kunimatyu

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> It seems to me that for fantasy, all you need is Cleric, Fighter, Expert, Wizard. Noble and Thief can be both be Experts.




If you really want to be out there, you can have Warrior, Expert, and Adept, especially if the adept has an arcane/divine talent split. People have been complaining about wizards having too few hitpoints in 3.5 for a long time now -- put them together with clerics/druids and balance things out.


----------



## drothgery

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> If you really want to be out there, you can have Warrior, Expert, and Adept, especially if the adept has an arcane/divine talent split.




... but we already have True20 and the UA generic classes for that.


----------



## Baron Opal

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> It seems to me that for fantasy, all you need is Cleric, Fighter, Expert, Wizard. Noble and Thief can be both be Experts.




I've played a lot of RuneQuest and various flavors of Tekumel. I can get by with just two classes, fighter and wizard.   

But, I like there to be a variety of classes so that multiclassing is an option. When I was looking through the SWSE book, the first character I scketched out was a duros Noble/Jedi. I'd like a similar utility and flexibility in this system.

Thinking about it, if I was going to convert the SWSE classes directly it would be:

Jedi - Cleric
Soldier - Fighter
Scout - Ranger
Scoundrel - Rogue
Noble - Noble (new)


----------



## kaomera

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> It seems to me that for fantasy, all you need is Cleric, Fighter, Expert, Wizard. Noble and Thief can be both be Experts.



If you do that, though, I'd think you'd need an awful lot of talent trees falling under Expert...


----------



## Kunimatyu

drothgery said:
			
		

> ... but we already have True20 and the UA generic classes for that.




Right. Gives you an OGL basis and all that.


----------



## Mokona

*Class Theories*

There is a balance between "very flexible and generic" and "flavorful and easy to grok".  *Dungeons & Dragons* v.3.5 now has a large number of base classes (in which you can begin your 1st level adventuring career).  Cramming all those classes or at least those concepts into Neo-Fighter, Neo-Expert, and Neo-Adept is possible but each class would have a dizzying array of options.



			
				Mark Rosewater said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr250 - Grok? Yes, vocabulary time. The word “grok” comes from science fiction author Robert Heinlein’s famous novel _Stranger in a Strange Land_. In the book the term is defined as such: “Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed – to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science – and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man.”



Somewhat fewer options for each class is better because it's more grokkable.

Noble and Scoundrel could be the same class if it were called Expert but it's not obvious that a Noble and a Thief would be built from the same class.  Once a concept (like the Expert class) becomes too diluted it loses cohesion.  The Class for Skills is mechanical and not flavorful while at the same time focusing more on the skill point system we're leaving behind.

What do I suggest?

In an ideal world there would be system very similar to _Saga_ where any class can have magic.  Level 1 Paladins would be Fighter 1 + divine talents.  Because it's iconic (and because it will always be, or has become over time, easier to grok) we should keep the Cleric and Mage classes.  I'd even add a Psionicist class (for the fanatics out there ).

So in an ideal world I'd see the classes as Uber-Fighter, Uber-Rogue, Uber-Scout, Uber-Noble, Uber-Mage, Uber-Cleric, and Uber-Psionicist.

Arcane magic, divine spells, and psionics would be available to all classes (just like a Force Adept can come from the Warrior, Scout, Scoundrel, or Noble class).  Weaker powers at each level would be available to other classes while the specialist class would get the high level powers (using standard *D&D* spell rules).

However my wife, who is very wise, suggests that it may be easier to keep the 11 core classes from the _Player's Handbook_ than argue about and hash out the perfect _Saga_-like fantasy classes.  There would still be a lot of room for 3-4 talent trees each even with Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard as the class list.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I've played a lot of RuneQuest and various flavors of Tekumel. I can get by with just two classes, fighter and wizard.
> 
> But, I like there to be a variety of classes so that multiclassing is an option. When I was looking through the SWSE book, the first character I scketched out was a duros Noble/Jedi. I'd like a similar utility and flexibility in this system.
> 
> Thinking about it, if I was going to convert the SWSE classes directly it would be:
> 
> Jedi - Cleric
> Soldier - Fighter
> Scout - Ranger
> Scoundrel - Rogue
> Noble - Noble (new)



Add wizard as the sixth class and we're set! (and it will probably please the _Modern_ fans).


Please do not call psionics that. I hate that word in fantasy! Use Mentalist or something. Not a sci-fi word. Please. (Sorry, I'll stop ranting)


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

just had a thought. Touch attacks will need some work - especially touch attack spells. In Saga, they are severely hampered.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> just had a thought. Touch attacks will need some work - especially touch attack spells. In Saga, they are severely hampered.




In the days before touch attacks existed, spells that required touching your target required an attack against the target's AC. Chances are, it'll go against a straight Reflex Defense. So yeah, they are severely hampered. Alternately, they may be resolved much like attacks against objects in Saga, with a Reflex Defense of 10 + Dex modifier and that's it.

The jury is still out on that one,
Flynn


----------



## Cam Banks

We introduced the noble standard class into D&D 3.5 with the Dragonlance Campaign Setting because the character archetype was so common in the Dragonlance setting, and I honestly wouldn't go back. That's part of why I would highly recommend keeping it SWSE-style.

I like the idea of mages being either divine or arcane or whatever else seems customizable. You could use the same class for all kinds of magic-user from supplements like Tome of Magic  - binder talent trees, truenamer talent trees, etc. Peter LeCara's Final Fantasy Saga conversions hit the sweet spot for me, with FF's White Magic, Black Magic, Red Magic, Blue Magic, etc etc all using the same class.

So, yeah - I would keep the five classes from SWSE. Just change Jedi to mage (and make appropriate fixes) and possibly soldier to warrior, and you're set.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Kunimatyu

Sorcica said:
			
		

> just had a thought. Touch attacks will need some work - especially touch attack spells. In Saga, they are severely hampered.




Good -- they're ridiculously easy in D&D. Also remember that in Saga, the worst attack bonus is Medium, like a cleric or rogue's.


----------



## Mokona

*Vs. D20 Heroic Classes*



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Add wizard as the sixth class and we're set! (and it will probably please the _Modern_ fans).



I favor pleasing _*D20* Modern_ fans but let's please avoid mapping our character classes 1:1 to the six attributes.

A character class is dull when it is an expression of only one of Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.    Each character already has a set of attribute scores, they don't need a second element (their class) that is also an expression of the attribute system.

For example, a fighter class should be broad enough to include hulk smash fighters, agile swashbuckler swordsmen, and tactically brilliant strategists.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Mokona said:
			
		

> I favor pleasing _*D20* Modern_ fans but let's please avoid mapping our character classes 1:1 to the six attributes.
> 
> A character class is dull when it is an expression of only one of Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.    Each character already has a set of attribute scores, they don't need a second element (their class) that is also an expression of the attribute system.
> 
> For example, a fighter class should be broad enough to include hulk smash fighters, agile swashbuckler swordsmen, and tactically brilliant strategists.



Agreed.


----------



## drothgery

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Thinking about it, if I was going to convert the SWSE classes directly it would be:
> [...]
> Noble - Noble (new)




Though role-wise, it's Noble - Bard (party buffer, social skills expert).



			
				Cam Banks said:
			
		

> So, yeah - I would keep the five classes from SWSE. Just change Jedi to mage (and make appropriate fixes) and possibly soldier to warrior, and you're set.




Aesthetically, Jedi's a lot closer to cleric than mage -- it's the warrior/caster combo role; the best 'pure caster' build in SW Saga is probably Force-sensitive Scoundrel (for the Fortune tree)/Force Adept/Force Disciple. And I think you'd want a pure caster class (whether you called it mage, wizard, socerer, witch, or priest) in a quasi-medieval fantasy game.


----------



## EditorBFG

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Thinking about it, if I was going to convert the SWSE classes directly it would be:
> 
> Jedi - Cleric
> Soldier - Fighter
> Scout - Ranger
> Scoundrel - Rogue
> Noble - Noble (new)



I'm not sure a direct porting over of the Star Wars classes is a goal. It could work out that way, but at least on my end, I think we want to create the best fantasy game possible, not just to play Star Wars in D&D.

It seems to me that the Star Wars designers chose archetypes to suit the main Star Wars characters (Han=Scoundrel, Luke=Jedi, Leia=Noble, Chewie=Scout, with everyone having some Soldier levels), not for the specific variety they created. Which is a good choice for a game simulating a series of films, but not for a basic fantasy game. I think what we want to take from the classes is the simplicity with which they are expressed, not the specific archetypal roles.

Also, while I agree with Cam's post that "Mage" as a basic class that can perform all spellcasting styles (arcane, divine, etc.) dependent on player choices (ala True20) is interesting, I worry that it would contribute to a notion of the various magical methods as interchangeable. It is my opinion that separate classes for divine and arcane casters maintains their flavor.

I think the classes should be basic mechanical constructs (Fighter has better combat numbers, Expert is more skilled), but that talents should provide the real flavor. Hence the interest in keeping the classes generic. No two fighters should be alike.


----------



## drothgery

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Also, while I agree with Cam's post that "Mage" as a basic class that can perform all spellcasting styles (arcane, divine, etc.) dependent on player choices (ala True20) is interesting, I worry that it would contribute to a notion of the various magical methods as interchangeable. It is my opinion that separate classes for divine and arcane casters maintains their flavor.




... and if you want to produce a vision of what a Saga-style D&D 4.0 could be (or should be), then I think keeping arcane and divine separate is important. If you're trying to model non-D&D/heavily-D&D influenced fantasy, then spellcasting warrior/priests fall by the wayside as a major archetype.

If you're going for the former, I think I'd go with something base classes of

Cleric (Champion, Priest, Healer, Ascetic trees)
Fighter (Knight, Martial Artist, Weapon Master, Beserker trees)
Noble (Influence, Inspiration, Lineage trees)
Rogue (Fortune, Misfortune, Thief, Dungeoneer trees)
Scout (Awareness, Naturalist, Hunter trees)
Wizard (Sage, Warmage, Beguiler, Necromancer trees)


----------



## Mokona

drothgery said:
			
		

> Cleric (Champion, Priest, Healer, Ascetic trees)
> Fighter (Knight, Martial Artist, Weapon Master, Beserker trees)
> Noble (Influence, Inspiration, Lineage trees)
> Rogue (Fortune, Misfortune, Thief, Dungeoneer trees)
> Scout (Awareness, Naturalist, Hunter trees)
> Wizard (Sage, Warmage, Beguiler, Necromancer trees)



I do want to model *Dungeons & Dragons* (and fantasy heavily-influenced by *D&D*) but I agree with your list of classes.  Warrior, Scoundrel, Scout, Noble, Mage, and Priest.  

All classes (under _Saga_) share the Talent and Bonus Feat features.  Individual choices within those allow each class to cover a wide array of class concepts (and Trained Class Skills as well).

However, some parts of semi-generic _Saga_ classes are the same for every member of a class.

1.  Base Attack Bonus

All warriors have a Fighter base attack bonus whether they're an armored tank or a hard hitting brute.  Should we have any class with Wizard base attack bonus progression?  I personally want at least two classes to have Fighter base attack bonus progression.  Perhaps base attack bonus is less important in this system but until I believe that I would want players desiring Fighter BAB to have more than one option.  I suggest Fighter base attack for Warriors and Scouts; Cleric base attack for Priests, Scoundrels, and Nobles; and Wizard base attack for Mages and Psionicists p).

2.  Defense

There are three (3) defenses and six classes so approximately two (2) classes should be "good" at each defense.  Probably Priests should have Monk-like equal bonuses in all three.

3.  Skill Slots

I'd like to see a little more flexibility here than *D&D* because I like that _Saga_ Warriors don't get only two (2) skills.

-----

What I'm nervous about is how one would make a Paladin.  One option (that I favor) is to have a set of low level Priest, Mage, and Psionicist powers available to everyone (like Force Adepts in _Saga_) and a Paladin is just a Warrior with the Priestly talents.  Two alternate options would be a Priest-light talent only in the Warrior talent options or a Fighter/Magic-User class (a seventh character class) that has talent trees for Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, &c.


----------



## Flynn

Mokona said:
			
		

> I do want to model *Dungeons & Dragons* (and fantasy heavily-influenced by *D&D*) but I agree with your list of classes.  Warrior, Scoundrel, Scout, Noble, Mage, and Priest.
> 
> All classes (under _Saga_) share the Talent and Bonus Feat features.  Individual choices within those allow each class to cover a wide array of class concepts (and Trained Class Skills as well).
> 
> -----
> 
> What I'm nervous about is how one would make a Paladin.  One option (that I favor) is to have a set of low level Priest, Mage, and Psionicist powers available to everyone (like Force Adepts in _Saga_) and a Paladin is just a Warrior with the Priestly talents.  Two alternate options would be a Priest-light talent only in the Warrior talent options or a Fighter/Magic-User class (a seventh character class) that has talent trees for Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, &c.




Beware, for too many class options is a path to the Dark Side... After all, Saga covered its bases with strong archetype characters, reducing the workload by expanding options through Talent Trees. There's no reason to go overboard with extra classes to cover a little bit of this and a little bit of that, when you can accomplish the same thing through multiclassing. There needs to be a strong and compelling reason to include a new archetype class. 2nd Edition showed us four classic archetypes that have survived through today. The Warrior, Rogue, Mage and Priest are strong enough as archetypes that even WOTC's splatbooks seem to still emphasize it. Anything beyond that has to be carefully considered before adding it in.

Just Some Thoughts,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Mokona said:
			
		

> What I'm nervous about is how one would make a Paladin.  One option (that I favor) is to have a set of low level Priest, Mage, and Psionicist powers available to everyone (like Force Adepts in _Saga_) and a Paladin is just a Warrior with the Priestly talents.  Two alternate options would be a Priest-light talent only in the Warrior talent options or a Fighter/Magic-User class (a seventh character class) that has talent trees for Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, &c.




I'd say Paladin is a PrC. If you build a magic system modeled on the Force, the prereqs are a few Knight talents (I'm thinking the Knight tree is mounted combat / low level war leader stuff), the divine Force Sensitivity analog, training in the divine Use the Force analog skill, and a certain amount of BAB. Easiest way to get it is as a multiclass Fighter/Cleric.

You can extend that line of think for Bard (Noble/Wizard PrC), Monk (Fighter PrC), and Ranger (Scout PrC). Probably add a few more PrCs. If you want to do the two-tiered PrC thing for casters, Archmage and Heirophant are the top-tier ones.

One of the tougher issues in this project is going to be figuring out how to deal with armor; the genre convention in D&D is that everyone wears armor except for people who can't cast spells in it or who have other magical protection that doesn't work with armor (though only front-line warriors wear heavy armor, and in 3.x nobody wears medium armor except dwarves). This is in stark contrast to the Star Wars genre convention wear almost no one except for soldiers and the occasional bounty hunter wears armor, and wear armor doesn't seem to hamper the Force much (except in a few video games).

So the Saga style of taking a feat and two talents to make armor worth wearing at mid-levels and higher isn't going to work. And if armor just adds to Ref Def normally (assuming proficiency), then Ref Def is going to be somewhat higher. Magic weapons might offset that... but then magic armor comes into play, and we're back with the same problem.



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Beware, for too many class options is a path to the Dark Side... After all, Saga covered its bases with strong archetype characters, reducing the workload by expanding options through Talent Trees. There's no reason to go overboard with extra classes to cover a little bit of this and a little bit of that, when you can accomplish the same thing through multiclassing. There needs to be a strong and compelling reason to include a new archetype class. 2nd Edition showed us four classic archetypes that have survived through today. The Warrior, Rogue, Mage and Priest are strong enough as archetypes that even WOTC's splatbooks seem to still emphasize it. Anything beyond that has to be carefully considered before adding it in.




While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it's practical to knock things down to less than six. It doesn't seem 'right' to put the Ranger's tracking and wilderness abilities in a Warrior/Fighter tree, or the Druid's even more extensive wilderness survival abilities there or in a Priest/Cleric tree. And adding them to Rogue makes Rogue too good (plus I don't think you really want to get more than four core talent trees per class). And later expansions spawned other dedicated classes along the same theme (most notably the CAdv Scout).

The Bard's non-spell-based party buffing is another thing that's hard to place. Thematically it doesen't really go with Rogue or Mage/Wizard (and it's another thing that would make Rogues too good), and the 'guy who knows everything' and 'social expert' aspects of the Saga Noble are also the Bard's forte. But the Bard as an archetype hasn't ever been all that popular. Add in that there have been more than a few party buffer classes added over the years (marshal, archivist, and dragon shaman come to mind), that there have been more than a few 3rd-party spins on the noble (Dragonlance Noble, someone's got a Courtier), and that there's an Aristocrat NPC class in core D&D, and I'd say it belongs.


----------



## Nine Hands

Sorcica said:
			
		

> just had a thought. Touch attacks will need some work - especially touch attack spells. In Saga, they are severely hampered.




Well they are too easy in D&D most of the time.

I say just give "Touch Attacks" a flat +5 bonus to attack just to make them easy to use and port over.


----------



## Nine Hands

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Add wizard as the sixth class and we're set! (and it will probably please the _Modern_ fans).
> 
> 
> Please do not call psionics that. I hate that word in fantasy! Use Mentalist or something. Not a sci-fi word. Please. (Sorry, I'll stop ranting)




Could be time to drop all spellcasting classes (and psionics) into a single Adept class.  Then have talent trees for the different types of spellcasting (psionic/arcane/divine).

All of these are just suggestions though, game design by committee is really not the best way to do things


----------



## Flynn

drothgery said:
			
		

> While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it's practical to knock things down to less than six. It doesn't seem 'right' to put the Ranger's tracking and wilderness abilities in a Warrior/Fighter tree, or the Druid's even more extensive wilderness survival abilities there or in a Priest/Cleric tree. And adding them to Rogue makes Rogue too good (plus I don't think you really want to get more than four core talent trees per class). And later expansions spawned other dedicated classes along the same theme (most notably the CAdv Scout).
> 
> The Bard's non-spell-based party buffing is another thing that's hard to place. Thematically it doesen't really go with Rogue or Mage/Wizard (and it's another thing that would make Rogues too good), and the 'guy who knows everything' and 'social expert' aspects of the Saga Noble are also the Bard's forte. But the Bard as an archetype hasn't ever been all that popular. Add in that there have been more than a few party buffer classes added over the years (marshal, archivist, and dragon shaman come to mind), that there have been more than a few 3rd-party spins on the noble (Dragonlance Noble, someone's got a Courtier), and that there's an Aristocrat NPC class in core D&D, and I'd say it belongs.




I think you yourself touched on the solution for your concerns in these regards: some things should not be part of a core class's talent tree selection, but should be made part of a Prestige Class, where such focused abilities might be better served. Examples include those classes that were described as prestige classes in WOTC's Unearthed Arcana.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm

I'm not saying this is how this will be handled, but it is definitely something to think about, for all parties involved. If something is too specific in flavor, maybe it should become a prestige class.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> All of these are just suggestions though, game design by committee is really not the best way to do things




Agreed. This is very important to keep in mind. In the end, those that actually do the work of writing this up will determine the end result. Input and suggestions are good, though, since that helps provide direction and inspire thought and creativity.

In the end, I know that my work will not please everyone. For each person that likes it, there will be others that do not. I appreciate the insight into what the more vocal gamers on this forum want, as it makes me think about my decisions before I move forward.

With That In Mind, Please, Keep It Up,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> game design by committee is really not the best way to do things



Flynn has to put his time and money on the line since he'll be releasing something for a fee.  Ultimately the choices are made by one person.  I agree that we're not going to succeed as a committee.  

Hopefully the dialectic we engage in here, publicly, will give Flynn a good idea of what to design and why.    With all the information we can muster Flynn should be able to make reasoned decisions instead of arbitrary ones.


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> I think you yourself touched on the solution for your concerns in these regards: some things should not be part of a core class's talent tree selection, but should be made part of a Prestige Class, where such focused abilities might be better served. Examples include those classes that were described as prestige classes in WOTC's Unearthed Arcana.
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm
> 
> I'm not saying this is how this will be handled, but it is definitely something to think about, for all parties involved. If something is too specific in flavor, maybe it should become a prestige class.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




I don't think we disagree on much here, except on the specifics of where to draw the lines on what's too specific for a base class, and what archetypes and abilities should be there from first level. 

I think given that there are three 'wilderness-type' core classes in D&D (Barbarian, Druid, and Ranger) and fair amount of follow-on (most notably the CAdv Scout), the woodsman/tracker type should be possible from 1st level as more than just a Fighter or Rogue with the right skills, even if we're putting some of the really cool stuff into a Ranger prestige class.

And although there's never been a Noble base PC class in core D&D, it's a recurring theme in expasnion material, and there are all sorts of classes out there (starting with the core bard and moving on from there) that, mechanically speaking, do what bards are good at in D&D and Nobles are good at in Star Wars Saga. Again, I think there's definitely a place for the well-educated, the well-connected, and the inspirational in D&D-esque fantasy even at 1st level, and a class like the Saga Noble is probably the best way to model it, as the 'noble' theme probably has more people willing to play it than the others.

Prestige classes should be for the cool and unique powers that low-level characters don't have. So Paladin is a PrC -- and calling your special mount is something you can do at Paladin level 1. They shouldn't be for more generic powers that are expected to be available to low-level characters.


----------



## Nine Hands

drothgery said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> Prestige classes should be for the cool and unique powers that low-level characters don't have. So Paladin is a PrC -- and calling your special mount is something you can do at Paladin level 1. They shouldn't be for more generic powers that are expected to be available to low-level characters.




This is a good point.  Another design choice I saw in Saga was that the Prestige Classes had one or two key class abilities and then access to talent trees (along with access to another classes talent trees) or other abilities.  This is a smart design choice as it allows for versatility even if you take a prestige class (something that current D&D classes sorely lack).

Sorry to ramble so much but this project is something I am truly looking forward to.


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn and I just wanted to let everyone know that we've reached an agreement to release this product as a collaboration between Samardan Press and Big Finger Games. Flynn and I will be working together closely to ensure the smoothest possible interaction between our two organizations. For my part, I am thrilled to be part of a joint effort that reflects the spirit of cooperation EN World has done so much to create in the world-wide RPG community.

And while I'm announcing things, I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone who continues to participate in this discussion, it is much appreciated. Please, keep the input and ideas flowing. Your observations are invaluable-- even (especially) when I disagree!


----------



## Dalamar

Some thoughts on the topic, feel free to ignore them:

Do include Forc- uh, Action Points from Unearthed Arcana, especially in being used to fuel special abilities. Smite? That's an Action Point. Turn Undead? Another Action Point. Abilities that might see heavy use in a single tough encounter but no use in some encounters that were previously per day or similar could, in my opinion, be reconfigured to work on Action Points. This has the added benefit of also moving anything that previously required a Turn Undead/Stunning Fist/etc. use to be able to stand on its own if desired.
Personally, I like the separation of Noble, Scout and Scoundrel as different types of skill characters with different specializations available through talents. I also like the separation of divine and arcane magic, though not necessarily mechanically. I don't mind both types of magic using exactly same rules or even exactly same spell lists, but separate classes with different talents is what I'd hope to see.
And, while we're on the topic of magic, I also like the "everyone's an adept" design of Star Wars Saga. Basic tricks available to all characters with magical aptitude with more advanced tricks available through feats and talents that members of all classes can take make for a nice system. 
Damage. Saga weapons generally deal more damage than DnD weapons. When balancing all weapons against each other, also make sure that they're "good enough". What I mean is that weapons shouldn't have too hard a time exceeding Damage Treshold, and similar considerations.
Magic Items are an integral part of being DnD. That doesn't mean that one can not get creative with them. Who says a flaming sword has to _add_ fire damage, maybe it just turns the extra damage a character deals based on level to fire damage? Similarly, not all uses of Use Magic Device need to be Trained Only. Perhaps scrolls are always activated with a Use Magic Device check, but you can only attempt the check if you have the correct magic aptide or are trained in the skill?

That's all I could think of to ramble for the moment, but I'll be following along the topic to see if something else pops in my mind or I notice anything worth commenting on.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Flynn and I just wanted to let everyone know that we've reached an agreement to release this product as a collaboration between Samardan Press and Big Finger Games. Flynn and I will be working together closely to ensure the smoothest possible interaction between our two organizations. For my part, I am thrilled to be part of a joint effort that reflects the spirit of cooperation EN World has done so much to create in the world-wide RPG community.
> 
> And while I'm announcing things, I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone who continues to participate in this discussion, it is much appreciated. Please, keep the input and ideas flowing. Your observations are invaluable-- even (especially) when I disagree!




I, too, am excited about this collaboration project, and I definitely think the synergy will help us bring out the best for your gaming pleasure! Please continue to make your suggestions and contributions. They definitely help!

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Do include Forc- uh, Action Points from Unearthed Arcana, especially in being used to fuel special abilities. Smite? That's an Action Point. Turn Undead? Another Action Point. Abilities that might see heavy use in a single tough encounter but no use in some encounters that were previously per day or similar could, in my opinion, be reconfigured to work on Action Points. This has the added benefit of also moving anything that previously required a Turn Undead/Stunning Fist/etc. use to be able to stand on its own if desired.




Ever since Grim Tales, I've always been a big fan of using action points to activate abilities that used to be measured in 'per day' increments. Some might feel that it is inappropriate, but I think it gives you control over what you want to do. You must weigh what you are giving up when you use an action point for any reason, and so it gives action points that extra investment into the overall system.

I also enjoy 'per session' allotments on Action Points, ala Grim Tales and Spycraft, and I think that addresses the concerns I've seen in Saga about 20th level characters and their limited AP pool... after all, when their APs are gone, how do they get them back? There are no epic rules of play there. Rather than hit that kind of problem, or see similar problems pop up due to a preference for slow advancement, I think that it's just better, IMO, to refresh APs per session.

YMMV, Of Course,
Flynn


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> Ever since Grim Tales, I've always been a big fan of using action points to activate abilities that used to be measured in 'per day' increments. Some might feel that it is inappropriate, but I think it gives you control over what you want to do. You must weigh what you are giving up when you use an action point for any reason, and so it gives action points that extra investment into the overall system.
> 
> I also enjoy 'per session' allotments on Action Points, ala Grim Tales and Spycraft, and I think that addresses the concerns I've seen in Saga about 20th level characters and their limited AP pool... after all, when their APs are gone, how do they get them back? There are no epic rules of play there. Rather than hit that kind of problem, or see similar problems pop up due to a preference for slow advancement, I think that it's just better, IMO, to refresh APs per session.
> 
> YMMV, Of Course,
> Flynn




Or snag a role playing mechanic from True 20, which is what I did for regaining Force Points (or Action Points in D&D).  Basically you have two natures (one good and one bad).  When you role play towards one of these natures, you gain a Force Point back.  This allows for players to rebuild their pool of points AND gives them easy to use role playing guidelines.

Since you want to use Action Points frequently, you might want to consider gaining more of them each time you act according to your nature.

Again just a suggestion


----------



## Mokona

*Advanced Character Class*

Congratulations, to all, on the agreed cooperation between *Samardan Press* and *Big Finger Games* for this project.



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Following the Saga guidelines, Advanced classes are not available until 7th character level, and Prestige classes are not available until 12th character level.
> 
> First question, though: Are advanced and prestige classes needed for the game?



Yes they should be included; I love advanced and prestige classes.    The books presented prestige classes have been, by far and away, the best selling books produced by *Wizards of the Coast* for *Dungeons & Dragons*.  Thus I'm not alone in my love.  If you count kits (which I assume prestige classes are meant to "recreate"  :\) it's even true about *AD&D* 2nd Edition.

In my perfect world advanced classes would be available at 4th level and prestige classes would be available at 10th level.  This would be perfect for the Paladin solution suggested earlier because Paladins get spells at 4th level.  So leaving the Warrior base class to become Warrior 3/Paladin 1 would be the perfect point to give you spells.

I'd be disappointed if my character couldn't become a Paladin until 7th level. All of the *D&D* system games I play in end at 10th level (including *D20 Modern* games).  The rules just aren't fun above that range.  Evidence repeatedly shows that most characters end their career between levels 9-12.  Perhaps _Saga_ rules alleviate this problem and game play will continue into the teen levels but I won't believe that until I see it demonstrated in practice.

Mokona's rules of "good" advanced class design...  

1.  Entry requirements for advanced classes should be small.  To enter an advanced class at the earliest level possible a character should need to dedicate no more than half of their feats and no more than half of their talents to requirements.

2.  Core advanced classes (like Paladin) should use requirements for flavor reasons and not for balance (taking lame feats that no one wants, in order to "bank up" the power you could have gotten out of decent feat choices, isn't fun).

3.  Characters should be able to qualify for advanced and prestige classes early.  You want to "reach" your character concept (assuming your target class helps you portray your ideal) sooner than later.  Also see my comment that games end around 10th level as noted above.

4.  At least two (2) basic classes should be able to reach <edit>_*each*_</edit> core advanced classes _without_ multiclassing.  At least one of those classes should be able to move into the advanced class at the earliest possible level.  The other basic class should be no more than one level behind.  So if a Warrior can move into Paladin after 3rd level (say +3 base attack bonus required) then a Cleric should be able to move into Paladin after 4th level.  In no way should a core class like Paladin require you to be a multiclass Warrior/Cleric in order to take the advanced class at the earliest possible level.  

Parts of that last rule of thumb work better if there are six basic classes (Warrior, Scout, Scoundrel, Noble, Cleric, and Mage) than if there are only four (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Wizard).


----------



## tsadkiel

Here's a thought about classes and "Wilderness Guy."  Characters with wilderness skills are certainly a feature in fantasy, but it seems to be more of a flavor than a niche to me.  The scout is skillful and stealthy, but in the woods.  The druid calls upon divine power, but in the woods.  The ranger fights, but in the woods.

Before Saga was released, there was a lot of speculation about talent trees that were not tied to a particular class.  The Force and Tradition talent trees turned out to be the only examples in the published book, but it occurs to me that if there were a wilderness talent tree it could be applied to a fighter to make a ranger, or a priest to make a druid, or an expert to make a scout, or a noble to make . . . some kind of woodsy noble, I guess.  Similarly, a nautical talent tree could be used to produce pirates and ship's captains and sea witches.


----------



## Mokona

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Smite? That's an Action Point. Turn Undead? Another Action Point.
> 
> I like the separation of Noble, Scout and Scoundrel as different types of skill characters with different specializations available through talents.
> 
> I don't mind both types of magic using exactly same rules or even exactly same spell lists, but separate classes with different talents is what I'd hope to see.
> 
> And, while we're on the topic of magic, I also like the "everyone's an adept" design of Star Wars Saga.
> 
> Who says a flaming sword has to _add_ fire damage, maybe it just turns the extra damage a character deals based on level to fire damage?



I agree with all these ideas.  If Smite and Turn Undead use action points they'll need to be more powerful.  Perhaps you can Smite after you know if you hit and you automatically turn undead without a skill check?  Presumably you had to spend a slot (feat or talent) on the special ability and you need an action point to power it as well.  More cost (feat + consumable resource) = more powerful results.  

With the addition of the condition track lots of magic items that previously improved damage can alternatively do something more creative now.


----------



## EditorBFG

Mokona said:
			
		

> Congratulations, to all, on the agreed cooperation between *Samardan Press* and *Big Finger Games* for this project.



Thanks, we're very happy with it.







			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> Mokona's rules of "good" advanced class design...
> 
> 1.  Entry requirements for advanced classes should be small.  To enter an advanced class at the earliest level possible a character should need to dedicate no more than half of their feats and no more than half of their talents to requirements.
> 
> 2.  Core advanced classes (like Paladin) should use requirements for flavor reasons and not for balance (taking lame feats that no one wants, in order to "bank up" the power you could have gotten out of decent feat choices, isn't fun).
> 
> 3.  Characters should be able to qualify for advanced and prestige classes early.  You want to "reach" your character concept (assuming your target class helps you portray your ideal) sooner than later.  Also see my comment that games end around 10th level as noted above.
> 
> 4.  At least two (2) basic classes should be able to reach core advanced classes _without_ multiclassing.  At least one of those classes should be able to move into the advanced class at the earliest possible level.  The other basic class should be no more than one level behind.  So if a Warrior can move into Paladin after 3rd level (say +3 base attack bonus required) then a Cleric should be able to move into Paladin after 4th level.  In no way should a core class like Paladin require you to be a multiclass Warrior/Cleric in order to take the advanced class at the earliest possible level.



I think these are all good guidelines. I think I am coming around to the idea of advanced classes (available around level 3) and Prestige Classes (available around 7th and higher) being a big part of the game.

That said, I also think the base classes themselves should be few, and separated by mechanics (good attack bonus, good skill guy, good saves, or good caster) rather than flavor. The flavor should come from the talents. Advanced classes should be mechanically better, but not much, and easy to qualify for. Prestige classes ought to be tough, though, and specific rather than generic (Paladin=Advanced Class, Knight of the Round Table=Prestige  Class). Every base class ought to have *at least* one Advanced Class it can achieve with no multiclassing at all.


----------



## Acid_crash

One other OGL magic system that you can mine is True Sorcery, which could be adapted to a Fantasy Saga game.


----------



## Mokona

*Skill Lists*

_*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ skill groups (23; including 7 knowledge specialties)

Acrobatics, Climb, Deception, Endurance, Gather Information, Initiative, Jump, Perception, Persuasion, Pilot, Ride, Stealth, Survival, Swim, Treat Injury, Use Computer, and
Knowledge
•	Bureaucracy
•	Galactic Lore
•	Life Sciences
•	Physical Sciences
•	Social Sciences
•	Tactics
•	Technology

I’ll ignore the craft, perform, and profession specialties…   

*Dungeons & Dragons* skills (45; including 10 knowledge specialties)
*D20 Modern* skills (54; including 14 knowledge specialties)
*Call of Cthulhu* d20 skills (68; including 24 knowledge specialties)
*Wheel of Time* d20 skills (46; including 9 knowledge specialties)

_Oriental Adventures_ (1 new skill: Iaijutsu Focus) and other similar campaign setting materials add a skill to *D&D* once in a while.  Our system should be prepared to handle this.  

-----

Currently I'm running a typical *D&D* game using character classes and advanced classes from *D20 Modern* and its supplements.  Converting the skills over to a non-modern version and deciding what class got which skills turned out to be too much work.  Instead I just deleted clearly modern skills (which is neither systematic nor probably fair to some classes).

*D20 Modern* skills (both in name and scope) are a poor fit for *Dungeons & Dragons* games.  I didn't feel that _D20 Past_ was much help in this regard.  

How should we rewrite the _Saga_ skill groups to better distribute the types of skill checks and themes that are appropriate for a fantasy game?    I'm not sure the best allocation but I would keep the same total number of skills as _*Star Wars*_ with perhaps one (1) fewer knowledge specialty.


----------



## Mokona

*Knowledge*

I suggest the following Knowledge specialties...

1.  Mysticism (cults, religions, magic, miracles, the supernatural, and the planes)

2.  History (wars, legends, mysteries, lore, tactics)

3.  Civilization (nations, peoples, cities, geography of the populated world, high society)

4.  Animalia (animals, nature, non-humanoids other than magical beings)

5.  Craftwork (crafts, machines, artistry, architecture, buildings, fortifications, dungeons)

And the more I think about knowledge checks perhaps instead of having a biology knowledge instead use Treat Injury checks for knowledge (humanoid) biology.  I'm often annoyed at the fuzzy line between knowledge (nature) and survival checks.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Mokona said:
			
		

> _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ skill groups (23; including 7 knowledge specialties)...
> 
> ...How should we rewrite the _Saga_ skill groups to better distribute the types of skill checks and themes that are appropriate for a fantasy game?    I'm not sure the best allocation but I would keep the same total number of skills as _*Star Wars*_ with perhaps one (1) fewer knowledge specialty.




I thought about this quite a bit. I narrowed the skillset down to 23, but then read some Saga rules and decided it could go slimmer. My final 20 would be:

Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft* (Int), Deception (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge* (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform* (Cha), Persuasion (Cha), Profession* (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str)

I'm sure some people don't like the separation of Climb, Jump and Swim, but they are distinct forms of movement in reality and D&D. Similarly I kept Intimidate because when it comes to interaction with someone you can deceive, persuade or just force them to do what you want. Open Lock is in Disable Device for anyone wondering, I couldn't think of a more generic name that still sounded suitably fantastical. Profession is a really important skill for NPCs, and I'd love rules that increase your starting gold for being trained in it at first level. Perform is obviously needed in D&D for bardly aspects, and people generally enjoy singing in taverns . Linguistics covers Decipher Script as well as giving you a new language every so often (every +2 bonus you have to the skill perhaps, and make skill checks at a penalty for languages you don't know). Use Magic Device is absorbed into Spellcraft, but you need a feat to unlock its juicy powers.


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I thought about this quite a bit. I narrowed the skillset down to 23, but then read some Saga rules and decided it could go slimmer. My final 20 would be:
> 
> Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft* (Int), Deception (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge* (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform* (Cha), Persuasion (Cha), Profession* (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str)
> 
> I'm sure some people don't like the separation of Climb, Jump and Swim, but they are distinct forms of movement in reality and D&D. Similarly I kept Intimidate because when it comes to interaction with someone you can deceive, persuade or just force them to do what you want. Open Lock is in Disable Device for anyone wondering, I couldn't think of a more generic name that still sounded suitably fantastical. Profession is a really important skill for NPCs, and I'd love rules that increase your starting gold for being trained in it at first level. Perform is obviously needed in D&D for bardly aspects, and people generally enjoy singing in taverns . Linguistics covers Decipher Script as well as giving you a new language every so often (every +2 bonus you have to the skill perhaps, and make skill checks at a penalty for languages you don't know). Use Magic Device is absorbed into Spellcraft, but you need a feat to unlock its juicy powers.




In many regards, your list is very close to the one I've come up with myself.  There are a few Saga tropes that might change a few things, but expect something similar in the final product.

Thanks for sharing,
Flynn


----------



## Dalamar

I don't mind Craft as I can see a point to having it, but I really don't think Profession and Perform are important enough to warrant their own skills. 

For Profession, I'd take a cue from True20 and make characters choose one of their skills as a "profession skill" that they use make a living. So a pick pocket would use Stealth, a wilderness guide Survival, a healer Heal (personally, I like the sound of Treat Injury better), and so on. Not sure what a pirate would use, but that's a minor point.

Regarding Knowledge specialties, I would go for the same as SW Saga uses but renamed to fit the flavor of DnD (Technology becomes Artifice or even Arcana, and so on).


----------



## Kunimatyu

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft* (Int), Deception (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge* (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform* (Cha), Persuasion (Cha), Profession* (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str)




My list would be 17 skills:
Acrobatics(Dex)
Athletics(Str)
Concentration(Wis)
Craft(Wis)
Deception(Cha)
Disable Device(Int)
Endurance(Con)
Heal(Wis)
Initiative(Dex)
Knowledge*(Int)
Perception(
Perform
Persuasion
Pilot/Ride*
Stealth
Survival
Swim

Acrobatics is Climb+Jump (not swim, b/c of the math involved with armor check).
Intimidate is a part of Persuasion (it's a way to persuade).
Linguistics is folded into the Knowledges.
Spellcraft is folded into Knowledge(arcana).
Endurance and Initiative are their own skills.
Ride is expanded to Ride/Pilot, for ships/airships, but has to be taken indiviudally like a Knowledge.
Profession is handled by each class choosing a "professional skill" - a rogue might choose Stealth, a mage might choose a Knowledge, etc etc.


----------



## Mokona

*Skill Ideas*

Random skill ideas...that I haven't seen above.

Boating
Drive (pilot wagons)
Evaluate (appraise)
Sing
Artistic Expression
Courtesy
Dance
Engineering
Mechanisms
Play Instrument
Shiphandling
Streetwise (instead of Gather Information)

The number of skills which need to be covered explode if you have Craft, Perform, and Profession specialties or if you have too many Knowledge specialties like in *D&D*.  If we increase the number of skills available beyond _Saga_ then we'd need to give each class one (1) or more extra skills at 1st level.  You want players to have access to most available skills if the party is well rounded (though certainly not all skills).

We need a "mechanical" aptitude skill that probably includes engineering, building fortifications, craft, and disable device.


----------



## Baron Opal

I would use Athletics as a combination of Climb, Jump and short term exertion much like Endurance is for long term exertion. I think that swimming is sufficiently different as a form of locomotion that it should have its own skill. I could accept it as part of athletics, however. Given the different things that Acrobatics is used for, I think that Athletics could be used for a similarly wide range of skills.

I dislike Profession as a skill, and I tend to use Craft and Knowledge to represent NPC talents. Profession is too undefined for my tastes. I would like Craft and Knowledge to have a specific list of options, but that can lead to an increadably long list.


----------



## Lackhand

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> ... I think I am coming around to the idea of advanced classes (available around level 3) and Prestige Classes (available around 7th and higher) being a big part of the game.
> 
> That said, I also think the base classes themselves should be few, and separated by mechanics (good attack bonus, good skill guy, good saves, or good caster) rather than flavor. The flavor should come from the talents. Advanced classes should be mechanically better, but not much, and easy to qualify for. Prestige classes ought to be tough, though, and specific rather than generic (Paladin=Advanced Class, Knight of the Round Table=Prestige  Class). Every base class ought to have *at least* one Advanced Class it can achieve with no multiclassing at all.




This sounds right up my alley -- except, possibly, for the 'mechanically better' bit. If they're mechanically better, and more interesting, doesn't that imply that players should jump ship away from the base classes as soon as they can?

And if that's true, doesn't that mean that the base classes shouldn't really go beyond 3rd level?
After all, by that point any character worth his or her salt will have chosen some niche, essentially. And that means that they have an advanced class waiting for them, either in the book, or made up with the DM to better model their characters.

I'm all for encouraging strong archetyping and niches via laziness, but this just feels... unnecessary. I suppose any sort of specialization represents a mechanical advantage, because one can adapt for the lack in breadth via the classical "sole possession:hammer, visually perceive all problems:nails" maneuver. But I get the feeling that's not what you mean by mechanically better. Maybe it is.

(I'm envisioning a trio of equal-level warriors in a bar:
"I'm a paladin!", the first doughty fellow exclaims.
"I'm a weapon-master, and I find your exclamation of identity odd, and out of place!", the second fellow replies, scratching idly at a jagged scar across his mighty thews.
"I'm a soldier!" the third desperately cries, to the sound of crickets. Eventually, the paladin lays a hand, not unkindly, on his shoulder:
"No, lad. You're an NPC.")

Just wondering why this is good.


----------



## Flynn

By definition in Saga, all prestige classes that start at 7th character level have a total of +6 on defenses, in +2/+4 increments. All prestige classes that start at 12th character level have a total of +9 on defenses, in +3/+6 increments. I would expect to see something like that in the way of class-based defense bonuses in the Advanced and Prestige classes that are in Fantasy Concepts. Base classes build to Advanced classes (which would probably include the more specialized classes of standard OGL fantasy), which in turn build to the Prestige classes.

Further analysis of the Saga classes will likely reveal other relationships that we will keep in mind as we move forward with our work, such as higher BABs being tied to lower Starting Skills (for base classes), and that kind of thing.

Quick Analysis of tendencies in Saga for such classes:

*Advanced Classes (7th level)*
Prerequisites: 1-2 talents, 1-2 trained skills, sometimes limited feat requirements, 7th level
Defense Bonuses: Total +6, in +2/+4 increments.
10 levels: Alternating talent and class-related special bonus, or talent every level progression
Two talent trees

*Prestige Classes (12th level)*
Prerequisites: 1-2 talents from advanced classes, feat requirements, 12th level
Defense Bonuses: Total +9, in +3/+6 increments.
5 levels: 2 special abilities at 1st level, Talent on odd levels (1st, 3rd, 5th) from other talent trees, class-related special bonus every level
No unique talent trees

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> By definition in Saga, all prestige classes that start at 7th character level have a total of +6 on defenses, in +2/+4 increments. All prestige classes that start at 12th character level have a total of +9 on defenses, in +3/+6 increments.




That's not quite true; Force Adept has a total of +8, and Force Disciple +12. Also worth noting is that Crime Lord breaks the standard Saga PrC pattern of talent/class feature alternating in favor of a talent every level. And the Jedi and Sith PrCs give three equal defense bonuses instead of one (relatively) high bonus and one (relatively) low bonus.

Also FWIW, the two-tiered PrC model of Saga is only used for Force users; there aren't any second-teir PrCs for 'normals'. And it's only there because the metamagic feat-equivalent Force Secrets in Star Wars are only the province of highly skilled weilders of the Force. In a D&D-esque sending, where 'pure casters' (whether mages, priests, or psions) are much more common and content to rely on their powers nearly to the exclusion of weapons, I'd be inclined to move those features into 'magic talents' and make them available from low levels, or at least to unify 'magic techniques' and 'magic secrets' into one mechanic.


----------



## Flynn

drothgery said:
			
		

> That's not quite true; Force Adept has a total of +8, and Force Disciple +12. Also worth noting is that Crime Lord breaks the standard Saga PrC pattern of talent/class feature alternating in favor of a talent every level. And the Jedi and Sith PrCs give three equal defense bonuses instead of one (relatively) high bonus and one (relatively) low bonus.




Good observation. Still, there is a general trend, and I'm okay with three of the lower increments instead of one upper and one lower increment on defense bonuses. I do think this pattern should be followed, when possible, just for the sake of consistency.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Also FWIW, the two-tiered PrC model of Saga is only used for Force users; there aren't any second-teir PrCs for 'normals'. And it's only there because the metamagic feat-equivalent Force Secrets in Star Wars are only the province of highly skilled weilders of the Force. In a D&D-esque sending, where 'pure casters' (whether mages, priests, or psions) are much more common and content to rely on their powers nearly to the exclusion of weapons, I'd be inclined to move those features into 'magic talents' and make them available from low levels, or at least to unify 'magic techniques' and 'magic secrets' into one mechanic.




In regards to the second-tier PrCs being tied only to the "powers" of the game, I agree. It is likely that, should they be included in a core product, the second tiers would likely be things like Archmage and Hierophant. That makes sense.

In regards to the magic system, I still have no desire to create a magic system that has secrets and techniques and all that jazz. The current direction we're looking at works well for me. The spirit of your point is definitely a good thing for us to keep in mind, though.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

*Character Race*

Should we convert OGL *Dungeons & Dragons* races with as few changes as possible?  Or should we rebuild them completely in the style of _Saga_?

Any other besides...

Dwarf, elf, orc (I suppose I should mean half-orc), halfling, gnome, and half-elf?


----------



## Flynn

Mokona said:
			
		

> Should we convert OGL *Dungeons & Dragons* races with as few changes as possible?  Or should we rebuild them completely in the style of _Saga_?
> 
> Any other besides...
> 
> Dwarf, elf, orc (I suppose I should mean half-orc), halfling, gnome, and half-elf?




In my opinion, we should convert the races in a manner compatible with a Saga like approach, and refrain from adding any more races to the mix. I'm sure that someone could write a race supplement for Fantasy Concepts, if they so desired, to add more races to the mix. I think our intent is to create a free license of sorts similar in style and substance to that used by OSRIC, but truth be told, the jury is still out on that one. However, it is being discussed.

Out of curiosity, how would you go about doing so? I've seen a number of efforts online as part of my research for this project, but I'm always interested in how others would tackle the same challenge.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Well I finally have my copy of Saga to compare and contrast. Some early thoughts:

I definitely prefer defined 'defense' or 'save' progressions to the flat +1 per level plus whatever you started with at 1st level. I also think that D&D is more suited to multiclassing, so gaining no new trained skills when levelling in a new class would be a bit harsh.

I love some of the talents, which could be copied across for D&D easily. The skill system is great, but needs re-jigging a bit for a fantasy setting. I'm still not sure about the HP vs. condition track thing. I think it could be quite good in play, or it could act as bad positive feedback (ie: PCs are losing, and their chances get worse and worse). Anything that makes it harder to die is good, so lots of HP at first level is excellent.

Directly responding to Mokona - the SW races are very well done. Exceptionally simple. We need that for D&D. Especially love the rerolling of certain checks based on inherent racial ability. Also the rarity of things that would be nurture rather than nature (like bonuses to hit certain creatures) which always cause reincarnation arguments.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Heh - and in direct reply to Flynn:

When I first thought about this I was going to use the d20 Modern background system to smooth out the D&D races directly (and also throw in interesting ways of customising your character at 1st level). For instance, Elves would have their stat modifiers, immunity to sleep and their bonuses to perceptive skills and enchantment saves inherently, but to get the full package you'd need the 'raised by elves' background for the weapon proficiencies and training in a suitable skill from a racial selection.

I think this would still be a nice way to do things, especially as it removes weapon and armor proficiencies from the classes themselves (always a pain when getting a level of fighter for all weapon and armor profs.). Either way however, I'd remove cultural artefacts from the racial packages and simplify them:

Humans: Good ol' humans, leave them be!
Dwarves: +2 Con, -2 Cha, Medium, Darkvision, 20ft move, +2 fortitude and reroll checks involving being knocked over
Elves: +2 Dex, -2 Con, Medium, Low-light vision, 30ft move, Immune to sleep, +2 will, reroll perception checks
Gnomes: +2 Con, -2 Str, Small, Low-light vision, 20ft move, 0th level arcane spell-like ability 1+Cha/day, reroll concentration checks (this is old style gnomes who are dedicated and magical, single-minded if you will, none of that bard nonsense)
Halflings: +2 Dex, -2 Str, Small, 20ft move, +1 all defenses, reroll acrobatics checks (and/or climb, jump, couldn't really decide, acrobatics seems best)
Half-Elves: Medium, 30ft move, low-light vision +1 will, reroll persuasion checks (god they still kinda suck, maybe throw in an extra trained skill from human heritage?)
Half-Orcs: +2 Str, -2 int, -2 Cha, Medium, 30ft move, darkvision, reroll intimidate (maybe?)


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I'm still not sure about the HP vs. condition track thing. I think it could be quite good in play, or it could act as bad positive feedback (ie: PCs are losing, and their chances get worse and worse).




I think that, if you wanted, you could optionally and probably safely drop the Threshold vs Condition Track in your combats, and still be okay using Condition Tracks to replace all those extra conditions that have sprung up in 3E and v3.5. I think it needs to be in the Fantasy Concepts project, but all told, what you do with it once it's in your hands is up to you.



			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Directly responding to Mokona - the SW races are very well done. Exceptionally simple. We need that for D&D. Especially love the rerolling of certain checks based on inherent racial ability. Also the rarity of things that would be nurture rather than nature (like bonuses to hit certain creatures) which always cause reincarnation arguments.




I definitely like the streamlined nature of the SW races. My partner in crime, so to speak, also has some interesting thoughts in that direction, as well as racial paragons.

Here's a problem with removing the cultural aspects of the races: tradition. There are certain things that people expect from their fantasy races, and for some, it includes these cultural abilities.

Now, if you could pack a few of these into feats, perhaps no more than one feat per race, and then offer each character a free bonus feat at first level that is spent on some kind of cultural background feat, then that would be cool. However, I'm not sure it could be done, at least very easily, and still be balanced across the board between races. What do you think?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

It would definitely be difficult to give all the non-human and non-half races an extra feat and keep things balanced. That's sort of why I like the background system - it lets you do this evenly, customise a character and remove instances of '.. but only at first level' phrases occuring in multiclassing rules. OTOH you pretty much have to do that when it comes to multiclass skills, so I guess it's not much more effort to do it with weapon/armour proficiencies.

So perhaps if you can justify letting humans and halfbreeds have some bonus background feats too, it could work.


----------



## Baron Opal

Flynn said:
			
		

> Now, if you could pack a few of these into feats, perhaps no more than one feat per race, and then offer each character a free bonus feat at first level that is spent on some kind of cultural background feat, then that would be cool. However, I'm not sure it could be done, at least very easily, and still be balanced across the board between races. What do you think?




I think that would be perfect for the racial prestige classes (paragon?). If you want to be more elvish, take levels in this 3 level class and you can be as elfly as you want.


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> When I first thought about this I was going to use the d20 Modern background system to smooth out the D&D races directly (and also throw in interesting ways of customising your character at 1st level). For instance, Elves would have their stat modifiers, immunity to sleep and their bonuses to perceptive skills and enchantment saves inherently, but to get the full package you'd need the 'raised by elves' background for the weapon proficiencies and training in a suitable skill from a racial selection.



Now that is interesting. I think I will look at the Modern SRD's occupations and see what we might be able to take. Normally, occupations give you an extra class skill or skill bonus, and maybe a feat, but maybe we could apply the concept differently.

Hmm.


----------



## EditorBFG

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I think that would be perfect for the racial prestige classes (paragon?). If you want to be more elvish, take levels in this 3 level class and you can be as elfly as you want.



I think we have a fix that includes every good thing about the paragon classes, but still lets you stick with a single class. Flynn and I just emailed back and forth on it, and it is pretty neat. What I like about paragons is that they reflect D&D's sources-- elves are cool, but Legolas is _more_ elven in some ways, and more cool. So, the option of becoming more focused on your race's abilities will be available.


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> Quick Analysis of tendencies in Saga for such classes:
> 
> *Advanced Classes (7th level)*
> Prerequisites: 1-2 talents, 1-2 trained skills, sometimes limited feat requirements, 7th level
> Defense Bonuses: Total +6, in +2/+4 increments.
> 10 levels: Alternating talent and class-related special bonus, or talent every level progression
> Two talent trees
> 
> *Prestige Classes (12th level)*
> Prerequisites: 1-2 talents from advanced classes, feat requirements, 12th level
> Defense Bonuses: Total +9, in +3/+6 increments.
> 5 levels: 2 special abilities at 1st level, Talent on odd levels (1st, 3rd, 5th) from other talent trees, class-related special bonus every level
> No unique talent trees



I think this is a fair analytical starting point for PrCs. But, I think these should be the two basic templates of Prestige Classes, while what we call Advanced Classes should be available at level 3, like Modern Advanced Classes. That way, you can be a Paladin early, but be on the path from the beginning.


----------



## Mokona

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> When I first thought about this I was going to use the *d20 Modern* background system to smooth out the D&D races directly.



I've seen how the *D20 Modern* system of occupations can be abused (with all the unnamed skill bonus in modern classes).  Still, done right, you're idea sounds good.  I would make it too good because we'll all get really bored of the 99th half-orc or human who was "raised by elves".  Perhaps a synergy bonus if you race is the same as your "raised by" culture.

_Arcana Unearthed_ and _Unearthed Arcana_ racial levels also help.  When _Savage Species_ came out I really wanted to stat up 3rd edition Elf and Dwarf as 20 level character classes (along the lines of the beginning Basic *D&D* options).

Most racial abilities aren't all that exciting as class abilities if you receive them instead of a Talent or Feat.  I wouldn't be too excited by Stonecunning or the bonuses to Appraise and Craft checks (Appraise should really be a feature of the underlying craft skill you're inspecting).

Goblin: -2 Str, +2 Dex, Small, Spd 4, Darkvision, Sneaky, Conditional Bonus Feat (Ride)
Halfling: -2 Str, +2 Dex, Small, Spd 4, Sneaky, Conditional Bonus Feat (Acrobatics), Perceptive, +1 to defenses
Hobgoblin: +2 Con, Spd 6, Darkvision, Sneaky, Conditional Bonus Feat (Stealth)
Kobold: -4 Str, +2 Dex, Small, Spd 6, Darkvision, Perceptive, +2 Fort defense, Light sensitive
Orc:  +2 Str, -2 Int, Spd 6, Darkvision, Light sensitive, Conditional Bonus Feat (Survival), Scent

Are any of the Eberron character races open yet?


----------



## EditorBFG

Mokona said:
			
		

> Are any of the Eberron character races open yet?



Nope. But if your thinking of the Warforged, there is something similar Mike Mearls wrote up in Book of Iron Might called the Ironborn. I don't know Eberron very well, and I haven't looked at Book of Iron Might recently. Could the OGC Ironborn fill the Warforged niche?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Flynn said:
			
		

> I think that, if you wanted, you could optionally and probably safely drop the Threshold vs Condition Track in your combats, and still be okay using Condition Tracks to replace all those extra conditions that have sprung up in 3E and v3.5. I think it needs to be in the Fantasy Concepts project, but all told, what you do with it once it's in your hands is up to you.




I've had a more in depth read. Now I think it's awesome. In fact, for D&D I'd go as far as using it for nearly everything that previously caused headaches. Would it be a stretch to make the condition track go 'out the other side' into positive bonuses? I'm thinking that you cast _Bless_ and move one step up. The party bard equivalent starts inspiring you all and you move another step up. I guess you could really buff someone to the max and throw in a _Heroism_ and er.. not sure I can think of another all-round buff to reach the precious +10 to everything.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Thanks, we're very happy with it.I think these are all good guidelines. I think I am coming around to the idea of advanced classes (available around level 3) and Prestige Classes (available around 7th and higher) being a big part of the game.
> 
> That said, I also think the base classes themselves should be few, and separated by mechanics (good attack bonus, good skill guy, good *saves*, or good caster) rather than flavor. The flavor should come from the talents. Advanced classes should be mechanically better, but not much, and easy to qualify for. Prestige classes ought to be tough, though, and specific rather than generic (Paladin=Advanced Class, Knight of the Round Table=Prestige  Class). Every base class ought to have *at least* one Advanced Class it can achieve with no multiclassing at all.



Emphasis mine. I really like the +1 per lvl to saves in Saga. To start using D&D save progressions would be a step back, IMO. However, if you mean class bonus better than other classes' starting bonus, I think it has merit.

As have been said above, I would be careful about letting advanced classes be mechanically better than core classes. No one will stay in core classes, then.
Also, I think d20 Modern blew it by having broad base classes with some choice, and then adding advanced classes with fixed class abilities. They should just have made fixed base classes then I think Grim Tales is way superior in this regard. So I would say you guys should make sure that advanced (and PrCs) classes still have plenty of choice.

BTW, a line or to about how you design the advanced and PrCs would be a great addition to the game. Please include this in the product.

I am strongly in favor of an athletics skill, covering swim, ride, climb, and all the other physical skills no one otherwise will bother with. Just make sure some things are only possible if you're trained in the skill, the way Saga has handled many other tropes of D&D (Track).

I have always been in favor of per session Action Points. I think there was some document that described how many APs to give out when they're not per level? Living Greyhawk?
Anyway, will it be exploding APs like Grim Tales/Spycraft, or keep highest as in Saga?

Also, how about a 'core ability' as in Spycraft? Or True20. I have a few ideas in that regard, which I could post if there is interest.


BTW: Chris Nightwing. I like that positive condition chart 
More as I think of it.


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I've had a more in depth read. Now I think it's awesome. In fact, for D&D I'd go as far as using it for nearly everything that previously caused headaches. Would it be a stretch to make the condition track go 'out the other side' into positive bonuses? I'm thinking that you cast _Bless_ and move one step up. The party bard equivalent starts inspiring you all and you move another step up. I guess you could really buff someone to the max and throw in a _Heroism_ and er.. not sure I can think of another all-round buff to reach the precious +10 to everything.




I'd have to consider the implications, but that does sound like a very interesting idea...

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## HeinorNY

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think we have a fix that includes every good thing about the paragon classes, but still lets you stick with a single class. Flynn and I just emailed back and forth on it, and it is pretty neat. What I like about paragons is that they reflect D&D's sources-- elves are cool, but Legolas is _more_ elven in some ways, and more cool. So, the option of becoming more focused on your race's abilities will be available.




What about creating racial talent trees?

Elven Talent Tree:

Surefooted: You can reroll your acrobatic checks and keep the better result.

Fair: Elves are the fairest of all the humanoids. They can use Persuasion skill to change the attitude of another creature as a swift action.

Sense Magic: You can cast Detect Magic at will. Prerequisite: caster level 3+.

Elven Agility: You gain +2 bonus to your Dexterity ability. Prerequisite: Surefooted.

Sword Specialization: You choose between longsword or rapier. When attacking that weapon you gain +2 to damage rolls. Prerequiste: Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Bow Specialization: You choose between Longbow, Shortbow, Composite Longbow or Composite Shortbow. When attacking that weapon you gain +2 to damage rolls. Prerequisite: Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.


----------



## EditorBFG

ainatan said:
			
		

> What about creating racial talent trees?



Funny you should mention that, because that is what we did! We were going back and forth about whether it should be posted up here, but here it is.

Basically, when you pick a race, you get a free talent from its tree at 1st level, and then as you go up in levels you decide whether or not to spend your talent slots from classes on racial talents. So it's like a paragon class, but you don't have to multiclass, you just have to choose to forego some class talents. 







			
				Fantasy Concepts Draft said:
			
		

> *Elf Talent Path*
> *Unclouded Vigilance: *You gain a +2 focus bonus to Fortitude Defense and Will Defense against enchantment spells or effects. Further, you are immune to _sleep_ effects.
> *Preternatural Senses:* You gain the Preternatural Senses feat, regardless of whether or not you meet the prerequisites.
> *Eternal Vigilance:* You may reroll any Perception roll once, but must keep the second result. In addition, you ignore concealment (but not total concealment) due to darkness.
> _Prerequisite: _Unclouded vigilance
> *Improved Vigilance:* Your focus bonus to Fortitude Defense and Will Defense against enchantment spells or effects increases to from +2 to +4.
> _Prerequisite: _Unclouded vigilance
> *Elvish Weapon:* Provided you meet the prerequisites, you gain the feat Weapon Focus. This feat must apply to either the rapier, longsword, shortsword, shortbow, longbow, composite shortbow, or composite longbow.
> _Prerequisites:_ Any 2 other talents from this Path
> *Ancient Knowledge:* You gain a permanent +2 to Intelligence.
> _Prerequisites:_ Character level 3, any 2 other talents from this Path



What do you think?

I know the talent that gives a stat boost might be a bit controversial, but this is taken from the existing paragon class. Also, we think a structure like this might allow us to bring in some formerly Level Adjusted races, letting them start on par with a regular character and then grow into their Monster version stat modifiers.


----------



## HeinorNY

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> What do you think?




Dunno. I think instead of buying Elvish Weapon I would just get Weapon Focus, since I believe characters gain more feats than talents and the prerequisite is just +1 attack bonus.
Spending a talent to buy a feat is not good business. Maybe the Talent could let the PC choose one of the elven weapons and receive a +1 racial bonus to attack rolls. It would stack with Weapon Focus bonus, but not qualify the PC for Weapon Specialization.

Also, I think some of the Talents are standard Elven special abilities, considering a direct conversion of the races to the SAGA mechanics.
Take a look at this thread, some guys (myself included) made some racial conversions.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=873983

What you could do is to give all elves the roll-again-get-second-result to Perception checks, and then the Talent would give the roll-again-keep-better-result mechanic.


----------



## tsadkiel

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Could the OGC Ironborn fill the Warforged niche?




I've always liked them very much, so if you stick them in the book I'll be happy.


----------



## Dalamar

I don't think I can fully endorse the idea of races having "Choose Your Racial Ability". I like the idea of Racial Talent Trees, but something just rubs me the wrong way with the idea of choosing one of them as a racial ability; I'd give an Elf the usual ability score changes, Low-Light Vision (the Saga version), Iron Will and Heightened Awareness, with a new ability Weapon Training: An elf adds Weapon Focus (longsword etc.) to the list of bonus feats for all of his classes. 

Regarding the specific talents, I don't like the name of Unclouded Vigilance, though the effect is a good choice. The ability itself could thematically be subsumed by Iron Will, though.
Preternatural Senses I'm not sure about.  I don't think gaining a feat is quite strong enough for a Talent. I could be wrong, of course, and Preternatural Senses might be a strong feat with strict Prerequisites. 
Eternal Vigilance, in the form of Low-light Vision and Heightened Awareness, should really be a part of the core package of being an elf, I think.
I have no strong feelings one way or another regarding Improved Vigilance itself, though for an unexplicable reason I would prefer the +5 of Saga instead of the +4 common in DnD.
Elvish Weapons I would integrate to the racial features as I mentioned above.
Ancient Knowledge could be a good talent choice, though I wouldn't use it if you decide to use the two ability score increases every 4 levels from Saga.


----------



## HeinorNY

Another tweak you can add to this conversion is to create Racial Class Skills. Just a couple of skills each race can pick at character creation or with Skill Training feat.
Elves: Perception, Spellcraft, knowledge (elves)
Dwarves: Craft, endurance, knowledge (dwarves)
Halfings: Stealth, Jump, etc
just an idea, though prolly the Conditional Feat may be a better way to adress the cultural background.


----------



## Flynn

ainatan said:
			
		

> Take a look at this thread, some guys (myself included) made some racial conversions.
> 
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=873983




I'm going to post your conversions here for others to review and comment on. Please note that there are a few core races missing here (gnomes, half-elves):



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Humans
> 
> * Medium Size: As Medium creatures, humans have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
> * Speed: Human base land speed is 6 squares.
> * Bonus Feat: 1 extra feat at 1st level.
> * Bonus Trained Skill: 1 additional trained skill at 1st level. This skill must be chosen from the character's list of class skills.
> * Automatic Language: Common.
> 
> Dwarves
> 
> * Ability Modifiers: +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma
> * Medium: As Medium creatures, dwarves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
> * Speed: Dwarf base land speed is 4 squares.
> * Darkvision: Dwarves ignore concealment from darkness, including total concealment. However, they cannot perceive colors in total darkness.
> * Stonecunning: Dwarves may choose to reroll any Perception check to notice unusual stonework, such as sliding walls, stonework traps, new construction (even when built to match the old), unsafe stone surfaces, shaky stone ceilings, and the like. Something that isn't stone but that is disguised as stone also counts as unusual stonework. A dwarf can use the Perception skill to find stonework traps even if he is untrained. A dwarf can also intuit depth, sensing his approximate depth underground as naturally as a human can sense which way is up.




This needs to have a note that states that the result of the second roll must be accepted, even if it's lower than the first roll.



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> * Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves with Weapon Proficiency (Martial Weapons) also gains Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Dwarven waraxes) and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Dwarven Urgoshes).
> * Stability: A dwarf may choose to reroll any check to avoid being bull rushed or tripped when standing on the ground (but not when climbing, flying, riding, or otherwise not standing firmly on the ground), keeping the better of the two results.
> * Resistance: Dwarves receive a +2 racial bonus to all defenses against poisons and spells.
> * Hatred: Dwarves get a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids.
> * Giant Fighting: Dwarves receive a +5 dodge bonus to their reflex defense against attacks from monsters of the giant type. Any time a creature loses its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Reflex Defense, such as when it's caught flat-footed, it loses its dodge bonus, too.
> * Conditional Bonus Feat: Any dwarf with Craft as a trained skill gains Skill Focus (Craft) as a bonus feat.
> * Automatic Languages: Common and Dwarven.
> 
> Elves
> 
> * Ability Modifiers:+2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution. Elves are agile but not particularly resilient.
> * Medium Size: As Medium creatures, elves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
> * Speed: Elf base land speed is 6 Squares.
> * Sleep Immunity: Immunity to magic sleep effects.
> * Resistance: Elves gain a +2 racial bonus to defense against enchantment spells or effects.
> * Low-Light Vision: Elves ignore concealment (but not total concealment) from darkness.
> * Weapon Proficiency: Elves gain Weapon Proficiency (bows) and Weapon Proficiency (swords).
> * Weapon Familiarity: Elves with the Weapon Proficiency(martial weapons) feat are proficient with racial weapons of the elves as well.
> * Perceptive: Elves may re-roll Perception checks when used to notice target or search.




This needs to have a note that states that the result of the second roll must be accepted, even if it's lower than the first roll.



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> * Automatic Languages: Common and Elven.
> 
> Half-Orcs
> 
> * Ability Modifiers:+2 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma. Half-orcs possess great physical power but aren't particularly witty or astute.
> * Medium Size: As Medium creatures, half-orcs have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
> * Speed: Half-orcs base land speed is 6 Squares.
> * Darkvision: Half-orcs ignore concealment from darkness, including total concealment. However, they cannot perceive colors in total darkness.
> * Orc Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc.
> * Automatic Languages: Common and Orc.
> 
> Halflings
> 
> * Ability Modifiers:+2 Dexterity, -2 Strength. Halflings are agile but somewhat weak.
> * Small Size: As Small creatures, halflings gain +1 size bonus to their Reflex Defense and +5 size bonus on Stealth checks. However their lifting and carrying limits are three-quarters of those of a Medium character.
> * Speed: Halflings base land speed is 4 Squares.
> * Resistance: Halflings gain a +1 racial bonus to all Defenses and a +2 morale bonus to their Defenses against fear spells or effects.
> * Athletic: Halflings may choose to take 10 on Jump and Climb skills even when distracted or threatened.
> * Sneaky: Halflings may choose to reroll any Stealth checks, but the result of the reroll must be accepted even if it is worse.
> * Expert Thrower: Halflings gain +1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown weapons and slings.
> * Automatic Languages: Common and Halfling.




Hope that helps,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

ainatan said:
			
		

> Dunno. I think instead of buying Elvish Weapon I would just get Weapon Focus, since I believe characters gain more feats than talents



We talked about these when we did our talent books for Modern, and the reason why we include talents that provide feats is just for flexibility. Sometimes, it would just be a great help to get a certain feat at 5th instead of 6th. Also, it is at times desirable to offer a means for certain characetr types to sidestep prereqs.

In the Modern stuff, we would put a talent providing a feat at the base of tree, with other talents requiring that feat rather than the first talent. For example, we did a series of Weapon Mastery talents requiring Weapon Focus. That way, whether the PC got the feat from a talent or a normal feat selection, they could still move up the tree.

In short, it's not an option everyone will use, but I think some will, and we prefer to offer the choice. It is better for someone to have an option and not need it than need an option and not have it.







			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Also, I think some of the Talents are standard Elven special abilities, considering a direct conversion of the races to the SAGA mechanics.



Well, yes, and here's why: My hope is to not have racial special abilities at all, except in the form of feats and talents.

This may be controversial, but part of the whole point is simplification. With this, a race description is much shorter and simpler. Here's an example:







			
				Fantasy Concepts Draft said:
			
		

> Elf
> +2 Dex, -2 Con
> Bonus Racial Feats: Preternatural Senses, Trained Skill (Perception)
> Elf Talents: You gain access to the Elf Talent Path. You receive a free talent from this Path at 1st level. Any time you receive a talent from a class, you may choose from the talents normally available to that class or from the Elf Talent Path.



So, since every elf gets Preternatural Senses as a free feat, the free talent all elves get at 1st level is Unclouded Vigilance. (The talent to gain Preternatural Senses is for half-elves, who gain access to the Elf talents as well, but different bonus feats.) Preternatural Senses includes the other elf special abilities-- the feat has hefty prerequisites for other races, but elves get it for free without meeting prereqs (bonus racial feats ignore prerequisites). So, elves have little choice about their first level special abilities, but gain the option of sharpening them up from the talents.

This simplifies race descriptions, and allows us to separate which abilities are cultural (feats) and which are natural (talents). Then you just put in a feat for being raised by another race, and if you have that, you trade your regular racial feats for another race's (and gain some social bonuses). I'm still figuring out Weapon Familiarities, but this covers everything else.

Does that make more sense?







			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Take a look at this thread, some guys (myself included) made some racial conversions.
> 
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=873983
> 
> What you could do is to give all elves the roll-again-get-second-result to Perception checks, and then the Talent would give the roll-again-keep-better-result mechanic.



Thanks for the link, and the suggestion, which I think we will use.


----------



## EditorBFG

Dalamar said:
			
		

> I don't think I can fully endorse the idea of races having "Choose Your Racial Ability".



See my above post responding to ainatan, which hopefully answers this. The 1st talent is essentially chosen for you, it is not optional. Specializing in your races aptitudes, however, is.







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> Regarding the specific talents, I don't like the name of Unclouded Vigilance, though the effect is a good choice.



Yeah, I don't like it much, but it's what I could think of at the time. Some of the names are sort of placeholders until we think of something better. For now, it is better to get the mechanics down.







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> The ability itself could thematically be subsumed by Iron Will, though.



I'm not sure Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, or Great Fortitude should make the cut. Given that Saga-style saves go up 1 per level, I'm not sure a blanket 2-point bump is good-- for example, why would anyone not buy Lightning Reflexes?







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> Preternatural Senses I'm not sure about.  I don't think gaining a feat is quite strong enough for a Talent. I could be wrong, of course, and Preternatural Senses might be a strong feat with strict Prerequisites.



Again, see the above post to ainatan.







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> Ancient Knowledge could be a good talent choice, though I wouldn't use it if you decide to use the two ability score increases every 4 levels from Saga.



Yeah, I'm not sure whether to use the two ability score bump or not.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I'm not sure Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, or Great Fortitude should make the cut. Given that Saga-style saves go up 1 per level, I'm not sure a blanket 2-point bump is good-- for example, why would anyone not buy Lightning Reflexes?




These are no longer available as feats in Saga, but they are available as racial traits. Just an FYI here, my friend.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Baron Opal

As far as broad bonuses go (q.v. _bless_, bard's song) I would prefer that they be nonstackable bonuses of progressively higher bonuses. At first level, you cast _bless_, higher level is _prayer_, and at the top _hero's feast_. There would be no benefit for casting the together as the higher level effect would contain and subsume the lower level effects. The lower level ones would still be useful as minor boosts when the better ones were no longer available or if the party didn't want the full power-up.

However, an expanded condition tract that covered bonuses as well as penalties is an interesting idea. _Bless_ could be effective as a _delay poison_. Would a sufficiently long duration endurance spell counter penalties to forced marches?

One of the complications that I forsee is the question of how generic a condition state becomes. Is the status of the condition track level more than short-term and persistant? At what point does it not matter whether or not you are down three steps from poison, disease or radiation and you have to crawl into the bacta tank? As I recall, anti-toxins and radiation cures are only effective in the short term; after that you are simply damaged and have to endure a bacta bath to recover. Or, convalesce for a significant time to restore your lost condition steps.

That could be a feature. The player has relativlely short window of time where he is required to keep tract of the damaging source of the persistant condition track loss. During that time he can utilize a relatively cheap method of restoration. After that window closes it can be cured quickly with some anodyne which is very expensive or difficult to obtain (bacta-analog) or slowly through natural healing.


----------



## Mokona

*Character Race*



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> This simplifies race descriptions, and allows us to separate which abilities are cultural (feats) and which are natural (talents).



Personally I'd do this the other way around where biological benefits are bonus feats or unique abilities (only when no feat is close enough).  Then talent trees that let you "grow" into your race are for cultural development.

I do love the idea of breaking Level Adjustment +X (where X is greater than 0) into Talent trees even for semi-biological abilities.  Drow are an especially good candidate for this treatment given their suite of abilities and popularity with players.  Then a "Raised By Elves" feat gives you access to the cultural talent tree but not the racial/biological bonus feats (sort of like Force Sensitive for the race that raised you).

Of 17 races in _Saga_, most have a reroll (12 have it; keep the reroll even if lower) though some have it as part of a movement (swim or climb) package.

7 out of 17 have a Conditional Skill Focus bonus feat.

9 of 17 have one or more bonus feats (including Iron Will, Great Fortitude, and Conditional Weapon Proficiencies).

12 of 17 have any other bonus including Low-Light Vision, Darkvision, Rage, Water Breathing, Bellow, Scent, and various forms of Regenerate.

None of have a Conditional Skill Focus and a Bonus Feat and a Reroll and an other bonus.


----------



## Mokona

*Class and Level Bonuses*



			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> Ancient Knowledge could be a good talent choice, though I wouldn't use it if you decide to use the two ability score increases every 4 levels from Saga.



The bonus to two different ability scores every 4 levels is an elegant solution in _Saga_.  We should keep it.  That way characters are encouraged to do more than just pour 100% of their stat bumps into their core ability.  Spellcasters are especially helped to diversify because they can still bump their casting trait while doing other stuff too.

_Saga_ damage bonus of +1 per 2 heroic levels?  Yes.
_Saga_ defense bonus of +1 per heroic level?  Yes, and let fighters add their armor bonus to their level bonus (with Talents) like _Wheel of Time_ d20 does.

-----
For the next section I assume only four (4) core 1st level classes, though I prefer more...

Class Bonuses to Defense
* Cleric - +1 ref, +1 fort, +1 will
* Expert - +2 ref, +1 will
* Fighter - +1 ref, +2 fort
* Wizard - +1 ref, +2 will

(By the way, _Saga_ uses all five possible combinations if you restrict that every class must have at least +1 Reflex Defense.  Without that requirement there are seven possible combinations in which the bonuses add up to +3.)

Hit Points
* Wizard - d6 + con bonus (12 + con bonus at first level)
* Cleric, Expert - d8 + con bonus (16 + con bonus at first level)
* Fighter - d10 + con bonus (20 + con bonus at first level)

(I chose two times max hit points at first level instead of three like _Saga_ uses because weapons deal less damage in *Dungeons & Dragons*.  Another way to deal with damage, that would also address Damage Thresholds, would be to scale up the damage of weapons in *D&D*.)

Base Attack Bonus
* Fighter - +1 per level
* Cleric, Expert, Wizard - +3 per 4 levels

(I didn't use +1 per 2 levels for Wizards because Condition Track penalties could quickly make it impossible for Wizards to hit.)

Class Skills
* Cleric - 3 + int bonus
* Expert - 6 + int bonus
* Fighter - 4 + int bonus
* Wizard - 5 + int bonus


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Ooh we get to see some of the work ! I think that moving cultural abilities to a talent tree is by far the greatest plan ever. However, I think you definitely need to give the races their biological natural abilities when they start the game. Also, do simplify them - the Saga races don't have complicated caveats associated with their bonuses or rerolls, so clear them up from D&D. Make the Elven strong mind thing into +2 Will, the Dwarven spell/poison thing into +2 Fort and it clears stuff up nicely. Giving Half-Orcs and Half-Elves access to both parents' talent trees will also make them much more appealing too. Please put a Wookiee-style rage into the Orc tree!

Responding to the condition track discussion - I think having a positive end would work well. I think you could avoid stacking effects by simply stating that higher-level sources supercede lower-level ones (So the equivalent of _Recitation_ would be two steps up the track, and supercede the one step of _Bless_ or _Prayer_ (which also moves enemies down one step!). Have no spells stack, in fact have nothing stack for the purposes of going up the track. I'm envisioning a gorgeous level 9 spell that gives you the +10 to everything! As for effects such as poison etc. - it's ok not to use the track for some things. You might just be suffering a penalty to one aspect of your dice-rolls, or indeed a bonus (such as rage only adding to hit and damage, thank god they simplified that one). They've really tried to avoid temporary stat mod effects in Saga - carry this through if possible, although I guess Bull's Strength is still a classic useful spell.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

In reply to Mokona:

Damage bonus of +1/2 character level probably translates fine - but then I'd stick with 3xHP at first level, as even though weapons do less damage on average, spells do lots more.

Defense bonus ought to translate - but then I worry about touch attacks, they would need an adjusted mechanic. As for armor, I think you'll lose lots of the D&D flavour if you reduce it to just fighters who get their bonuses. Obviously automatically stacking them wouldn't work either - therein lays the problem.

I'm still unsure about modifying the fragility of Wizards with more BAB and HP, but it sort of needs doing I guess. I'd also give clerics more skills than fighters, just my preference.


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Damage bonus of +1/2 character level probably translates fine - but then I'd stick with 3xHP at first level, as even though weapons do less damage on average, spells do lots more.




I tend to agree with the 3x at first level, simply for the sake of character longevity.



			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Defense bonus ought to translate - but then I worry about touch attacks, they would need an adjusted mechanic. As for armor, I think you'll lose lots of the D&D flavour if you reduce it to just fighters who get their bonuses. Obviously automatically stacking them wouldn't work either - therein lays the problem.




There are still a few things that have to be worked out in that direction. Given the Class Defense mechanics found in Unearthed Arcana, it may be simplest to implement a base of armor replaces character level. As for touch attacks, I'm sure we will come up with something, probably a static adjustment to the attack roll when attempting a touch attack, for the sake of simplicity.



			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I'm still unsure about modifying the fragility of Wizards with more BAB and HP, but it sort of needs doing I guess. I'd also give clerics more skills than fighters, just my preference.




Unless the advancement in Defenses is adjusted, there is definitely a need to improve the Wizard's BAB. Hitpoints are another matter, but BAB may be a problem. The following table demonstrates the Sage Defense progression against the average attack roll progression of standard D&D (assuming that the character rolls a 10 on their d20 attack). At 10th level, the arcanist must roll a 15 to hit, compared to the warrior's 10. At 15th level, the arcanist needs an 18 to hit, compared to the warrior's 10. At 20th level, the arcanist needs a natural 20 to hit.



		Code:
	

Level	Defense	Arcane	Divine	Warrior
1	11	10	10	11
2	12	11	11	12
3	13	11	12	13
4	14	12	13	14
5	15	12	13	15
6	16	13	14	16
7	17	13	15	17
8	18	14	16	18
9	19	14	16	19
10	20	15	17	20
11	21	15	18	21
12	22	16	19	22
13	23	16	19	23
14	24	17	20	24
15	25	17	21	25
16	26	18	22	26
17	27	18	22	27
18	28	19	23	28
19	29	19	24	29
20	30	20	25	30


Using the last three columns, you can see what the progression might look like if you used a Defense rate of 3/4*level (Divine) or 1/2*level (Arcane).

In essence, I think we would either have to *adjust the base Defense advancement to 3/4*level* or *up the arcanist's BAB*, if we wanted to keep the arcanist effective at higher levels.

What do you as players feel would be the best approach to this particular issue?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> There are still a few things that have to be worked out in that direction. Given the Class Defense mechanics found in Unearthed Arcana, it may be simplest to implement a base of armor replaces character level.




That's definitely the simplest thing to do, but it also means that you're effectively moving to a 'high level characters don't wear armor unless they're tanks who've invested lots of resources (feats/talents) in armor' model instead of D&D's standard 'high level characters wear armor unless they'd lose major abilities by wearing it (arcane spellcasting, monk abiliites)' model.


----------



## Dalamar

I would definately suggest keeping the triple HP at first level and increasing weapon damage to Saga levels so that fighter-types actually have a decent chance to breach the Damage Treshold of their enemies.

As an idea, the two-way Condition Track sounds nice. I'm just not sure whether it would work in actual play as one has to take into account actions such as recovering and such. That would be because you would not only have to keep track of your position on the track, you would also need to know how many steps you have on the negative side so you know if you can recover them. 
Though it might be feasible to make a separate "Inspiration Track" or something similar that is tracked separately from the Condition Track. 

Also of note is that if feats are considered trained and talents racial abilities, then as you currently have it all elves are trained to be perceptive and to notice secret doors instead of having naturally sharp senses. Just an observation.

As to the Arcanist BAB vs. base Defenses, adjusting base Defense down increases the time that armor continues to be a feasible option for non-fighters if one is to keep the standard Saga assumption. However, it also makes skill-bases attacks much more potent as they continue to advance at the previous rate. It's a trade off, really. Personally, I would go for increasing the BAB of arcanists, as that could also be considered the fix to touch spells. 
I don't think the increase to d6 HD is paramount to the Saga version arcanist, but it would make it more survivable.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

I strongly prefer upping the BAB instead of altering a core Saga mechanic (which IMO would be opposite the purpose of using Saga for fantasy).

The more I think on this Saga fantasy thingie and read on this thread, the more I feel that magic and especially mages are going to be the biggest hurdle. As things seems to be going (IMO), the mage will get better HP, better BAB, better AC and better saves, and at the same time keeping Vancian magic(?). Furthermore, he needs to be balanced with melee types that have no iterative attacks and only crits on a 20. Difficult.

I really enjoy the racial discussions and the advanced/PrC ideas as well. Racial talents, class core abilities a la Spycraft and True20 and maybe racial core abilities as well to me seems like thingies that aren't that difficult to work out, more like things that need ideas and more ideas and then settling down on some of those ideas.

But I just feel magic needs much more work than races and classes - yet we haven't spend that much time on magic (other that speaking for or against Vancian magic). IMO, magic defines much of the feel of a given fantasy system.
So here's my vote: Since this product _must_  have Vancian magic, I suggest we concentrate for a while on implementing Vancian magic in the Saga system. And what is the Saga system then? IMO, it's feat and talent based and it's encounter based.

Thoughts?

P.S.: Legends of Sorcery and Spellbound (for Spycraft) maybe good places to start.


----------



## Flynn

drothgery said:
			
		

> That's definitely the simplest thing to do, but it also means that you're effectively moving to a 'high level characters don't wear armor unless they're tanks who've invested lots of resources (feats/talents) in armor' model instead of D&D's standard 'high level characters wear armor unless they'd lose major abilities by wearing it (arcane spellcasting, monk abiliites)' model.




The problem that we run into is simple: The Reflex Defense is always increasing, so it always gets better than a static modifier based on armor. In order to keep with the concept of a 'high level characters wear armor unless they'd lose major abilities by wearing it (arcane spellcasting, monk abiliites)' model, we'd likely have to make armor additive with the level adjustment to Reflex Defense, instead of replacing the level adjustment.

To make the math work out, we're likely to have to change the modifier to AC into a Reflex Defense modifier, likely by dividing it by two, rounded down. Otherwise the numbers would get ugly quick.

And then how do you handle magical armor? The numbers would then just get ridiculous. Yeah, there needs to be something in these regards, if the D&D concept is to be maintained. If the Saga concept is to be maintained, the 'high level characters don't wear armor unless they're tanks who've invested lots of resources (feats/talents) in armor' model fits that.

So, I guess the question here becomes: "in terms of armor, which do we pay homage to: Saga or D&D?" The answer to that question will guide us in the right direction.

I'm inclined towards the Saga concept, because of the OGL Fantasy Saga nature of this effort. This does create a different feel than standard D&D, at least in terms of combat. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say on this particular topic.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## tsadkiel

Flynn said:
			
		

> So, I guess the question here becomes: "in terms of armor, which do we pay homage to: Saga or D&D?" The answer to that question will guide us in the right direction.




For what it's worth, in my D&D games, nobody wears armor unless they've invested resources in armor.  Our games tend to be atypical, however - many mages and rogues, few fighters, and we play at high levels, so Bracers of defense are easy to come by.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> The more I think on this Saga fantasy thingie and read on this thread, the more I feel that magic and especially mages are going to be the biggest hurdle. As things seems to be going (IMO), the mage will get better HP, better BAB, better AC and better saves, and at the same time keeping Vancian magic(?). Furthermore, he needs to be balanced with melee types that have no iterative attacks and only crits on a 20. Difficult.




I don't think better HP are garaunteed here, but it does look like the rest are going that way. It is a difficult challenge.

As an aside, EditorBFG and I are currently discussing the "only crits on a 20" issue. We realize that dropping all weapons to the core "crit 20/x2" approach of Saga removes a lot of diversity in weapon selections, but is in keeping with the Saga concept. We are still trying to decide on which path to take. Any thoughts on this matter?



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> I really enjoy the racial discussions and the advanced/PrC ideas as well. Racial talents, class core abilities a la Spycraft and True20 and maybe racial core abilities as well to me seems like thingies that aren't that difficult to work out, more like things that need ideas and more ideas and then settling down on some of those ideas.




Please feel free to post your ideas, so that I can see what you are contemplating. I'm currently not inclined either for or against the concept, so I'd like to see more detail before I make up my mind in these regards.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> But I just feel magic needs much more work than races and classes - yet we haven't spend that much time on magic (other that speaking for or against Vancian magic). IMO, magic defines much of the feel of a given fantasy system.
> So here's my vote: Since this product _must_  have Vancian magic, I suggest we concentrate for a while on implementing Vancian magic in the Saga system. And what is the Saga system then? IMO, it's feat and talent based and it's encounter based.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> P.S.: Legends of Sorcery and Spellbound (for Spycraft) maybe good places to start.




We've been talking about magic behind the scenes here, and we're looking at primarily a skill-based approach that uses the Vancian spells instead of being effects-based. I'll agree that Saga takes a skill/feat/talent-based approach to the Force, but I'll also agree that magic in the average fantasy game is much, much more than a small handful of special effects that is the Force subsystem in Saga. I don't want an effects-based, on-the-fly system for this project. (If I did, Mythic Earth would win, hands down.) I like the concept of spells as defined by a Vancian system of pre-defined spells with pre-defined effects, so that gamers can use their old spell lists without having to totally rewrite their current campaign setting.

Our discussion has been inspired by the suggested sources you've listed above, as well as other sources in the OGC.

More concrete suggestions would be appreciated, and will likely get you further in discussions.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> The problem that we run into is simple: The Reflex Defense is always increasing, so it always gets better than a static modifier based on armor. In order to keep with the concept of a 'high level characters wear armor unless they'd lose major abilities by wearing it (arcane spellcasting, monk abiliites)' model, we'd likely have to make armor additive with the level adjustment to Reflex Defense, instead of replacing the level adjustment.
> 
> To make the math work out, we're likely to have to change the modifier to AC into a Reflex Defense modifier, likely by dividing it by two, rounded down. Otherwise the numbers would get ugly quick.
> 
> And then how do you handle magical armor? The numbers would then just get ridiculous. Yeah, there needs to be something in these regards, if the D&D concept is to be maintained. If the Saga concept is to be maintained, the 'high level characters don't wear armor unless they're tanks who've invested lots of resources (feats/talents) in armor' model fits that.




Well, how you handle magic armor is going to bounce off how you handle magic weapons, but I'd be inclined to eliminate or strongly limit enhancement bonuses to ref def no matter how you do magic armor.



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> So, I guess the question here becomes: "in terms of armor, which do we pay homage to: Saga or D&D?" The answer to that question will guide us in the right direction.
> 
> I'm inclined towards the Saga concept, because of the OGL Fantasy Saga nature of this effort. This does create a different feel than standard D&D, at least in terms of combat. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say on this particular topic.




It seems to me that if you're keeping the arcane/divine split, then you're playing homage to D&D and should do it all the way.


----------



## Flynn

If you take the number of views for this thread, and divide by the number of posts, you get just over 14. While not a true representation, it does indicate that at least 14 people are reading this thread.

With that in mind, I'd like to hear from some of you guys that haven't posted yet, just to make sure we're not catering Fantasy Concepts to the most vocal parties. That's one of the reasons I ask for thoughts and input, so that I can see what people think and desire in a finished product of this nature. So please feel free to speak out, so your voice can be heard.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Hrm, seems it's a popular line of thought, this Sagaizing D&D.  I've been thinking on it as well.

For myself, I've mainly been going the route of House Rules, bolting in things that I felt could be changed on the fly to keep conversion to a minimum.  I am going to be running the Savage Tide AP soon and would like to be able to pick it up and run it along side characters using Saga'd rules.

This is made somewhat more difficult in that I've not actually gotten my hands on Saga.  I've HEARD the concepts, and largely gone:  "Oh, wow, why didn't -I- think of that?  That's quite elegant, really."

I've been toying about with a per-encounter Vancian magic system for a week or so now, trying to work out the kinks.  While I was at it, I threw out the current spell durations.

Wouldn't it be entirely within the OGL to use the Vancian system as it, but just tweak the refresh rate for spells and the number of slots?

Or at least start from there.  Perhaps split out granting slots into talents of some sort.  But begin with what we have in the OGL and start shaving.

I've been playing with dividing the current slots by 3 and rounding, with 0s kept.  This keeps the bonus slots from high ability scores, and actually makes one almost dependent on them (as you may have a level or two of ACCESS to a spell level, but without slots).  Then the character can refresh spells similarly to the current system, but with a 5-10 minute rest period instead of 8 hours.

Not perfect yet, by far, but a general enough description to get the gist of it.  Talents, then, could be used to move up a unified casting table.

Basically it becomes enforced resource management + flexibility.  The perfect balance would be where the characters cast, on average, the same number of spells they would under the normal Vancian system (through various restrictions and stimuli) but not be restricted to an artificial stopping point created by the 8 hour rest cycle.  I.E. if a particular adventuring "day" were longer, they could cast more spells before going to bed.  This should average out, however, with those 'shorter' days spent in RP, etc, where the characters go to bed having cast FEWER spells than usual.

--fje


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

I really can't think of a resolution for the armor, reflex defense mess. One thing that really goes against D&D concepts is that even with a max dex bonus, serious armor adds to your reflex save/defense. Since there's not much differentiation between classes at high levels, the levels you have access to serious armor, warriors will be better at avoiding fireballs than rogues (although they do get evasion). This -sort- of makes sense, the fireball smacks into your plate and not into you, but still seems a bit against previous archetypes. I'm stumped.

Weapon-wise, I think you should allow for critical ranges and x3 or x4 weapons. Streamline the available set though. The standard martial weapon set seems to be: 1d6 -> 1d8 -> 1d10 (2H or 1H with feat) -> 2d6/1d12 2H. The basic set would seem to be clubs/maces. Then there are martial swords at 19-20/x2, sharp swords at 18-20/x2 with a step down in damage dice, axes at x3, hammers at x3, picks at a dice down x4. Polearms, flails, etc. are a bit bleh. My point I guess is unifying the weapon size to damage dice progression across the main weapon categories.

Finally, on magic, I can't suggest anything to solve that either. I will suggest that since static defenses make spell DCs redundant, the 'magic attack' modifier for a character should be 10 + character level + relevant stat modifier. Scrap caster level and just make it character level across the board - although I guess this depends on how you're granting access to the spells exactly. Obviously if you take only one level of Mage you should only be casting level one spells (or equivalents).


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I really can't think of a resolution for the armor, reflex defense mess.



What about instead, of an armor bonus replacing your class bonus, gaining an armor bonus to Reflex Defense halves your class bonus? That would keep armor attractive as one goes up in level.


----------



## Mokona

*Armor Equipment*

Character level + *D&D* armor bonus + magic armor bonus = craziness for fighters (who in Saga can stack 50% of their armor bonus)!

As noted character level > D&D armor bonus means most high level characters won't wear armor under _Saga_ rules (unlike *Dungeons & Dragons*).

Potential solutions include...

Move most of the benefit of armor over to Fort Defense where it always stacks with character level.  Then you have to make sure average damage is neither too low nor too high using staple fantasy weapons, Giant monsters, and level 9 spells (versus level appropriate Fort Defense values).  This is like the _Unearthed Arcana_ rules for "Armor as DR".  Rogues and Wizards probably won't wear armor (which fits the theme of D&D ignoring silliness like mithril breastplates) and fighter/clerics can still get fort bonuses from armor even if (for the cleric) the reflex bonus is less than their level.

Lower armor bonuses significantly (light = +1, medium = +2, and heavy = +3) so stacking armor with level isn't busted.

Significantly lower the penalties for wearing armor so even if you don't get the benefits of reflex defense (because your character level is higher) you don't pay much for the other benefits of wearing armor.

Consider the impact of shields (buckler, light, heavy, and tower) on Reflex Defense.

Remember, since more monsters are published for core *d20* rules than these rules a *Dungeon Master* will want to use them without worrying about conversion.  Monster to hit values are based on armor with magic defense bonuses.


----------



## kaomera

Flynn said:
			
		

> With that in mind, I'd like to hear from some of you guys that haven't posted yet, just to make sure we're not catering Fantasy Concepts to the most vocal parties. That's one of the reasons I ask for thoughts and input, so that I can see what people think and desire in a finished product of this nature. So please feel free to speak out, so your voice can be heard.



Well, I have posted (once, several pages ago), but I guess I can post again...

I guess I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to fiddle with the final results of this effort, no matter what the end product comes out as. There are a number of ideas I'm interested in that I don't think are going to see too wide of an audience, but I can always tweak things to my tastes. Really, I could do this with just SWSaga and a few things like Fantastic Classes, but I think it will be useful to see what you end up coming up with.

Some example of what I'm talking about when I say that I'm looking at ideas that I think maybe aren't / shouldn't be the way you're going:
* Armor as DR
* "Prestige" Talent trees instead of prestige classes
* A less D&D-feel magic system
* A different set of ability scores
* Focus more extending my personal "sweet spot" rather than 1st to 20th levels 

Also, as I've mentioned before, the more modular the system the better, for me at least...


----------



## Baron Opal

Flynn said:
			
		

> As an aside, EditorBFG and I are currently discussing the "only crits on a 20" issue. We realize that dropping all weapons to the core "crit 20/x2" approach of Saga removes a lot of diversity in weapon selections, but is in keeping with the Saga concept. We are still trying to decide on which path to take. Any thoughts on this matter?




All weapons are 20/x2. Fighters are able to take feats in a "weapon mastery" tree that increases attack, damage, crit range and multiplier. Which attributes are increased first depends on the type of weapon.

Longsword Form


+1 attack
+2 damage
19-20 critical range
+2 attack
+4 damage
18-20 critical hit.

Battle Axe Form


+1 attack
+2 damage
x3 critical multiplier
+2 attack
+4 damage
x4 critical multiplier

Something like that. This way, the country bumpkin who has picked up his woodcutter's axe to avenge his burned village can have a lucky shot. The trained warrior is able to captialize on the axe's inherent cutting power.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Not bad, Baron Opal. Not bad at all


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

*Weapons:* I like Baron Opal's approach to weapons. However, I think I would prefer if it was more 'generic' and the effects thus could apply to the weapon at hand. That is, let there be a weapon mastery feat chain. 5 lvl tier, as suggested by Baron O. But the benefits gained depend on the weapon being used at the moment. (Or it could be the wielder's choice which bonus to apply). Let the chain be bonus feats only to warriors.
This will avoid the 'married to a weapon' trope of D&D that I really dislike. Once you have spent one feat on a given weapon, you use that type exclusively for the rest of the campaign. In my campaigns, weapon focus applies to 'melee weapons' or 'missile weapons'. Same with weapon spec.
By making the feat chain generic, warriors are badass with all weapons, in different ways. Might keep them up to par with spellcasters.

Another very simple solution could just be to increase the damage multiplier of rapiers etc. by one. So longsword 1d8/x2, rapier 1d6/x3.

*Armor:* Think this is very difficult. On one side, spending three talents should be awarded, on the other side, this will make heavy armored warriors impossible to hit. The problem is mainly due to magic armors, shields, amulets and rings. Without these, a fighter could end up around Reflex 43 which is still crazy, but with them madness ensues.

*Core:* Acore ability for each class could be to be able to use AP's for things normally not allowed (increase fort defense for fighters after knowing the result of the dice) plus when using APs for this and core activities (attack, skill use, spellcasting, domain power, etc.) increase the die to d8's (stackable with that feat, so you can end up with d10's).

Other core uses could be access to any feat on the class' bonus feat list, access to a talent, spell, and such.

You only get the core ability of the class you start in at 1st lvl.

*Magic:* My non patented shot at a magic system.
In very short, pick a feat named Gifted or such. This allows you to make Use Magic skill checks and so on a la Force Sensitive. 

Now, you can learn spells. You can learn spells of a level equal to half your Mage level (round up).

Take the feat Magic Training. _This feat is on the Mage class' bonus feat list!_ Each time you pick it, you gain spell picks equal to Spellcasting Stat +1. Use these picks to learn a new spell or another use of a known spell. Spells cost half their level in picks to learn or use more than once. 0-level spells costs ½ pick.

Spells recharge as per Saga. However, any and all 'out of combat spells' (buff, healing, fly, invisibility and so on) cast out of an encounter is considered spent when the next encounter begins! This is a bit of metagaming to control unlimited healing, buffs, etc. If you have two slots of healing, you can use two heals between encounters, but not more, and when the next encounter begins, the slots are not available.
Feats can help out here, as well as APs. Maybe feats can allow swapping between spells?

Meta Magic is done via talents. Each metamagic talent chosen allows the use of one use of metamagic per minute. Each talent can be taken multiple times, to be usable more than once per minute (or stacking). Half level limit for learning spells apply. I was thinking that using meta magic would be a full round action.

I'm thinking a 20th level mage could have something like 120 spell picks (stat +6 giving 7 picks times 17 feats). If this is not enough, consider using picks to by 'spell level slots' instead of just the additional use of a spell.


Comments?


----------



## EditorBFG

I think what Baron Opal has done is pretty cool, but my strong inclination is not to use simplified Saga crits for this. This is one area where what is good for space opera is not good for the tropes of fantasy. 

In Star Wars, everyone has some kind of blaster or a lightsaber, or maybe a vibro-weapon. The real difference between categories is the technology powering the weapon, represented by the number of dice of damage it rolls.

In fantasy, there are longswords, shortswords, bastard swords, greatswords, rapiers, scimitars,  falchions, and two-bladed swords-- and that's just swords. The variety of melee weapons is much larger, and interwoven with the flavor of the game. Differing critical ranges is a part of making weapons different. If someone else has a way to ditch them while maintaining the mechanical individuality of weapons, I'm all ears.

Besides, since weapon damages are often lower in fantasy, having increased likelihood of critical hits or larger multipliers is not unbalancing. using SRD weapon damage, the toughest weapon for a medium-sized PC is the 2d6 greatsword-- as opposed to the 3d10 bowcaster, 3d12 E-web, or 6d6 missile launcher. There were good reasons to simplify crits in Star Wars, but those reasons do not exist for a Fantasy system.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> That is, let there be a weapon mastery feat chain. 5 lvl tier, as suggested by Baron O. But the benefits gained depend on the weapon being used at the moment. (Or it could be the wielder's choice which bonus to apply). Let the chain be bonus feats only to warriors.




Just so that you are aware, both D20 Modern and SW Saga both follow the model where feats that are restricted to one class do not exist. Instead, the abilities they grant are converted to a talent tree. I definitely expect to see a Weapon Mastery talent tree that covers these kinds of abilities. Reading the responses here reaffirms that in my mind.

In Saga, I have not yet found a way to increase the threat range, and only one feat that increases the multiplier (Triple Crit). Has anyone else seen anything else in these regards?

Thanks,
Flynn


----------



## SKid4

It was also my first thought to use a Magic/Spell Training feat that gave a number of spell slots equal to your key ability modifier + 1. However, I think the key to balancing the per-encounter usage of these slots is in the recharge time. My idea was to use a multiple of the spell level: 1-5 minutes per spell level & half that for 0-level spells. Since talents are used, like in d20 Modern, I also had the idea to limit spellcasting to 0-5th level spells and use incantantions for the most powerful spells, also like d20 Modern. I'll admit, after the SW book came out, I had a week of vacation to play around with combining it with D&D, but I don't really have the opportunity to playtest.


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> In Saga, I have not yet found a way to increase the threat range, and only one feat that increases the multiplier (Triple Crit). Has anyone else seen anything else in these regards?




The Vaapad lightsaber form talent (see the Jedi Knight PrC) increases the threat range of a lightsaber to 19-20.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> Just so that you are aware, both D20 Modern and SW Saga both follow the model where feats that are restricted to one class do not exist.



I know. Notice that I didn't say they should be exclusive to fighters, but on the fighter bonus feat list. This way, fighters will attain weapon mastery faster than other classes.   

Quite nifty, in my own not so humble opinion.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I know. Notice that I didn't say they should be exclusive to fighters, but on the fighter bonus feat list. This way, fighters will attain weapon mastery faster than other classes.
> 
> Quite nifty, in my own not so humble opinion.




I think anything that requires weapon specialization will be made part of the weapon mastery talent tree. Just an FYI...

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

drothgery said:
			
		

> The Vaapad lightsaber form talent (see the Jedi Knight PrC) increases the threat range of a lightsaber to 19-20.




Thanks, Drothgery. Any others out there?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## FreeXenon

I have read quickly over this thread and I really, really like what it being done here.

I have one thought about classes and I do not know if this has been suggested yet, so please forgive me if it has. 

*Class Modeling*
The classes may want to be Warrior, Noble, Scout, and Scoundrel. 

There is no real need for Jedi or individual classes for Cleric, Wizard, or Psionicist.

Cleric, Wizard, or Psionicist could be modeled as different 'Force Use' type feats that have different Flavors. Feats called Arcane Use, Divine Use, or Psionic Use that have feats and talent trees that model their appropriate powers and abilities with the appropriate prerequisites. The same base mechanic for spells and powers is used, it is just the flavor of the source of the derived power that is different. 

A normal Wizard or Cleric could be modeled with a Noble with the appropriate Use feats:
a Paladin with Warrior and Noble classes as well as the Divine Use feat and perhaps a specialized Divine Tradition for his specific Order; a Beguiler with the Scoundrel and possibly Noble class with the Arcane Use feat. A Eldritch Knight with Warrior class and the Arcane Use Feat; and so on.

Just a thought.


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> I think anything that requires weapon specialization will be made part of the weapon mastery talent tree. Just an FYI...



I have a Weapon Mastery tree I wrote up for a Postmodern product that could be a starting point. I think we can use some of what Baron Opal's done, but we should be careful about the have talents that increase the multiplier of a critical hit-- since we won't be using the simplified Crit ranges from Saga, this would open the door to x4 modifiers for some weapons, which should be a higher level ability at least.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I have a Weapon Mastery tree I wrote up for a Postmodern product that could be a starting point. I think we can use some of what Baron Opal's done, but we should be careful about the have talents that increase the multiplier of a critical hit-- since we won't be using the simplified Crit ranges from Saga, this would open the door to x4 modifiers for some weapons, which should be a higher level ability at least.




I still think there's something to be said for trimming down the weapon list and getting rid of the extreme weapon types (at least a max of threat range 19-20, or multiplier x3, if not all the way back to 20/x2). I'm waiting on feedback from people on the list as to which way things should go.

There's also a Weapon Mastery talent tree in Grim Tales that works well in actual usage. Chances are, though, they look pretty similar. 

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

FreeXenon said:
			
		

> I have read quickly over this thread and I really, really like what it being done here.
> 
> I have one thought about classes and I do not know if this has been suggested yet, so please forgive me if it has.



The idea of a Force-like magic system has come up, and continues to be suggested-- the Star Wars designers really got it right this time-- but overall this idea is one Flynn and I have rejected. All the ideas seem to involve using a lot of non-algorithmic, non-OGC cognate elements from Saga, and for legal reasons we want to avoid that kind of outright adaptation. Also, the Force rules are designed to simulate the semi-psionic mystical tradition of an intergalactic knighthood in a space opera setting, which is not necessarily appropriate for the archetypal fantasy Wizard.

I see the merits of the class structure you propose-- and there will be some means for non-spellcasting classes to use magic anyhow-- but we have our 4 basic classes essentially selected-- Warrior, Expert, Mage, and Priest. 

I have often wondered at the idea that spells should not be tied to class, but combat ability and skills should. So, for example, characters with low BAB's need to multiclass to be better warriors. People are fine with a whole class based around social interaction (the Noble), but many seem to think there should not be a class dedicated to magic use. 

This does not make sense to me. Shouldn't learning to alter the world around you with an act of will require more of a lifestyle change, and take up more time and attention, than learning to swing a sword better or picking up better social skills?

Don't get me wrong, I am dedicated to the idea of non-class routes to magic use. But as far I'm concerned, if you are going to bother to have classes in a system, at least one should be dedicated to spellcasting, especially if you have ones devoted to combat or skills.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

So my magic system suggestion is totally off?  :\ 

Are you going to use something like your Fantastic Classes Vancian spellcasting talents?

Edit: That is - I knew you were going Vancian. I just thought there would be some remnant of Saga left....


----------



## EditorBFG

Sorcica said:
			
		

> So my magic system suggestion is totally off?  :\
> 
> Are you going to use something like your Fantastic Classes Vancian spellcasting talents?
> 
> Edit: That is - I knew you were going Vancian. I just thought there would be some remnant of Saga left....



In an email I just wrote Flynn, I noted that the big lesson we can take from Saga is that, for spells and spell-like abilities, uses per encounter are what matters, not the current D&D paradigm of uses per day/game session. So, to my mind, that is the most important thing we can take from Saga.

I think the system you wrote up would work great, and it takes what Saga does well and applies it to D&D spells. However, I do not think the idea of a Force suite of per encounter abilities is a concept we can lift from Saga without any notion of having referenced copyrighted material.

I know this issue was beaten to death with a rock in earlier posts, but we have to write this game as if Saga had never been published, based on existing Open Content or new material. However, Saga uses so many concepts that have analogs in the body of published OGC that it is easily adaptable. And per the OSRIC model, things that are algorithmic or simple math are too simple for anyone to own them.

But despite earlier comments in this thread, things have advanced farther than I think we originally planned. The magic system will be essentially new, though drawing heavily upon non-SRD Open Content. In fact, I think I can safely say Flynn and I have both rejected "Vancian" magic.

Here are some things I know right now: This system will not involve spell slots. It will not resemble the spellcasting talents from Fantastic Classes at all. It will only peripherally involve Action Points. It will not require preparation, nor ticking off of spells per day. It will be skill-based, and in some ways _more_ versatile than Saga. So I don't think the term Vancian still applies.

So I would not say your magic system is totally off. In fact, in some ways we have taken the ideas behind it further.

(Besides, you also just made perfect house rules for anyone who wants to use Saga style powers with fantasy.)


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> I still think there's something to be said for trimming down the weapon list and getting rid of the extreme weapon types (at least a max of threat range 19-20, or multiplier x3, if not all the way back to 20/x2). I'm waiting on feedback from people on the list as to which way things should go.



If we could do what Saga does and have weapons do up to 6d6 damage, I might be more in favor of it. As it is, while I do think there is fat to be cut from the SRD weapon list (do we really need a glaive and a guisarme?), I still want a variety of weapons for PCs to use. I have yet to see any arguments presented that address the points I made in Post #170, above. Things are still evolving, but my opinion is still that the D&D rapier works fine as is.







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> There's also a Weapon Mastery talent tree in Grim Tales that works well in actual usage. Chances are, though, they look pretty similar.



As I recall, yes. Grim Tales is open on my desk at home, so I'll look at it after work.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> But despite earlier comments in this thread, things have advanced farther than I think we originally planned. The magic system will be essentially new, though drawing heavily upon non-SRD Open Content. In fact, I think I can safely say Flynn and I have both rejected "Vancian" magic.
> 
> Here are some things I know right now: This system will not involve spell slots. It will not resemble the spellcasting talents from Fantastic Classes at all. It will only peripherally involve Action Points. It will not require preparation, nor ticking off of spells per day. It will be skill-based, and in some ways _more_ versatile than Saga. So I don't think the term Vancian still applies.




I use the term Vancian to refer to the fact that spells are discreet, and define a limited and relatively pre-determined effect. This is not effects-based magic; you can still use spells from other sources (OGC or not, whatever works at your table). Because it uses spells, I would call it Vancian.

However, what we are working up is similar in concept to Legends of Sorcery, and so you do not have to keep track of spell slots and the like, just the spells you know/have access to, and a Magic skill (unique to each type of magic) that must achieve a DC calculated using the spell's level. At least, that's how it looks right now.

In some ways, it is similar mechanically to the Use the Force rules, so there is definitely a similar feel to that of Saga.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

*Spells per Day*

Sounds like we've moved away from *D&D*-style spell memorization.  If we haven't then the Mage (or Priest) class might contain two spellcaster tracks.  One that roughly maps to Sorcerer (innate spells) and another for Wizard (spellbooks).

Whatever feat or talent you take to open up one of the two magic traditions (innate versus spellbooks) would say: "For each additional level you take in this class, you may choose to assign that level to one instance of this talent."

While the wording could use some work, the concept is that if you take both the talent for Sorcerer and the talent for Wizard you could have both types of spells.  However, a 10th level Mage that was a Sorcerer/Wizard would have to divide up his Mage levels between the two spellcasting talents.  So he could be a Sorcerer 1/Wizard 9 or Sorcerer 5/Wizard 5.


----------



## Baron Opal

Re: Weapons

I would have no problems cutting the number of weapons to a "mere" 20 or so rather than the three pages of weapons currently available. I don't see the utility in having saex, kukri and gladius listings; a shortsword listing is sufficent for my needs. Having weapon mastery feat trees ties to a particular weapon type (axes, maces, swords, spears, polearms, &c.) would allow someone to "specialize" in a particular weapon but still have some flexibility. I like being "married to a weapon type". Must be my RuneQuest gaming shining through.

Iron Heroes is a great resource for customizing weapon styles and ancillary talents. There are tactician feats that pretty nifty. They are a bit too complicated for our scheme, but I think that they would be exceptional for mining. And, most of the mechanics and the whole feat chapter is open under the OGL.

Re: Resource Allocation

One thing that I want to point out is that there are several levels of resource management in SWSE. These include per encounter, per day, and per level (adventure?). I like the differing levels of management. I like that there are still per day resources and you can't go full steam for every encounter. I do not want the entire resource system to be solely encounter based.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Definitely trim the weapon list down. I was always impressed with the WoW weapon categories - it's a good place to start. I actually think that making all weapons 20/x2 and then using talents to modify those statistics could be a very streamlined way to do things. You would choose a weapon based on its size (very light dagger, light shortsword, one-handed longsword, two-handed greatsword) and damage type (piercing, slashing, bashing). Remove the Bastard Sword and equivalents - it typically takes a feat to wield it one-handed, which essentially gives you +1 damage, which could be done better with weapon specialisation. The 'name' of your weapon is just flavour, so if you want to use a khopesh, it's just a 1H sword, or a sledgehammer, a 2H hammer/mace.

Suggested categories, if it helps: Axes, Swords, Hammers/Maces, Spears, Polearms. Also, Bows, Crossbows, Slings/Thrown weapons. Finally, make everyone proficient with the club, staff and dagger.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about your magic system too!


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

BFGEditor, Flynn

How about playtesting? I volunteer!


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica,

We have not yet discussed playtesting as yet, but when we do, I'll keep you in mind. One of the things we're really going to look for from playtesters is, of course, feedback. You've shown you can give feedback on the boards, but I urge you and other interested parties to remain active in these discussions, as it lets us know who is likely to give us analytical and constructive feedback.

I don't mind posts that disagree with me, but I definitely want constructive feedback in this matter. It's easy for someone to say "I don't like this" or "This sucks" or "This is great" without supporting their statements. I can't make it better without feedback on what specifically someone feels is wrong, and why they feel that way (and possible even better, what could be done to fix it).

Thanks for broaching this topic,
Flynn


----------



## FreeXenon

Weapons as Special Effects may cover what you are thinking.

I am in for Play Testing as well.


----------



## Flynn

Regarding weapons, I personally would like to use weapon groups such as those mentioned in Unearthed Arcana. I've been using them for several years now, and the players like them a lot. Some of the feedback here seems to indicate that others feel the same way.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm

Saga uses more general weapon groups, if I recall correctly: Advanced melee, Heavy weapons, Lightsabers, Pistols, Rifles, Simple (or something like that).

Of course, classic D20 is: Simple, Martial (only for classes, otherwise you buy each one separately), and that's it for weapon groups. Exotics are per weapon, and when you use feats to buy Martial, it's per weapon as well.

What do you guys think? What would you like to see, and why?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

I'm fine with weapon groups, especially if they are kept as broad as SWSE. UA is also okay, but could lead to the married to a weapon type that I personally is not that keen on. If you decide on UA weapon groups, you should tale a look at proficiencies in Spycraft. I like those (basically, they increase as a level benefit a la feats). The upcoming _Pratice Makes Perfect_ for Spycraft lets characters spend proficiencies to learn tricks, sort of like Complete Scoundrel. Might be interesting for this project.


Your magic system: I think you should make it so that the spellcasting check to beat a spells DC also is used to overcome Reflex, Fort or Will - otherwise you will have two rolls, which is less elegant.


Flynn: I'm still up for the feedback. Just seems like everything I propose is in a direction opposite you and BFG


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Your magic system: I think you should make it so that the spellcasting check to beat a spells DC also is used to overcome Reflex, Fort or Will - otherwise you will have two rolls, which is less elegant.




Agreed. That's the way we've currently been discussing it, as it is more streamlined and follows the Fantasy Sage concept in spirit.

Hope this helps,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Flynn: I'm still up for the feedback. Just seems like everything I propose is in a direction opposite you and BFG




The second paragraph in that playtesting response was more of a general statement for all interested in being involved later on. I know it seems like we disagree on a lot, but I think that's only because we have different foundational philosophies on what we want out of this project. You present yourself well, and offer constructive feedback. i.e. You are definitely more than a simple "I don't like it" poster. You give suggestions and examples and offer input. That's the kind of thing we need, and it is appreciated very much.

Please Keep It Up,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> Regarding weapons, I personally would like to use weapon groups such as those mentioned in Unearthed Arcana. I've been using them for several years now, and the players like them a lot. Some of the feedback here seems to indicate that others feel the same way.
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm
> 
> Saga uses more general weapon groups, if I recall correctly: Advanced melee, Heavy weapons, Lightsabers, Pistols, Rifles, Simple (or something like that).
> 
> Of course, classic D20 is: Simple, Martial (only for classes, otherwise you buy each one separately), and that's it for weapon groups. Exotics are per weapon, and when you use feats to buy Martial, it's per weapon as well.
> 
> What do you guys think? What would you like to see, and why?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




I'd think more general weapon groups than UA, though possibly less general than Saga, if only because there are more general types of widely used weapons; in Star Wars, if it's not a vibro weapon, rifle, pistol, heavy weapon, or lightsaber it's either primitive or really weird.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Definitely use weapon groups, just try to have them make sense. Case in point: I don't think spears are like lances, nor picks like hammers. Keep It Simple Stupid and all that come to mind!


----------



## The_Gneech

Flynn said:
			
		

> If you take the number of views for this thread, and divide by the number of posts, you get just over 14. While not a true representation, it does indicate that at least 14 people are reading this thread.
> 
> With that in mind, I'd like to hear from some of you guys that haven't posted yet, just to make sure we're not catering Fantasy Concepts to the most vocal parties. That's one of the reasons I ask for thoughts and input, so that I can see what people think and desire in a finished product of this nature. So please feel free to speak out, so your voice can be heard.




Not knowing this thread was here, I started one of my own on basically the same topic earlier today, with my thoughts on the matter. My project isn't for publication, just my own use, but you might glean some interesting ideas out of it. I'll be very interested to see how your project works out!

-The Gneech


----------



## Dalamar

When I was working up a simple "Use Saga for fantasy" plug for myself, I though about using groups of Simple, Finesse, Heavy, Crossbows, Bows and Thrown, possibly adding something between Finesse and Heavy (plus of course the Exotic category). My biggest problem was that either Soldiers wouldn't have access to all the weapons that a DnD Fighter does, or I would have to give them significantly more proficiencies than they have in normal Saga. More recently I've been thinking that I could give the Soldier (and only the Soldier) a choice in which groups they would want. 
Also, here I would like to urge the developers to not make too straight conversions. The dagger doesn't have to be a Simple weapon, that "slot" can be filled by a simple knife. The dagger could be a Finesse weapon, or even a Thrown weapon if you want to throw it. 

As to simplifying to 20/x2, I think it is not strictly necessary, but cutting down the variables would be good. So a Rapier is 19-20/x2 and a scythe is 20/x3 as the extreme cases, and your standard longsword is just 20/x2. Coupled with increased base damage to "keep up" with Saga damages, it should create enough variability to offer adequate choices. You could even make "rules" such as swords dealing three dice of damage while axes deal two, or what not. Set your top end melee weapons around the 3d6/2d10 range, perhaps a bit lower to account for likely Strength modifiers to damage, as that is about where average damage is around a starting character's Damage Threshold.
I agree with Nightwing on removing the "bastard swords". They're really an unnecessary step as hand-and-a-half weapons that muddy up the weapon sizes without any real gain. I'd much rather have a Monkey Grip type ability to replace the effect instead.


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Definitely trim the weapon list down.



Why? Can I ask what the advantage is to having fewer choices? Streamlining is part of the point of this, but I want to do it in such a way that it increases options for PCs rather than removing them. I feel that a fantasy setting requires a much larger selection of weapons than vibroweapon, lightsaber, and various types of blasters, and the existing weapon list provides that. Why would we do otherwise?

I am not saying it is wrong to have the opinion that we need to have fewer weapons, but can someone please indicate _why_ it would be better?

The only option for streamlining the weapons that makes sense to me is the customizable weapon rules from Grim Tales, in which you can stat any weapon you want.

_Regarding Weapon Groups:_ I do understand the impetus behind this rule, but I like that a fighter can use just about everything, purely by virtue of being a fighter. This is what the characters in fantasy literature are like. Conan doesn't say "A polearm? I can't use this!"-- he grabs it and slaughters the entire cult. If Weapon Groups are the way we go, there has to be a rule so fighters can still use everything.

I don't think Simple/Martial/Exotic is great, but what is good is that the Martial Category includes so many weapons for a Fighter to be good with.

If Weapon Group proficiency feats replace single Weapon Proficiency feats, I am all for it. It makes PCs more capable. But if a Fighter is actually able to use fewer weapons because we alter the categories, then I vigorously object to using this rule.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> _Regarding Weapon Groups:_ I do understand the impetus behind this rule, but I like that a fighter can use just about everything, purely by virtue of being a fighter. This is what the characters in fantasy literature are like. Conan doesn't say "A polearm? I can't use this!"-- he grabs it and slaughters the entire cult. If Weapon Groups are the way we go, there has to be a rule so fighters can still use everything.
> 
> I don't think Simple/Martial/Exotic is great, but what is good is that the Martial Category includes so many weapons for a Fighter to be good with.
> 
> If Weapon Group proficiency feats replace single Weapon Proficiency feats, I am all for it. It makes PCs more capable. But if a Fighter is actually able to use fewer weapons because we alter the categories, then I vigorously object to using this rule.




How many weapons does the usual fighter character actually use? If they get to choose four weapon groups, would that cover all of the stuff that particular character concept would use? In my experience, it does. I haven't had anyone playing a fighter type ever complain about not having enough weapon group feats to cover the stuff they carry around and use in-game. Often, they only use two weapons or combinations anyway: one for melee and one for ranged. Having fought in soft weapon fantasy combat societies for 15 years, I find that weapon groups work well for reflecting what warriors carry out into the field and how they build their weapon skills. I've never seen a warrior effectively carry and use weapons from more than four weapon groups in any particular battle, and I figure watching people do this for years on end should be a good indication of what the average character would likely do in such an environment.

Just something to consider,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Why? Can I ask what the advantage is to having fewer choices? Streamlining is part of the point of this, but I want to do it in such a way that it increases options for PCs rather than removing them. I feel that a fantasy setting requires a much larger selection of weapons than vibroweapon, lightsaber, and various types of blasters, and the existing weapon list provides that. Why would we do otherwise?
> 
> I am not saying it is wrong to have the opinion that we need to have fewer weapons, but can someone please indicate _why_ it would be better?




Most people that support this approach seek to minimize the randomness of weapons, and remove some of the excesses that have been introduced into the system under the guise of 'diversity.' Some don't feel that allowing a rapier with a threat range of 18-20 is mandatory to playing a swashbuckler character, nor does the scythe need a x4 multiplier in order for someone to portray a cleric of the Grim Reaper.

I support streamlining the weapons because of the numbers, reducing the randomness and excesses. I can understand the concept of roleplaying over roll-playing. I don't feel that reducing weapon selections somewhat will limit options, because there will be a few new weapons added as well.

BTW, if you check out the Grim Tales standard weapon list, it's streamlined, and the selections are good. Some of them are even new weapon concepts.

Just something to think about,
Flynn


----------



## Dalamar

I am not so much a proponent of decreasing the number of different weapons as I am a proponent of decreasing the number of different base combinations of critical ranges/multipliers. 
As I see it, the better criticals in standard DnD are there so that Martial weapons are mechanically better than Simple weapons while still keeping the base damage of the best weapons low so that even a poor damage roll doesn't kill a low-level character. So, as I am pushing for both triple starting HP and increased base damage for weapons, I don't think the first increase in crit values is necessary as the "better than Simple" value can be reached with base damage instead. 
As a side note, I don't believe it is so much the increased threat range of a rapier that makes it the choice for swashbucklers, but the fact that it is a one-handed finesseable weapon. 

Regarding Weapon Groups, one of the reasons I am advocating for them is to be able to keep the Saga multiclassing rules (just one starting feat from classes after 1st, the rest become bonus feats). 
Another reason is that it allows reclassification of some weapons, such as making shuriken part of the Thrown weapons group and thus making being proficient in them a more valid choice for more characters, which should results in more characters using them. As it is, the dagger is pretty much the only weapon I've seen chosen as a thrown weapon because it is practically the only option (well, daggers and two-handed melee weapons with the Throwing enhancement).


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

In my experience, with the current weapon list, typically a character will choose one weapon and stick with it, because of feat investment and such. Additionally, the range of weapons used by the entire party is limited. Polearms are unpopular because damage-wise, they're worse, and mechanically the bonuses they grant are related to combat moves that slow things down. This is why I think the major types of weapon all need to be brought to the same level, so that it becomes less of a straight mechanical choice and more a flavour thing. That's not to say that some weapons can't still have interesting features, such as threat range or critical multiplier or double damage against a charge.

Streamlining would be better for new players not to have to wade through a list of difficult to understand weapon details. Weapon groups would make feat choices less rigid. Broad weapon groups (don't differentiate between big or small swords for instance) mean you have to dish out less proficiencies to get equivalent 3.5 fighters. Narrower groups make feat choices a bit more critical, and make a little more sense (one or two hands drastically changes how you use a weapon). Your Conan example was nice - he probably doesn't know how to use every weapon, but he's so damned good the -5 to hit doesn't bother him. Or perhaps he has a feat to reduce that (improvised weaponry, ignore non-proficiency penalties but can't use weapon feats, hence not a long term option).

On a related matter, it would be nice to see talents/feats related to fighting style. I remember the old combat and tactics rules were a bit broken, but when fitted into Baldur's Gate II they were great. One weapon, two weapons, two-handed weapon, sword and shield, they each have their own nuances. Sadly I think the duelist style one weapon and the sword and shield have been a bit neglected in 3.5.


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> Most people that support this approach seek to minimize the randomness of weapons



By randomness, do you mean the die rolls for damage? Or do you mean that the stats for weapons seem to have been assigned randomly, as in arbitrarily? I don't understand. 







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> and remove some of the excesses that have been introduced into the system under the guise of 'diversity.' Some don't feel that allowing a rapier with a threat range of 18-20 is mandatory to playing a swashbuckler character, nor does the scythe need a x4 multiplier in order for someone to portray a cleric of the Grim Reaper.



Maybe they are not needed-- heck, you could run the game with every weapon doing a d6 and not even use crits-- but what is wrong with an 18-20 crit range or a x4 multiplier? Do they affect the game negatively in some way?







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> I support streamlining the weapons because of the numbers, reducing the randomness and excesses. I can understand the concept of roleplaying over roll-playing.



I don't quite follow this part. 


			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> I don't feel that reducing weapon selections somewhat will limit options, because there will be a few new weapons added as well.



What new weapons would you like to add?







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> BTW, if you check out the Grim Tales standard weapon list, it's streamlined, and the selections are good. Some of them are even new weapon concepts.



Would you be adverse to using the Grim Tales weapon generation rules as a base, then including the Grim Tales example list AND the rules for creating your own weapons? Because then I feel we put the choices for the settings weapons more directly in the hands of the GM, which is good. I would be open to having fewer weapons if we included rules for creating more.







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Having fought in soft weapon fantasy combat societies for 15 years, I find that weapon groups work well for reflecting what warriors carry out into the field and how they build their weapon skills. I've never seen a warrior effectively carry and use weapons from more than four weapon groups in any particular battle, and I figure watching people do this for years on end should be a good indication of what the average character would likely do in such an environment.



Is increased realism a goal of this project? Because if so, Saga is a bad starting point for that, I think.   Not to dismiss your argument on that grounds, but the philosophy behind Saga was clearly making the game more cinematic rather than more realistic.

What seems strange to me is, that those of us who are arguing for Weapon Groups seem want to use them _in place _of the current (simple, martial, exotic) categories, when in fact they are not designed to be mutually exclusive. Per _Unearthed Arcana_: 







			
				The Hypertext SRD (d20srd.com) said:
			
		

> While the Weapon Group proficiency feats *work well in conjunction with the standard classes' starting armor and weapon proficiencies**, you might want to substitute a number of these feats for each class's starting weapon proficiencies.
> 
> *[Emphasis mine]



It seems to me like there is no reason to eliminate the old categories when we adopt Weapon Groups, and in fact in some ways that is counter to the authors' original intent. Why take one new variant system designed to increase PC capabilities, and implement them in a way that decreases PC capabilities? This makes no sense to me.


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> In my experience, with the current weapon list, typically a character will choose one weapon and stick with it, because of feat investment and such. Additionally, the range of weapons used by the entire party is limited. Polearms are unpopular because damage-wise, they're worse, and mechanically the bonuses they grant are related to combat moves that slow things down. This is why I think the major types of weapon all need to be brought to the same level, so that it becomes less of a straight mechanical choice and more a flavour thing (...) Streamlining would be better for new players not to have to wade through a list of difficult to understand weapon details.



While I am not yet 100% won over, you raise some very valid points. Part of the problem with all the mechanical variation is that some weapons never get used. Fair enough.







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Weapon groups would make feat choices less rigid. Broad weapon groups (don't differentiate between big or small swords for instance) mean you have to dish out less proficiencies to get equivalent 3.5 fighters. Narrower groups make feat choices a bit more critical, and make a little more sense (one or two hands drastically changes how you use a weapon).



I would prefer broad groups. Either way, I want to make it clear that in many ways I support Weapon Groups, for the reasons you and I others describe. _But,_ I do not understand why a Longspear and a Lance can't both belong to the same Weapon Group unless Longspears stop being Simple and Lances stop being Martial; the Weapon Group system is designed to retain the Simple/Martial/Exotic categories, and eliminating them needlessly has no upshot in my mind, unless fighters who can use fewer weapons is somehow a positive. Do we need to eliminate other categories to have weapon groups? Do weapons need to stop being bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing as well, or stop having sizes?







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Your Conan example was nice - he probably doesn't know how to use every weapon, but he's so damned good the -5 to hit doesn't bother him. Or perhaps he has a feat to reduce that (improvised weaponry, ignore non-proficiency penalties but can't use weapon feats, hence not a long term option).



Why not just let PCs do so without a feat or a penalty? It seems to me one of the main points of Saga is letting the PCs be capable of more by default, and this would be in line with that design philosophy.







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> On a related matter, it would be nice to see talents/feats related to fighting style. I remember the old combat and tactics rules were a bit broken, but when fitted into Baldur's Gate II they were great. One weapon, two weapons, two-handed weapon, sword and shield, they each have their own nuances. Sadly I think the duelist style one weapon and the sword and shield have been a bit neglected in 3.5.



I agree. In fact, I did some Weapon Style talents in _POSTMODERN: Talent Tree Compendium_, and included adapted versions of several _Iron Heroes _weapon style feats in _POSTMODERN: Iconic Combat Feats_, and I would love to take them even further.


----------



## EvilDwarf

*Dark Lore Primer*

I'm coming in late to this very important, very interesting thread, but has anyone mentioned or is anyone aware of the Dark Lore Campaign Primer published by Malladin's Gate Press?  It follows the six attribute-based class model, and has talent trees for each of these classes in a fantasy setting.  Several of the chapters on race, class, skills, and feats/talents are designated OGL.  A lot of the discussion in this thread sounds like what Malladin has already done for the most part.  It would be easy enough to convert the attribute-based classes into fighter (and ranger and barbarian), priest, rogue, wizard, and even sorcerer.  

Just FYI.


----------



## Mokona

*Weapon Equipment*



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Part of the problem with all the mechanical variation is that some weapons never get used. Fair enough.I would prefer broad groups. Either way, I want to make it clear that in many ways I support Weapon Groups, for the reasons you and I others describe.



I approach this project with two goals.  Do you all agree?

1.  We should make a few changes as necessary to accomplish Fantasy.  As few changes to *Dungeons & Dragons* v.3.5 and as few changes as we can to _Saga_.

2.  We should remain compatible with as much *D&D* related material as possible.  By such a statement I meant to include *d20* (and some OGL) material.

Therefore I present my theory on weapons.  _Saga_ has six weapon proficiencies (advanced melee weapons, heavy weapons, lightsabers, pistols, rifles, and simple weapons) plus the open-ended Exotic category.  _Unearthe Arcana_ (*Wizards of the Coast*, pg. 94-97) presents fifteen (15) weapon groups plus two meta-groups (Exotic and Exotic Double Weapons).

In _Star Wars_ everyone starts with simple weapons and pistols (except the Jedi who replaces pistols with lightsabers proficiency).  The scout and warrior classes add rifles (total 3 weapon proficiencies).  Other than weapon proficiencies every class gets one (1) bonus predetermined feat, though some have to meet requirements to qualify.  In addition to all that the warrior gets an additional bonus feat: Armor Proficiency (medium).

Warriors in _Saga_ are not proficient with all weapon categories (they start with neither advanced melee nor heavy weapons and it probably goes without saying that they don't have lightsabers proficiency).  Fighters under the _Unearthed Arcana_ system receive five (5) starting weapon group feats while Clerics get three (3), Rogues get three (3), and Wizards get one.  Remember there are fifteen weapons groups to choose from.

I would not redesign or reduce the number of weapons in any way; I don't see why we would want to invalidate all those sourcebooks out there (which contain weapons).  I would, however, reduce the number of feats needed to become proficient in most or all of those weapons.  Given the multiclass rules in _Saga_ I would use steal the weapon group feat concept from _Unearthed Arcana_ but reduce the number of groups (and reassign weapons to more sensible groups) to six plus leaving Exotic and Exotic Double Weapons as they stand (the 7th and 8th group).

Depending on how the groups are defined, Fighter should be able to choose their own groups at first level (but not be allowed to choose either Exotic group).  Fighters could take the Exotic groups with the 2nd+ level bonus feat, the human bonus feat, or the 1st level feat that all characters receive.  I'd give Fighters and Clerics three starting weapons while Rogues and Wizards got two starting weapons (every character should have a melee group and a ragned attack group).

I'd use the simplest method to power up weapons in order to get above Damage Thresholds.  All dice of damage (manufactured or natural) for weapons are doubled.  Short swords do 2d6, Longswords do 2d8, Greatswords do 2d12, and converting _Monster Manual_ monsters is easy (Hill Giants do greatclub 4d8+10 or rock 4d6+7).

PS: I know that greatswords start with 2d6 damage but I think it's too good and it isn't elegant because all other sword/axe comparisons use the same damage die but different critical hit stats except Greatsword (2d6) versus Greataxe (1d12).


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> How many weapons does the usual fighter character actually use? If they get to choose four weapon groups, would that cover all of the stuff that particular character concept would use? In my experience, it does. I haven't had anyone playing a fighter type ever complain about not having enough weapon group feats to cover the stuff they carry around and use in-game. Often, they only use two weapons or combinations anyway: one for melee and one for ranged. Having fought in soft weapon fantasy combat societies for 15 years, I find that weapon groups work well for reflecting what warriors carry out into the field and how they build their weapon skills. I've never seen a warrior effectively carry and use weapons from more than four weapon groups in any particular battle, and I figure watching people do this for years on end should be a good indication of what the average character would likely do in such an environment.



That's because in both D&D 3e and a lot of other systems you are required to make investments in a certain weapon type, ergo you only use that weapon. It doesn't matter that you are able to use all weapons - the second you have spent a feat/profiencicy slot/skill point etc., you use that weapon exclusively. One melee, one ranged. That's what I call married to a weapon type. That's why on the Rolemaster boards over at ICE suggested that there was a 'melee skill' and a 'missile skill'. All that socalled diversity with having to develop each weapon type and blah blah is moot. Once invested in, you go with it. For the entire campaign.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I allow weapon focus to apply to 'melee weapons', exoctic weapons to light melee, heavy melee (a la AU/AE) and so on. To diverse weapon use.
Also, I suggested that Baron Opal's idea be more generic and applicable to any weapon at hand. This for the same reasons as above.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

EvilDwarf said:
			
		

> I'm coming in late to this very important, very interesting thread, but has anyone mentioned or is anyone aware of the Dark Lore Campaign Primer published by Malladin's Gate Press?  It follows the six attribute-based class model, and has talent trees for each of these classes in a fantasy setting.  Several of the chapters on race, class, skills, and feats/talents are designated OGL.  A lot of the discussion in this thread sounds like what Malladin has already done for the most part.  It would be easy enough to convert the attribute-based classes into fighter (and ranger and barbarian), priest, rogue, wizard, and even sorcerer.
> 
> Just FYI.



I forgot about that one! Since i'm bored at work, I think I will have to call my wife and get her to mail it to me (at work   )


----------



## Baron Opal

Sorcica said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter that you are able to use all weapons - the second you have spent a feat/profiencicy slot/skill point etc., you use that weapon exclusively. One melee, one ranged. That's what I call married to a weapon type.




I see that as a feature, not a bug. It bugs me that a fighter who has been using a sword for thirteen levels gets captured, breaks out, steals the jailer's axe and is just as good with that axe as he is with the sword. He never picked up an axe before during his adventuring life, but he weilds this one with just as much skill.

I like sub-systems that delve into the aspects of specialization of weapon styles. Having access to special capabilites through secret manouvers or exploiting a weapon's special geometry (axe - cutting power, spear - long reach, &c.) is really cool to me.

These can be advanced, such as the Jedi special lightsaber training, but I do like them to be available.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I see that as a feature, not a bug. It bugs me that a fighter who has been using a sword for thirteen levels gets captured, breaks out, steals the jailer's axe and is just as good with that axe as he is with the sword. He never picked up an axe before during his adventuring life, but he weilds this one with just as much skill.



That's because he's a badass fighter    The argument you use is similar to the Rolemaster people. That's is not realistic. It's a very valid point. But it leads to the situation I described in my previous post.



			
				Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I like sub-systems that delve into the aspects of specialization of weapon styles. Having access to special capabilites through secret manouvers or exploiting a weapon's special geometry (axe - cutting power, spear - long reach, &c.) is really cool to me.
> 
> These can be advanced, such as the Jedi special lightsaber training, but I do like them to be available.



Now, I like this approach as well. Would prefer it to be broadly applicable. But I like it. As an example of cool abilities tied to a weapon type, that somehow to me doesn't feel 'married to a weapon type' one could look at Razor Fiend from Iron Heroes.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> By randomness, do you mean the die rolls for damage? Or do you mean that the stats for weapons seem to have been assigned randomly, as in arbitrarily? I don't understand.




I mean that the effects of the die rolls, the resulting damage is too random and disparate. Read the sidebar in the DMG on decreasing randomness in combat based on weapon crit ranges and multipliers. The logic is covered there.



			
				The Hypertext SRD (d20srd.com) said:
			
		

> While the Weapon Group proficiency feats work well in conjunction with the standard classes' starting armor and weapon proficiencies, you might want to *substitute a number of these feats for each class's starting weapon proficiencies**.
> 
> *[Emphasis mine]




If you've used them before, you might realize that the Simple and Martial distinctions no longer matter in a game with Weapon Groups. They don't work and play well together, despite that single part of the quote you emphasized in your post. Read further in the section you  are quoting in regards to creating new weapon groups, and for their use in weapon-based feats.

I'll admit that I like Weapon Groups a lot, but I won't mix the two. It's gonna be one or the other, and if you don't want to use Weapon Groups, then we'll stick with the core. That's my opinion.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> That's because in both D&D 3e and a lot of other systems you are required to make investments in a certain weapon type, ergo you only use that weapon. It doesn't matter that you are able to use all weapons - the second you have spent a feat/profiencicy slot/skill point etc., you use that weapon exclusively. One melee, one ranged. That's what I call married to a weapon type.




Hmmm.... the reason I like weapon groups is because of my previous experience in soft weapon fantasy combat societies. I find they reflect the ability to use weapons better than the single weapon selection process or the Simple/Martial/Exotic sytem does. I like that weapon-based feats apply to the range of weapons covered by a weapon group, instead of a single weapon. I've been using them for three years in D20, and a lot longer in Traveller, and they work conceptually for me.

However, I think the point is going to be mute. My partner in crime, BFGEditor, is married to the core Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon concepts of the game, and given our arrangement, as that is closer to the core that we are working from (an OGL Fantasy Saga project), it is the direction we will likely go.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Mokona said:
			
		

> I'd use the simplest method to power up weapons in order to get above Damage Thresholds.  All dice of damage (manufactured or natural) for weapons are doubled.  Short swords do 2d6, Longswords do 2d8, Greatswords do 2d12, and converting _Monster Manual_ monsters is easy (Hill Giants do greatclub 4d8+10 or rock 4d6+7).
> 
> PS: I know that greatswords start with 2d6 damage but I think it's too good and it isn't elegant because all other sword/axe comparisons use the same damage die but different critical hit stats except Greatsword (2d6) versus Greataxe (1d12).




In the end, if the weapons aren't streamlined, I will certainly be opposed to adding more dice to the mix and modifying the existing weapons to make them more damaging. The Saga weapons are easy: one die for normal weapons, two dices for vibration-based weapons, three dice for energy -based weapons. So adding dice to weapons goes against our base model.

In addition, it would require recalculating the damage bonuses to compensate for the loss of iterative attacks.

The heightened damage will eat through hitpoints that much more quickly, reducing the effective challenge of the monsters that the characters will face. (The monsters die quicker, so they don't give as much challenge.) This might require CR adjustments for monsters.

One of our goals is to limit the amount of adjustments that need to be made to monsters as much as possible, so that you can still use your existing monster manuals and the like. Heightening base weapon damage is an unnecessary step that increases the amount of adjustments that must be done.

For these reasons, I would prefer we did not adjust weapon damage.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## The_Gneech

The problem is, SAGA is built on the assumption that most people are using either lightsabers (2d8) or blasters (3d6), so the damage threshold is calculated for that benchmark. If you don't do something to compensate for that, the entire damage threshold mechanic goes out the window, at least until characters start carrying around +3 weapons.

-The Gneech


----------



## Flynn

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> The problem is, SAGA is built on the assumption that most people are using either lightsabers (2d8) or blasters (3d6), so the damage threshold is calculated for that benchmark. If you don't do something to compensate for that, the entire damage threshold mechanic goes out the window, at least until characters start carrying around +3 weapons.
> 
> -The Gneech




Have you looked at the numbers? There's a whole thread or two just here on ENWorld on removing iterative attacks, where the numbers are crunched pretty well using existing weapons. Trust me, the damage threshold mechanic is in no danger. It will still be useful.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Still being rather hampered by not having the Saga book:

Don't the defense scores in Saga raise somewhat beyond the applicable D&D cognates would normally be, rather rapidly? (And Damage Threshold is set to Fortitude Defense + applicable bonuses.)

The way I've been looking at it, Saga has taken some rolls and flipped them on what is essentially a Take 10 mechanic.  Instead of a Will Saving Throw of +5 you have a Will Defense of 15.  Instead of a DC 15 Will Save spell, you throw a +5 spell and roll a 1d20.  That seems to be the core of the Defense mechanic and related changes (and generally retains equilibrium on the law of averages, just puts activity in the hands of the currently-active-player and reduces the total number of rolls).

Then we have the Massive Damage Save mechanic.  This is in D&D and d20 Modern.  In D&D it is set to 50 and is a Save Vs. Death.  In d20Modern it is set to Con and is Save vs. Dying.  Since we have removed saves, we no longer get a Save vs. ----- after the number is hit.  If the Massive Damage Threshold (or just Damage Threshold) is breached you IMMEDIATELY get some effect.  In Saga's case, that is move a step down the condition track.  

I think we need to look some at "what does this do" in relation to level bonuses and the like.  Doesn't the level bonuses to Attack, Damage, and Defense remove/mitigate the need for equipment based bonuses ... bonuses in D&D that usually come as magic enhancement bonuses to attack, damage, and saving throws.  

OR:  Given all other things constant, if we merely switch the mechanic on its ear in D&D and remove any remaining saves ... aren't we essentially "there", plus some tweaking?

If, say, magical bonuses to these scores remain commensurate with those found in D&D AND there are level-based additions to damage, hit, and defense, characters are going to increase in power across the board while (if we want to keep d20 books and the like useful) monsters will not.  Characters will hit more, hit for more damage, and be harder to affect.  If the major mechanic is a Take 10 Flip, as it were, it would be essentially very easy to "convert" any monster in any book ... add ten to all of the saves (with any armor or natural armor bonuses adding in to Ref) and subtract ten from any special attacks.

On that same note I think the equipment-based-bonuses in D&D are where the differences in base damage dice get evened out.  In D&D you start getting bonuses on damage from +1 to +1d6 around 3rd level, and increase from there.  Most characters get some sort of damage-addition bonus to their weapons pretty quickly.

--fje


----------



## The_Gneech

Flynn said:
			
		

> Have you looked at the numbers? There's a whole thread or two just here on ENWorld on removing iterative attacks, where the numbers are crunched pretty well using existing weapons. Trust me, the damage threshold mechanic is in no danger. It will still be useful.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




Well, I've looked at the weapon stats ... I'd like to see the crunching you're referring to, tho. Do you happen to have links to the threads in question? (I don't seem to have access to the search function.)

EDIT: Nevermind. Google is your friend.

-TG


----------



## Flynn

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Well, I've looked at the weapon stats ... I'd like to see the crunching you're referring to, tho. Do you happen to have links to the threads in question? (I don't seem to have access to the search function.)
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind. Google is your friend.
> 
> -TG




Even better, a more detailed discussion can be found here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196052

Enjoy,
Flynn


----------



## The_Gneech

Flynn said:
			
		

> Even better, a more detailed discussion can be found here:
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196052
> 
> Enjoy,
> Flynn




I found that thread too, actually, but I'm not sure it really addresses the "weapon damage meets damage threshold" issue. Granted, once you get up a few levels, you're generally doing more damage with your 1/2 level bonus and multiattack feats (which generally add +dice in SAGA) -- but at low levels you still have the dichotomy of operating from a d8 damage baseline (average 4.5) instead of 2d8 (average 9) or 3d6 (average 10.5).

If you're running something fairly close to standard _D&D_, this is also mitigated by magic weapons (a _+1 flaming sword_ will get you back to the exact same average as a lightsaber with the additional boost of hitting more often), but you're still a bit down on the deal for the first few levels at least.

In my own case, I'm looking to convert SAGA for a sword-and-sorcery game, so there aren't gonna be many _+1 flaming swords_ around. _Conan d20_ dealt with this issue primarily by raising every weapon's die up a notch (so a broadsword does d10 for instance) and giving each weapon an armor piercing rating (since _Conan d20_ primarily assumes armor = DR).

Since I don't want to mess with armor piercing (anything that adds more figuring in combat kinda defeats the purpose of converting to SAGA), I may end up going with a suggestion I saw earlier of just doubling the dice for weapons. Not sure.

-The Gneech


----------



## EditorBFG

Well, if nothing else, I think the question of armor vs. damage thresholds drives home that a Rogue type character should get sneak attack at 1st level, as in D&D, as opposed to the Scoundrel who has to wait several levels.


----------



## Gentlegamer

As a suggestion, perhaps weapons could have an Accuracy stat to help differentiate them if the damage ranges are too close to each other. For example, a longsword could have a +1 or 2 to hit built in, representing how great such a weapon is for precise melee attacks in combat, while an axe might have greater base damage, but without any Accuracy bonus. I believe the LEJENDARY ADVENTURE game uses a stat like this.


----------



## Gentlegamer

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Well, if nothing else, I think the question of armor vs. damage thresholds drives home that a Rogue type character should get sneak attack at 1st level, as in D&D, as opposed to the Scoundrel who has to wait several levels.



Why?


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Well, if nothing else, I think the question of armor vs. damage thresholds drives home that a Rogue type character should get sneak attack at 1st level, as in D&D, as opposed to the Scoundrel who has to wait several levels.




BTW, Saga allows the Scoundrel to take Sneak Attack at first level. You might be thinking of Grim Tales, which makes Sneak Attack an advanced talent and thus only selectable after 2nd level.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> BTW, Saga allows the Scoundrel to take Sneak Attack at first level. You might be thinking of Grim Tales, which makes Sneak Attack an advanced talent and thus only selectable after 2nd level.



Maybe I thought it was farther up the tree because in Saga the list talents alphabetically, rather than in the rough order you acquire them. Or maybe it was reading posts like this:







			
				Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Well I notice a BIG depower for the rogue as SW SAGA stands. A scoundrel would have to spend ALL of his talents to match the rogue's sneak attack. It would take even more talents to get evasion, uncanny dodge I and uncanny dodge II (this time from the scout's talents lists).



(From this thread.)What is Particle_Man talking about exactly?







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> However, I think the point is going to be mute. My partner in crime, BFGEditor, is married to the core Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon concepts of the game, and given our arrangement, as that is closer to the core that we are working from (an OGL Fantasy Saga project), it is the direction we will likely go.



I don't want to steamroll anybody on this being obstinate. I just don't understand why Simple/Martial/Exotic and Weapon Groups are not compatible. What about these categorizations makes them mutually exclusive? How does having one hurt the other?







			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Why?



Well, because even with the Condition Track kicking due to high damage, Saga was clearly designed for higher damage melee and ranged weapons, so a Rogue getting +1d6/2 levels isn't going to throw anything off. That's all I meant (that and I was mistakenly arguing against a change that I thought Saga had made which turned out to be imaginary on my part; I'm smart like that).


----------



## drothgery

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Maybe I thought it was farther up the tree because in Saga the list talents alphabetically, rather than in the rough order you acquire them. Or maybe it was reading posts like thisFrom this thread.)What is Particle_Man talking about exactly?




In Saga, each time you take the sneak attack talent, it gives you +1d6 damage. So he's saying that to match a 20th-level Rogue's 10 sneak attack dice, a 20th-level scoundrel would have to spend all of his talents on Sneak Attack. And that's correct as far as it goes, but it's not really how you work sneak attack in Saga (if you're building a sneak attacking scoundrel); you just want to build up damage enough that you're reliably beating damage threshholds, and then work on other talents that push people further down the condition track when you do it. And while you wouldn't get many of the Rogue's abilities with either variant of sneak attacking scoundrel (because many Rogue abilities are Scout talents in Saga), you would have ten feats to do something with that you didn't in D&D.


----------



## EditorBFG

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> As a suggestion, perhaps weapons could have an Accuracy stat to help differentiate them if the damage ranges are too close to each other. For example, a longsword could have a +1 or 2 to hit built in, representing how great such a weapon is for precise melee attacks in combat, while an axe might have greater base damage, but without any Accuracy bonus. I believe the LEJENDARY ADVENTURE game uses a stat like this.



As does White Wolf. I don't think it is necessarily right for d20, but thinking about ways to represent the fact that the deadliness of some weapons is based on Accuracy instead of damage, I had a bizarre idea:

Be patient, this is just an idea, and it is something of a departure from Core. But it is something directly derived from the logic of current d20 rules.

See, in games I participate in, Weapon Finesse gets used a lot. Like, _a lot_ a lot. So many characters rely on Dexterity that it is a no-brainer for them to pick the feat up. So, it got me thinking that there are many characters-- especially archers-- who never (or hardly ever) use their Base Attack Bonus modified by Strength. Conversely, there are some characters who are just tanks, and always close in with something like a greatsword. And This also got me thinking about Flynn's observations regarding how people learn to use certain weapons and realistically very few people are able to pick up any weapon and use it the way Jet Li does. And certainly there are many people who hit the gun range on weekends and do extremely well, but wouldn't be able to swing a sword with any accuracy.

So I think it might be interesting to entertain the possibility of giving characters two base attack bonuses: one for Str-modified attacks and one for Dex-modified attacks.

Let's call them Might and Finesse (or maybe Precision). A swashbuckling type could have a Might of 3/4 his level and a Finesse equal to his level. A burly barbarian could have Might equal to his level and Finesse equal to 3/4 his level. Normally, Might is for Melee and Finesse is for ranged, and Weapon Finesse becomes a feat that lets you use your Finesse stat with a light melee weapon instead of just with ranged weapons.

What makes me excited about this is what we could do building advanced and/or prestige classes this way. Another poster pointed out that if a prestige class is just mechanically superior to the base classes, and still allows access to base class talents, there is no reason to ever stay in a base class past 7th level or so. You would just switch over as soon as you could, because there is no advantage to not changing classes. So, I think advanced and prestige classes need to almost exclusively represent increased specialization, rather than the model of "Fighter BAB and wizard spells together" or "monk unarmed attack and cleric spells together" we see in many recent WotC offerings. (Unlike the rest of this post, this last bit of design philosophy is something I'm pretty certain about.)

But with this, it becomes easy to separate the different fighting styles of warriors, or to make a more martial rogue type who still is not superior to a fighter. Because, to my mind, the fighter would still get both Might and Finesse equal to his level-- possibly, it would be the only class, even including Advanced and Prestige Classes, to do so.

It also occurs to me that there is a model here for other classes as well. Maybe each base class should have a single numerical thing it is most efficient at, and no AdvC or PrC should ever exceed that...

Anyway, I am just thinking out loud here, so I know this could all be rubbish. But tell me what you think.


----------



## Gentlegamer

I've always felt that the Rogue Sneak Attack is too powerful. As the Rogue adds bonus damage dice it's like he's also adding a Fireball or Lightning Bolt spell to his attack. I've felt that the Sneak Attack ought to be an increased chance for a critical hit (increased threat range) with a slowly increasing critical damage multiplier. 

I guess I feel this way because 1. the Sneak Attack shouldn't be something that outdoes Warrior-types in combat because the Rogue isn't a "combat class" (a Rogue wanting more combat prowess should multiclass to Fighter/Warrior) and 2. using increased criticals seems much more "system compatible" for the d20 system then giving bonus damage dice.

How do criticals work in Saga?


----------



## EditorBFG

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> How do criticals work in Saga?



Always crit range 20, damage x2, and no roll to confirm.


----------



## tsadkiel

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> So I think it might be interesting to entertain the possibility of giving characters two base attack bonuses: one for Str-modified attacks and one for Dex-modified attacks.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Anyway, I am just thinking out loud here, so I know this could all be rubbish. But tell me what you think.




That's really, really clever, and I very much like the philosophy of each base class being the best at one particular thing.  That said, however, it's not what I'm hoping to see from this product.  It adds a layer of complication, and I'm looking for simple.


----------



## tsadkiel

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Well, yes, and here's why: My hope is to not have racial special abilities at all, except in the form of feats and talents.




Jumping back several pages of conversation - I have a concern about races.  I really like using feats and talents to build character races - it's one of the things I like about True20, actually.  (Minus the talents, but you know what I mean.)

On the other hand, the reason why I like the approach in True20 is that it makes it easier to add new PC races.  I like to tinker with settings, but don't really enjoy tinkering with mechanics.  Am I going to have to right  new talent trees if my setting includes nonstandard races?


----------



## EditorBFG

tsadkiel said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the reason why I like the approach in True20 is that it makes it easier to add new PC races.  I like to tinker with settings, but don't really enjoy tinkering with mechanics.  Am I going to have to right  new talent trees if my setting includes nonstandard races?



Short answer: No.

Long answer: It depends. There is not a requirement that the system needs to give each race two bonus feats and a bonus talent. It is just how we're doing it. So, each race essentially has ability modifiers, and some racial abilities, as in D&D-- it is just that two of those racial abilities are free feats and one is talent tree access with a free talent. So, you could just handle races normally as in D&D-- not every race needs a talent tree, especially if their innate racial abilities do not lend themselves well to improvement. Treat the ability to attain a bonus feat or choose from a certain talent tree as just another racial ability, just like stonecunning or darkvision.

Now, if the above strikes you as too inelegant or asymmetrical, and you want all races to be standardized, you could just take the race's abilities and divide them up into one feat and one talent, and give them one free Trained Skill feat for an appropriate skill (most races have one skill or another that they receive a bonus with, so go with that). The one talent received for free at 1st level is the entire talent tree (there is no rule that every tree must contain more than one talent). When a character from that race goes up in levels, he just picks from his normal class talents, the same way a human does-- certainly there is no disadvantage in that. I bet most non-human characters will do that anyway. We are only including racial talent paths for people who want to specialize, ex: for an elf fighter to focus on being an elf instead of a fighter.

Now, I don't have the book in front of me, but as I recall from True20, for the most part adding a True20 race is a matter of picking out ability mods and bonus/favored feats for that race, and if you were converting some race with an ability not covered by a True20 feat, you had to make up a feat for that ability or they didn't get it. This is not a big departure from that.

BTW, what does everyone think of the term "Talent Path"? We prefer it to Talent Tree for Fantasy, because "Tree" sounds a bit Modern-- for me it conjures up some kind of logic diagram, like something they'd show me at a meeting in my office. Path makes it sound more like you're moving towards something, not just picking options.


----------



## tsadkiel

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Now, I don't have the book in front of me, but as I recall from True20, for the most part adding a True20 race is a matter of picking out ability mods and bonus/favored feats for that race, and if you were converting some race with an ability not covered by a True20 feat, you had to make up a feat for that ability or they didn't get it. This is not a big departure from that.




Very true.  The original version of the Lux Aeternum setting included "structural feats for somewhat more exotic abilities like flight, natural armor, or being unusually sized, and I exploited the heck out of them and often wished for more.  As a consumer, I would love it if the book (is it still going to be called "Fantasy Concepts?") included a short appendix on PC race design, with a menu of sample talents.  



> BTW, what does everyone think of the term "Talent Path"? We prefer it to Talent Tree for Fantasy, because "Tree" sounds a bit Modern-- for me it conjures up some kind of logic diagram, like something they'd show me at a meeting in my office. Path makes it sound more like you're moving towards something, not just picking options.




Sounds good to me.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Speaking of racial talents, I'd be keen on seeing more than one path per race being presented. For example, gnomes might have access to a _Rock Gnome Path_ (illusion related abilities), _Forest Gnome Path_ (nature related abilities), _Deep Gnome Path_ (elemental earth related abilities), _Crafter Gnome Path_ (gadgeteering related abilities), and _Illuminatus Gnome Path_ (skulduggery related abilities). Allowing for this type of mixing and matching allows for some really neat options. Like the idea of fey-like gnomes? Use the Rock and Forest  Gnome paths. Are the Nomes of Oz more to your liking? Use the Deep and Illuminatus Gnome paths.


----------



## EditorBFG

tsadkiel said:
			
		

> As a consumer, I would love it if the book (is it still going to be called "Fantasy Concepts?") included a short appendix on PC race design, with a menu of sample talents.



At the various least, I want the book (which, yes, I believe will still be fantasy Concepts) contain appendix of extra races, but if possible a race-creation guide would be nice. I really like the way a talent system erases the need for LA for most low-LA monsters.  As an experiment, I decided to see how long it would take me to do Aasimar and Tieflings, and I came up with the following in a very short period of time:







			
				Fantasy Concept Draft said:
			
		

> *Planetouched*
> Size: Medium.
> Speed: Planetouched- base land speed is 30 feet.
> Bonus Racial Feats: Preternatural Senses, Trained Skill (Knowledge(planes))
> Planetouched Talents: You gain access to the Planetouched Talent Path. You receive a free talent from this Path at 1st level. Any time you receive a talent from a class, you may choose from the talents normally available to that class or from the Planetouched Talent Path.
> Native Outsider: Plane-touched are considered outsiders, but are native to the Material Plane (hence the subtype’s name). They can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep.
> *Subraces:*
> •	Aasimar: These planetouched gain +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma, -2 Strength. They must choose Celestial Blood as their free talent from the Planetouched Talent Path at 1st level. They may replace the 1st level bonus racial feat Trained Skill (Knowledge(planes)) with Trained Skill (Knowledge(religion)) if they wish.
> •	Tiefling: These planetouched gain +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma. They must choose Fiendish Blood as their free talent from the Planetouched Talent Path at 1st level. They may replace the 1st level bonus racial feat Preternatural Senses with Trained Skill (Stealth) if they wish.
> 
> *Planetouched Talent Path*
> Celestial Blood: The blood of an angel or other creature of the higher planes flows in your veins. You have darkvision, allowing you to see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and you can function just fine with no light at all. Also, you have the spell-like ability to cast daylight once per day. Finally, you gain resistance to acid 5, cold 5, and electricity 5.
> Fiendish Blood: The blood of a demon, devil, or other creature of the lower planes flows in your veins. You have darkvision, allowing you to see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and you can function just fine with no light at all. Also, you have the spell-like ability to cast darkness once per day. Finally, you gain resistance to cold 5, electricity 5, and fire 5.
> Improved Resistance: One of the plane-touched character’s natural resistances to energy from the celestial blood talent (acid, cold, or electricity) or fiendish blood talent (cold, electricity, or fire) improves from 5 to 10. The character can choose which of her three resistances improves. This talent can be taken up to three times; each time it improves a different one of her existing natural resistances from celestial or fiendish blood.
> Prerequisite: Celestial blood or fiendish blood
> Improved Darkness: You may use your spell-like ability to cast darkness up to 3 times a day.
> Prerequisite: Fiendish blood
> Improved Daylight: You may use your spell-like ability to cast daylight up to 3 times a day.
> Prerequisite: Celestial blood
> Celestial Potential: You gain a permanent +2 to Strength.
> Prerequisites: Character level 3, celestial blood.
> Fiendish Potential: You gain a permanent +2 to Dexterity.
> Prerequisites: Character level 3, fiendish blood.



Something like this could be done for drow, or whoever.







			
				Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> Speaking of racial talents, I'd be keen on seeing more than one path per race being presented.



I think subraces have to go in, no matter what. But I am uncertain whether to have separate paths or one big gnome path. My preliminary gnome write-up includes rock gnomes, forest gnomes, and svirfneblin in one path, based on the idea that the different racial capabilities represent innate potential that any gnome could develop with time and effort. Do people think that makes sense, or no?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

EditorBFG:

Don't separate base attack bonuses into two varieties - that would be highly confusing, and negate many of the simplifications in the system. Besides, if you were going to do that, you ought to make it a combat attack and a magical attack, one overcoming Reflex defense, the other overcoming whichever defense is relevant to the spell.

On the rogue sneak attack question, I reckon you should make the talent grow in power with rogue levels, until a maximum. Say, 1-3d6 with one talent, then 4-6d6, then 7-9d6. One thing I was confused about in Saga was why they bothered to include it - the scoundrel's 'dodgy attack' or whatever it's called that knocks you down one on the condition track seems much more appropriate to the rogue ability. Simply ramp it up to allow you to knock someone down 2 steps, then 3 steps (never affect the same person twice in a combat to limit power though). Getting that last ability at say, level 10 is nice, giving the fighter a -5 to attacks is harsh. Don't forget to make it affect whatever roll you're using for magical attacks to beat defenses. Heck, a 15th level 4-step hit wouldn't be too overpowered given how easy it would be to heal at that level.. I like this idea more and more..

I like 'Talent Tree' for the alliteration. Path does sound more fantasy though. Trees are quite druidic mind you.. 

Finally, put all the racial talents in one path, let people develop them as they choose. Your planetouched example is superb.


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Finally, put all the racial talents in one path, let people develop them as they choose. Your planetouched example is superb.




In some ways, doing so might be something like the old Player Options book back at the end of the 2nd Edition glory days. I like it, as it allows the DM to customize through exclusion, if so desired, and there doesn't need to be a proliferation of Talent Paths in just the racial section alone.

I want to make sure there are options for character creation. However, I am aware of the dangers of having too many options. A weird sort of paralysis can set in on the newbie player who becomes overwhelmed by the vast range of their choices, thus slowing character creation down. Finding that nice middle ground is a juggling act of sorts.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Baron Opal

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> So I think it might be interesting to entertain the possibility of giving characters two base attack bonuses: one for Str-modified attacks and one for Dex-modified attacks.




An interesting idea, but I would rather have it as a feat / talent choice. That way you have the generalist whose BAB is modified by the weapon (and thus attribute) at hand and the specialists who have focussed their skill (BAB) into power weapons or precision weapons.


----------



## Flynn

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> An interesting idea, but I would rather have it as a feat / talent choice. That way you have the generalist whose BAB is modified by the weapon (and thus attribute) at hand and the specialists who have focussed their skill (BAB) into power weapons or precision weapons.




One of the ways I dealt with something like this was to create a talent in my Tome of Talents inspired by one of the class abilities of a prestige class from Librum Equitus. That class had medium BAB, but granted a +1 bonus to ranged attacks at appropriate levels to approximate a good BAB with ranged weapons. The talent tree in question did the same thing.

Something like that might be useful for capturing the kind of feel of Finessable/Power attackers. However, I do feel that such is outside the scope of this particular project.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> A weird sort of paralysis can set in on the newbie player who becomes overwhelmed by the vast range of their choices, thus slowing character creation down. Finding that nice middle ground is a juggling act of sorts.



But will this product really be for newbies? I think only people already familiar with D&D and Saga will look into it.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> But will this product really be for newbies? I think only people already familiar with D&D and Saga will look into it.




I'm anticipating that for the first campaign you run, almost everyone will be a newbie to the rules. No, this product isn't really for newbies, but it's part of my personal design philosophy on this project, just as it is in Saga, to make this product accessible to new gamers as well as experienced gamers. Doing so doesn't lessen the value of the game, and opens it up as a tool for introducing new players to D&D and fantasy gaming with a more streamlined system.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think subraces have to go in, no matter what. But I am uncertain whether to have separate paths or one big gnome path. My preliminary gnome write-up includes rock gnomes, forest gnomes, and svirfneblin in one path, based on the idea that the different racial capabilities represent innate potential that any gnome could develop with time and effort. Do people think that makes sense, or no?




That'll work.   

Will the "base" gnome's bonus trained skill be _Gather Information_? An inquisitive nature seems to be a common theme in the various takes on the race.  A racial talent would be a good way to present the optional rule that allows gnomes to take the _Scent_ feat. Now that I think of it, _Scent_ makes more sense as a racial talent than as a feat anyway.   

Talents for the Rock, Forest, and Deep gnome abilities are good. The gnomish inventor has become a fairly pervasive archetype, so it might be a good idea to address it. Personally, I'm a big fan of the "conspiracy gnome" archetype, so I'd be happy to see racial talents along those lines. Talent(s) allowing for re-rolls of Deception and Persuasion skill checks would be nice.


----------



## Dalamar

I have to say that I don't really like races giving trained skills. Something just rubs me the wrong way. I wouldn't have a problem with granting class skills, or Skill Focus if the character does train in a skill (working as a kind of Favoured Class mechanic when a character would be drawn towards classes with their race's skill as a class skill so they could train it). 
I would prefer, however, the Saga approuch of Take10 and rerolls for skills. Since there would be many races with these qualities, a general description could be given at the beginning of the race section such as calling the Take10 skills Accustomed skills and rerolls Exceptional skills, and then just noting which skills have this quality for each race.

On the planetouched talents, I'd separate the energy resistances to a separate talent that let you choose three of four energy resistances (perhaps with an option for one resistance at 10 instead of three separate ones to allow for the elemental planetouched). Darkvision in and of itself is a rather good ability, and coupled with a semi-useful spell-like ability should be a decent talent. Not to mention it would allow a small degree of customization, even if the real possibilities are rather limited


----------



## Baron Opal

*Why armor?*

Because it protects you when your flat-footed.

Two reflex defenses: active and passive.

*Active: 10 + Dex mod + "protection bonus".*
- If you wear armor / shield you must use that instead of heroic level.
- This is just spiffy if you don't have heroic levels, like mooks, orcs, &c.
- Feat to choose which bonus to apply. Rogues, Fighters and Clerics get this feat.
- Fighters get the feat to add half armor / shield to heroic level bonus.

*Passive: 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus.*
- If you are surprised, you don't get your heroic levels.
- The metal and wood is still in the way.
- This is surprised, held, asleep. (Flanked still get "active bonus"? Wavering on this one.)
- Wizards get spells that boost this number.
- Your "reflex save" would suck too under these circumstances.

Touch attacks get +5 to attack. You just have to touch the bad guy rather than penetrate his armor, but everybody knows that when the cackling wizard's hand crackles with black lightning you should avoid being touched.

Advantages: Calculated before hand, advantage preserved for fighters, only adds one more AC rather than the three or so in current D&D.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

I'm still not convinced. I had considered something like this myself, but I find it too weak. Costs too many feat for a circumstancial bonus. Plus, most won't wear armor anyway as the benefits are too smaal. Which is fine by me, but is not very much in tune with D&D where everybody that anticipates melee tanks up to their maximum.


----------



## Baron Opal

An 8th level thief with an 18 dex stands to lose 12 points from his AC if he's surprised while not wearing armor. I find that to be significant. At low levels the bonus to reflex is minor, but as you go up in level armor can become more important because you have more to lose when you are surprised. Spending one feat, the only one the thief gets for this, lets him wear armor and mitigate that AC loss when his rival tries to stab him in the back.

And don't forget, this isn't Star Wars. This is fantasy where the thief's armor might give him a bonus to Sneak, allow him to _dimension door_ 3/day, &c. There are reasons to wear armor beyond its protective capabilities.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Haven't read it all, but here's something for inspiration:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=888293

And a bit about magic:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=888247


----------



## SKid4

I've been doing some thinking over the 4 classes idea. I'll list them in decreasing combat
ability. I've also got a working skill list. I may have taken too much from Star Wars.

WARRIOR
Attack Bonus: +1 per level
Hit Dice: d10
Skills: 3 + Int
Defenses: +2 Fort, +1 Ref
Starting Feats: Armor Proficiency (light & medium), Shield Proficiency,
Weapon Proficiency (simple & martial)
The warrior is a direct translation of Star Wars' soldier. Talent selection should allow you
to reproduce the barbarian, the fighter, or the ranger.

CHAMPION
Attack Bonus: +3 per 4 levels
Hit Dice: d8
Skills: 2 + Int
Defenses: +1 to all
Starting Feats: Armor Proficiency (light), Divine Spellcasting, Shield Proficiency,
Weapon Proficiency (simple)
The champion is a variant of Star Wars' jedi. Talent selection should allow you to
reproduce the cleric, the druid, or the paladin. The champion should have access
to fewer spells, which includes healing.

EXPERT
Attack Bonus: +3 per 4 levels
Hit Dice: d8
Skills: 6 + Int
Defenses: +2 Ref, +1 Will
Starting Feats: Armor Proficiency (light), Shield Proficiency, Weapon Proficiency (simple),
and your choice of Linguist (if you meet its prerequisites), Point Blank Shot,
or Shake It Off (if you meet its prerequisites)
The expert is a combination of Star Wars' noble, scoundrel, and scout. Talent selection
should allow you to reproduce the bard, the monk, or the rogue.

MAGE
Attack Bonus: +1 per 2 levels
Hit Dice: d6
Skills: 4 + Int
Defenses: +1 Ref, +2 Will
Starting Feats: Arcane Spellcasting, Spell Training, Weapon Proficiency (simple)
The mage is a new class that focuses on spellcasting. Talent selection should allow you
to reproduce the sorcerer and the wizard. The mage should have access to the most
spells, magic item creation, and metamagic.

SKILLS
Acrobatics (Dex): combines Balance & Tumble (Trained Only)
Climb (Str)
Craft (Int): includes Appraise & Forgery
Deception (Cha): combines Bluff & Disguise
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Int, Trained Only): includes Open Lock
Endurance (Con)
Gather Information (Cha)
Initiative (Dex)
Intimidate (Cha)
Jump (Str)
Knowledge (Int, Trained Only)
Notice (Wis): combines Listen, Search & Spot
Perform (Cha)
Ride (Dex)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex): includes Open Lock, Sleight of Hand aspect is Trained Only
Spellcraft (Cha, Trained Only)
Stealth (Dex): combines Hide & Move Silently
Survival (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Treat Injury (Wis)


----------



## tsadkiel

I've been thinking about cantrips.  Specifically, could the Spellcraft (or equivalent) skill provide access to cantrip level magical effects, as the Use the Force skill does in Saga?  I can remember an old Dragon article in which the non weapon proficiency was used that way, but I can't think of any OGC equivalent.

It just seems right to me that a magic using character could make a spellcraft skill check to detect magic or light a pipe or whatever.


----------



## Gentlegamer

tsadkiel said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about cantrips.  Specifically, could the Spellcraft (or equivalent) skill provide access to cantrip level magical effects, as the Use the Force skill does in Saga?  I can remember an old Dragon article in which the non weapon proficiency was used that way, but I can't think of any OGC equivalent.
> 
> It just seems right to me that a magic using character could make a spellcraft skill check to detect magic or light a pipe or whatever.



Yes! I fully agree! I'm working on my own version of "Fantasy Saga" and right now I have a broad "Magic" skill (replaces Use the Force). I see it being used for

Read Magic
Detect Magic 
Prestigidation (DC medium to high) [these are the cantrip level effects other than Read and Detect Magic]
Cast Spell (each spell has DC for effect desired)
Use Magical Object
Scry (Trained)
Counterspell (Trained)
Brew Potion (Trained)
Scribe Magic Scroll (Trained)

I want to create a magic system that allows anyone to use magic, but there are chances for miscasting, so usually only those trained in the Magic skill with enough level will regularly use them.


----------



## Flynn

I am currently working on firming up the draft of the Skills section, so I'm going to be reviewing this thread for suggestions and such. Just thought you'd like a quick status report. Things are coming along well, which is good, as Gen Con is coming up and that's a week or so I won't be able to work on this project. 

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> I am currently working on firming up the draft of the Skills section, so I'm going to be reviewing this thread for suggestions and such.




Leaving aside exactly what's on the skill list (a few lists have been proposed), the big skill questions with Saga-style mechanics in D&D-esque fantasy are...

1 - Does the 'general competence' factor stick around (in Saga, this means you get + 1/2 level to every skill)? If not, is it completely eliminated (as per more conventional d20 games, where you have to explicitly invest character resources to get better at a skill) or merely scaled back (i.e. it only applies to class skills)?

2 - Does the 'skill focus is very good, no other skill-boosting feats/talents/race abilities provide a bonus to skills' paradigm stick around? If so, do skill-boosting spells and magic items stick around?

3 - Are you going to try and design skills to be able to hit mainline d20-style DCs (where DC 15 is hard at 1st level even for a dedicated character, but DC 35 is trivial at 20th level) or Saga-style DCs (whiere DC 15 is easy for a dedicated 1st level character, but DC 35 is only a 50/50 shot for a dedicated character without spending Force Points)?


----------



## Flynn

drothgery said:
			
		

> Leaving aside exactly what's on the skill list (a few lists have been proposed), the big skill questions with Saga-style mechanics in D&D-esque fantasy are...
> 
> 1 - Does the 'general competence' factor stick around (in Saga, this means you get + 1/2 level to every skill)? If not, is it completely eliminated (as per more conventional d20 games, where you have to explicitly invest character resources to get better at a skill) or merely scaled back (i.e. it only applies to class skills)?




Currently, since the goal is an OGL Fantasy Saga project, the 'general competence' factor will be maintained. We discussed the 'scaled back' option you mention, and it was thought best to leave that as an Optional Rule, or not include mention of it at all and leave it as a House Rule for those that desire to leave untrained skills at the core D20 system levels.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> 2 - Does the 'skill focus is very good, no other skill-boosting feats/talents/race abilities provide a bonus to skills' paradigm stick around? If so, do skill-boosting spells and magic items stick around?




Yes, that paradigm remains (consistency with the project's goal), but its impact on boosting spells and magic items has yet to be fully developed.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> 3 - Are you going to try and design skills to be able to hit mainline d20-style DCs (where DC 15 is hard at 1st level even for a dedicated character, but DC 35 is trivial at 20th level) or Saga-style DCs (whiere DC 15 is easy for a dedicated 1st level character, but DC 35 is only a 50/50 shot for a dedicated character without spending Force Points)?




The answer to question #1 precludes that the DCs will have to be converted to Saga-style. A conversion from the DCs of the core D20 system will be provided in the conversion section, though.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

SKid4 said:
			
		

> CHAMPION
> Attack Bonus: +3 per 4 levels
> Hit Dice: d8
> Skills: 2 + Int
> Defenses: +1 to all
> Starting Feats: Armor Proficiency (light), Divine Spellcasting, Shield Proficiency,
> Weapon Proficiency (simple)
> The champion is a variant of Star Wars' jedi. Talent selection should allow you to
> reproduce the cleric, the druid, or the paladin. The champion should have access
> to fewer spells, which includes healing.



It's not really a Paladin if the character gets only Cleric attack bonuses (and still gets fewer spells than Clerics).


----------



## Flynn

*Craft and Perform categories?*

By the way, guys, I've read suggestions here for Knowledge categories, but I haven't seen any streamlined suggestions for Craft and Perform. Would anyone care to make any suggestions in this arena?

Thanks In Advance,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> By the way, guys, I've read suggestions here for Knowledge categories, but I haven't seen any streamlined suggestions for Craft and Perform. Would anyone care to make any suggestions in this arena?




With a Saga-style skill granualarity, I'd suggest there aren't any categories for Perform, and it might just be a use of Persuasion.

For Craft, I'd suggest (just throwing something out here right now), assuming you haven't integrated magic item crafting into the craft skill...

alchemy - alchemical items, poisons, and any non-magical potions/oils
metalsmithing - weapons, armor, clocks, and other mostly metal objects
carpentry - homes, boats, seige engines, bows and other mostly wooden objects
sonecutting - gems, castles, statues, golems, and other stone objects

Trapmaking would fall under survival.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

drothgery said:
			
		

> With a Saga-style skill granualarity, I'd suggest there aren't any categories for Perform, and it might just be a use of Persuasion.




Or make it a feat, like Linguist, you would get 1 + INT bonus (min 1) types of performance. Make a Persuasion check to determine if the performance was successful.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

drothgery said:
			
		

> With a Saga-style skill granualarity, I'd suggest there aren't any categories for Perform, and it might just be a use of Persuasion.
> 
> For Craft, I'd suggest (just throwing something out here right now), assuming you haven't integrated magic item crafting into the craft skill...
> 
> alchemy - alchemical items, poisons, and any non-magical potions/oils
> metalsmithing - weapons, armor, clocks, and other mostly metal objects
> carpentry - homes, boats, seige engines, bows and other mostly wooden objects
> sonecutting - gems, castles, statues, golems, and other stone objects
> 
> Trapmaking would fall under survival.




I agree with Alchemy, 'Blacksmithing', Carpentry, 'Masonry' (just name changes ). I'd also add Leatherworking (armor, some clothing, generally working with skins and furs), Tailoring (robes, more clothing, anything with cloth/weaving) and Artistry (painting, sculpture, calligraphy, fancy stuff). I'd probably move gems into 'Jewelling' and make that include all jewellery items.

So summarily: Alchemy, Artistry, Blacksmithing, Carpentry, Jewelling, Leatherworking, Masonry, Tailoring. I think this is a nice trade-off between specific medieval/fantasy inspired roles and broad skill usage. Trapmaking would go into either the metal, wood or stone crafts.


----------



## FreeXenon

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> Or make it a feat, like Linguist, you would get 1 + INT bonus (min 1) types of performance. Make a Persuasion check to determine if the performance was successful.




Complete Adv. , I think, has one like that though the req's are like Perform 6 or something like that.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Flynn said:
			
		

> By the way, guys, I've read suggestions here for Knowledge categories, but I haven't seen any streamlined suggestions for Craft and Perform. Would anyone care to make any suggestions in this arena?
> 
> Thanks In Advance,
> Flynn




See above for craft. Perform I think is fairly streamlined as is tbh.


----------



## drothgery

(will DCs change to Saga-style conventions)



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> The answer to question #1 precludes that the DCs will have to be converted to Saga-style.




Not really. You could use different progressions than Saga for skills (possibly having a 'trained' and 'untrained' progression rather than trained = untrained + 5), and/or put a minimum level prerequisite on Skill Focus.


----------



## nobodez

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I agree with Alchemy, 'Blacksmithing', Carpentry, 'Masonry' (just name changes ). I'd also add Leatherworking (armor, some clothing, generally working with skins and furs), Tailoring (robes, more clothing, anything with cloth/weaving) and Artistry (painting, sculpture, calligraphy, fancy stuff). I'd probably move gems into 'Jewelling' and make that include all jewellery items.
> 
> So summarily: Alchemy, Artistry, Blacksmithing, Carpentry, Jewelling, Leatherworking, Masonry, Tailoring. I think this is a nice trade-off between specific medieval/fantasy inspired roles and broad skill usage. Trapmaking would go into either the metal, wood or stone crafts.




I think a good place to look at this is Iron heroes, where there are basically six craft skills, two each for wood, metal, and rock, and three each for trinkets/tools and objects/structures. You would of course need to add in leather, cloth, and (al)chemistry, or just throw leather and cloth together for leather/cloth (t/t), alchemistry (t/t), wood (t/t or o/s), metla (t/t or o/s), and stone (t/t or o/s).

You could also adapt the d20 Modern model, and have six varieties: chemistry, mechanical, electrical, pharmaceutical, visual arts, and writing. You could probably meld it down to alchemy, tools/trinkets, objects/structures, visual arts, and writing.


----------



## Flynn

Thanks, guys, for the helpful suggestions.

More Later,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

*Number of Skills*

I see a lot of suggestions for way too many skills (since each specialty of Craft or Perform or Profession counts as a different Skill Training choice).

_Saga_ doesn't have a bunch of different craft skills.  Marginally useful skills in _Saga_ are streamlined by falling under broad categories or coming for free (see the free languages each character receives from their Int bonus).

If this product increases the number of skills I suggest that each class get at least one (1) additional trained skill or more if enough skills are added to the system.

A _*Star Wars*_ party of four characters will probably have a number of Trained Skills between 20 + 4*Int (Luke=Scout->Jedi, Lea=Noble, Han=Scoundrel, Chewbacca=Scout) and 14 + 4*Int (Sia-Lan=Jedi, Rorworr=Scout, Vor'en=Soldier, Deel Surool=Scoundrel).  We can also assume that a lot of characters will have the same skills; initiative stands out as a skill many or most character will overlap with one another.

Since there are 25 skills in _Saga_ I'd add +1 trained skill choice per character class per 4-5 skills you add to the skill list.  Each specialty added to craft counts as adding a new skill to the skill list.

Be careful not to create too many skills no one wants or you're just giving more skill selections that are sure to be spent on the useful skills *Wizards of the Coast* already thought of.


----------



## Flynn

Mokona said:
			
		

> I see a lot of suggestions for way too many skills (since each specialty of Craft or Perform or Profession counts as a different Skill Training choice).
> 
> _Saga_ doesn't have a bunch of different craft skills.  Marginally useful skills in _Saga_ are streamlined by falling under broad categories or coming for free (see the free languages each character receives from their Int bonus).
> 
> If this product increases the number of skills I suggest that each class get at least one (1) additional trained skill or more if enough skills are added to the system.
> 
> A _*Star Wars*_ party of four characters will probably have a number of Trained Skills between 20 + 4*Int (Luke=Scout->Jedi, Lea=Noble, Han=Scoundrel, Chewbacca=Scout) and 14 + 4*Int (Sia-Lan=Jedi, Rorworr=Scout, Vor'en=Soldier, Deel Surool=Scoundrel).  We can also assume that a lot of characters will have the same skills; initiative stands out as a skill many or most character will overlap with one another.
> 
> Since there are 25 skills in _Saga_ I'd add +1 trained skill choice per character class per 4-5 skills you add to the skill list.  Each specialty added to craft counts as adding a new skill to the skill list.
> 
> Be careful not to create too many skills no one wants or you're just giving more skill selections that are sure to be spent on the useful skills *Wizards of the Coast* already thought of.




Agreed. The Craft skills, I believe, are necessary for the game because crafting is something that is useful in D&D (even the old secondary skill system from 1st Edition focused on crafting skills), particularly with magic item creation. Star Wars doesn't tell stories of Bob the Blacksmith, but fantasy games definitely do. I definitely agree on keeping the numbers of skills low, though.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

A quick update: I'm continuing to work on the skills chapter, and BFGEditor is wrapping up races. With those done, it'll be time to hit feats, classes and combat.

More Later,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> A quick update: I'm continuing to work on the skills chapter, and BFGEditor is wrapping up races. With those done, it'll be time to hit feats, classes and combat.
> 
> More Later,
> Flynn



Heh, this should be interesting.....


----------



## EditorBFG

As I work on races, I wanted to discuss a couple points that have been made.







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> I have to say that I don't really like races giving trained skills. Something just rubs me the wrong way. I wouldn't have a problem with granting class skills, or Skill Focus if the character does train in a skill (working as a kind of Favoured Class mechanic when a character would be drawn towards classes with their race's skill as a class skill so they could train it).



What do you guys think? I was just going to give each race an automatic trained skill, since Trained Skill is a feat and I thought 2 free feats and 1 free talent per race had a certain simplicity I liked. Do you think a free trained skill for each non-human race is the wrong way to go? 







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> I would prefer, however, the Saga approuch of Take10 and rerolls for skills. Since there would be many races with these qualities, a general description could be given at the beginning of the race section such as calling the Take10 skills Accustomed skills and rerolls Exceptional skills, and then just noting which skills have this quality for each race.



First of all, I think naming these two mechanics is a good idea. That said, if I went this path for all the races, should one or both of these mechanics become a feat or a talent? Or could race write-ups work like this:
_
Elf
Ability Modifiers: +2 Dex, -2 Con
Bonus Feat: Preternatural Sense
Bonus Talent: Vigilance, from the Elf Talent Tree
Bonus Talent Path: An elf gains free access to the Elf talent path. Whenever she receives a talent from her class, she may choose a talent from that class's talent paths or from the Elf pathk.
Accustomed Skill: Perception. An elf may always take 10 on Perception rolls._ 

Please weigh in soon, as I'm working on this stuff right now.







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> On the planetouched talents, I'd separate the energy resistances to a separate talent that let you choose three of four energy resistances (perhaps with an option for one resistance at 10 instead of three separate ones to allow for the elemental planetouched). Darkvision in and of itself is a rather good ability, and coupled with a semi-useful spell-like ability should be a decent talent. Not to mention it would allow a small degree of customization, even if the real possibilities are rather limited



I was hoping that a Planetouched could have all his or her accustomed 3.5 abilities at level 2, simulating the existing L.A., which is why their first talent is so "front-loaded."

I should point out that talents are not meant to balance with each other. Since a racial talent is something only a character of that race can ever acquire, it does not need to scale with class talents. Anything I took from the Planetouched 1st talent, I would have to roll into some kind of bonus feat they would get at 1st level. However, in this system of races, feats represent cultural stuff, whereas the racial talents mostly represent genetics. Are there any Planetouched abilities people think would be cultural (a feat) instead of hereditary (the starting talent)?

By the way, feats as learned stuff and starting talents as inherited brings us to another point:







			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> Personally I'd do this the other way around where biological benefits are bonus feats or unique abilities (only when no feat is close enough). Then talent trees that let you "grow" into your race are for cultural development.



I wanted to explain, quickly, why we are not doing it this way. The reason is, we are going to avoid having feats with a racial or class specific requirements. Feats should be something anyone can pick up, since talents, by their very nature, are limited by class and (now) race. So, the reason an elf's inborn biological gifts are all given in one talent is so an elf can have them at first level and no one else can. The half-elf will not receive the same first level abilities as an elf, but will be able to pick talents up, since they are a part of her heritage.

Obviously, not all talents will be based on heredity, just the starting talent each race receives for free at first level.

What do you think?


----------



## olshanski

Flynn said:
			
		

> If you take the number of views for this thread, and divide by the number of posts, you get just over 14. While not a true representation, it does indicate that at least 14 people are reading this thread.
> 
> With that in mind, I'd like to hear from some of you guys that haven't posted yet, just to make sure we're not catering Fantasy Concepts to the most vocal parties. That's one of the reasons I ask for thoughts and input, so that I can see what people think and desire in a finished product of this nature. So please feel free to speak out, so your voice can be heard.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




This is a very interesting thread, I've been following it closely.
My input is not even close to the kinds of things other people are saying, but here goes:
1) I'd like to keep the core d20 mechanic. That was brilliant.
2) I'd like to keep "levels"
3) I'd like some serious pruning of a LOT of D&D bloat.  Fewer classes, fewer feats, fewer spells, fewer skills, less equipment, fewer conditions, fewer special attacks, fewer energy types, fewer special materials, fewer multipliers, fewer "conditional attacks" (sneak attacks, flank attacks, high ground, invisible, blinking, smite, rage, power, touch, incorporeal touch, energy drain) fewer everything. If the rules could get down to 30 or less pages of "crunch" that'd be great... something so that new players (wives, children) could figure out the rules without needing to devote one or more months of reading the rules.

I guess I am not so much interested in a port of SAGA to D&D as I am interested in a wholesale gutting an pruning of D20.  Was it here that I read the quote about desgning?  "You aren't finished when you have nothing else to add. You are finished when there is nothing else you can take away".


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> _Accustomed Skill: Perception. An elf may always take 10 on Perception rolls._




Pssst.... This is how I would phrase this particular ability, based on a Saga philosophy:



			
				Saga-style said:
			
		

> _Heightened Awareness: An elf may choose to reroll any Perception check, but the result of the reroll must be accepted even if it is worse._




Take 10 is only allowed to those skills in which you are trained.

As for the way that Conditional Bonus Feats are worded, here it goes:



			
				Saga-style said:
			
		

> _Conditional Bonus Feat: A character with {skill} as a trained skill gains Skill Focus({skill}) as a bonus feat._




Replace {skill} with the actual name of the skill, of course.

Hope this helps,
Flynn


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Please weigh in soon, as I'm working on this stuff right now.





This advice from the Star Wars conversion document might be helpful:



> *Skills*: If the species gains a skill bonus of some sort, replace it with one of the options outlined below; of these, the “reroll” option is by far the most common. Generally, a species shouldn’t have special rules for more than two skills.
> 
> *Reroll*: You may reroll a skill check for a given skill, but you must keep the second result. If the species’ bonus in the previous rules only applied to part of a skill (for example, Intimidation is now just a part of Persuasion), limit the reroll to a single use of that skill (for example, you can reroll only when using Persuasion to intimidate). This is best used for a species that is naturally good (or, rather, naturally unlikely to fail) with a given skill, whether trained or not.
> 
> *Conditional Bonus Feat*: You gain Skill Focus (skill) if you are trained in that skill. This is best for skills where the species is best-known for producing highly skilled experts or professionals in a given field (for example, Bothans make exceptionally good spies, but they do spend a lot of time training to achieve this). In addition, this may be used as a way to further enhance a species’ natural aptitude with a skill that already gets a reroll (for example, Cereans get a reroll and a conditional bonus feat for Initiative).
> 
> *Take 10 Under Stress*: You may take 10 at any time with the skill. This is usually reserved for Swim and Climb when the species has a swim or climb speed, respectively.


----------



## EditorBFG

I think Dalamar was referring to two different abilities. Exceptional Skill would be the re-roll ability, and Accustomed Skill would be the ability to take 10 even under duress (like the old Skill Mastery). I was just plugging one into the Elf as an example.

As for conditional feat, I could just use that too. I'm just really trying to keep each race simple-- so I would like to either do one of the following:
 All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and a conditional feat, OR
 All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and an exceptional (or accustomed) skill
Which would people prefer?

Also:







			
				olshanski said:
			
		

> I guess I am not so much interested in a port of SAGA to D&D as I am interested in a wholesale gutting an pruning of D20.



Well, we're probably closer to a pruning than a gutting, and I don't think we can get down to only 30 pages of rules and still meet this product's expectation, but you are definitely going to get fewer of the things you mentioned. The trick is, to cut all that stuff but maintain the ability to create and play the character you want.

Thinking about it, I personally might be open to the idea of a smaller pdf, pruned down to the most basic rules, like the D&D Basic Game boxed set WotC sells. That would allow new players to learn the system quickly, but also have them play the same game as everyone else, just with fewer options for character creation.


----------



## EditorBFG

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> This advice from the Star Wars conversion document might be helpful:



I put up my last comments before you posted this; thank you, I had forgotten this was in there.


----------



## tsadkiel

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> As for conditional feat, I could just use that too. I'm just really trying to keep each race simple-- so I would like to either do one of the following:
> All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and a conditional feat, OR
> All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and an exceptional (or accustomed) skill
> Which would people prefer?




I like the exceptional/accustomed skill option better; that way the elf's keen elven vision has a different feel in play from another character who happens to be skilled at Perception.  (Just as a random example; insert whatever race/skill combo you want instead.)


----------



## nobodez

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> As for conditional feat, I could just use that too. I'm just really trying to keep each race simple-- so I would like to either do one of the following:
> All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and a conditional feat, OR
> All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and an exceptional (or accustomed) skill
> Which would people prefer?




I like option 2 better, but I don't think you need to limit to one or the other, just explain the Exceptional, Accustomed, and Conditional skill abilities, and then you'll be fine.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Also:Well, we're probably closer to a pruning than a gutting, and I don't think we can get down to only 30 pages of rules and still meet this product's expectation, but you are definitely going to get fewer of the things you mentioned. The trick is, to cut all that stuff but maintain the ability to create and play the character you want.




I think, if you can, make a two tiered system (even if it's still the same product, or two if need be).


----------



## Dalamar

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Please weigh in soon, as I'm working on this stuff right now.I was hoping that a Planetouched could have all his or her accustomed 3.5 abilities at level 2, simulating the existing L.A., which is why their first talent is so "front-loaded."



Even if you separate the resistance from the free talent, a planetouched can actually have all their abilities by level 1 if they take that talent instead of a class talent as 1st level. If all the abilities are contained in the first, free talent, the planetouched gains all its abilities without the +1 LA it used to have. Though I do notice that you worsened their ability modifiers, but I'm not 100% sure that compensates.
Still, a planetouched need not have exactly all of the abilities they have in standard 3.5 at 2nd level, as they will have abilities in Fantasy Saga that they would lack in 3.5: the class abilities of 2nd level, or alternatively they can already be multiclass characters.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I should point out that talents are not meant to balance with each other. Since a racial talent is something only a character of that race can ever acquire, it does not need to scale with class talents. Anything I took from the Planetouched 1st talent, I would have to roll into some kind of bonus feat they would get at 1st level. However, in this system of races, feats represent cultural stuff, whereas the racial talents mostly represent genetics. Are there any Planetouched abilities people think would be cultural (a feat) instead of hereditary (the starting talent)?



Talents need to be roughly equal in power, just like races need to balance against each other. The only way one should have a stronger talent would be if the base race was weaker, and the talent was then bringing the race to balance with the other races, or if the talent required another talent that was generally weaker than other talents so that the two talents together were roughly worth the two talent picks used.
If a talent is stronger than other talents, people will choose it over other talents. If it is a racial talent, the only thing it does is limit it to that race; it does not become a weaker choice by being limited to a race that is balanced with other races.

I'll see if I'll write more later.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Dalamar said:
			
		

> or if the talent required another talent that was generally weaker than other talents so that the two talents together were roughly worth the two talent picks used.



I hate the 'some feats are weaker than others so that they can be used as Req for PrC's or as access to better feats' mentality of 3.X with the fire of a thousand suns! When I have the opportunity to pick an ability for my character, I want some thing cool now, not in 5 levels time (if I make it that far).

So please do not construct feats and talents this way in Fantasy Concepts.

P.S. Nothin' aimed at you personally, Dalamar.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I hate the 'some feats are weaker than others so that they can be used as Req for PrC's or as access to better feats' mentality of 3.X with the fire of a thousand suns! When I have the opportunity to pick an ability for my character, I want some thing cool now, not in 5 levels time (if I make it that far).
> 
> So please do not construct feats and talents this way in Fantasy Concepts.




Please remember that the scope of the project does limit us in certain regards, and that we will not be making very many radical changes from the baseline in order to keep the product more useful to the greater number of gamers. Within those confines, we will do what we can.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Dalamar

Didn't even think it was aimed at me, so no worries.

And I do agree that feats and talents should not be intentionally developed so that some are weaker than others. Some can be more situational, but they should be roughly equal.


----------



## Mokona

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and a conditional feat, OR
> All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and an exceptional (or accustomed) skill



Here is my take on an example +1 level-adjusted species...

Tiefling
+2 Dex, -2 Cha
Bonus Feat (Deceptive) - you may reroll Deception checks but you must then use the new roll
Bonus Talent (Demonic Heritage I) - You gain Darkvision + one of the following: resist cold 5, resist electricity 5, or resist fire 5

Other New Stuff
Feat (Use Darkness) - cast _darkness_ once per day
Talent (Demonic Heritage II) - Choose one of the following: resist cold 5, resist electricity 5, or resist fire 5 {these bonuses do not stack with DHI so choose a new energy type}
Talent (Demonic Heritage III) - You gain +2 Int + one of the following: resist cold 5, resist electricity 5, or resist fire 5 {these bonuses do not stack with DHI or DHII so choose a new energy type}

Below is the progression of a character showing that you could be a fully dedicated Tiefling at 3rd level.

Level
1 – 2 talents (one racial and one class/race) + 2 feats (one racial and any one)
2 – 2 talents (one racial and one class/race) + 3 feats (one racial, one class, and any one)
3 – 3 talents (one racial and two class/race) + 3 feats (one racial, one class, and any one)

My progression for the Tiefling might be a little too expensive but +2 Int is really good.  I also made the Reroll ability into a feat (so anyone can have it I suppose) and the Darkness spell-like ability.  I don't mind making Darkness a feat because it's effectively taking a little mini level of Mage that gets you one spell per day (at the cost of a feat).


----------



## Mokona

Mokona said:
			
		

> Tiefling
> +2 Dex, -2 Cha
> Bonus Feat (Deceptive) - you may reroll Deception checks but you must then use the new roll
> Bonus Talent (Demonic Heritage I) - You gain Darkvision + one of the following: resist cold 5, resist electricity 5, or resist fire 5



An interesting trick might be to reverse Deceptive and Demonic Heritage.

Make Deceptive the Bonus Talent at first level (_Saga_ seems to keep skill rerolls in the Talent arena rather than in feats) and make Demonic Heritage a bonus feat at first level.

Continue to keep Demonic Heritage II and Demonic Heritage III as Talents (with the Demonic Heritage I feat as a prequisite).  This way any race can have a small trace  of demonic heritage but "only" Tieflings have a strong enough blood connection to increase that link.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

No offense, but playing LA races isn't really core, IMO. It's more of an optional rule in the DMG.
Should we spend our energy looking at LA races, or at the core races?


----------



## Mokona

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Should we spend our energy looking at LA races, or at the core races?



While I agree I think it's important to note that unless we're trying to support non-core race rules then nothing relating to racial talent trees is within the scope of this project.  However, the owners of this project have expressed a preference to add these rules so I'm trying to help.

I would be perfectly happy with basic races converted to _Saga_ in the simplest method possible but that doesn't look like what is going to happen.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Sorcica said:
			
		

> No offense, but playing LA races isn't really core, IMO. It's more of an optional rule in the DMG.
> Should we spend our energy looking at LA races, or at the core races?




I think the designers are trying not to repeat one of the mistakes of 3rd edition. It's better to have a system designed with the option of playing more powerful races as a fully integrated part of the initial design, than it is to come back later and tack on some horrible kludge like the current LA system.


----------



## EditorBFG

Sorcica said:
			
		

> No offense, but playing LA races isn't really core, IMO. It's more of an optional rule in the DMG. Should we spend our energy looking at LA races, or at the core races?



The reason this all began was because, when I started doing racial talents, I realized they could eliminate L.A., so I decided to work up one L.A. race (planetouched) to test the theory, and I posted it. It was just an intellectual exercise, but now that it is out there it does seem worthwhile to figure out how to do it right, because it will affect the philosophy behind race design in general.

Also, there will be some attempt to merge L.A. subraces (drow, duergar, svirfneblin, etc.) into the core race via talents.

That said, I do not think we need more non-core races at this point beyond the ones we have. I will state that it is likely orc will be included as a core race, because of the way the half-orc race will work.







			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> Talents need to be roughly equal in power, just like races need to balance against each other. The only way one should have a stronger talent would be if the base race was weaker, and the talent was then bringing the race to balance with the other races, or if the talent required another talent that was generally weaker than other talents so that the two talents together were roughly worth the two talent picks used.
> If a talent is stronger than other talents, people will choose it over other talents. If it is a racial talent, the only thing it does is limit it to that race; it does not become a weaker choice by being limited to a race that is balanced with other races.



I do agree that the base racial talent each race receives at 1st level needs to balance with other base racial talents. What I meant is they do not need to balance with class talents. Now, talents farther up the path should be roughly equivalent to class talents, because there is a choice, but the base talent automatically given to each race can be more powerful than others.

But as you say, each race's base talent must scale with the others, otherwise the races with weaker base talents won't get played.







			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> I would be perfectly happy with basic races converted to Saga in the simplest method possible but that doesn't look like what is going to happen.



And there are a couple reasons for that.

First of all, I think giving every race a talent, a feat, and a skill schtick is a simplification in line with the philosophy behind saga. Since we will not be able to convert every race out there, we are creating a simple model for those who want to port over their favorites.

Second, races in the SRD are very different from Star Wars species. For example, no alien race ever published for any d20 Star Wars book looks like this: 







			
				The Hypertext SRD said:
			
		

> DWARF
> # +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma.
> # Medium: As Medium creatures, dwarves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
> # Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations).
> # Darkvision: Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves can function just fine with no light at all.
> # Stonecunning: This ability grants a dwarf a +2 racial bonus on Search checks to notice unusual stonework, such as sliding walls, stonework traps, new construction (even when built to match the old), unsafe stone surfaces, shaky stone ceilings, and the like. Something that isn’t stone but that is disguised as stone also counts as unusual stonework. A dwarf who merely comes within 10 feet of unusual stonework can make a Search check as if he were actively searching, and a dwarf can use the Search skill to find stonework traps as a rogue can. A dwarf can also intuit depth, sensing his approximate depth underground as naturally as a human can sense which way is up.
> # Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves may treat dwarven waraxes and dwarven urgroshes as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons.
> # Stability: A dwarf gains a +4 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bull rushed or tripped when standing on the ground (but not when climbing, flying, riding, or otherwise not standing firmly on the ground).
> # +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison.
> # +2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects.
> # +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids.
> # +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against monsters of the giant type. Any time a creature loses its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class, such as when it’s caught flat-footed, it loses its dodge bonus, too.
> # +2 racial bonus on Appraise checks that are related to stone or metal items.
> # +2 racial bonus on Craft checks that are related to stone or metal.



That is a lot of stuff. So we have to get creative to convert with any degree of faithfulness, even as we attempt to simplify.

Third, the Star Wars species do not have the archetypal depth of the D&D races. Elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc. have long-standing subraces, cultural nuances, interrelations, etc., all of which give them far greater substance and intricacy than wookiees and rodian. Racial talents allow us to honor these things in a way that is unified and elegant, rather than having the bevy of extra special rules and exceptions other d20 games would require to accomplish the like.

I tried to guide the discussion towards races a bit because I was working on that part, but obviously you guys are free to move on to other stuff if you thinking I'm bogging us down in minutia at this point.







			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> I hate the 'some feats are weaker than others so that they can be used as Req for PrC's or as access to better feats' mentality of 3.X with the fire of a thousand suns!



I absolutely agree, but when we try to fix this mentality we probably want to do so in a way that does not wander to far from the core. For example, I want to use Spycraft's version of the Dodge feat, which works something like this:

*Dodge [General]*
_Prerequisite:_ Dex 13.
_Benefit:_ During your action, you may designate a single opponent and receive a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent, or you can choose to receive a +1 dodge bonus against all opponents. You can choose which bonus to receive, or designate a new opponent for the more specific bonus, on any action.

This version makes the feat more attractive, but also maintains the "Dodge buddy" choice that other 3rd party and Core feats have built upon. I think this is the kind of philosophy that should be used to "improve" any weak core feats.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Slight Threadjack:

BFGEditor. I think you mentioned that the Iron Heroes feats are in Iconic Combat feats? Is this so? And if so, will you include them i nFantasy Concepts?

Thanks.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Slight Threadjack:
> 
> BFGEditor. I think you mentioned that the Iron Heroes feats are in Iconic Combat feats? Is this so? And if so, will you include them i nFantasy Concepts?
> 
> Thanks.




We can only do so if they fit the core system. There are a number of streamlining and simplifications of the system that may impact the nature of these feats. Just an FYI.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> For example, I want to use Spycraft's version of the Dodge feat, which works something like this:
> 
> *Dodge [General]*
> _Prerequisite:_ Dex 13.
> _Benefit:_ During your action, you may designate a single opponent and receive a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent, or you can choose to receive a +1 dodge bonus against all opponents. You can choose which bonus to receive, or designate a new opponent for the more specific bonus, on any action.




Going with Saga's simplification when we can, I'd prefer a version of the feat that works the same way all the time, instead of requiring you to choose between two effects. That's probably just me, though.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> Going with Saga's simplification when we can, I'd prefer a version of the feat that works the same way all the time, instead of requiring you to choose between two effects. That's probably just me, though.



The reason I would disagree is that Dodge already forces you to make a choice every round; the difference is that now there is a default option so that you have to spend less time thinking about this feat, rather than more. Therefore, this in fact is simpler, in actual play, because no one goes "Crap, I forgot to choose my Dodge target this round," they just default to the general +1 to Defense. If someone else has a better version of Dodge, I'm all for it, but this version is one taken from a popular, working system. 







			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> I think you mentioned that the Iron Heroes feats are in Iconic Combat feats? Is this so? And if so, will you include them i nFantasy Concepts?



Flynn is correct that there are certain simplifications in Saga that make this difficult. For example, a large number of Power Attack-derived feats exist in IH that inflict some kind of condition on an opponent-- in Saga, those are replaced with the Condition Track (which Flynn and I have a different name for, more on that soon). Another factor is the use of tokens-- many feats depend on them, but adding an additional mechanic to a system defined by its streamlined approach would be counter-productive.

That said, there should be several feats originally derived from IH Open Content-- feats not involving tokens or conditions or other rules we're not including-- that I imagine should port over quite nicely, which is in line with Saga's other main design consideration: more cinematic play. But feats aare a whole new can of worms that we have not much discussed, so I'd just be speculating if I said how many I thought we'd use. If I had my wish, we would find some brilliant, simple, integrated way to convert *all* the IH feats, because the combat stuff is that good, but I don't see any way how.

On races, I just had an idea I want input on: based on using the UA content for paragon races, most will have a talent that grants an ability boost. In fact, every race except for human will have at least one-- which, as we've discussed, also solves some LA problems. Earlier we talked about whether to use Saga's rule of raising two ability scores every 4 levels except for one. I was thinking: What if we made this a special trait of humans? Humans can raise two ability scores by 1 every 4 levels, other races only raise one ability score by 1 every 4 levels. Since other races have the option of getting a two-point bump around 4th level, this would sort of balance out-- in the long run, humans would get 10 extra ability score points by 20th level, while other races would get 7 points by 20th, but other races have the option of getting a couple extra early on.

I think this idea is in fitting with the d20 conceit that humans are more versatile and adaptable than other races, and it keeps humans an attractive choice relative races that their own talent paths. I am currently very in favor of this, so protest now if you disagree.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> If I had my wish, we would find some brilliant, simple, integrated way to convert *all* the IH feats, because the combat stuff is that good, but I don't see any way how.



I may just have an idea. What if the token feats are powered by 'token suites' the same way Force powers are in Saga? So you buy 'Archery Training' that gives you 1+ Dex modifier of Archery abilities or/and Archery tokens. And so on.

IMO, this doesn't go against the streamlining, as the concept is already a part of Saga. Heck, you could even create 'Token Cads' the same way Wizards has created Fore Cards.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> On races, I just had an idea I want input on: based on using the UA content for paragon races, most will have a talent that grants an ability boost. In fact, every race except for human will have at least one-- which, as we've discussed, also solves some LA problems. Earlier we talked about whether to use Saga's rule of raising two ability scores every 4 levels except for one. I was thinking: What if we made this a special trait of humans? Humans can raise two ability scores by 1 every 4 levels, other races only raise one ability score by 1 every 4 levels. Since other races have the option of getting a two-point bump around 4th level, this would sort of balance out-- in the long run, humans would get 10 extra ability score points by 20th level, while other races would get 7 points by 20th, but other races have the option of getting a couple extra early on.
> 
> I think this idea is in fitting with the d20 conceit that humans are more versatile and adaptable than other races, and it keeps humans an attractive choice relative races that their own talent paths. I am currently very in favor of this, so protest now if you disagree.



I like this. I had myself been thinking about racial boosts that would allow a race to go _beyond_ in a given stat. I think it coulc work great.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I like this. I had myself been thinking about racial boosts that would allow a race to go _beyond_ in a given stat. I think it coulc work great.




What's the most popular race in your games already? If your group is like mine, the race is human. If that's the case, then there is no need to give a bonus like that to humans, especially to balance a talent issue. Balance talents with talents, in my opinion. The concept is good, but I feel it might be misguided in terms of overall game design.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> What's the most popular race in your games already? If your group is like mine, the race is human. If that's the case, then there is no need to give a bonus like that to humans, especially to balance a talent issue. Balance talents with talents, in my opinion. The concept is good, but I feel it might be misguided in terms of overall game design.



You may be right. If so, we should probably not use the two stat boost for any race, because there are compelling game design reasons to maintain the talents that give a +2 stat bonus. On the other hand, when you say balancing a talent issue, it occurs to me that there really is no other talent that is as good as a +2 bonus to an ability score, so I am not 100% convinced.

(As a side-note, I think it is really cool that humans are more popular in your games. That is definitely not true for the Ptolus game I am playing in now, nor my weekly Living Greyhawk game-- I wish it were, as I think the other races races work best when the ratio of humans to demihumans is very high, local meta-game differences aside. Do a lot of folks shoot for prestige classes in your games, making them desire another feat more?)


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> (As a side-note, I think it is really cool that humans are more popular in your games. That is definitely not true for the Ptolus game I am playing in now, nor my weekly Living Greyhawk game-- I wish it were, as I think the other races races work best when the ratio of humans to demihumans is very high, local meta-game differences aside. Do a lot of folks shoot for prestige classes in your games, making them desire another feat more?)




I game with people that love feats and skills, and humans are the key to getting both.  Some are PrC-happy, but with my next game, I'm likely to cut back significantly on PrCs, after having played Grim Tales for so long. 

Yeah, most groups I've played in have human-centric parties, so it might be an area thing.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Sundragon2012

*Very interesting indeed*

This is a very interesting thread.

Streamlining D20 into something less cumbersome and more elegant using a OGL incarnation of the SAGA System (unofficially of course) sounds like a great idea. I am following this thread closely and looking forward to see what comes of it.

I am working in a campaign setting right now and making sure it is currently "system free" so that I can easily plug it into whtever good, solid OGL system currently exists. I have been considering Conan OGL and True20 or even 4E when it comes out (likely within 2yrs I would bet) if it is OGL.

If this project turns out to be a solid, playable, OGL product crafted by those with a good head for rules/mechanics design my setting could be for this system. I mention a good head for rule design because I am a good fluff writer and can write up ideas that I feel are internally consistant, interesting and creative but I am not a game mechanics guy. I leave that for those who enjoy number crunching. I can easily conceptualize where I want a rule/mechanic to go in regards to its flavor but in regards to numbers the algorithms behind them I am no game designer.

The setting is Robert E. Howard meets Tolkien meets George R.R. Martin and is a mixture of gritty low fantasy, high fantasy and some horror/dark fantasy. I am attempting to craft a world that is believable and mature while at the same time able to easily handle traditional high fantasy elements such as the good vs. evil motif and the grittier atmosphere of a world where things aren't often black and white. Right now it's going well and as I create this setting I will be paying close attention to this rules set.


Chris


----------



## Flynn

Sundragon:

We definitely would like to think that the final version of our product will be "a solid, playable, OGL product crafted by those with a good head for rules/mechanics", and I hope that what we come up with will meet your needs. Any input you would like to provide would be of great benefit.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Gwarh

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> [*][*] All races have ability mods, one (unconditional) bonus feat, a bonus talent (with path), and an exceptional (or accustomed) skill
> [/list]




I prefer the above (2nd) option. Just feels more "right" to me. And as another poster mentioned, it helps create a slightly different feel than a char not of the same race with a feat that works on the same skill.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> The setting is Robert E. Howard meets Tolkien meets George R.R. Martin and is a mixture of gritty low fantasy, high fantasy and some horror/dark fantasy.



This is _exactly_ the three worlds I'm combining in my own homebrew. Very scary  ...or great minds and all that.


----------



## EditorBFG

I need opinions on a couple of things. First, here is the Talent Path for gnomes: 







			
				Fantasy Concepts Draft said:
			
		

> *Gnome Talent Path*
> Mysterious Ways: You know the language of burrowing mammals (badgers, foxes, rabbits, or the like), and may speak to them once per day as per a speak with animals spell (this is not magical effect, however, and cannot be dispelled). If your Charisma is at least 10, you also have the following spell-like abilities: dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation, usable three times per day.
> Ways of the Forest: You have the innate ability to use pass without trace (self only, as a free action) as the spell once per day. In addition, you speak a simple language that enables you to communicate on a very basic level with forest animals. Finally, if you are in a wooded area, you may reroll any Stealth roll, but must keep the result of the second roll.
> Improved Mysterious Ways: If your Charisma is at least 10, you gain the ability to cast mirror image once per day as a spell-like ability.
> Prerequisite: Mysterious ways
> Secrecy: You may reroll any Deception roll, but must keep the result of the second roll. In addition, you may cast silent image as a spell-like ability once per day.
> Preternatural Senses: You gain the Preternatural Senses feat, regardless of whether or not you meet the prerequisites.
> Scion of the Depths: You gain a +2 racial bonus to Fortitude Defense and Will Defense against spells and spell-like effects. In addition, you have darkvision, allowing you to see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and you can function just fine with no light at all.
> Deep Gnome: You can reroll any Perception roll related to stonework or tunnels. In addition, you may reroll any Stealth roll, but must keep the result of the second roll, unless you are underground, in which case you may keep the higher of the two.
> Master Illusionist: Whenever you cast an illusion spell, you treat all subjects’ Will Defenses as if they were 2 lower.
> Prerequisite: Any other talent from this path
> Disappear: You have a continuous nondetection ability as the spell. In addition, if your Wisdom is at least 10, you gain the ability to cast blur, deafness/blindness, and disguise self once per day each as a spell-like ability.
> Prerequisite: Character level 3, any 2 other talents from this Path
> Glamour of the Fey: You gain a permanent +2 to Charisma.
> Prerequisites: Character level 3, any 2 other talents from this Path



Does this work for those of us who weighed in on the gnome discussion?

Also, I would like more input on the following, since people have expressed opinions on both sides. All races will be able to raise one ability score every 4 levels. Does anyone else have an opinion on allowing humans to raise two ability scores every 4 levels, to compensate for all the other races having a talent that raises one ability score by two?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

If the racial Talent is a free Talent, I think it's okay to let humans get more raises. If the other races have to spend a talent to get an ability boost, I think they get shafted.


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> If the racial Talent is a free Talent, I think it's okay to let humans get more raises. If the other races have to spend a talent to get an ability boost, I think they get shafted.




I concur. I'd rather see humans get a talent that allows them to increase one ability score of their choice by 2 points, per the current human racial paragon class ability, Ability Boost.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm#humanParagon

Then everyone gets the same number of raises, be it one or two, per 4 levels.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## nobodez

Flynn said:
			
		

> I concur. I'd rather see humans get a talent that allows them to increase one ability score of their choice by 2 points, per the current human racial paragon class ability, Ability Boost.
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm#humanParagon
> 
> Then everyone gets the same number of raises, be it one or two, per 4 levels.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




As much as I'd love to see the 2/4 ability increase, it breaks the idea of backwards compatability, which is, I believe, something you were striving for.

And I like the idea of integrating the paragon levels as talents, if that's even on the table, since that's what, I think, you were headed for with the racial talents anyway (more elven, more dwarven, more human, etc.).


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I need opinions on a couple of things. First, here is the Talent Path for gnomes: Does this work for those of us who weighed in on the gnome discussion?




Looks good. Would all gnomes get _Mysterious Ways_ as their free talent, or would the player be free to choose any talent in the path without a prerequisite?


----------



## EditorBFG

nobodez said:
			
		

> As much as I'd love to see the 2/4 ability increase, it breaks the idea of backwards compatability, which is, I believe, something you were striving for.
> 
> And I like the idea of integrating the paragon levels as talents, if that's even on the table, since that's what, I think, you were headed for with the racial talents anyway (more elven, more dwarven, more human, etc.).



More than on the table: the paragon levels are a big part of what we have already implemented! So yeah, all the paragon stuff is already talents.

Humans won't have their own talent path, however. Instead, they get the chance to invest more in their class. And it looks like I am outvoted on the human 2 stat bump as opposed to other races, but you guys have all given very valid reasons.







> Would all gnomes get Mysterious Ways as their free talent, or would the player be free to choose any talent in the path without a prerequisite?



This is what I am trying to work out. Basically, Ways of the Forest is the default for Forest Gnomes, and there are other talents for Svirfneblin and the "Gnome of Zurich"/Illuminatus type idea you proposed-- that idea amused me too much not to get in. Should the default Gnome be a Rock Gnome, required to take Mysterious Ways? Or, should the Rock Gnome be that way, but have another subrace (a nomadic gnome, perhaps, based on the sort of traveling Gypsy archetype that has begun to emerge) that chooses from any talent without prereqs? Maybe we could switch out one of the base gnome bonus feats for a weaker one for this subrace, to balance out the "Road Gnome'" having more of choice. Hmmm...


----------



## Mokona

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> And it looks like I am outvoted on the human 2 stat bump as opposed to other races...



I was gently shocked, and pleased, to read the rule in _Saga_ that all characters get to improve two scores by +1 instead of only one.

I've always felt that the stat bumps were too seldom to be noticable or exciting for players.  Wizards especially tended to put 100% of their stat increases into their core casting Ability score.  This made the stat increase less of an option that could distinguish two different characters.  Also a +1 seems so small that it's like you get a +2 every eight levels.  That feels really really really slow!  (We know, of course, that increasing a stat by +1 doesn't matter much for half the times.)

Getting two raises feels a lot more impactful and exciting without causing massive power creep.  The second raise also allows focused character classes to diversify with their second choice in ways that will actually vary from one character in the class to another.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Yeah, I'm in favor of having all races increase 2 stats by one every 4th level. Just not that only humans should be allowed this. Sorry if that was unclear


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Sundragon: I'd love to hear more about your setting (and perhaps alittle on how you use Fantasy Concepts for it).

Thanks.


----------



## Flynn

Hey, Guys,

Does anyone know of an OGC precedence for the two stat bump every four levels?

Just trying to provide back-up for decisions when we can,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

So, are people okay with the two stat bump AND each non-human race having a talent that grants a +2 to a specific ability? Or is that too much?

Also: We could also do a +1 every two levels, and not permit anyone to bump the same stat twice in a row (if you bump Str at 2nd, you cannot bump it again at 4th, you have to wait until 6th). Probably less cool, I'm just throwing out possible options in case we can't justify the Saga method as OGC.


----------



## drothgery

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> So, are people okay with the two stat bump AND each non-human race having a talent that grants a +2 to a specific ability? Or is that too much?




Really, the Saga-style two bumps per 4 levels only makes sense if you're ditching or massivley scaling back stat boosting magic items and spells. If you're completely killing them, or making them very expensive/high-level things, then a +2 stat single-use talent should be fine. On top of D&D-style stat boosting items... anything beyond the d20 SRD one bump/4 levels is too much.


----------



## Mokona

drothgery said:
			
		

> On top of D&D-style stat boosting items... anything beyond the d20 SRD one bump/4 levels is too much.



Could you please be more specific as to why?

Personally, I strongly favor removing almost all stat boosting magic items (does _Saga_ have any such thing).  Once you remove stat boosting magic items it's ok to give each race access to a racial talent that gives a +2 to one Ability score.  This ability score bump should come with at least two (2) or more racial talent prerequisites.  Furthermore, humans should have access to such a boost as well and should be allowed to use it (once and only once) on any Ability score of their choice.

Now that sounds cool!  

Humans should have a racial talent tree...


----------



## Flynn

Mokona said:
			
		

> Humans should have a racial talent tree...




Personally, I agree. They have a paragon racial class, so I think a talent tree setup that emulates paragon racial levels should do so for all core races. However, BFGEditor has his reasons for not providing humans with one, which he has already stated. If you'd like to see one added for humans, please give your thoughts behind your words, for his consideration. It often helps in us making decisions if people provide detailed feedback to support their thoughts.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## tsadkiel

Mokona said:
			
		

> Could you please be more specific as to why?
> 
> Personally, I strongly favor removing almost all stat boosting magic items (does _Saga_ have any such thing).




Saga doesn't have stat boosting items.  Saga doesn't have stat boosting Force powers or racial abilities, either; rage and the like give bonuses to hit and damage rather than to ability scores.  It's one of the subtler innovations, and one I'd like to see carried over, but since Fantasy Concepts is using d20 sells, I'm not sure how to do so.


----------



## drothgery

Mokona said:
			
		

> Could you please be more specific as to why?




Because it would then be simple and cheap for a human with average rolled stats to have two stats above 20 by level 8 or so.


----------



## Flynn

drothgery said:
			
		

> Because it would then be simple and cheap for a human with average rolled stats to have two stats above 20 by level 8 or so.




Assuming the standard array (which is admittedly low for most campaigns), the stats are: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Bumping two up each time gives us the following at 8th level: 17, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8. Two stat-bump items of around, what, +4, would give us: 21, 20, 13, 12, 10, 8.

D&D would be, under the same circumstances: 21, 18, 13, 12, 10, 8. That's a difference of one stat having a +5 modifier instead of a +4 modifier. What is the criteria behind evaluating something as unbalancing in these regards?

At 20th level, we'd see the following in Saga (assuming two stat bump items at +6):
26, 25, 13, 12, 10, 8

With D&D being:
26, 20, 13, 12, 10, 8

At 20th level, the difference becomes a +5 modifier compared to a +7 modifier, or a +2 difference in stat mods for a secondary ability score. That's not bad for a range of 20 levels, I would think. Then again, I'm sure it depends on the class and the stat as to how it would impact the game. Considering that it's a secondary ability score, it does help the MAD classes, but otherwise, its impact seems minor.

Of course, I could be wrong here.

To help me see the point here, what is the impact of having a +2 higher modifier than normal in Strength at 20th level?
In Dexterity?
In Constitution?
In Intelligence?
In Wisdom?
In Charisma?
And are any of them truely unbalancing? (Maybe we can fix the exceptions instead of addressing the modifier issue...)

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> Personally, I agree. They have a paragon racial class, so I think a talent tree setup that emulates paragon racial levels should do so for all core races. However, BFGEditor has his reasons for not providing humans with one, which he has already stated. If you'd like to see one added for humans, please give your thoughts behind your words, for his consideration. It often helps in us making decisions if people provide detailed feedback to support their thoughts.



And perhaps I can help too by being more specific in explaining why humans don't get a talent path. 

Basically, the UA human paragon class is so generic relative to the other paragons that the talents a human paragon based tree would make available would in most cases be indistinguishable from the talents any class would offer. Since the only way to progress in a racial talent path is to sacrifice class talents, there is no point in putting together a talent path that grants access to stuff you can already get. Instead, the ability to move more deeply into class talents sooner than other races is built into humans without the addition of a talent path, thus providing them with all the options they would obtain from a paragon class.







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> To help me see the point here, what is the impact of having a +2 higher modifier than normal in Strength at 20th level?



This is just my gut reaction, but I'm not sure this is a balance issue, I think it is a flavor issue. 3-18 are the normal human baseline ability score range-- so that, barring extraordinary circumstances, humans cannot exceed this. Other races can, but only in one specific score in which they are exceptional, at the cost of being less capable in another ability. At 4th level, achieving 19 in one score should be a big deal. But if you can have a 21 ability score at 4th level, that feels wrong-- you make the shift into superhuman a bit too quickly for my case. And, as you go up in levels, if you get stat-raising magic items, it is not just a matter of having a 26 or a 25-- it is a matter of having stats in the 30s. or, having two stats in the 30s instead of one.

And I am not interesting in making global changes to d20 Fantasy magic items. That seems like too drastic and time-consuming of an alteration.

But as I said, all of the above is just a gut reaction.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> This is just my gut reaction, but I'm not sure this is a balance issue, I think it is a flavor issue. 3-18 are the normal human baseline ability score range-- so that, barring extraordinary circumstances, humans cannot exceed this. Other races can, but only in one specific score in which they are exceptional, at the cost of being less capable in another ability. At 4th level, achieving 19 in one score should be a big deal. But if you can have a 21 ability score at 4th level, that feels wrong-- you make the shift into superhuman a bit too quickly for my case. And, as you go up in levels, if you get stat-raising magic items, it is not just a matter of having a 26 or a 25-- it is a matter of having stats in the 30s. or, having two stats in the 30s instead of one.
> 
> And I am not interesting in making global changes to d20 Fantasy magic items. That seems like too drastic and time-consuming of an alteration.
> 
> But as I said, all of the above is just a gut reaction.




I would agree with you. I think it is a flavor issue, since the stat is still below 20 in both cases without stat bumping devices. Balancing the system against Saga can be hard, because of the impact that equipment has in D20 Fantasy.

In the end, I don't care which way the bump issue goes, but I feel confident that two bumps will not break the system in terms of game mechanics and stat balance. If you use the RAW and roll 4d6, drop the lowest, you could end up with two 18s, which an elven fighter could end up with 20 in both Str and Dex by 8th level without any stat bumping devices at all, and the system still works. Based on that, having two 20s by 8th isn't broken at all. Therefore it is likely that this is going to be a flavor issue only. But whatever is decided should be applied across the board to all core races equally.

IMO, YMMV, of course. 

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

Flynn said:
			
		

> If you'd like to see one added for humans, please give your thoughts behind your words, for his consideration.



Thanks for keeping me honest.    Now that I have _Unearthed Arcana_ in front of me I can give more detail.

In the _*D20 Modern* Roleplaying Game_ characters can purchase two (2) Talents with one Feat: Strong Plus, Fast Plus, Tough Plus, Smart Plus, Dedicated Plus, and Charismatic Plus from _D20 Future_.  This implies that one Talent is worth 1/2 of a Feat but I'm not sure I agree that those Feats are correctly balanced.  A strong hero with Melee Smash (+1 damage) can pick up Improved and Advanced Melee Smash for the low low price of one Feat (for a total of +2 damage in addition to Melee Smash).  That seems better than Weapon Specialization (a feat that also gives you +2 damage) because Melee Smash doesn't require you to limit its bonus to a single weapon.

Suppose elves can pick up a +2 Dexterity (or even Intelligence if you a trying to enable the elf wizard archetype) with the Species Talent Tree.  There is no way for a human to replicate this bonus.  A human also can't replicate the starting +2 Dexterity that elves receive.  Hiitting humans with a second stat increase only available to non-humans is too much for me both on a gut check and by a numerical comparison.

Talents that grant +2 to one Ability Score are powerful enough that I'd feel unfairly punished if my human character couldn't get one.  The argument that humans can more quickly advance in their chosen character class is nullified on its face because all species Talents are optional.  Every species can chose their class Talents (instead of species Talents) in each situation where that is the (only) option open to a human.

Have we given humans an extra, use it anywhere, Talent slot that doesn't come from advancing in class levels?


----------



## Mokona

Elf and human paragons are almost identical.  They get the same base attack bonus progression, the same saving throw progression (with different choices for good vs. poor saves), and the same spells per day progression.  Human paragons get two (2) more skill points: 4 instead of 2 per level.  Decide for yourself but I'd guess that Elfsight and Resist Enchantments are slightly better than treating an additional skill of your choice as a class skill.

The 2nd-level paragon elf bonus Feat (Weapon Focus) option is inferior on its face to the human ability to choose any Feat for which he qualifies.  Is the human's flexibility 25% better than a fixed bonus Feat?  50% better?  Perhaps the human option is worth a fixed Feat (like an elf's Weapon Focus) plus a Talent?  This same question of how much better applies to elf and human paragons at third level.

The Elf Paragon receives a +2 Intelligence which is never better and sometimes worse (depending on your primary class) than the Human Paragon option to add +2 to any Ability Score.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Basically, the UA human paragon class is so generic relative to the other paragons that the talents a human paragon based tree would make available would in most cases be indistinguishable from the talents any class would offer.



Let me take a stab at The Human Paragon...

Humans get a bonus Feat and an additional trained Skill.  Perhaps adaptive learning isn't that different.  Adaptive Learning: Choose a skill from one of your class skill options.  You become trained in that skill.  This is the equivalent of a Feat (Skill Training) so perhaps it is too powerful.  In that case perhaps humans could pick an Accustomed Skill with their optional species talent tree.

2nd Human species Talent would be Spontaneous Talent: Choose a Talent from a Heroic Class other than your current Class.  You gain that Talent.  You still must meet all requirements for that Talent (other than being a member of that Class).  Requirements: Adaptive Learning

3rd Human species Talent: Increase one (1) Ability Score of your choice by two (2) points.  Requirements: Adaptive Learning, Spontaneous Talent


----------



## Gundark

What are the plans to balance magic? Won't only giving one attack increase the damage output gap between spellcasters and fighter types?


----------



## Dalamar

Mokona said:
			
		

> In the _*D20 Modern* Roleplaying Game_ characters can purchase two (2) Talents with one Feat: Strong Plus, Fast Plus, Tough Plus, Smart Plus, Dedicated Plus, and Charismatic Plus from _D20 Future_.  This implies that one Talent is worth 1/2 of a Feat but I'm not sure I agree that those Feats are correctly balanced.  A strong hero with Melee Smash (+1 damage) can pick up Improved and Advanced Melee Smash for the low low price of one Feat (for a total of +2 damage in addition to Melee Smash).  That seems better than Weapon Specialization (a feat that also gives you +2 damage) because Melee Smash doesn't require you to limit its bonus to a single weapon.



Actually, the Plus feats say that a character can't choose more than one Talent from the same Tree with the feat. But yeah, I agree that those feats are not balanced correctly.


----------



## Flynn

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Actually, the Plus feats say that a character can't choose more than one Talent from the same Tree with the feat. But yeah, I agree that those feats are not balanced correctly.




Also, if I recall, the Plus feats only give you access to talents that have no prerequisites, so you only get "bottom of the talent tree" stuff anyway with them. That being said, I don't think they are balanced, because I don't feel that talents are half a feat.

There are four types of special abilities:

1. Low-powered ability usable only in limited situations.
2. Useful ability usable only in limited situations.
3. Low-powered ability usable in very common situations.
4. Useful ability usable only in very common situations.

The rough CR adjustments for these under Grim Tales is, in order: CR +0.1, CR +0.2, CR +0.2, and CR +0.5.

Most talents fall into the #2 and #3 categories. As an aside, so do feats, which are rated at CR +0.2.

With that in mind, the Plus feats concept is unbalanced and therefore useless to me. I have noticed that it only appeared in D20 Future, and they have not been used elsewhere in any WOTC work, including Saga. Perhaps WOTC feels that the Plus feats are not appropriate for a Saga Edition game, despite the fact that they were found in D20 Future and SW is a sci-fi campaign setting.

Food for thought,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Gundark said:
			
		

> What are the plans to balance magic? Won't only giving one attack increase the damage output gap between spellcasters and fighter types?




Bonus damage will be given to compensate for the loss of iterative attacks. Based on the numbers, the damage output gap will not be significantly effected under most conditions. I previously posted a link to a thread where I discussed this at length with a number of people on the board, prior to this project coming into existence.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Gundark said:
			
		

> What are the plans to balance magic? Won't only giving one attack increase the damage output gap between spellcasters and fighter types?




Don't you mean decrease (raw damage output favors fighter types in D&D; if you're a blaster mage, you're one because it's fun -- that would be why I play them -- or because you want to clear out mooks quickly)? Between almost always hitting two or three times per round, strength bonuses, magic weapons, and whatever feats and/or other class abilities the warrior type picks up... well, the d6/level of a typical blasting spell isn't going to keep up.

But yeah, the level-based bonus damage makes up for the loss of iterative attacks pretty much.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Mokona said:
			
		

> In the _*D20 Modern* Roleplaying Game_ characters can purchase two (2) Talents with one Feat: Strong Plus, Fast Plus, Tough Plus, Smart Plus, Dedicated Plus, and Charismatic Plus from _D20 Future_.




I'll just point out that, according to the Saga designers over on the WotC board, they went the other way, generally making talents stronger (or, at least, much cooler) than feats.

The justification is that, when it comes right down to it, anyone can take any feat.  There is an opportunity cost (you must be class X) to gain access to a specific talent.

Something to consider, anyway.


----------



## Gundark

It's been my xp that mages deal way more damage than figther types at higher levels. It was my understanding that multiple attacks decreased this gap. I understand how SAGA adds half the level as a bonus to damage, however is this enough? My gut tells me no.


----------



## drothgery

Gundark said:
			
		

> It's been my xp that mages deal way more damage than figther types at higher levels. It was my understanding that multiple attacks decreased this gap. I understand how SAGA adds half the level as a bonus to damage, however is this enough? My gut tells me no.




Err... multiple attacks were supposed to decrease the gap. What they actually do is blow right past the gap and create one in the other direction. Wizards can kick butt at high levels, but it's not by doing damage directly (except in terms of wiping out hordes of mooks).

Take a really simple build of a Ftr 12 -- 22 Str (15 Str +3 level-up bonus +4 belt), +2 greatsword, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization. His attack bonus is +12 BAB +6 Str +2 weapon focus +2 magic = +22, for three attacks at +22/+17/+12. His damage bonus is +12 str (2-handed weapon) +2 magic +4 specialization, so each hit does 2d6 + 18, or 25 damage on average. If he averages 2 hits/round, he's doing 50 damage per round.

A really simple blaster wizard 12 -- 22 Int (same logic), greater spell focus (evocation), greater spell penetration, empower spell. With a straightforward blasting spell that he doesn't run into his level cap on, he'll do 12d6 damage, or 42 damage on average, if the target doesn't save. If they do, he'll do 21 on average (unless they've got evasion, in which case he'll do none). Or he can empower a lower level spell and do 10d6 X 1.5 damage for 52.5 on avergae on a failed save and 26.25 on a successful save, but that reduces the saving throw DC by 2, so you might not want to do that.

And it's a lot easier to make the fighter do better than this than it is to make the wizard do better than this. About the only way my Warmage 16 keeps up with the Barbarian 9/Fighter 8 in damage output is because I'm pretty sure the player's making math errors and understating her damage more often than not (and because her feat and weapon choices haven't been optimal; frex, she's got a lot of average magic weapons instead of one really good one). And even then she's still doing more damage than me to most targets.


----------



## Flynn

Guys,

As an FYI, the damage bonus just makes up for the potential damage lost with the removal of iterative attacks. The fighter will be just as effective (or ineffective) as he was previously, within one to two average points of damage. Whether or not there's a gap, and if so, what direction it lies in, isn't really the question in regards to the damage bonus. The real question is: does the iterative combatant do the same damage with the damage bonus as he did before with iterative attacks? The answer is yes, or reasonably close. Therefore, Mr. Fighter impacts the system in pretty much the same way mathematically as he did before, and so the overall impact of the shift is negated.

I guess the true answer to the original question should probably be "no, this does not address the gap, but it doesn't change it either."

Does that help?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

Mokona said:
			
		

> Let me take a stab at The Human Paragon...



The thing is, in the current draft, humans already get a bonus feat, a trained skill, and an extra talent from their class. Now, if you think that extra talent should come from any class, I'm don't think I agree, but maybe I'm wrong about that-- it's certainly debatable.

For the human stat bump, I had a thought. What if we add a talent that allows a +2 to any ability score, but only if you have not previously gained an ability score increase from a talent. We make that talent available to all classes, though at a slightly higher level than the static racial stat bumps. So, humans get the same stat bump as other races, just a couple levels later, and other races have the option of choosing not to get their racial stat raise, in order to raise a score of their choice later on.

(Thinking about it, maybe the above would be better as a feat, available at, say 7th level?)

Between this, an extra feat, an extra talent, and an extra  trained skill, humans should be fine. But feel free to voice disagreement.   

_Regarding Plus Feats:_

I did a lot of looking into Plus feats when I work on Talent Tree Compendium and Fantastic Classes. A lot. You'll notice that the talents offered by Plus feats aren't always simply the ones with no prereqs. I tried to figure out the precise logic behind Plus feats and what talents were placed into them.

My final conclusion was that the game designers were compensating for failures made in the original talent designs. Basically, they realized that some Modern talents were a bit too weak (an error the SAGA designers corrected in their game), and so they threw in something to help base classes get farther up certain trees. This should not be taken as an assertion of talent value-- many talents are much better than the average feat, and many talents are weaker. A talent is not "half" a feat.

Plus Feats appeared in Fantastic Classes, but only to help simulate the "front-loaded" nature of D&D base classes in Modern. And I was very careful to limit what talents each Plus Feat should grant, to prevent abuse. But Fantasy Concepts should have no need of Plus Feats, nor are they an accurate measure of relative potency.

To my mind, the difference between Talents and Feats has nothing to do with relative power, and everything to do with who can acquire them. As Patryn pointed out, Feats are abilities that any character willing to meet the prerequisites can get, while Talents are abilities only certain classes or races can acquire. And that should be the only real difference-- yes, feats are acquired more often (a 20th level character in this system will have 19 feats and 11 talents) but I don't think each talent must be judged to make sure it is more powerful than a feat would be. And to be honest, even judging the relative power of one feat versus another or one talent versus another is not always exact anyhow, yet alone talents versus feats

This brings up the earlier discussion of talents that grant a feat. In some ways, yes, you are using something you only get 11 of to buy something you get 19 of, but at early levels it can be quite useful, especially if the talent lets you bypass prerequisites. Also, sometimes useful talents are designed to expand or build on a feat's abilities in a way that only a certain class should be able to. In such a case, PCs looking to acquire those talents may find it useful to have multiple avenues to acquire the base feat; those talents can then be designed have that feat as a prerequisite, rather than the talent that grants the feat. That way, those who want to acquire the feat at an odd-numbered level can do so, but those who choose not to spend a feat on a talent are not penalized; both can acquire the talents that build on that feat. In any case, a talent that only grants a feat should never be a prerequisite for any talent.

_Regarding the Fighter/Mage "damage gap":_

Should we make the weapon damage bonus all characters receive half base attack bonus (rounded up) instead of half character level? This would make it so a fighter with longsword is that much better than a mage with a longsword, which might help reward the fighter's specialization as he progresses in levels.


----------



## tsadkiel

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> _Regarding the Fighter/Mage "damage gap":_
> 
> Should we make the weapon damage bonus all characters receive half base attack bonus (rounded up) instead of half character level? This would make it so a fighter with longsword is that much better than a mage with a longsword, which might help reward the fighter's specialization as he progresses in levels.




I don't think that's needed - the fighter will already be much better than the mage with a longsword, and I don't think you need to complicate the rules to reinforce that.


----------



## EditorBFG

tsadkiel said:
			
		

> I don't think that's needed - the fighter will already be much better than the mage with a longsword, and I don't think you need to complicate the rules to reinforce that.



Fair enough, but is half base attack bonus really more complicated than half character level?

And really, why should two levels of Mage increase your weapon damage as much as two levels of Fighter?


----------



## drothgery

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but is half base attack bonus really more complicated than half character level?




No, but half character level makes multiclassing less bad.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> And really, why should two levels of Mage increase your weapon damage as much as two levels of Fighter?




Mages learn to subtlely imbue their strikes with arcane power. Clerics learn to imbue them with the force of their deity. Rogues know where to hit. Fighters know how to hit harder.


----------



## tsadkiel

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but is half base attack bonus really more complicated than half character level?




Yes, because it's affected by multiclassing.  It's not *hugely* complicated by any means, but half level is simpler.



> And really, why should two levels of Mage increase your weapon damage as much as two levels of Fighter?




My impression of the level-based damage bonus is that it doesn't come from increased skill, it comes from increased awesome - two levels of Mage should add just as much awesome as two levels of fighter, and vice versa.

More seriously - the fighter will be doing more damage than the mage anyway, because he will have invested feats and talents and ability scores into being cool with weapons.  The mage with a sword is dabbling with melee, and in general Saga is much more dabbling friendly than other forms of d20; he should still be able to make a contribution without overshadowing the specialists, just as a soldier who dabbles in the force (or a fighter who dabbles in magic) should be able to make a contribution without overshadowing the specialists.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> _Regarding the Fighter/Mage "damage gap":_
> 
> Should we make the weapon damage bonus all characters receive half base attack bonus (rounded up) instead of half character level? This would make it so a fighter with longsword is that much better than a mage with a longsword, which might help reward the fighter's specialization as he progresses in levels.




Actually, the values work out best if you add the BAB as the damage bonus straight out. From a numbers-crunching perspective, that's the best way to minimize the impact on the system which replaces iterative attack and remains streamlined and easy to use. (There are slightly better ways, but they aren't easy, nor do they fit the essence of this project.)

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

On the stat boost issue, what if the racial talents didn't provide an actual bonus, but allowed for allocating level based boosts in a different manner. For example:

_Glamour of the Fey: When next presented with the opportunity to raise two ability scores by one point each, the player may instead raise the character's charisma score by two points._

That provides a tangible benefit, but keeps the overall number of points humans and non-humans can get the same.


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> Actually, the values work out best if you add the BAB as the damage bonus straight out.



I think that is a very good solution. Even easier than half character level, and keeps a 20th level fighter competitive with 9th level spells (especially since, as we are planning it, spellcasters will not be so weak at 1st level either. 







			
				Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> Glamour of the Fey: When next presented with the opportunity to raise two ability scores by one point each, the player may instead raise the character's charisma score by two points.



This may be the most elegant idea I've heard so far on this problem. This (or some variation on it) may be just what the doctor ordered. Now I just have to figure out how to make something like this work for LA races with multiple ability scores at +2 or higher.


----------



## Animus

I had to chime in and say that I'm eagerly waiting for this supplement. Looking good.


----------



## maggot

I love this project.  How can I help out?

A few pages ago you said you were looking for an Open Game version of the increase two stats each level.  Well, a system that I came up with that is nearly the same might help:

At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter (6th, 10th, etc) you can increase any stat by +1.
At 4th level and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, etc) you can increase any secondary stat by +1.  A "secondary" stat cannot be your highest stat.

This spreads the stat raises out a bit, but works fundamentally the same.

For the trait that says "you can add both raises to Cha" you could change it to "you can add your next secondary raise to Cha even if it is your highest stat".


----------



## Flynn

maggot said:
			
		

> I love this project.  How can I help out?




Thanks, guys, for the vote of support. We are definitely excited about the potentials behind it.



			
				maggot said:
			
		

> A few pages ago you said you were looking for an Open Game version of the increase two stats each level.  Well, a system that I came up with that is nearly the same might help:
> 
> At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter (6th, 10th, etc) you can increase any stat by +1.
> At 4th level and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, etc) you can increase any secondary stat by +1.  A "secondary" stat cannot be your highest stat.
> 
> This spreads the stat raises out a bit, but works fundamentally the same.
> 
> For the trait that says "you can add both raises to Cha" you could change it to "you can add your next secondary raise to Cha even if it is your highest stat".




Actually, what I probably should have said is that I'm looking for some kind of precedence of s a similar system that has already been published prior to this year that pursued something like that. Just looking to make sure we can back up as many things as we can through either OGC that has been previously published (2006 or earlier), or that directly stems from mathematical progressions.

So far, we're doing a pretty good job of it, but there are some things that will, by necessity, be different, just because of the legal issues involved. Our design is to make this as modular as possible, though, so you can drop in a House Rule on your own to cover those areas that we feel might be legally ambiguous (mostly a CYA thing), or you can look at our alternative for that and decide that's cool with you, too.

In the end, we really are working together to build the best product possible for you guys. Doing anything less than that would not be worth all this effort.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The justification is that, when it comes right down to it, anyone can take any feat.  There is an opportunity cost (you must be class X) to gain access to a specific talent.



Thanks for the quotation.  Makes me happy (I agree with the *Wizards of the Coast* R&D team).  This also helps as we design species Talents and Feats (regarding what kinds of abilites should fall into each category and how the relative power should work out).


----------



## Warbringer

Looking forward to this project. Couple of comments:

1) BAB to damage. This maintains both the mathematical relationship between damage and iterative attacks and maintains the flavor that fighters get better at fighting than any other class.

Also, I've played around with letting spellcasters trade an increase in BAB for an extra spellcasting feat and with damage tied to bab it seems a fair trade.

Both of these were implemented in my TrueDnD (True 20/DnD hybrid) and worked well.

2) Talents: I am really not a big fan of talents. I like True20 were a feat is granted every level. What I added was the notion of organizations, were class abilities (read talents) are added into the available feat list. The difference is that if a hero doesn't want to take a talent he can elect to take a feat, an option that doesn't exist with talent trees.

3) True20 grants +1 to any ability every 4 levels. As True20 uses the bonus is the ability, this is mathematically equivalent to +2 abillity points in the 3-18 DnD abilities. It is a simple extrapolition to allow these points to be spent on two abilities.

4) Still interested to see how you handle the DnD magic systems (arcane, divine, psi, ki, spell like abilities....etc). With the change in the save progression (assuming you use hero level) spell DCs need a serios rework, either reverting to caster level (ala 1e/2e) or going to a 20 level spell system. I've gone the latter way. Instead of 1,2,3.... the base levels are 1,3,5... If a spell is a strong spell (such as Magic Missile, Fireball...) it adds +1 to its spell level, becoming a 2nd level and 6th level spell respectfully.


----------



## Flynn

Warbringer said:
			
		

> 4) Still interested to see how you handle the DnD magic systems (arcane, divine, psi, ki, spell like abilities....etc). With the change in the save progression (assuming you use hero level) spell DCs need a serios rework, either reverting to caster level (ala 1e/2e) or going to a 20 level spell system. I've gone the latter way. Instead of 1,2,3.... the base levels are 1,3,5... If a spell is a strong spell (such as Magic Missile, Fireball...) it adds +1 to its spell level, becoming a 2nd level and 6th level spell respectfully.




I am entertaining the thought that the Defense scores should increase at one-half your character level instead of your full character level. Here are my reasons:

1) Currently in D20 Fantasy, the best saving throw progression is: 2 + one-half character level. If I stick with that progression rate, I don't have to modify DCs for attacks, spells, etc., because that's the manner in which they increased before. Also, spells and items that effect saving throws would still have the same effect on saves in Fantasy Concepts as they would have in D&D, so that's one more thing that doesn't need to be touched, making it easier to use other D20 games without conversion (or at least removes yet another step in the conversion process).

2) In Unearthed Arcana, there's a variant for class defense bonuses. While the progression follows a standard (some base + one-third character level), the lowest value on any of the charts is +2 at first level, and the highest value is +12. That's the same range as the best saving throw progression mentioned above. If the tables were compressed into one progression, it would essentially be the same as good saves.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm

3) Since the system is already considered balanced in regards to both numbers, there would be little need to make adjustments in the area of saves or BAB, and would open back up the half-level BAB progression to allow for poor, medium and good fighting prowess distinction.

4) This progression rate matches the skill progression rate, so it would be easier to tie the casting skill check to the defense checks in a one-for-one advancement.

5) It provides yet another subtle difference for legal purposes, and one that is much more defensible based on existing OGC and mathematical progressions. An optional rule could allow GMs to use alternate progression rates here, such as the full character level progression.

I'm still thinking on it, but the more I look at the numbers, the more logical this appears to be. What do you guys think?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

I have to say, I've been running some numbers and have been drawing the same conclusions. If you want a truly streamlined system then every key variable needs to increase at the same rate to maintain consistency across the levels. Granted, magic items will make things easier at high levels, but they can also make things harder, so again, the benchmark equal increase in two opposing things is needed.

I think that having each defense score increase by 1 per 2 levels is a very nice solution. It means you remove the need to create complex reasons for characters to wear armour (although armour may still need toning down a bit) - base attack bonuses will be the only thing that increase at a higher rate than reflex defense, and so armour will be a must for front line fighters. It does also open up the poor base attack bonus to wizards - they'll be terrible at hitting a fighter of the same level due to armour, but that's why they have touch attacks. Touch attacks won't automatically hit either, it will basically come down to the wizard's strength or dexterity against the other characters' dexterity and base reflex defense modifier which will be +4 at most I guess for a super advanced class.

I might run some in-depth spreadsheets comparing these things, would that be useful to you Flynn?


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I might run some in-depth spreadsheets comparing these things, would that be useful to you Flynn?




Please do! If you could post it here for review by our peers, that would be helpful, too.

Thanks,
Flynn


----------



## Dalamar

Well, if the defense progressions are dropped to 1/2 character level, there is going to be something that gets skewed from how it was in Saga: skill check based attacks/checks against Defenses.
In Saga, skill based abilities start strong as there is a good chance for them to succeed, but they taper out towards the end (they end up at about the same point with defenses if the character has skill focus).
Also, lower level characters are going to have a slightly easier time with opponents of higher level due to the opponents' defenses not rising as fast.

Now, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is probably going to depend on everybody's point of view.


----------



## Flynn

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Well, if the defense progressions are dropped to 1/2 character level, there is going to be something that gets skewed from how it was in Saga: skill check based attacks/checks against Defenses.
> In Saga, skill based abilities start strong as there is a good chance for them to succeed, but they taper out towards the end (they end up at about the same point with defenses if the character has skill focus).
> Also, lower level characters are going to have a slightly easier time with opponents of higher level due to the opponents' defenses not rising as fast.
> 
> Now, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is probably going to depend on everybody's point of view.




Actually, they should more closely follow the experience of D&D's saving against spell effects. The DC of a spell save is effectively, for your highest level spell, 10 + half character level (since highest spell level advances every two levels) + casting mod, against 12 + half character level + stat mod (for good saves).

In Saga, the skills effectively get a +5 on the above for being trained, but otherwise the numbers look similar. It's that +5 that will throw a bugbear in the woodpile (+10 with skill focus).

Yeah, I'm not entirely at the point where it's a done deal, because there are a few minor bugs that still have to be ironed out.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Baron Opal

Flynn said:
			
		

> I am entertaining the thought that the Defense scores should increase at one-half your character level instead of your full character level.




But, of course.

In _Iron Heroes_, save progression is level + attribute mod. Since there are no magic items to boost saves, that works out. Since we will have magic items in Fantasy Concepts it makes sense to have the defense scores progress at half that level.

Which, actually, makes me uncomfortable with adding full BAB to damage. I figured that the half level bonus to damage was to mitigate the loss of magic weapon damage. You can gain iterative attacks, after a fashion, through feats in SWSE. There isn't any lack of damage due to iterative attack loss, you can have them if you spend the feats and you get more feats to spend.


----------



## drothgery

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Which, actually, makes me uncomfortable with adding full BAB to damage. I figured that the half level bonus to damage was to mitigate the loss of magic weapon damage. You can gain iterative attacks, after a fashion, through feats in SWSE. There isn't any lack of damage due to iterative attack loss, you can have them if you spend the feats and you get more feats to spend.




According to the designers, the 1/2 level bonus damage is to make up for iterative attacks going away (note that there were iterative attacks in previous versions of Star Wars d20, but there weren't any magic weapons -- well, not other than a Force Adept's attuned weapon anyway). 

While you can get multiple attacks in Saga (through the double attack chain or the dual weapon mastery chain or both), they're really an anti-mook strategy more than anything useful against equal-level opponents; if your enemy doesn't just stand there and take it (and unless terrain or being surrounded forces the issue, or he's also a multi-attack specialist, he won't), it's pretty hard to get multiple attacks off. And it takes a lot of feat and talent expenditure to get the to-hit penalties for multiple attacks low enough that you can use them effectively against something close to your level even if it obliges you by not moving. So the default mode -- even for most warrior types -- is going to be a single attack.


----------



## Flynn

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Which, actually, makes me uncomfortable with adding full BAB to damage. I figured that the half level bonus to damage was to mitigate the loss of magic weapon damage. You can gain iterative attacks, after a fashion, through feats in SWSE. There isn't any lack of damage due to iterative attack loss, you can have them if you spend the feats and you get more feats to spend.




You can't measure the loss in iterative attacks by replacing them with feats. As a wise man once told me, you should measure such things from the basic level of the game. If you say it's balanced because of the feats, it's only balanced if someone takes the feats. If someone has to take the feats to regain a lost balance, then they shouldn't be required to take them. Instead, these "required feats" should be integrated into the system as class features. But then again, once you do that, you've basically reintroduced iterative attacks. Balancing a lost feature by requiring you to spend character resources isn't truely a balance.

Personally, I'm all for not adding those iterative attack feats into the system anyway, and letting you spend an Action Point to get the extra attack, as True 20 does, or Unearthed Arcana if you play in a game with Heroic Surge and emulate that feat for the round. (i.e. This comes from my experience with Grim Tales and one of Wulf's extra rules that allows for feat emulation. GT has Heroic Surge, as does D20 Modern. True 20 just cuts out the feat as the middle man and goes to a straight equation of one Action Point to one additional standard action per round.)

But I'm open to adding the feats in. I just don't think they should be mandatory.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Flynn said:
			
		

> Please do! If you could post it here for review by our peers, that would be helpful, too.
> 
> Thanks,
> Flynn




Well, here's a spreadsheet. I tried to assume modest magical items, which is difficult, given it's far easier to increase your AC in D&D than it is your attack bonus from what I've noticed. Still, it gives a nice indication of numbers. I'd say half defense was the way to go. I'd also completely modify the existing armour chart - it really is useless, you only ever want one of four of the many types of armour (padded, mithril chain shirt, breastplate, full plate). Don't get me started on mithril breastplate and full plate.. . It's nice that the touch attacks work out quite easy for the wizard, but not so easy it's a given.

Going briefly back to the balance issue. Clearly raising some things by half level and some things by level when they're fundamental to every class is a bit messy. The offset granted by skills is the only difficult bit. Given a defense is at most going to have +2+2+stat and a skill will have +5+stat, there's a slight imbalance, but how many skills will face off defenses directly? Having BAB rise faster than defenses is again, fine, provided that the world's most armoured individual manages to accrue no more than +15 other non-stat bonuses (so the world's best fighter still has a good 25% to hit) it should be fine. Towards this, I'd be tempted to tone down magical bonuses to AC, perhaps prevent enhancement to shield and armour stacking? Or even things out, allow for more +to hit magic items (since AC gets rings of protection, amulets of natural armour, ioun stones..).


----------



## Baron Opal

Flynn said:
			
		

> If you say it's balanced because of the feats, it's only balanced if someone takes the feats. If someone has to take the feats to regain a lost balance, then they shouldn't be required to take them.




I can appreciate that. Iterative attacks are only useful against mooks, in my experience, so giving a major bonus to damage to compensate for their loss seems to be trading apples for oranges, so to speak. You might hit a comparable threat with your -5 attack but not with your -10 attack. That's a reason why I really like feats like Rapid Strike which trades attack bonus for dice of damage.

When I was thinking about the SWSE rules and I saw the level based bonus damage that tracked well in my mind to the bonus gained for attribute bonuses and magic weapon bonuses. I can see that over the career of the adventurer the +1 to +10 bonus to damage tracked to the bonus from strength from girdles and gauntlets and from the +1 to +5 from weapons. I figured that the optional nature of iterative attacks was mitigated by the double to triple base damage from the weapons.

I would really rather not spend an action point for the iterative attacks. Especially since that in SWSE there really aren't iterative attacks, you gain bonus attacks for a flat penalty to all of them. I like the concept of being able to "spend" BAB to do cool things.


----------



## SKid4

In SW Saga, you were forced to choose between armor and the class bonus to Reflex. By reducing the class bonus to half, the armor bonus can be allowed to stack normally (more or less). You could also limit the total Reflex bonus to just character level to compensate, keeping the SW Saga values.


----------



## Baron Opal

At this amittedly nebulous stage, are there plans to keep magic items roughly the same or are you thinking of something else? Part of the design of SWSE is that there aren't too many modifiers to attributes or stats beyond armor.


----------



## drothgery

SKid4 said:
			
		

> In SW Saga, you were forced to choose between armor and the class bonus to Reflex. By reducing the class bonus to half, the armor bonus can be allowed to stack normally (more or less). You could also limit the total Reflex bonus to just character level to compensate, keeping the SW Saga values.




Keep in mind that I'm pretty sure the designers want you to be able to use standard d20 opponents without too much hassle. Hitting AC 20 is not a problem of a CR20 monster. Hitting AC *30* is rarely a problem for a CR20 monster.

So I'd be inclined to make the Armor Proficiency feats function like Armor Prof + the Improved Armored Defense talent for that armor type.


----------



## EditorBFG

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> At this amittedly nebulous stage, are there plans to keep magic items roughly the same or are you thinking of something else? Part of the design of SWSE is that there aren't too many modifiers to attributes or stats beyond armor.



I think magic items need to stay as is, which is part of why halving defenses is probably the way to go. The two things that should not change substantially are spells and magic items-- too many are out there. 

However, if saves are half level, my only concern is that if we do move to a skill-based spellcasting model-- as Flynn and I hope to-- a spellcaster's skill will be too high to ever fail to overcome defense. On the math Flynn came up with for average defense and what most spellcasters would have for skills, it was already pretty easy for a caster to win. With half level saves, it'll essentially be impossible for a character's defense to equal even a low skill-based roll to cast. Since it looks like the lower saves are the best option, we have to put some deep thought into spellcasting.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think magic items need to stay as is, which is part of why halving defenses is probably the way to go. The two things that should not change substantially are spells and magic items-- too many are out there.
> 
> However, if saves are half level, my only concern is that if we do move to a skill-based spellcasting model-- as Flynn and I hope to-- a spellcaster's skill will be too high to ever fail to overcome defense. On the math Flynn came up with for average defense and what most spellcasters would have for skills, it was already pretty easy for a caster to win. With half level saves, it'll essentially be impossible for a character's defense to equal even a low skill-based roll to cast. Since it looks like the lower saves are the best option, we have to put some deep thought into spellcasting.




I agree. We want to modify magic items and spells as little as possible, to increase the ability to use all those cool RPG books you've already purchased with a minimum of conversion. Therefore, we must look at the math to make sure that the system provides the same general output that we see in a standard D&D game.

It may come to pass that the target DC for casting a spell becomes 15+spell level, and then casters have to subtract 5 from the skill roll before comparing it to their target's defenses.

Defense: 10 + half character level + 2 (class) + stat

Skill Check: d20 + spell level (essentially half character level for highest level spells at any particular level) + 5 (training) + stat

To Overcome Defenses: Above result -5

Analysis: Essentially, to cast spells at your highest level of access, assuming your casting stat mod is the same as your target's defense stat mod (so that they wash), you have to roll a 7 to cast the spell, but a 12 to bypass defenses if your spell has a saving throw.

I am not looking at the impact of feats such as skill focus that effect the casting roll, nor feats that increase defense values, since that's a character resource and not a part of the base game. At the base level, it looks like it would work okay.

What are your thoughts, guys?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Why make it a skill-based roll? Are you intending casters to fail casting spells sometimes? In conjunction with Vancian magic? That sounds a bit crippling. Why can't the magical attack roll just be d20 + spell level + stat? Tying it to a skill sounds like you'll make skill focus (spellcraft I assume) a must-have for any serious caster, which isn't really in the spirit of choice that we're aiming for.


----------



## nobodez

I had a really long post typed up, but then I realized Flynn had already hit everything on the head.

Why not just disallow magic as a trained skill? You can still get Skill/Spell Focus, but not training (perhaps as a class feature of the archmage class?). That is, i think, the problem, making the skill for magical attacks a trained skill.


----------



## Flynn

nobodez said:
			
		

> I had a really long post typed up, but then I realized Flynn had already hit everything on the head.
> 
> Why not just disallow magic as a trained skill? You can still get Skill/Spell Focus, but not training (perhaps as a class feature of the archmage class?). That is, i think, the problem, making the skill for magical attacks a trained skill.




Ummm... you do know what a trained skill is, right? Either you don't know it (untrained), you know it (trained), or you know it and are focused in it (trained and focused). You can't have skill focus without first having the skill as a trained skill.

Just Clarifying What Appears To Be Confusion,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Why make it a skill-based roll? Are you intending casters to fail casting spells sometimes? In conjunction with Vancian magic? That sounds a bit crippling. Why can't the magical attack roll just be d20 + spell level + stat? Tying it to a skill sounds like you'll make skill focus (spellcraft I assume) a must-have for any serious caster, which isn't really in the spirit of choice that we're aiming for.




Vancian in our case means having finite spells that do one distinctive thing. Thinks "Legends of Sorcery" or "Grim Tales Magic System". It is precisely the spirit of Saga (see the Use the Force skill in Saga and how it works with Force powers), and captures the flavor well, in my opinion.

Without it, you have to spend talents to get new spell levels and spell slots. Casters wouldn't take talents in anything else because of the desire to keep magic up to the max possible. We thought about that and decided we didn't want to railroad casters into that kind of straightjacket for character resources, so we came up with the skill-based casting instead.

Which approach would you rather see?

Hope this helps,
Flynn


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Ok, that sounds more sensible. I'm still hesitant to use a skill to overcome defense when casting. Mind you, if that's the route to go down then rolling defenses and base attack into skills would balance everything out again, if make them a little more desirable.

On the other hand, there are many more ways to increase your defenses (reflex with armour, fortitude with armour, paladin-style abilities, spells and cloaks of resistance), but not many to increase a skill (if you remove the skill boosting magic items, or better, reduce them to between +1 and +5 and ramp the cost up to equal cloaks of resistance). So perhaps the +5 you seem to have in your favour as a caster isn't as fantastic as it looks. You will have to modify the way skill focus works with spellcraft (I assume again..) so that you choose a school of magic for it to apply to, or similar, else it will be a bit too powerful a feat.


----------



## tsadkiel

Flynn said:
			
		

> It may come to pass that the target DC for casting a spell becomes 15+spell level, and then casters have to subtract 5 from the skill roll before comparing it to their target's defenses.
> 
> Defense: 10 + half character level + 2 (class) + stat
> 
> Skill Check: d20 + spell level (essentially half character level for highest level spells at any particular level) + 5 (training) + stat
> 
> To Overcome Defenses: Above result -5




That seems awkward and complicated to me.  It's an extra bit of math every time you want to cast a spell on someone; sure, sensible players will have recorded their regular spellcasting skill and targeted spellcasting skill, but it's still one extra complication when I think the goal is to reduce complication.


----------



## maggot

Flynn said:
			
		

> I agree. We want to modify magic items and spells as little as possible, to increase the ability to use all those cool RPG books you've already purchased with a minimum of conversion.




I think this is where you just lost me.  The accounting of keeping track of magic items, and the accounting of all the various bonuses to stats brought about by spells and magic items is exactly one of the places where D&D needs to be simplified.


----------



## Baduin

And why exactly does magic have to be a skill? Why not a Magic Attack Bonus, like in Conan? For Wizards MAB equals 1/2 class level, for all others 1/4 level.

 Or a simple additional rule that being trained in Magic doesn't give +5 bonus.


----------



## drothgery

Baduin said:
			
		

> And why exactly does magic have to be a skill? Why not a Magic Attack Bonus, like in Conan? For Wizards MAB equals 1/2 class level, for all others 1/4 level.
> 
> Or a simple additional rule that being trained in Magic doesn't give +5 bonus.




I'd rather the former route than the latter, on the basic principle that 'all skills work like this, except this one' rules are kind of lame.


----------



## EditorBFG

Baduin said:
			
		

> And why exactly does magic have to be a skill? Why not a Magic Attack Bonus, like in Conan? For Wizards MAB equals 1/2 class level, for all others 1/4 level.



I think this is the route we have to take-- there is a similar stat in Legends of Sorcery. Every class would have such a stat, but talents are required to use it. 

However, I think we need to find something else to call it besides "Base Magic Bonus" or "Magic Attack Bonus"-- both sound kind of lame.

Also, we've decided to leave the separation in place between divine and arcane magic, so we may need two separate abilities. 







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Why make it a skill-based roll? Are you intending casters to fail casting spells sometimes? In conjunction with Vancian magic? That sounds a bit crippling.



Part of the reason is because we are doing away with spell slots. A mage casts spells as often as he likes. So the possibility of failure is a check on that.

(Vancian is really an inaccurate term, at this point, since the works of Jack Vance very clearly described a "fire and forget" system.)


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think this is the route we have to take-- there is a similar stat in Legends of Sorcery. Every class would have such a stat, but talents are required to use it.
> 
> However, I think we need to find something else to call it besides "Base Magic Bonus" or "Magic Attack Bonus"-- both sound kind of lame.




I'm not keen on adding a new stat to keep track of, because it's another thing to have to track, and another thing that has to be calculated for conversion purposes (at least it seems easier to calculate one more skill using the standard skill progression than it is to mix and match MAB/BMB for multi-classed characters.) But I'll keep an open mind.

What do the rest of you think? Magic as skill? Magic as stat? Magic by spell slots and spell levels?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Magic by encounter (as slot and as levels is ok - I can live with though you know I would prefer a more Force-like approach) with a magic skill (spellcraft) to overcome defenses.


----------



## EditorBFG

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Magic by encounter (as slot and as levels is ok - I can live with though you know I would prefer a more Force-like approach) with a magic skill (spellcraft) to overcome defenses.



In an ideal world, I would want something more like this-- and our plans for a slot-free magic system were essentially encounter based, a sort of compromise between Force rules and D&D magic-- but I think as far as skill versus saves, there is just no clean or elegant way to scale it.







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on adding a new stat to keep track of, because it's another thing to have to track, and another thing that has to be calculated for conversion purposes (at least it seems easier to calculate one more skill using the standard skill progression than it is to mix and match MAB/BMB for multi-classed characters.) But I'll keep an open mind.



I understand the desire to keep things clean, and I agree, but to my mind any compromise we have to make for a skill to do the job is going to be a lot messier than something we can just stick on the same chart as BAB.

And realistically, given D&D's hyper-detailed spells per day charts and the number of Prestige Classes that add "+1 level of existing class", in some ways I think some kind of level-based magic stat is a long overdue fix for the existing Vancian system anyway.

Nevertheless, any more opinions?







			
				maggot said:
			
		

> The accounting of keeping track of magic items, and the accounting of all the various bonuses to stats brought about by spells and magic items is exactly one of the places where D&D needs to be simplified.



You and me both, brother, I've been saying this for 7 years. But I think the amount of time and energy we would have to put into this is beyond the scope of this particular product. I think a follow up product could function both for this system and as a modular patch for d20 as a whole.


----------



## Ilium

I'm just going to chime in and say that I think the stat-based approach is the way to go.  My reason is that skills are generally regarded as lesser abilities in most d20/OGL games.  That is, while they are important, they don't define a character's power level the way that, say, BAB does.  Because of this, skill boosters are more widely available and less controlled.  To retain maximum compatibility with other products, I think you want to avoid the situation where somebody gets an item (or whatever) that adds +5 to a skill of their choice, and they apply it to their magic skill.

Even in WotC products, there's the Master's Touch spell that adds +4 to any skill check.  With a stat, you don't need an exception every time one of these boosters comes along.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Can't you just use caster level? That's fairly well used already.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> .I understand the desire to keep things clean, and I agree, but to my mind any compromise we have to make for a skill to do the job is going to be a lot messier than something we can just stick on the same chart as BAB.
> 
> And realistically, given D&D's hyper-detailed spells per day charts and the number of Prestige Classes that add "+1 level of existing class", in some ways I think some kind of level-based magic stat is a long overdue fix for the existing Vancian system anyway.




At a certain point, simplification can lead to a lack of clarity. When something is an exception to the rule, sometimes it's better to flag it as such by calling it something else. It's sort of like the way old school d20 handles languages verses the Saga way. Rather that keeping it a skill (that doesn't work like any other skill), languages were basically given there own little "sub-system". 

Between spell-casting being a skill that doesn't act like any other skill, and a "magical aptitude bonus", I would tend to favor the latter. There's even certain parallels one could draw on: (melee combat = BAB + str bonus), (missile combat = BAB + dex bonus), (arcane casting = MAB + int bonus), and (divine casting = MAB + wis bonus).   

As an aside, what would be the effect of just saying that magical bonuses do not stack have on the escalating defense problem?


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Can't you just use caster level? That's fairly well used already.



I think caster level is essentially what we are talking about. It is just that, since there won't be a big sprawling class chart with a listing of spells per day/spells known, an entry for caster level would replace all that stuff and appear somewhere near BAB. But basically, yes, it would act as the die roll for beating defense that same as it does now for SR.

However, to scale with the saves, "caster level" (or whatever we call it) would have to be the highest level spell you can cast, not your total levels in a spellcasting class. So there is a difference, but the math makes it necessary.


----------



## Mokona

Flynn said:
			
		

> What do the rest of you think? Magic as skill? Magic as stat? Magic by spell slots and spell levels?



I want Use the Force [ed. Magic] but I'm not sure that it's possible within the constraints we've set for this project.  *Dungeons & Dragons* uses Vancian spellcraft because it is, fundamentally, simpler.  Using something Vancian would require less rework than the proposals described above.    For the record, I don't like *D&D* spell slots per day because it leads to high-magic, utilitarian spellcasting.

Realistically I'd like to stick with "magic by spell slots and spell levels".


----------



## EditorBFG

Mokona said:
			
		

> For the record, I don't like *D&D* spell slots per day because it leads to high-magic, utilitarian spellcasting.
> 
> Realistically I'd like to stick with "magic by spell slots and spell levels".



You don't like spell slots, but you would rather use them than an approach closer to the Saga system you favor? I'm not sure I am reading your post right.

This way seems simpler-- no spell slots, you try to cast a spell whenever you want, but sometimes it doesn't work (much like defensive casting in D&D), and sometimes you fail to overcome the Defense (like SR in D&D).


----------



## Gundark

Just FYI if is this big announcement that WotC is making at Gen Con is about 4th edition, then it'll kill this project. At least will make it a lot less cool. 

But yeah I know that when they announce 4th ed. it'll be at winter xp, not Gen Con.


----------



## Mokona

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> You don't like spell slots, but you would rather use them than an approach closer to the Saga system you favor?



Sometimes reality doesn't submit itself to my will.    But I'm not so foolish as to insist that what I want is optimal in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I'd like a good solution to magic that is simple and isn't Vancian but so far it doesn't look possible given the short timeline for this project.  :\


----------



## EditorBFG

Gundark said:
			
		

> Just FYI if is this big announcement that WotC is making at Gen Con is about 4th edition, then it'll kill this project. At least will make it a lot less cool.



If WotC decides to kill the goose this year, I'll have a lot more game-writing problems than just this project.







			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> I'd like a good solution to magic that is simple and isn't Vancian but so far it doesn't look possible given the short timeline for this project.



I take it you don't find what we've been proposing to be "a good solution to magic that is simple". Hopefully, you don't think ripping off the Force or using D&D as is should be our only two options.


----------



## Baduin

I would suggest keeping a single Magic bonus both for divine and arcane magic. Otherways, any divine/arcane multiclassing will be as clunky as in D&D 3.5. You can make them different using different Talent trees, spell lists etc.


----------



## Flynn

I've been thinking about it, and the "Magic as Stat" approach works well, especially since there are skill enhancing spells out there. We can give the same progression to the MAB as we do to the Defenses, and so they can walk in tandem, so to speak. This also allows the game to scale beyond 20th level easily, for those that desire to take on an Epic Fantasy Concepts game. 

Okay, you've won me over. MAB, it is.

With that, I can't think of any reservations against moving Defense progression to half character level. Can anyone else?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Flynn said:
			
		

> Okay, you've won me over. MAB, it is.
> 
> With that, I can't think of any reservations against moving Defense progression to half character level. Can anyone else?



Perhaps a summary would be in place? I sort of lost track in this discussion


----------



## maggot

> You and me both, brother, I've been saying this for 7 years. But I think the amount of time and energy we would have to put into this is beyond the scope of this particular product. I think a follow up product could function both for this system and as a modular patch for d20 as a whole.




Revamping the entire Vancian spellcasting system is a task of similar scope.  If you approach magic accounting (items and bonuses) in a modular way, you might want to do the same for spellcasting.


----------



## The_Gneech

Flynn said:
			
		

> With that, I can't think of any reservations against moving Defense progression to half character level. Can anyone else?




It sounds to me like you're moving farther and farther away from a "port of _SWSE_" with every post, and just making another fantasy d20 variant. *shrugs*

-The Gneech


----------



## Flynn

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> It sounds to me like you're moving farther and farther away from a "port of _SWSE_" with every post, and just making another fantasy d20 variant. *shrugs*
> 
> -The Gneech




A direct port would be broken, by the numbers, due to the presence of magic items and spells. A port which maintains the spirit of SWSE, and deals effectively with magic items and spells, is about the best we can do, and still be playable. So, it begs the question: What would you like - a direct port that breaks due to bad numbers or a port that maintains the spirit and works with the numbers?

I want something that works, not something that breaks, even if it means that we stray a little from our original goal of a Saga emulation, and "something with the Saga spirit that works" was what I thought you guys would want, too. Am I wrong here?

(As an aside, some things just have to be different to avoid legal issues. I have stated that there will be a number of optional rules that will allow you to recapture the Saga game mechanic in your home game with some of the differences I've mentioned. However, to protect ourselves legally, some things do have to be different.)

BTW, just to be clear, I'm not trying to sound snarky, and I do apogize if I am coming across that way. I'm just making sure that my position is estabished, so that you know my expectations. I honestly want to know your expectations, so we can see what we can do to meet them and still maintain our own expectations, if that's possible. If it isn't, we have to measure the validity of our expectations against yours, and see if we can find a compromise that more easily addresses your needs.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

Flynn said:
			
		

> A direct port would be broken, by the numbers, due to the presence of magic items and spells. A port which maintains the spirit of SWSE, and deals effectively with magic items and spells, is about the best we can do, and still be playable. So, it begs the question: What would you like - a direct port that breaks due to bad numbers or a port that maintains the spirit and works with the numbers?
> 
> I want something that works, not something that breaks, even if it means that we stray a little from our original goal of a Saga emulation, and "something with the Saga spirit that works" was what I thought you guys would want, too. Am I wrong here?
> 
> (As an aside, some things just have to be different to avoid legal issues. I have stated that there will be a number of optional rules that will allow you to recapture the Saga game mechanic in your home game with some of the differences I've mentioned. However, to protect ourselves legally, some things do have to be different.)
> 
> BTW, just to be clear, I'm not trying to sound snarky, and I do apogize if I am coming across that way. I'm just making sure that my position is estabished, so that you know my expectations. I honestly want to know your expectations, so we can see what we can do to meet them and still maintain our own expectations, if that's possible. If it isn't, we have to measure the validity of our expectations against yours, and see if we can find a compromise that more easily addresses your needs.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn





You are considering d&d style magic itens? a Saga D&D is a good way to end this magic item dependency of D&D, particulary dependency to the big six itens (numeric bonus only itens, stat boosters, resistence cloak, ammulet of natural armor, ring of protection, bonus only magic weapon and armor...)


----------



## The_Gneech

Hey, any way you want to do it is fine by me. 

My comment is just that I was under the impression you were trying to do as close an adaptation as possible, but that instead what's ending up on the table is a completely different beast. You asked for feedback, that was it. It's not a criticism, just an observation. If that's what's necessary, then by all means do it that way.

-The Gneech


----------



## Baduin

You could simply get rid of the Big Six items and improve the characters accordingly (perhaps a bit Iron Heroes style). 

If DM gives treasure D&D way, gaining a level should cost as much as buying relevant items.


----------



## Warbringer

Flynn said:
			
		

> A direct port would be broken, by the numbers, due to the presence of magic items and spells.
> Flynn




I understand your point, but 1/2 character level and MAB have little to do with SAGA and even less to do with 3.xx core. I personally just don't like the MAB, but then I'm not overly impressed with BAB

It seems the two issues prompting this are armor and spellcasting.

Wanting to stack armor with reflex is a natural reaction to AC as is, and you're right they don't port well. However, I'd change the way armor works, not the way the system works. Make armor reduce your reflex save by its Armor penality, add its AC bonus instead and provide DR equal 1/2 AC bonus.


Spellcasting; Use caster level, this is scaling with saves by definition. Against good saves (ala CL+2) the caster will lag a little, but there are a few ways to up the caster level.


----------



## EditorBFG

*Clarification of Goals*

Okay, I know that, as we move closer to Gen Con, posts seem to be slowing down a little-- I'm sure they will pick up after-- so I think now is a good time to make sure everyone is one the same page here. Or at least, to continue the metaphor, to ensure that you know what page I'm on, in case you feel I'm reading the wrong part of the book. So, here is a statement of goals and rules I have for this project:

1) My goal is to create a streamlined version of OGL Fantasy, conceptually inspired by Star Wars Saga Edition's emphases on simplicity and character capability, which GMs can use to run fantasy games based on existing or self-generated material and/or settings. 

2) Under no circumstances will I use ANY trademarked or copyrighted material not made available via the Open Gaming License to create these rules-- though I note that ideas cannot be copyrighted (only the expression of ideas) and that basic mathematical algorithms are fair game.

3) GMs (even new GMs and/or GMs with poor math skills) using these rules will be able to run your average published WotC or 3rd party OGL fantasy module with only a small amount of conversion, making any necessary changes easily or on the fly via a simple list of conversion guidelines taking up no more than a single page.

Since I am one of the two co-writers (and I have a reasonable certainty that my co-writer feels the same way), if anyone feels these are not the right rules and goals, we should discuss any such differences before we go forward.

Please don't read this as confrontational at all, I just thought stating these things was important. The above does not imply than any opinion posted up until now has been somehow incorrect or inappropriate. As we move forward with this lengthy discussion, making what people want from this project more explicit can only help.


----------



## drothgery

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Spellcasting; Use caster level, this is scaling with saves by definition. Against good saves (ala CL+2) the caster will lag a little, but there are a few ways to up the caster level.




The nice thing about an MAB rather than caster level is that it goes a long way to solving the multiclass caster problem.


----------



## Mokona

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> we should discuss any such differences before we go forward.



You're absolutely correct that clear goals are critical to this kind of project.  

My goals were to 1) copy _Saga_ with as few changes as possible to make it work for *Dungeons & Dragons* and 2) finish the project quickly with as little entirely new design work as possible.

I didn't initially address the issue of compatibility with existing published material.  This was a clear oversight on my part.  Certain "author" opinions (like defenses = +1/2 level) are effectively designed to address this concern.  I've come to believe that compatibility is a difficult and lofty goal but I don't think we should try to improve upon *D&D* in areas beyond where _Saga_ clearly points the way.  For example, making the heroic damage bonus = BAB is a clear break from _Saga_ especially because it punishes Wizards so badly (where Soldiers get no greater heroic damage bonus than Nobles).


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Make armor reduce your reflex save by its Armor penality, add its AC bonus instead and provide DR equal 1/2 AC bonus.



The problem with this is and some other variants is that no one in their right mind will wear armor (especially at high levels).

For DR 4, the dragon now has a 30% bigger chance of hitting you with its 4d8 + 20 attack. I think I will drop the armor and take my improved chances of no damage, thankyouverymuch.

Making armors provide more DR, and daggers and short swords etc. become useless.

The problem is not easily solved. Iron Heroes tried (and failed IMO). A solution could be to let armor provide full DR (with no or very very little reflex penalty [BTW it's already included in max. dex]), that can be bypassed by a hit roll that succeeds with as wide a margin as the DR.


Ramblings aside, I agree that magic items and spellcasting (that is, SRD spells) are the obstacles to a more direct port of Saga to fantasy.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Mokona said:
			
		

> My goals were to 1) copy _Saga_ with as few changes as possible to make it work for *Dungeons & Dragons* and 2) finish the project quickly with as little entirely new design work as possible.



I agree 100% 



			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> I didn't initially address the issue of compatibility with existing published material.  This was a clear oversight on my part.  Certain "author" opinions (like defenses = +1/2 level) are effectively designed to address this concern.  I've come to believe that compatibility is a difficult and lofty goal but I don't think we should try to improve upon *D&D* in areas beyond where _Saga_ clearly points the way.



This man speaks both truth and wisdom.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Mokona said:
			
		

> You're absolutely correct that clear goals are critical to this kind of project.
> 
> My goals were to 1) copy _Saga_ with as few changes as possible to make it work for *Dungeons & Dragons* and 2) finish the project quickly with as little entirely new design work as possible.
> 
> I didn't initially address the issue of compatibility with existing published material.  This was a clear oversight on my part.  Certain "author" opinions (like defenses = +1/2 level) are effectively designed to address this concern.  I've come to believe that compatibility is a difficult and lofty goal but I don't think we should try to improve upon *D&D* in areas beyond where _Saga_ clearly points the way.  For example, making the heroic damage bonus = BAB is a clear break from _Saga_ especially because it punishes Wizards so badly (where Soldiers get no greater heroic damage bonus than Nobles).




It doesn't punish in such a way that makes it unfair. Don't forget that in SWSE there aren't many ways of consistently damaging your opponents without a to hit roll etc.


----------



## Flynn

I agree with BFGEditor's post above on our goals for this project. They are mine, as well.

For those that feel that adding BAB to weapon damage goes against the spirit of what they seek, I'm sure we can add an optional rule to cover that. However, I can't recall the last time I saw a wizard or sorcerer actually engage in combat with a weapon after first or second level, and the numbers work better at compensating for the loss of iterative attacks, so I'm having a hard time understanding the objection, aside from "that's not how Saga does it." Of course, that is a perfectly valid justification, in and of itself.

I hope the optional rule text will cover that scenario for those interested in doing so, and still allows us some differences to help avoid legal issues.

With Regards,
Flynn

BTW, BFGEditor, check your email when you get the chance...


----------



## EditorBFG

Let's talk about the save/defense problem.

Because really, by not making magic skill based, spells aren't the issue. Yes, we can do MAB at roughly half class level. But, as others point out, we can also just make Caster Level a thing that appears on the class chart next to BAB as easily as MAB (by the way, if we did use MAB we would _have_ to call it something else, I hate that term), and make it scale with level, thus making it not subject to skill-type improvements. 

In fact, since MAB is too much of a departure for some folks, if we do go with half-level saves (half-defenses) we could still use caster levels. We could even just make the roll to cast a spell/overcome defenses 1d20 + ability mod + half Caster Level, which is just about the same  as D&D. Caster Level can be on the class chart with BAB, which also solves the multiclassing problems mentioned above. In many ways, Caster Level works like Saga's Use the Force skill, we just hardwire the progression into the class rather than using at as a skill.

So either way, spells and defenses will scale.

The problem is making saves/defenses scale with everything else. 

I know the problem has already been laid out, but just to go over it again, restating some of the obvious:

I'm a GM running, I dunno, Death in Freeport, and there is a trap with a Reflex save DC of 17. Now, at half-level defenses, I just roll d20+7 against the character's Reflex Defense, and the chances of success or failure are true to the author's intentions. If we use character level as defense, instead of half, is there a way to make the conversion just as easily?

Further, if there are cloaks that add to AC (which becomes a bonus to Reflex Defense) and rings that add to ability scores, on the fly conversion becomes that much harder. Even if we assume that both sides in most conflicts have such buffing capabilities, it doesn't solve everything. The above trap DC is fine at first level, but what about traps in a higher level module like, say, Monte Cook's the Banewarrens? Conversion on the fly becomes a real hassle.

And, on top of all this, characters in fantasy should find armor a more attractive option than in Star Wars. Because in Star Wars, armor is something bad guys wear (Darth Vader, Stormtroopers, Boba Fett), rather than heroes, so armor being a loser without certain talents makes sense. In fantasy, knights and heroes often do wear armor, so using the Saga rules as is makes D&D style settings work more like George Lucas movies, _which is bad._ So defenses matter in this arena as well.

Now, if I've touched on all the issues, half-defenses seem to be the way to go-- and when we first had this discussion, that seemed to be the consensus. Now, we seem to be disagreeing again, so if folks don't like half-defenses, please restate the reasons why now so  people can respond and bring this particular debate to a close.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Well Editor, here's how I see things (from the point of view of a once control engineer):

Ultimately, as a character levels up, they should get better at what they do.
As it stands, some classes get better at hitting than others.
Some classes get better at using magic than others.
All classes get better at resisting these forms of attack equally.

In order for the steady state of the game to be fun and playable, these three factors have to increase in equal amounts. That's fine. The problem lies with the available 'offset' boosts, not derived from level. In the case of armour and effects adding to reflex save, there's an offset that with 3.5 numbers, far outweighs the offset you can apply to BAB. But you need armour for the game to have the spirit of D&D.

So imagine if you include recommendations to restrict magic items. Make the cost of adding a to hit bonus to a weapon the same as the cost of increasing the AC of armour. Make magical bonuses to armour the same effect as rings of protection, so they don't stack. Similarly with magical bonuses on armour and a shield - just make all the +1, +2, etc.. deflection modifiers (or even better, magical equipment modifier). Suggest the same costs and limitations apply to skill boosts, as even in 3.5 some items are ridiculous.

So now if we assume that any magical bonuses to reflex are complemented by equal-costing magical bonuses to weaponry, the only offset to worry about is base armour. At first level, in 3.5 also, AC is usually higher than to hit, and we don't complain much about it. As the Fighter progresses, he'll get +1 to hit every level, where reflex defense only goes up +1/2, with perhaps some improvement from the type of armour being worn. But in essence, we've taken a problem and distilled it down to one that already exists in 3.5. Sure the Wizard is gonna suck at hitting, but that's why they have magic.

Now for magical attacks. Using caster level will be the same as using BAB vs. reflex for Fighters, but there are almost no magical bonuses to it. This is where I think the idea of using spellcraft actually works. At first level there's a +5 offset at most, but as all parties concerned level up, basic armour will add to reflex and fortitude. Magic bonuses should again cancel out in terms of cost. Taking prestige classes and multiclassing will offset defenses. But essentially, the skill and the defenses increase at the same rate, you need only consider if the offset is small enough to make this balanced. My thoughts are that even with skill focus in spellcraft, the +10 offset is equal to the full plate and shield combination. Adding spell focus style feats could tip the balance too far. Will defense is a problem too, unless there are ample ways to boost it from class abilities etc. (although many PHB will saves let you keep on saving, there are certainly few nasty damage spells, perhaps this can be extended to all). Perhaps a nice tradeoff would be specifying a school of magic for skill focus spellcraft (or dispelling if you don't want a school) - that gives the Wizard something to spend those feats on!

We need a playtest !


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Because really, by not making magic skill based, spells aren't the issue. Yes, we can do MAB at roughly half class level. But, as others point out, we can also just make Caster Level a thing that appears on the class chart next to BAB as easily as MAB (by the way, if we did use MAB we would _have_ to call it something else, I hate that term), and make it scale with level, thus making it not subject to skill-type improvements.
> 
> In fact, since MAB is too much of a departure for some folks, if we do go with half-level saves (half-defenses) we could still use caster levels. We could even just make the roll to cast a spell/overcome defenses 1d20 + ability mod + half Caster Level, which is just about the same  as D&D. Caster Level can be on the class chart with BAB, which also solves the multiclassing problems mentioned above. In many ways, Caster Level works like Saga's Use the Force skill, we just hardwire the progression into the class rather than using at as a skill.




Maybe I'm missing some important distinction, but isn't MAB really just a "caster level" system that takes multi-classsing into account. Is this just a issue of semantics?


----------



## EditorBFG

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing some important distinction, but isn't MAB really just a "caster level" system that takes multi-classsing into account. Is this just a issue of semantics?



Yes, it absolutely is. Semantics and nothing more.

But if calling it caster level is what people want, I am fine with it. Partially because I hate the name Magic Attack Bonus and have yet to hit upon a better alternative, and partially because it does essentially serve almost the same function as in D&D. If, later on, calling it caster level becomes undesirable, it could be Caster Rank, Caster Bonus, whatever.

So, based on existing discussions, I think class tables would like something like this:
	
	




		Code:
	

[B][u]Mage[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses: 	+2 bonus to your Will Defense
+1 bonus to your Reflex Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+0	+1	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+1	+2	Bonus feat
3	+2	+3	Talent
4	+3	+4	Bonus feat
5	+3	+5	Talent
6	+4	+6	Bonus feat
7	+5	+7	Talent
8	+6	+8	Bonus feat
9	+6	+9	Talent
10	+7	+10	Bonus feat
11	+8	+11	Talent
12	+9	+12	Bonus feat
13	+9	+13	Talent
14	+10	+14	Bonus feat
15	+11	+15	Talent
16	+12	+16	Bonus feat
17	+12	+17	Talent
18	+13	+18	Bonus feat
19	+14	+19	Talent
20	+15	+20	Bonus feat

[B][u]Priest[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses:	+2 bonus to your Will Defense
+1 bonus to your Fortitude Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+0	+1	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+1	+2	Bonus feat
3	+2	+3	Talent
4	+3	+4	Bonus feat
5	+3	+5	Talent
6	+4	+6	Bonus feat
7	+5	+7	Talent
8	+6	+8	Bonus feat
9	+6	+9	Talent
10	+7	+10	Bonus feat
11	+8	+11	Talent
12	+9	+12	Bonus feat
13	+9	+13	Talent
14	+10	+14	Bonus feat
15	+11	+15	Talent
16	+12	+16	Bonus feat
17	+12	+17	Talent
18	+13	+18	Bonus feat
19	+14	+19	Talent
20	+15	+20	Bonus feat

[B][u]Warrior[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses: 	+2 bonus to your Fortitude Defense
+1 bonus to your Reflex Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+1	+0	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+2	+0	Bonus feat
3	+3	+0	Talent
4	+4	+1	Bonus feat
5	+5	+1	Talent
6	+6	+2	Bonus feat
7	+7	+2	Talent
8	+8	+2	Bonus feat
9	+9	+3	Talent
10	+10	+3	Bonus feat
11	+11	+4	Talent
12	+12	+4	Bonus feat
13	+13	+4	Talent
14	+14	+5	Bonus feat
15	+15	+5	Talent
16	+16	+5	Bonus feat
17	+17	+6	Talent
18	+18	+6	Bonus feat
19	+19	+7	Talent
20	+20	+7	Bonus feat

[B][u]Expert[/B][/u]
Defense Bonuses: 	+2 bonus to your Reflex Defense
+1 bonus to your Will Defense

Class	Base	Caster
Level	Attack	Level	Class Features
1	+0	+0	Defense bonuses, starting feats, talent
2	+1	+1	Bonus feat
3	+2	+2	Talent
4	+3	+2	Bonus feat
5	+3	+3	Talent
6	+4	+4	Bonus feat
7	+5	+4	Talent
8	+6	+5	Bonus feat
9	+6	+6	Talent
10	+7	+6	Bonus feat
11	+8	+7	Talent
12	+9	+8	Bonus feat
13	+9	+8	Talent
14	+10	+9	Bonus feat
15	+11	+10	Talent
16	+12	+10	Bonus feat
17	+12	+11	Talent
18	+13	+12	Bonus feat
19	+14	+12	Talent
20	+15	+13	Bonus feat

(With half caster level (rounded up) being the highest level spell you can cast.)


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Well Editor, here's how I see things (from the point of view of a once control engineer):
> <snip>
> We need a playtest !



Well, with some discussion, I could be persuaded to include these very rational magic item restrictions as an optional rule or variant, but as far as the "default" system, I absolutely think magic items need to remain as they are now. As I stated, one of my main goals is to let published d20 fantasy adventures be easily convertible on the fly, and I think changing magic items will make that very difficult.

I know this has been said before, but I would be perfectly happy to publish the main product with spells as they are (only changing how they are cast) and magic items unchanged, then do a magic sourcebook that updates both to a new and more streamlined system, for those who do not mind having to do the extra work of converting these two things. Like True20, which published a version of the Psychic Handbook's rules for magic in the main book, then released a superior (IMHO) system with True Sorcery.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Eek, I don't like the Warrior progression. I don't see a need to be so unfair to them compared to the Expert - I've always thought of them to be equally magical.


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Eek, I don't like the Warrior progression. I don't see a need to be so unfair to them compared to the Expert - I've always thought of them to be equally magical.



The Warrior progression is based on paladins and rangers, while the Expert is based on the bard. Does that help?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> The Warrior progression is based on paladins and rangers, while the Expert is based on the bard. Does that help?




I guess it depends exactly how you get access to magic. I wouldn't consider just paladins, rangers and bards if access was exclusively through the mage/priest classes. Multiclassing Fighter/Wizard is well supported in current and previous editions, similarly Rogue/Wizard, both are equal in spellcasting power, IMO. I would have both the Expert and Warrior progress at half-level.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I know this has been said before, but I would be perfectly happy to publish the main product with spells as they are (only changing how they are cast) and magic items unchanged, then do a magic sourcebook that updates both to a new and more streamlined system, for those who do not mind having to do the extra work of converting these two things. Like True20, which published a version of the Psychic Handbook's rules for magic in the main book, then released a superior (IMHO) system with True Sorcery.



Do it!


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

What will HD and number of trained skills be for the claases? It's hard to really gauge them without knowing this.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler

I may have missed it, but what did you guys plan on doing for skills and multiclassing?


----------



## EditorBFG

> What will HD and number of trained skills be for the claases? It's hard to really gauge them without knowing this.



I should note that these are not attempts to do any kind of final classes. I just wanted to show how we might implement Caster Level (or whatever we call it) for our four base classes-- I didn't even talk to Flynn yet. I would imagine that HD would be Warrior 1d10, Expert 1d6, Priest 1d8, Mage 1d6, but I don't know yet. As for skills, Flynn is putting the finishing touches on the whole thing right now, including skills for classes.







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I would have both the Expert and Warrior progress at half-level.



Your way might be simpler. It is just that, in my mind, the Rogue archetype is more magical than the Warrior. I'm thinking of the Gray Mouser (as opposed to Fafhrd), as well as the legacy of older D&D editions where thieves could use scrolls. What do the rest of you think?







			
				 w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> I may have missed it, but what did you guys plan on doing for skills and multiclassing?



Flynn is working on this too.


----------



## Flynn

Also, with half-character level defenses, we can bring back the standard Wizard BAB. 

I'll go over multiclassing and skills in a bit. I'm trying to get the wording right, since the few that have read it seem confused by what I've written.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## drothgery

Flynn said:
			
		

> Also, with half-character level defenses, we can bring back the standard Wizard BAB.




Can we kill it, please?  That and d4 hit die just have no business being associated with a PC class...


----------



## GEEKAZOID

Greetings gentlemen,
I will start with noting I paused while reading this thread at post 164. I had some thoughts I wanted to add while fresh in my head. If anything I mentioned has been covered feel free to flame me.  

I'll try to keep it brief...

Concerning races:
The example given for elf bothers me. If you give access to a racial talent tree at first level but give no choice to the first talent chosen, you have effectively made that talent a default trait. Just list that talent as a racial trait for efficiency's sake (don't make the player look up the talent that you already know to be automatic). It's not a bad thing that that talent is default. It is just that telling a player he has the right to choose when in fact there is no choice is bad game design. 

Concerning armor:
Perhaps armor as damage reduction should be considered as in d20 Modern.
Or maybe armor grants a FORT bonus rather than REF. Maybe it can directly bolster your condition track giving you a +1 "column shift" (loved Marvel Super Heroes) when calculating condition.

Concerning Divine spellcasters:
=PART ONE=What is the difference between clerics and druids? That question alone brings up a slew of others. Is nature magic wholly different from god given magic as in D&D? Or is a druid just another cleric worshiping the god of nature? If so, are the druid class features granted by this god? Do other gods grant such features? Or are these class features now actually spells unique to the druidic god? Domain abilities? The answers I think may define how gods are presented in this system and thus how the clerical classes are defined.
=PART TWO=Will the priestly class have a medium BAB? If so, why? Going by the SAGA trend to remove class crossover, I feel if one wanted to play a D&D style cleric (martial priest)he would multiclass between divine caster and warrior.

I hope I've added worthy content.


----------



## Mokona

GEEKAZOID said:
			
		

> I will start with noting I paused while reading this thread at post 164.



Welcome to the party.  We've gotten pretty deep here but I think a fresh perspective can definitely help.



			
				GEEKAZOID said:
			
		

> Maybe it can directly bolster your condition track giving you a +1 "column shift" (loved Marvel Super Heroes) when calculating condition.



QFT in that I'm also crazy   about the *Marvel Super Heroes* boxed set.  Any game that steals ideas from *Marvel Super Heroes* wins points    in my book.



			
				GEEKAZOID said:
			
		

> Going by the SAGA trend to remove class crossover, I feel if one wanted to play a D&D style cleric (martial priest)he would multiclass between divine caster and warrior.



Being a healing-robot isn't fun (for most people) and *Wizards of the Coast* recognizes this when they make Clerics into martial characters by default.


----------



## Gundark

what % of the project is done? Just out of curiousity


----------



## drothgery

GEEKAZOID said:
			
		

> =PART TWO=Will the priestly class have a medium BAB? If so, why? Going by the SAGA trend to remove class crossover, I feel if one wanted to play a D&D style cleric (martial priest)he would multiclass between divine caster and warrior.




I'd assume so. The 1/2 BAB progression really stinks (like the d4 hit die), and even if it might not be 'necessary' to get rid of it with 1/2 level defense progressions instead of full-level defense progressions, I'd argue that it's a good idea.


----------



## GEEKAZOID

Mokona said:
			
		

> Welcome to the party.  We've gotten pretty deep here but I think a fresh perspective can definitely help.



Thanks for the warm welcome!


> QFT in that I'm also crazy   about the *Marvel Super Heroes* boxed set.  Any game that steals ideas from *Marvel Super Heroes* wins points    in my book.



Yes, a brilliant system. The original adjective ranking system. The d20Modern wealth system first appeared here. Could be used s a universal system easily.

Anyway, I don't know what consideration has been given to the default divine caster in this system. If you merge all spellcasters as the UA Generic Classes did, then the martial priest would have to be a multiclass.
Personally, I like the idea of a single balanced spellcaster which chooses divine or arcane. But with this I would also want no or VERY LITTLE crossover between divine and arcane spells.


----------



## EditorBFG

GEEKAZOID said:
			
		

> Will the priestly class have a medium BAB? If so, why? Going by the SAGA trend to remove class crossover, I feel if one wanted to play a D&D style cleric (martial priest)he would multiclass between divine caster and warrior.



Actually, I think we should follow Saga by having "medium" BAB be the minimum and not having a the lower BAB a D&D Wizard/Sorcerer suffers through at all. Part of the point of Saga is making characters more capable across the board, at low levels as well as high. I don't think the Priest should be more martial than the Expert or the Mage, but I also don't think any of the three should be as weak as the D&D Wizard.







			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Can we kill it, please?  That and d4 hit die just have no business being associated with a PC class...



As you can see above, I am in absolute agreement with you-- on both counts. d4 Hit Die is is counter to the spirit of Saga, just as the Wizard BAB is.







			
				Gundark said:
			
		

> what % of the project is done? Just out of curiousity



_Done_ done? 10, maybe 20%. This has turned out to be much more complex than I think anyone predicted.







			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> EditorBFG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this has been said before, but I would be perfectly happy to publish the main product with spells as they are (only changing how they are cast) and magic items unchanged, then do a magic sourcebook that updates both to a new and more streamlined system, for those who do not mind having to do the extra work of converting these two things. Like True20, which published a version of the Psychic Handbook's rules for magic in the main book, then released a superior (IMHO) system with True Sorcery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do it!
Click to expand...


Clearly Sorcica is in favor, but is everyone cool with leaving magic items and spells as is for now, and then revamping them in a second book, as described above? Because I think that is a project in and of itself.


----------



## Mokona

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> This has turned out to be much more complex than I think anyone predicted.
> 
> Clearly Sorcica is in favor, but is everyone cool with leaving magic items and spells as is for now, and then revamping them in a second book, as described above? Because I think that is a project in and of itself.



I concur with Sorcica.  Leaving spells as is for now helps the goals of 1) copy _Saga_ and *D&D* with as few changes as possible, 2) finish the project quickly, and 3) keep close compatibility with existing published material without violating #1 or #2.

Make a separate book that has a good solution to magic that is simple and isn't Vancian.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

So I've been mulling over magic a bit. I think I have a useful mechanic, but let me know what you think. For starters, let's say you stick with the current spell slots per day system in wizard, cleric and sorceror models, since it's easier to port things that way. So then I made up a feat, Channel Spell, which basically allows you to cast a couple of extra spells each day with a little risk. Instead of using up a prepared spell, or a spell slot, you can attempt to just cast a spell out of nowhere. It has to be a spell you either had prepared that day or know how to cast in the case of spontaneous casters. Make a spellcraft check DC 15 (?) + spell level, success means you cast the spell. Whether you fail or succeed, you are knocked one step down the condition track from exhaustion. If you try to use this feat again on the same day, the DC increases by 5 each time. This way you're going to get 1-2 more useful slots, that scale with your level, skill focus will give you another and further feats/talents could be added to the system to say, avoid the condition knock if you succeed, etc.

I'd give this feat to Wizards for free, since I think they should have the crappiest BAB known to man.

On another note, I think the Saga multiclassing rule should be modified slightly so you get one starting feat rather than nothing.


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> So I've been mulling over magic a bit. I think I have a useful mechanic, but let me know what you think. For starters, let's say you stick with the current spell slots per day system in wizard, cleric and sorceror models, since it's easier to port things that way. So then I made up a feat, Channel Spell, which basically allows you to cast a couple of extra spells each day with a little risk. Instead of using up a prepared spell, or a spell slot, you can attempt to just cast a spell out of nowhere. It has to be a spell you either had prepared that day or know how to cast in the case of spontaneous casters. Make a spellcraft check DC 15 (?) + spell level, success means you cast the spell. Whether you fail or succeed, you are knocked one step down the condition track from exhaustion. If you try to use this feat again on the same day, the DC increases by 5 each time. This way you're going to get 1-2 more useful slots, that scale with your level, skill focus will give you another and further feats/talents could be added to the system to say, avoid the condition knock if you succeed, etc.



This is essentially what Flynn and I are planning. Cast too many spells, and there starts to be a fair chance you may roll poorly and take a step down the condition track from exhaustion. We're just doing it without spell slots. I hate the idea of cluttering up Saga's streamlined class tables with a big graph of spell slots, and see no reason to keep them when they are so easily replaced without hampering compatibility in any way.







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> On another note, I think the Saga multiclassing rule should be modified slightly so you get one starting feat rather than nothing.



I absolutely agree-- heck, I thought Saga worked this way already. If it doesn't, it should.


----------



## Oldtimer

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Chris_Nightwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I think the Saga multiclassing rule should be modified slightly so you get one starting feat rather than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree-- heck, I thought Saga worked this way already. If it doesn't, it should.
Click to expand...


It does. From page 54, Starting Feats:


> When you select a new class, you do not gain all of its starting feats. Select one feat from the list of starting feats.




/Mikael


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Ah I must have misread.

EditorBFG: The only difficulty I can see in making spellcasting entirely slot-less, so to speak, is making sure that you're able to cast 'about the right number' of spells per day without difficulty. What DC are you setting, and how much will it increase per spell cast? Does this mean no spell preparation at all (fair enough, but I'm checking)? Will all spells be available to the caster or are you going to have some limiting method (like 2e clerical spheres)?

Personally, I hope you keep some aspect of the spellbook-hoarding wizard. Your system will also mean only a small bonus to spellcraft rather than an extra spell slot, if I'm not mistaken? One more question - will the penalty accrue per spell level, or across all spells cast? Anything you want to reveal would be nice


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Ah I must have misread.
> 
> EditorBFG: The only difficulty I can see in making spellcasting entirely slot-less, so to speak, is making sure that you're able to cast 'about the right number' of spells per day without difficulty. What DC are you setting, and how much will it increase per spell cast? Does this mean no spell preparation at all (fair enough, but I'm checking)? Will all spells be available to the caster or are you going to have some limiting method (like 2e clerical spheres)?
> 
> Personally, I hope you keep some aspect of the spellbook-hoarding wizard. Your system will also mean only a small bonus to spellcraft rather than an extra spell slot, if I'm not mistaken? One more question - will the penalty accrue per spell level, or across all spells cast? Anything you want to reveal would be nice




Remember that the average encounter lasts 2-4 rounds (maybe more at lower levels), and so that's only a few chances to actually gain a penalty per encounter.

If the chance to fail and be penalized is approximately 25%, for example, then one round out of four, you will gain a penalty. The first is -1 on all d20 checks, so that's not bad. The second is -2, so it gets a little bit harder now. The third penalty step is -4 (double the last one, or in Saga terms, a -5). That bumps the chance to fail from that point forward to 50%, essentially, and the next one (doubled again, or Saga -10) takes it to 75% chance to fail. After that, you pass out.

Most casters will leave an encounter at -1 to cast, sometimes -2. If encounters are too close together, with no time for recovery, then a caster may actually pass out from casting too much, and will likely be ineffective towards the end of their ordeal.

We're still juggling around the numbers, but we intend that what we come up with will scale well, making it a little difficult in the beginning to get a lot of spells off, reflecting the young apprentice/Wiz1 approach, while being easier at higher levels.

We'll update you guys more as we can. In the meantime, suggestions are welcome.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Flynn said:
			
		

> Remember that the average encounter lasts 2-4 rounds (maybe more at lower levels), and so that's only a few chances to actually gain a penalty per encounter.
> 
> If the chance to fail and be penalized is approximately 25%, for example, then one round out of four, you will gain a penalty. The first is -1 on all d20 checks, so that's not bad. The second is -2, so it gets a little bit harder now. The third penalty step is -4 (double the last one, or in Saga terms, a -5). That bumps the chance to fail from that point forward to 50%, essentially, and the next one (doubled again, or Saga -10) takes it to 75% chance to fail. After that, you pass out.
> 
> Most casters will leave an encounter at -1 to cast, sometimes -2. If encounters are too close together, with no time for recovery, then a caster may actually pass out from casting too much, and will likely be ineffective towards the end of their ordeal.
> 
> We're still juggling around the numbers, but we intend that what we come up with will scale well, making it a little difficult in the beginning to get a lot of spells off, reflecting the young apprentice/Wiz1 approach, while being easier at higher levels.
> 
> We'll update you guys more as we can. In the meantime, suggestions are welcome.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




Ah, I hadn't considered a per-encounter approach. That makes it difficult to run out-of-encounter casting though, such as healing. Are you planning on having any abilities that operate 'X times per non-sleep period' ?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Having fiddled with some numbers, it seems that none of the static increase per spell approach, increase the DC by spell level approach or the completely static DC approach are adequate. One solution I have is that you increase the spellcraft DC for spells cast beyond the first per encounter only if they are of the highest level you can cast. I think this works best for a base DC of 10+spell level, increasing by 5 each time.

Spreadsheet attached, play around if you like, there may be a nicer combination.

I just realised that this assumes failing the spellcraft roll knocks you down the condition track and *doesn't* cast the spell. If you always cast the spell things might be different - on the other hand, it might make other condition track boosting things a bit too powerful. On reflection, I'd have failure on spellcraft also fail the spell.

A further aside, but this awesomely means that 'armour check penalty' can be applied to spellcraft straight in some fashion. Something that's roughly -5 for light, -10 for medium, -15 for heavy. Skill focus (Spellcraft) doubles as an awesome way of casting in armour!

Another further aside (man, I'm stream of conciousness today..), but specialist wizards getting a +5 to spells from their school probably gives them that extra 'spell slot' they used to have. Pretty awesome.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> A further aside, but this awesomely means that 'armour check penalty' can be applied to spellcraft straight in some fashion. Something that's roughly -5 for light, -10 for medium, -15 for heavy. Skill focus (Spellcraft) doubles as an awesome way of casting in armour!



Just like Spycraft's Spellbound 

I do hope Flynn and BFGEditor have taken a good look at Spellbound besides Legends of Sorcery when designing the spell casting of Fantasy Concepts. Spellbound's encounter based system rocks!


----------



## Flynn

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Ah, I hadn't considered a per-encounter approach. That makes it difficult to run out-of-encounter casting though, such as healing. Are you planning on having any abilities that operate 'X times per non-sleep period' ?




Now you see the considerations we have to attempt to balance here...

Getting Ready For Gen Con,
Flynn


----------



## Warbringer

Sorcica said:
			
		

> The problem with this is and some other variants is that no one in their right mind will wear armor (especially at high levels).
> 
> For DR 4, the dragon now has a 30% bigger chance of hitting you with its 4d8 + 20 attack. I think I will drop the armor and take my improved chances of no damage, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Making armors provide more DR, and daggers and short swords etc. become useless..




Run the Math...

Under ( 
5th level (Chainmail) - 10+5+5-5 : *15 vs 17 * :10+2+5
10th level (Chainmail mithral) - 10+10+5-4 :  *24 vs 20 * : 10+5+5 
15th level (Full Plate +3) - 10+15+8+3-6  : *30 vs 28 * : 10+7+8+3

plus DR as you move through ( I'd say DR = 1/2 base armor AC + magic)

so chainmail     - DR 2
    chainmail     - DR 3
    full plate +3 - DR 7

Yes, smaller weapons can be come harder to use against DR, but guess what, they are. Slash an a bare arm with a dagger, messy; against plate armor, a dull blade.

As an option you get into AP weapons, such as punching dagger which ignores DR..

Anyway, just wanted show the math doesn't support your statement


----------



## Gundark

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> ] done? 10, maybe 20%. This has turned out to be much more complex than I think anyone predicted.




Hopefully not a case of "too many cooks"


----------



## EditorBFG

Gundark said:
			
		

> Hopefully not a case of "too many cooks"



Well, realistically, the "democratic" approach to game design has slowed things down a bit. Vigilance is doing a similar project with Modern in another thread, and he does not seem to be seeking input so much as updating people on decisions he's already made, and he's plugging away much faster. On the other hand, doing it this way keeps us honest. 







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> The only difficulty I can see in making spellcasting entirely slot-less, so to speak, is making sure that you're able to cast 'about the right number' of spells per day without difficulty. What DC are you setting, and how much will it increase per spell cast? Does this mean no spell preparation at all (fair enough, but I'm checking)? Will all spells be available to the caster or are you going to have some limiting method (like 2e clerical spheres)?



Keeping around the right number of spells per day is why we need to use a class based caster level instead of using spellcraft or another skill. The math needs to be very precise, and skills are too changeable. The DCs are the missing piece right now.

My thought is the spellcaster rolls vs. a DC, success means they cast the spell normally, failure means they don't cast at all, and failure by 5 or more means they move 1 step down the condition track. That's it. (By the way, we can't call it a condition track, but more on that later.) Obviously, moving down the condition track makes future spells harder to cast.

As for preparation, our current idea is that the Wizard class will have a spell preparation talent, allowing him to study a certain number spells out of a spellbook each day and make those spells easier to cast. Retains the "spirit" of Vancian magic, but in the form of an advantage rather than a limitation.

I don't think casters will start with access to all spells, but they should be able to know as many spells as they come across, just like a wizard.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

I've been grappling with the whole thing today over multiple spreadsheets. It seems as though it -should- be possible to unite the skill roll to cast a spell with spell level with armour check penalty for arcane failure with metamagic increasing the DC whilst maintaining reasonable numbers. It's proving tricky.

Whether you work on a per-encounter or per-day basis, the DC to cast a spell needs to increase every time you cast a spell, to limit your out-of-combat resources and to some extent your in-combat resources that other classes will likely have to deal with too, like rage for instance. The DC also needs to increase for casting higher level spells. It would be nice to roughly match numbers we're used to and allow for differentiation between the wizard type and the sorceror type. I have yet to find the golden ratio between the DC increase per spell level and the DC increase per spell cast.

One neat thing I did come up with though is simulating the preparedness of Wizards by allowing them to Take 10 on the checks, and the generally-casting-more-spells-ness of Sorcerors by allowing them a reroll on the checks. Again, feel free to play with the numbers..


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I've been grappling with the whole thing today over multiple spreadsheets. It seems as though it -should- be possible to unite the skill roll to cast a spell with spell level with armour check penalty for arcane failure with metamagic increasing the DC whilst maintaining reasonable numbers. It's proving tricky.



Again, I want to stress that spellcasting must be a set, level-based number ("caster level") rather than a skill like other Saga skills. Making it a skill forces us to assume that every spellcaster spends every possible feat improving spellcaster skill and determine DCs accordingly-- thereby forcing every spellcaster to do so as well. Essentially, this is us deciding that spellcasters receive fewer feats, as they must spend feats just to be average.

Also, making spellcasting a level based number allows us to predict it more accurately and choose our DCs more confidently. Also, if the spellcasting roll is the roll to overcome defense, it is much, much closer to simulating the save DCs of existing D&D spells.

Using your spreadsheet, I changed the per level casting number to half class level rounded up, and changed the base DC from 15 to 10, and was much happier with the math, and that was just changing two things-- we can do much more with the DCs.

(Oh, and good call with uniting the armor spellcasting failure chance with the casting roll--- for some reason I had not thought about that at all.)


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Yeah, I've realised that with the number of ways skills can be modified, they just won't work. Am I correct in thinking that your 'casting check' is going to be d20 + half caster level, rounding up? Or are you including the stat modifier too (to represent the 3.5 bonus slot mechanism)?

Both of these work numerically, I think, depending on exactly how much power you want to grant your casters. My only concern would be the complication of using 'half caster level' as another number to work out, and that rounding up makes the even caster levels rather rubbish. If you use caster level as the check, 10 + minimum caster level for the spell as the DC and increase the DC by 1 per spell cast that day or hour or whatever, it looks quite nice. A bit like the scroll system in 3.5. I'm still not entirely convinced that slots aren't easier, but I do see reasons to dislike them too.

I forgot to include casting on the defensive in my uniting-all-spellcasting-into-one-roll statement earlier - having that increase the DC too makes everything even neater!


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've realised that with the number of ways skills can be modified, they just won't work. Am I correct in thinking that your 'casting check' is going to be d20 + half caster level, rounding up? Or are you including the stat modifier too (to represent the 3.5 bonus slot mechanism)?



I was hoping to use d20 + half caster level (rounding up) + stat modifier, yes. As you say, eliminates the need for a bonus spell chart based on ability scores. Also, keeps the saves essentially the same as in D&D (although in D&D, it is 10 + Spell Level + stat, so higher level casters now do better with low-level spells than before-- this I think I can live with   )







			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Both of these work numerically, I think, depending on exactly how much power you want to grant your casters. My only concern would be the complication of using 'half caster level' as another number to work out, and that rounding up makes the even caster levels rather rubbish.



Well, this is why I was not sure about calling it caster level. Basically, I think the highest level spell you can cast and the modifier to your check be the same number, and have that be the only number you ever use as a caster. Spell Resistance would convert over (halved) as a bonus to your defense against casters, and would grant the equivalent of Evasion for all defenses against spells-- basically, if the spellcaster fails to overcome your defense, you experience no effects, rather than experience the normal made-your-save effect. This emulates Saga's streamlined philosophy, and scales casting ability with the half-level defenses.

And thank you for all your math work on this. Busy with other things, Flynn and I have not looked at the DCs since back when we were both still working under the assumption that casting would be skill-based.


----------



## Emryys

I wonder how the 4E announcement will affect proceedings...?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Well, 4e stuff screws a lot of projects. It's worth waiting to see what's actually happening. From my point of view now I want to help Wizards design _that_ hehe.

Back to the difficulty of choosing the right numbers. If the rules state something like, "to cast a level X arcane spell you must have a caster level of at least 2X-1 and a mage level of at least X" then you can make the DC 10 + spell level (+ 2 per repeated casting if you want that aspect) and the roll itself d20 + relevant stat + highest level spell you can cast (subtly working around caster level). My fear is that as your stat increases you get far more high-level spells than low level, so another possibility is d20 + relevant stat + difference between your highest level and the level you're trying to cast - er, which is mechanically the same as making the DC 10 + twice spell level. This just weighs the impact of a high stat slightly differently, so each +4 you obtain gives you another top level spell slot.


----------



## EditorBFG

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Back to the difficulty of choosing the right numbers. If the rules state something like, "to cast a level X arcane spell you must have a caster level of at least 2X-1 and a mage level of at least X" then you can make the DC 10 + spell level (+ 2 per repeated casting if you want that aspect) and the roll itself d20 + relevant stat + highest level spell you can cast (subtly working around caster level).



I don't see the advantage to keeping caster level. Why have two numbers, one of which is half the other? Just seems confusing, and the opposite of Saga's streamlined approach. I think there needs to be one number.

On the 4E thing: Well, I certainly think we need to get this to market faster.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Don't forget that many spells require caster level to determine dice etc.
You could make this class level instead, perhaps.


----------



## Horacio

I hope 4e announcement doesn't affect this project too much. I've just read the thread, and my head is turning with all the ideas, I would love to see this finished.


----------



## The_Gneech

Of possible interest, my sword-and-sorcery conversion of Saga is ready for perusal here:

http://www.suburbanjungle.com/saga_players_guide_web.pdf

If nothing else, you might find the beast writeups helpful; they should be directly usable in _SWSE_.

In order to avoid derailing the Fantasy Concepts thread, please address any feedback regarding my version in its own thread, here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3705994

Let me know what you think!

-The Gneech


----------



## Flynn

I'm back from Gen Con now, and Jeremy and I are engaged in a conversation offline in regards to how 4E might and might not impact the Fantasy Concepts project.

I think the biggest impact on our decisions will be whether or not there's still public interest in moving forward with the Fantasy Concepts project given the 4E announcement last week. (I think there is sufficient interest, but it's hard to be sure this soon after 4E is announced.)

So help us out here. Are you guys still interested in seeing what we can come up with for Fantasy Concepts, assuming we can put something out by October (or November at the latest)?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

I will be honest and say that if you finish developing it, I will buy it as promised. However, I am already now impatiently waiting for 4E. I won't start a new campaign before 4E, rather finishing the current one (should fit fine with July 08).

Since there probably _will_ be some things in 4E that I would have done differently, it might be nice to have inspiration from Fantasy Concepts for house rules, though.

But honestly, I think it might be best to wait and see how 4E turns out, and if there's still room for Saga-like improvement, start Fantasy Concepts up once again.


----------



## Nine Hands

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I will be honest and say that if you finish developing it, I will buy it as promised. However, I am already now impatiently waiting for 4E. I won't start a new campaign before 4E, rather finishing the current one (should fit fine with July 08).
> 
> Since there probably _will_ be some things in 4E that I would have done differently, it might be nice to have inspiration from Fantasy Concepts for house rules, though.
> 
> But honestly, I think it might be best to wait and see how 4E turns out, and if there's still room for Saga-like improvement, start Fantasy Concepts up once again.




I have to grudginly agree to this.   I feel that a large portion of the market will wait until 4th Edition comes out instead of picking this product up.

Also what is the state of the d20 license in regards to 4th Edition, are they going to allow other companies to produce content for it or will companies have to sneak through the windows presented by the OGL or d20 licenses?


----------



## Flynn

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> I have to grudginly agree to this.   I feel that a large portion of the market will wait until 4th Edition comes out instead of picking this product up.
> 
> Also what is the state of the d20 license in regards to 4th Edition, are they going to allow other companies to produce content for it or will companies have to sneak through the windows presented by the OGL or d20 licenses?




If the 4ESRD is released under the OGL, then other companies will be able to produce content for it, so long as they are compliant with the OGL as it stands now.

If the 4ESRD is released under a more restricted license, then other companies will only be able to produce content so long as they obtain the restricted license from WOTC. In addition, I imagine that someone will attempt to follow the OSRIC model and come up with an OGL version of the 4ESRD that will allow third party development without falling under the restricted license, based on what I've seen discussed over this last year.

The OGL cannot be revoked, so it is here for good. However, just because the current Revised SRD is OGL, WOTC is not required to release the 4ESRD under the OGL. (I think they will, though, but I don't want to assume that they will until someone actually says it.)

The D20 STL can be changed, revoked or modified as WOTC sees fit.

WOTC may also create another limited access license to govern 4ESRD and its third-party development. If they so choose, we will have to wait for the license before we know what can actually be done there.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> I feel that a large portion of the market will wait until 4th Edition comes out instead of picking this product up.



*Wizards of the Coast* experienced large slowdowns in *D&D* sales immediately prior to the release of v.3.5.  _Ghostwalk_ might be the all time worst selling 3rd edition product ever.  During that same period leading up to a new *Dungeons & Dragons* edition the *d20* products by *White Wolf*, *Green Ronin*, and *Fantasy Flight* were somewhat flat (instead of declining).

Personally, I find it hard to wait until May of 2008 for my good new rules to make it in to fantasy roleplaying games.  I want _Fantasy Saga_ now.  The previews of 4th edition make it look very different from _Saga_ where I still think this project will be better for my low magic games.  If this project waits until 4th edition it will be less wise to base the rules on _Saga_ and more appropriate to start from *D&D* 4th Edition.  Basing things on 4th edition could trash up to 100% of the work we've accomplished so far.

I guess I'd use The_Gneech's freebie if we stopped here but then I'm not sure what would be my justification for buying this product and 4th edition around the same time.  In general customers have a short term time horizon.  It still too early for most people to hoard their money waiting for 4th edition.  My money's burning a hole in my pocket (waiting for the Force Unleashed supplement).


----------



## The_Gneech

Mokona said:
			
		

> I guess I'd use The_Gneech's freebie if we stopped here but then I'm not sure what would be my justification for buying this product and 4th edition around the same time.  In general customers have a short term time horizon.  It still too early for most people to hoard their money waiting for 4th edition.  My money's buring a hole in my pocket (waiting for the Force Unleashed supplement).




Keep in mind that my version is geared towards sword & sorcery specifically, whereas Fantasy Concepts (as I understand it) is designed to give you something closer to the archetypal _D&D_ experience.  I was kinda looking forward to the products being complementary, or at least having areas of useful overlap like HERO and GURPS.  But mine was never intended to be a for-profit juncture either, so I can see how the 4E announcement would be pretty discouraging.

-The Gneech


----------



## Mokona

More inspiration...


			
				Imruphel said:
			
		

> For a preview of talent trees and what it might mean for race to matter more, check out _Dawnforge_ by Fantasy Flight Games.


----------



## Flynn

Currently, we are looking at continuing to push through on this project. I understand the general sense of reluctance to invest in anything new that 4E brings to the market place, and I am glad to hear that a few people are still interested in this project. 

Back To Work,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

ICv2.com said:
			
		

> http://staging.icv2.com/articles/home/11168.html
> August 23, 2007
> 
> *ICv2 Top Five RPGs*
> Dungeons & Dragons
> Star Wars [Saga Edition]
> Warhammer Fantasy
> World of Darkness
> Scion



The _*Star Wars* Roleplaying Game_ originally released in 2000 and _Revised Core Rulebook_ released in 2002.

Looking at each Top 5 from ICv2.com for 2005, 2006, and 2007 I note that _*Star Wars*_ has not been on the list recently.  It mostly contains World of Darkness, Mutants & Masterminds/Green Ronin, Warhammer, and Exalted over and over again.  Furthermore, during that time period only _Mutants & Masterminds_, Warhammer, and _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ have knocked World of Darkness out of the #2 spot.

I see this as good news for the success and popularity of the new _Saga_ rules.  It bumped World of Darkness out of the #2 spot its first week back on the list which neither M&M nor Warhammer accomplished.


----------



## EditorBFG

Mokona said:
			
		

> More inspiration...



Dawnforge is great. Most of the race talents won't work in our system, but some will, and it is an absolutely beautiful setting. Eberron is great too, but I'm glad I'm not the guy who had to decide which got published-- I would've probably flipped a coin.







			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> But honestly, I think it might be best to wait and see how 4E turns out, and if there's still room for Saga-like improvement, start Fantasy Concepts up once again.



Personally, I don't like the gamble of waiting to see if 4E has "room for improvement". I also think that Fantasy Concepts might make a good transition product, for DMs to help players prepare over the next 10 months for changes likely to appear in 4E. James Wyatt has mentioned in interviews how frustrating participating in 3.5 games has been since working on 4E-- rogues useless against undead, paladins with 1/day schticks becoming mere warriors after round 1-- and if you read the descriptions and come back to your 3.5 game with a similar mindset, I think Fantasy Concepts will be very helpful.

Also, we've done a lot of work-- not just Flynn and I, but many of you guys-- and I want to see it in action. This needs to get played.


----------



## Emryys

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> ...I want to see it in action. This needs to get played.




Agreed!


----------



## graylion

*Saga System It Is...*

Greeting Creative Spirits

I am new to this thread but I say to thee do not slow to the far off possiblity that 4th edition will be great, continue to be great now.

I have played D&D since an elf was my class and my hat is off to all of you here and what you have accomplished. i have just finished reading the last 12 pages to catch up and I am very impressed with the distance you have come in a short time. I have seen similiar conversion grind to a halt with the non-ending debates and lack of direction.

I have played many games D&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5. White Wolf, Lords of Creation, Rifts, paladium, GURPS, but I always return to D&D or White Wolf. When I left 2nd edition I went to White Wolf Trinity their sci-fi and psion game. I came back for 3e. I have recently jumped back to white wolf but am now returning for SW Saga and the possibilities that it holds and eventually 4th edition.

I will try to contibute with ideas or methods when I can. I hope to use this frame work for the Known World of Mystara which is rich with multiple humans (cultures/races) and many variations of races/sub-races.

Happy gaming and I firmly believe in what you are doing here.

Regards

Graylion (2d10 vs d20)


----------



## EditorBFG

All--

Okay, two questions for the group, regarding the Mage base class:

1) Okay, it looks like we will be using caster level (as suggested) and making the die roll to cast a spell d20 + ability mod + half your caster level (rounded up). Since half your caster level is an important number (it is also the highest level spell you can cast), I think it needs its own name. "Spell Potency" was my thinking for a while, but that sounds like it describves the spell not the caster. Any ideas?

2) Should mage have the Wizard BAB from D&D or the minimum Saga BAB (same as cleric)?

What do you think?


----------



## Gentlegamer

How about "Power" for casting level. 

"My wizard can cast 5th Power spells."

While we're renaming things, can BAB be called "Prowess," instead?


----------



## EditorBFG

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> How about "Power" for casting level.
> 
> "My wizard can cast 5th Power spells."
> 
> While we're renaming things, can BAB be called "Prowess," instead?



To be clear, we are looking for a term to describe a mage's skill at casting spells, not the spells themselves.

And while we're not looking to rename BAB, I think "Spell Prowess" is a possibility.


----------



## Gentlegamer

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> To be clear, we are looking for a term to describe a mage's skill at casting spells, not the spells themselves.



In these rules, casting level also equals the highest level spell that the m-u may cast, correct?

Casting level is what governs the variable parts of spells, such as damage dice, range, duration, etc. I think "power" is pretty good term for this.


> And while we're not looking to rename BAB, I think "Spell Prowess" is a possibility.



I've just always disliked the term BAB or even "base attack bonus." 

In fact, maybe the wizard's attack bonus for using spells that require attack rolls ought to be equal to his caster level (or Spell Prowess, or Power, or whatever it ends up being named) plus Int or Dex modifier, depending on the spell/situation. This way, the wizard's use of magic can be divorced from his combat skill represented by his BAB (and therefore can be given a very very low BAB progression, requiring wizards who want more combat skill to multiclass).

Sorry, I can get into brainstorming easily sometimes.


----------



## Mokona

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Should mage have the Wizard BAB from D&D or the minimum Saga BAB (same as cleric)?



_Saga_-style please.


----------



## Flynn

With the advent of the half-level defense progression, I have suggested we return to the traditional half-level BAB progression for Mages for two main reasons:

1) Commoners (non-heroic) will have the half-level progression, and D&D promotes the concept of a Mage as being no more skilled in weaponry than the average man.

2) Priests have the three-quarters level progression, so giving the same progression to Mages is saying that Mages and Priests are equal in martial prowess, and I'm personally not a fan of that concept.

That's my viewpoint on it. (I'm all for giving Mages a d6 for hit die, though. Mages definitely need some HP lovin', and that would put them on par with Experts.)

Hope That Helps,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

I'm anxious to see what others think, but I'm starting to think I might be on the side of 3/4 BAB for the Mage. For the sake of argument, I thought I'd react to a couple points:







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> 1) Commoners (non-heroic) will have the half-level progression, and D&D promotes the concept of a Mage as being no more skilled in weaponry than the average man.



To my mind, this is a mistake in D&D. A commoner is a guy who doesn't go on adventures; by 3rd level, your average PC spellcaster has been in 40 (13.33 per level) serious battles where his life was at stake-- just as many as a priest, or even a warrior. Given how many spells require a ranged attack roll, I don't understand why a spellcaster who has been in that many battles has the same base attck as an experienced local cheesemaker (2nd level commoner). A high-level spellcaster can't hit anyone around his level with a ranged attack roll, and that's in a system where armor class does not automatically get a bonus from a character going up in level, as it does here.







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Priests have the three-quarters level progression, so giving the same progression to Mages is saying that Mages and Priests are equal in martial prowess, and I'm personally not a fan of that concept.



In D&D, even the kindly local head priest who has never been in a fight in his life has cleric levels to represent his standing in the church and his ability to heal the villagers-- clerics are not all warlike avengers of the faith.

To my mind, Saga does not have PCs with a BAB less than 3/4 because the goal of Saga is to make the PCs heroes. As stated often by the designers, heroes don't sit out chasing a mounted opponent because they haven't focused on Ride-- I think, by the same philosophy, heroes are better in a fight than commoners, no matter what their focus is, and they should have a fair chance of hitting a lower level enemy with an acid arrow.

Also, mentioning ranged attack rolls, it occurs to me with a roll for spellcasting, any spell with a ranged attack roll essentially has two chances to fail. Given that two rolls are required for success, I don't think spellcaster should be so terrible at the second.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> To my mind, Saga does not have PCs with a BAB less than 3/4 because the goal of Saga is to make the PCs heroes.




Something to remember: Reflex Defense in Saga starts at a base of the character's heroic levels. 3/4 BAB is LESS than the Reflex Defense progression in Saga, so the classes with that progression are losing out in the long run in a Saga game. They can't even keep attacks balanced against defenses as they move up in level. It's all in the numbers.

Reflex Defense in Fantasy Concepts starts at a base of HALF the character's heroic levels. The numbers are different, so I prefer to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. To me, it's a game mechanics/numbers issue, not a personal preference.

However, in the long run, no one has yet spoken up in support of D&D BABs for the mage, so unless that changes very soon, we'll say all mages are equal in combat and warskill to priests and move on. We don't have time to try and convince one another of who's got the more valid point here, and several of the more vocal fans have already voiced an opinion.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Also, mentioning ranged attack rolls, it occurs to me with a roll for spellcasting, any spell with a ranged attack roll essentially has two chances to fail. Given that two rolls are required for success, I don't think spellcaster should be so terrible at the second.




I suggest that we will need to look at that and figure out a way to make it one roll instead. Saga deliberately moved away from the two roll resolution mentality where it could. It would be nice to do the same thing here.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> I suggest that we will need to look at that and figure out a way to make it one roll instead. Saga deliberately moved away from the two roll resolution mentality where it could. It would be nice to do the same thing here.



That's a really good point. I should've thought of that!


----------



## Dalamar

Flynn said:
			
		

> Reflex Defense in Fantasy Concepts starts at a base of HALF the character's heroic levels. The numbers are different, so I prefer to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. To me, it's a game mechanics/numbers issue, not a personal preference.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the reasons for the halving of the base Reflex defense because the project seeks to keep all the myriad of spells and items of normal DnD? Wouldn't that, then, mean that the Saga wizard is likely to be facing a higher Reflex defense than Saga jedi, as there are things like Rings of Protection, Amulets of Natural Armor etc. that modify Reflex defense?


----------



## Flynn

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the reasons for the halving of the base Reflex defense because the project seeks to keep all the myriad of spells and items of normal DnD? Wouldn't that, then, mean that the Saga wizard is likely to be facing a higher Reflex defense than Saga jedi, as there are things like Rings of Protection, Amulets of Natural Armor etc. that modify Reflex defense?




Halving the numbers on the Defenses brings the numeric values back in line with the original D&D math, so that the spells and magic items require limited changes, if any, in order to function as part of the system. It's all about the math. As for how the results compare with Saga, I don't have enough experience with SWSE yet to honestly answer that question. I imagine, though, that they are comparable.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Just had my daughter born a week ago, so I haven't really been keeping up on this thread lately. But...



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> I suggest that we will need to look at that and figure out a way to make it one roll instead. Saga deliberately moved away from the two roll resolution mentality where it could. It would be nice to do the same thing here.



Why not just let the roll be determant for spellcasting succes _and_ the ranged attack. Just make sure difficulties increase the DC of the spell and does not subtract from spellcasting skill, and the roll can be used for both. Workable?


----------



## Flynn

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Just had my daughter born a week ago, so I haven't really been keeping up on this thread lately. But...
> 
> 
> Why not just let the roll be determant for spellcasting succes _and_ the ranged attack. Just make sure difficulties increase the DC of the spell and does not subtract from spellcasting skill, and the roll can be used for both. Workable?




It works best is the Power Check progression and the BAB progression are the same. The Power Check progression is similar to skills, at half the caster level. The BAB for Priests is 3/4, not 1/2, and the Mages are likely to follow, so the progressions are different.

Since the progressions are different, which should we use?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Bummer, didn't think of that....... hm.

Maybe use the same roll, adding one bonus for spell completion, another for effect? Nah... clunky.

Hmm.....


----------



## EditorBFG

*Hey All--*

I know GenCon and Labor Day (and Labor Day Weekend's ConQuest SF, which had me out of the loop for a while) have slowed this thread a bit, but Flynn and I are still hard at work, and we need more help.

Here is our condition system:



			
				Fantasy Concepts Draft said:
			
		

> When a single attack made against a character exceeds that character's Fortitude Defense, that character suffers a Wound. A character with one Wound is -1 to all attacks, ability checks, skill checks, and defenses.
> 
> If a character suffers additional Wounds, each Wound suffered after the first doubles the penalty. So, a character with two Wounds is -2 to all attacks, ability checks, skill checks, and defenses, while a character with three Wounds is -4. A character with four Wounds is -8, and a character with five Wounds is helpless (either unconscious or disabled).



Look familiar? Now, here is the thing: "Wounds" are not the right name. It does not describe all the conditions it represents. Flynn came up with "Pain Levels", which is certainly more accurate, but still not quite right.

So we were hoping maybe you guys had some ideas. We need a name for individual units of reduced effectiveness that is not modern or clinical ("Trauma Points") nor overly specific ("Injuries"). It has to essentially cover all those D&D conditions like staggered, stunned, sickened, fatigued, confused, bewitched, bothered, bewildered, etc. that this kind of condition system eliminates. Anybody got an idea?


----------



## Gentlegamer

To borrow from the Lejendary Adventure game, how about "Harm" . . ?


----------



## SKid4

How about "weakness."


----------



## nobodez

Well, True20 uses the term "Damage Track", and when they are injured (failing their toughness save, equivalent to getting hit for massive damage), they go a step down the damage track. They also have a "Fatigue Track".

Also, your eliminating the Conditions. Since True20 has a track for Damage to eliminate damage, and a Track for Fatigue to eliminate fatigue rules, why not a track for overall Condition.

Perhaps the "Situation" track, or "Health" track.

Or, of you're still going for a double sided track (bonuses and penalties), then how about "Boon" levels?


----------



## Dalamar

Perhaps "disability" could work, though it might be a tad strong. Another possibility might be "impairment", but that has a clinical connotation like "trauma" does.


----------



## GEEKAZOID

How about "Hindrance"?

What might help us is to give an idea how this will be tracked.
Will it be just the word shocked, paralyzed, poisoned etc?
Or is it a numerical value as a penalty to rolls?

If it is the former just have a line for "Condition:________ " and write in the one you want.
For the later, call it "Status Penalty:___ " and enter the number.
I suspect you would still need to write the condition type next to it as you need to know one from the other.


----------



## Animus

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> ... I also think that Fantasy Concepts might make a good transition product, for DMs to help players prepare over the next 10 months for changes likely to appear in 4E. James Wyatt has mentioned in interviews how frustrating participating in 3.5 games has been since working on 4E-- rogues useless against undead, paladins with 1/day schticks becoming mere warriors after round 1-- and if you read the descriptions and come back to your 3.5 game with a similar mindset, I think Fantasy Concepts will be very helpful.
> 
> Also, we've done a lot of work-- not just Flynn and I, but many of you guys-- and I want to see it in action. This needs to get played.




I was thinking of using it at the least as a transition product. Or, if 4e isn't for me, I may even stick with it. Who knows.


----------



## Horacio

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I also think that Fantasy Concepts might make a good transition product, for DMs to help players prepare over the next 10 months for changes likely to appear in 4E. James Wyatt has mentioned in interviews how frustrating participating in 3.5 games has been since working on 4E-- rogues useless against undead, paladins with 1/day schticks becoming mere warriors after round 1-- and if you read the descriptions and come back to your 3.5 game with a similar mindset, I think Fantasy Concepts will be very helpful.




I would really love to see Fantasy Concepts released before Christmas, or better yet, in a couple of months. I would love to have such a product to wait for 4e.

I think you have a great "release window" between now and the end of the year. After that, many people would choose to wait for 4e, but before that some people (your niche market, the passionate gamers that live at EN World  ) could like a transition game, and Fantasy Concepts can be that game.


----------



## Sundragon2012

I'm really waiting to look this over once its done. I admit I am not a rule maker, so there isn't much I can add. I would like to see Flynn's company do well with a good, solid niche ruleset that serves GMs and players who like a low-moderate magic/high adventure/high role-play setting.

Plus, as I work to write out my new setting and weight the options between available rule sets (4e, True20, Runequest, Fantasy Concepts) I would like work my setting to be rule-free in regards to someone having to use this or that system to run the setting. However, I would like to create add on materials that would make the setting compatible with any ruleset I choose such as Fantasy Concepts.

It'll be at least a year before the setting is fully written out, but well before that I will need to look at integrating at least one set into it in the form of a supplement that will exist as a value added free add-on. Thankfully Fantasy Concepts will most likely be fully complete before I am done.

My gut tells me to go with a good niche ruleset such as Runequest, True20 and Fantasy Concepts. $e is an option, but my intuition is "iffy" about it though I like what I am hearing. I might just stat the setting out for Fantasy Concepts, True20, 4e and Runequest. I'm still in the fence.



Sundragon


----------



## Sundragon2012

*A Little Fluff Text for my Setting*

Edit

(I have to make some edits on the text.)


----------



## Gwarh

I've been lurking through the entire lifespan of this thread, but thought I better chime in with my support for the project.

I am really looking foreward to what both of you come up with. I personally will be buying this PDF as well as D&D4E. I doubt they will be exactly the same, and the PDF will be much cheaper than the new 4E Books. Frankly I want them both.

It will be neet to see just how this project handles this and that compared to the 4E way of doing things when it finally comes out. I feel your project is still valid and absolutly you should press forward.

Thinking that 4E will make your Fantasy Concepts work moot, is like saying that the 3E or 3.5E books would make all the indie 3'rd ed books moot as well. And judging by the amount of Indie 3E books availible here at the ENWorld Store that statement is plain silly.

I'd wager after 4E comes out there will be a dozen variants/mods/houserule PDF booklets for sale from indie publishers withing the first few months. So why not push ahead and e-publish your Fantasy Concepts book. I think if anything the 4E announcement might even bring a few more sales from those Rabid fans who can't wait till next june.

I mean heck, you can even release another version of Fantasy Concepts, say FC2E when 4E comes out. With your own take on 4E, melding the best of the new into your FC ruleset.

ALSO

Why not start one of those PAY PAL hostage funds (er whatever you call them). Then folks like myself can donate a $10 or a $20 to show support for the project. You can always add the names of the financial supports to the PDF as a show of appreciation. I know other co's and Game Writers have done the same before and it's worked well for them.

Food for though


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

*Im in for it*

I'll put it this way. With all the effort you have collectively put into this project it would be a shame to see you just give in. I personally would like to see your product, as I believe it will be the closest thing to 4E available anytime soon. Whereas I am not normally one to pay for e-materials I believe I would consider making a Paypal based purchase just to get my Saturday night game an action boost with the Saga edition rules. It is a convenience I am willing to pay for. Though I could continue converting D&D to Saga on my own, but as I have little to no time nor a group of seasoned gamers at my disposal It only makes sense to acquire the material you have compiled. Please release soon!    My noobs await 4e, but if I can give them a taste now SO BE IT!


----------



## Flynn

Thanks for the support, guys. We're still working on the rules, even if we aren't posting as much about it right now. (And my apologies for the lack of active posts here.)

I think you'll see this product come out, in one form or another, towards the end of October, or perhaps in early November, depending on how things work out, but you'll see it soon. It should be available in both PDF and Print-On-Demand, so for those that want hardcopy, you'll be able to pick it up that way, too. 

I personally am excited about the prospects of this particular product, and am looking forward to its release.

More Later, Friends,
Flynn


----------



## Wraith Form

Flynn said:
			
		

> I think you'll see this product come out, in one form or another, towards the end of October, or perhaps in early November, depending on how things work out, but you'll see it soon. It should be available in both PDF and Print-On-Demand, so for those that want hardcopy, you'll be able to pick it up that way, too.



I'm pretty sure I've said this before but--I'm in for the PDF at the very least, and I have "disposable income".  

Any idea of a price range?  (ballpark is good, I know it could change)


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

The problem:

*Look familiar? Now, here is the thing: "Wounds" are not the right name. It does not describe all the conditions it represents. Flynn came up with "Pain Levels", which is certainly more accurate, but still not quite right.* 


Recommendation:

How about *Condition* ? Or are you concearned about using that?

Other words could be *Status* , or*State* ... just some thoughts.


----------



## Flynn

Sentinel_Marshall said:
			
		

> The problem:
> 
> *Look familiar? Now, here is the thing: "Wounds" are not the right name. It does not describe all the conditions it represents. Flynn came up with "Pain Levels", which is certainly more accurate, but still not quite right.*
> 
> 
> Recommendation:
> 
> How about *Condition* ? Or are you concearned about using that?
> 
> Other words could be *Status* , or*State* ... just some thoughts.




We could also just call them *Penalty Levels*, since that's what they technically are, and move on. However, it isn't evocative, but then again, neither is *Condition Track*.

We're still open for suggestions,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I've said this before but--I'm in for the PDF at the very least, and I have "disposable income".
> 
> Any idea of a price range?  (ballpark is good, I know it could change)




The price range will be pretty much dependent on the final page count. Also, it's not something that BFG and I have actually discussed as yet, wanting to be closer to a final product before we can decide on anything.

If you are looking for a range to save your money at, and we assume a book of 128 to 144 pages, I would suggest that you might expect a PDF somewhere in the $8-$10 range, a softcover version in the $16-$18 range, and maybe a casewrapped hardcover version (if there's enough of a call for one) in the $28-$30 range. This is, of course, only a guess, as BFG and I haven't actually discussed this point. Given that, I'm reserving the right to change these prices above, as we get closer to the final version of the product.

I hope this helps,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Status Report - of sorts...*

I offer the following as a general status report on what still remains to be done on the current project. As you can see, the hardest two sections (talents and combat) are being worked on, and feats will follow once those two are done. Of the other sections, we've started some work, but it isn't at the appropriate stage of completion.

Outstanding Sections:


*Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
*Character Races*: BFGEditor is nearing completion
*Class-based Talent Paths*: Some initial work has been done
*Feats*: Some initial work has been done
*Equipment*: Some initial work has been done
*Combat*: Flynn is nearing completion
*Environment & Hazards*: Some initial work has been done
*Magic System*: Some initial work has been done
*Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Spells*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Monsters*: Some initial work has been done

Once the work above is completed, we'll need to playtest and make changes as needed, then edit the work before sending it on to layout and production.

Can it be done in the six weeks or so that we've allotted ourselves? Yes, although it will be tight at our current rate of progress. It's a lot of typing, and both of us are doing this in addition to our normal lives, so time is a valuable commodity that is occasionally hard to come by. I'll post updates as we move along here, so that you can see the progress as we make Fantasy Concepts a reality for you.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Gwarh

Flynn said:
			
		

> We could also just call them *Penalty Levels*, since that's what they technically are, and move on. However, it isn't evocative, but then again, neither is *Condition Track*.
> 
> We're still open for suggestions,
> Flynn




Why not just call it Fatiuge (or however you spell it) as thats what it is in a sence.


----------



## Flynn

Gwarh said:
			
		

> Why not just call it Fatiuge (or however you spell it) as thats what it is in a sence.




Mostly because Fatigue already has a specific meaning in D20 terminology, and I don't want people to get confused by the use of the term. However, it is something to consider, if we provide proper clarification.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Gwarh

Flynn said:
			
		

> Mostly because Fatigue already has a specific meaning in D20 terminology, and I don't want people to get confused by the use of the term. However, it is something to consider, if we provide proper clarification.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




How about an antonym for Fatigue, *Vigor * or *Vitality*. Both have a more positive ring to them too. I personally have no problem with Condition track as litterally thats what it's tracking for me, My condition. 

I (personally) think Fatigue is the perfect term for it as it is representative of how whinded, shaken and worn down you are by the effects of Combat and the Enviorment. But your right it does have a different connotation already in D&D. 

P.S. do you plan on doing the Paypal pre-pay or Donation account? If it helps I'm more n happy to pre-pay to show interest, and support.


----------



## Flynn

Gwarh said:
			
		

> P.S. do you plan on doing the Paypal pre-pay or Donation account? If it helps I'm more n happy to pre-pay to show interest, and support.




Personally, I've been burned before by companies that have taken a pre-order, only to fall on hard times and leave me with nothing to show for it. Those experiences have made me very reluctant to do the pre-order thing. As for donations, since there's two companies working on this puppy, Samardan Press and Big Finger Games, I don't really see an easy way to handle that.

However, by posting on this thread, that is definitely a way to show interest and support for this venture.

Thank you for your thoughts,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

In anticipation of _Fantasy Concepts_   I working on my new campaign: China as a fantasy nation.  I hope to use this game to transition between my current *D&D* game and 4th edition.  Right now my *Dungeons & Dragons* game is powered by *D20 Modern* rules but I'm not really happy with the results.  _Saga_ will be much better.  If 4th edition for *D&D* is very complicated (which it appears it might be   ) then along side it I'll probably continue playing _Fantasy Concepts_ games.  Or maybe I'd even cherry pick good 4th edition ideas into _Saga_.

Hopefully I'll also have time to continue my new _*Star Wars* Saga Edition_ campaign which is only three (3) sessions old.

Also, I think The_Gneech's sword & sorcery rules for spells have the perfect style for China.


----------



## Flynn

As an update, BFGEditor will be away from work on Fantasy Concepts for at least another week, due to Real Life (tm) stuff. That's the reason he hasn't posted lately. No worries, the work still continues.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

As an update, the combat section is nearing completion. It integrates much of the feedback I've received in regards to the project here, and to Saga in general, as well as staying OGL. Expect to see some differences, of course, but they are mostly due to the different base assumptions created by a magic environment. I hope to have it ready to send over for BFGEditor's review by tomorrow, Wednesday at the latest.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Current Status: 09/18/2007*

Good Afternoon, All:

For those interested in where we stand right now, I've finished another section of the rules, and am ready to move on to another one. The first draft of Combat is done. I'm going to hit Environments and Hazards and then move over to feats.


*Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
*Character Races*: BFGEditor is nearing completion
*Class-based Talent Paths*: Some initial work has been done
*Feats*: Some initial work has been done
*Equipment*: Some initial work has been done
*Combat*: *Section completed!*
*Environment & Hazards*: Some initial work has been done
*Magic System*: Some initial work has been done
*Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Spells*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Monsters*: Some initial work has been done

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Current Status: 09/21/07*

Good Morning Once Again:

I've finished yet another section of the rules, and am ready to move on to another one. Environments and Hazards is done. Now it's time to move on to Feats.


*Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
*Character Races*: BFGEditor is nearing completion
*Class-based Talent Paths*: Some initial work has been done
*Feats*: Some initial work has been done
*Equipment*: Some initial work has been done
*Combat*: *Section completed!*
*Environment & Hazards*: *Section completed!*
*Magic System*: Some initial work has been done
*Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Spells*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Monsters*: Some initial work has been done

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

The anticipation GROWETH!!!


----------



## Flynn

*Unusual Background feat?*

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the following feat?



> *Unusual Background*
> You have an unusual character background.
> *Prerequisites*: GM approval
> *Benefit*: You have an unusual background that allows you to pursue a talent path not normally allowed to your class. You must specify the specific talent path at the time you select this feat. This talent path is always open to you when you are allowed to select talents.
> *Special*: You may select this feat multiple times, again with the GM’s approval. Each time you select this feat, it applies to another talent path not normally allowed to your class.




It was a wild and crazy thought, and before I included it in the Feats draft document, I wanted to see what your thoughts were on it.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Weapon Proficiency feat?*

Good Morning, All:

I would like to suggest the following Weapon Proficiency feat write-up to capture the use of Simple, Martial and Exotic weapons as seems to be the desired concensus here. It definitely captures the flavor of the Saga approach, while maintaining the Simple/Martial/Exotic distinctions that we have agreed to implement.



> *Weapon Proficiency*
> You understand how to use a particular type of weapon in combat.
> *Benefit*: You may choose simple weapons, martial weapons, or a specific exotic weapon. You are considered proficient with all weapons of the select type. You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally.
> *Normal*: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
> *Special*: You may not be proficient in martial weapons unless you are already proficient in simple weapons. You may not be proficient in an exotic weapon unless you are already proficient in martial weapons.




With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Current Status: 09/24/07*

Good Morning Yet Again:

Okay, I've finished the Feats chapter draft, aside from the feedback on the two feats I've posted above, and am now ready to move on. I think my next section will be Equipment.


*Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
*Character Races*: BFGEditor is nearing completion
*Class-based Talent Paths*: Some initial work has been done
*Feats*: *Section completed!*
*Equipment*: Some initial work has been done
*Combat*: *Section completed!*
*Environment & Hazards*: *Section completed!*
*Magic System*: Some initial work has been done
*Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Spells*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Monsters*: Some initial work has been done

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Equipment's Done!*

Good Afternoon:

Okay, I've finished the Equipment chapter draft sooner than I thought I would. I think my next section will be *Conversion Notes - Monsters*. BFGEditor has a heavy investment in the Races, the Talent Paths, and Magic, so I'm waiting for him to become available again before working on those.


*Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
*Character Races*: BFGEditor is nearing completion
*Class-based Talent Paths*: Some initial work has been done
*Feats*: *Section completed!*
*Equipment*: *Section completed!*
*Combat*: *Section completed!*
*Environment & Hazards*: *Section completed!*
*Magic System*: Some initial work has been done
*Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Spells*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Monsters*: Some initial work has been done

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## graylion

*Spirit vs. Use*



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what do you think about the following feat?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a wild and crazy thought, and before I included it in the Feats draft document, I wanted to see what your thoughts were on it.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




I like the feat in the spirit of what it is should be for. I think that power gamers will look to use it to break the rules or bend them.

Regards


----------



## graylion

Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Morning, All:
> 
> I would like to suggest the following Weapon Proficiency feat write-up to capture the use of Simple, Martial and Exotic weapons as seems to be the desired concensus here. It definitely captures the flavor of the Saga approach, while maintaining the Simple/Martial/Exotic distinctions that we have agreed to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




Looks good. Very straight forward and easy.

Regards


----------



## Flynn

*Needing some input, please...*

Good Afternoon, All:

I would like some input on how to address the following special abilities under Saga. I just don't remember if these are covered in SWSE, and so I may have to consider alternative approaches (or just leave them as they stand). Please share your thoughts on the following in a Fantasy Saga system:

*Energy Drain and Negative Levels*

*Fear*

*Gaze Attacks*

*Level Loss*

*Paralysis*

*Spell Resistance*

Thanks In Advance,
Flynn


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

Energy Drain and Level/XP loss effects were removed on purpose. These would likely be represented by attacks that affet the condition track directly, and could probably cause a persistant condition.

In regards to Spell Resistance I would think that racial SR as the Drow would have would be represented by appropriate defense bonus. i.e. +1 racial bonus to willpower and reflex defenses. Though this could be represented by a racial talent tree aswell.

The others are spell like effects that would largely be resolved in the manner they always have been, just within the SWSE framework. i.e. The ghoul strikes the hero and immediately makes an attack against the heros WILL defense. If the ghoul succeeds the paralysis takes effect.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

I agree with greylion on the feats.

As for SR, I too suggest it could be a bonus to the various defences - when the attack is magical.


----------



## Flynn

*Regarding the conversion of Spell Resistance...*

Good Afternoon, All:

In terms of converting SR for creatures, since there's already a power check, presumably at half character level to keep it in line with Save Scores, we should not have a second roll for the SR. The same power check should be compared against both.

In 3E/v3.5, the caster makes a caster level check against the SR. This is not modified by ability scores, but is modified by Spell Penetration feats. When the caster casts a spell, it is first compared against SR, and then the saving throw, if needed. In this case, SR is against a level check, so the progression is 1:1.

Okay, following a similar logic for Fantasy Concepts, the caster casts a spell (making a power check as part of the process), and compares the power check first against SR and then against the appropriate Save Score. Since the power check is 2:1 on progression, the SR should be reduced by the same level, to allow us to compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges. The conversion would then be 10 + (SR-10)/2.

Creatures whose Save Scores exceed their SR receive no benefit from SR against magic. Hmmmm. I wonder if there are any monsters whose base SR would be lower than their Save Scores (10 + HD/2)? A quick check of Demons indicates that almost all the Demons would have an SR that is one lower than their base Save Scores.

From the SRD:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> (The defender’s spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks.)




Now, having eliminated the prior thought, I can look at the alternate suggestion of replacing SR with a simple modifier to the Save Scores, and the quote above seems to emphasize that, too. Looking at some basic percentages, it appears that the average modifier to reflect basic chances of overcoming SR and saves would be around +4. Given that the proper Saga-inspired modifier would be a +5, it would seem that a relatively balanced conversion of percentage chances would be simply to allow any creature with SR to simply add a +5 modifier to all Save Scores for spells to which SR applies.

I'll do some investigation, but all in all, I think that might be a simple conversion that should work out well.

What are your thoughts?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

I like simplicity. The simple +5 modifier seems right on with SAGA's flavor. It's got my vote.


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Afternoon, All:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now, having eliminated the prior thought, I can look at the alternate suggestion of replacing SR with a simple modifier to the Save Scores, and the quote above seems to emphasize that, too. Looking at some basic percentages, it appears that the average modifier to reflect basic chances of overcoming SR and saves would be around +4. Given that the proper Saga-inspired modifier would be a +5, it would seem that a relatively balanced conversion of percentage chances would be simply to allow any creature with SR to simply add a +5 modifier to all Save Scores for spells to which SR applies.
> 
> I'll do some investigation, but all in all, I think that might be a simple conversion that should work out well.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




I think the +5 bonus is probably easier in the long run to manage, plus you don't have to compare two values against a single die roll either and that will cut down time at the table.


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Afternoon, All:
> 
> I would like some input on how to address the following special abilities under Saga. I just don't remember if these are covered in SWSE, and so I may have to consider alternative approaches (or just leave them as they stand). Please share your thoughts on the following in a Fantasy Saga system:
> 
> *Energy Drain and Negative Levels*
> 
> *Fear*
> 
> *Gaze Attacks*
> 
> *Level Loss*
> 
> *Paralysis*
> 
> *Spell Resistance*
> 
> Thanks In Advance,
> Flynn




Energy Drain and Negative Levels should affect the Condition Track directly IMO.

Fear should work similar to the standard D&D effects but more streamlined, remove the Shaken Condition and make the target flee if they are affected.

Paralysis can affect the Condition Track, with the last condition being that you are paralyzed for the normal duration.

Level Loss can be a persistent Condition that is only removed when you gain another level.  This allows for coming back from the dead being difficult but not impossible and there is no permanent loss.


----------



## Nine Hands

graylion said:
			
		

> I like the feat in the spirit of what it is should be for. I think that power gamers will look to use it to break the rules or bend them.
> 
> Regards




I like the feat but only if you can take it just at 1st level and only once.  Access to one talent tree is not really that powerful.  Heck I may use something similar in my SWSE game.


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Morning, All:
> 
> I would like to suggest the following Weapon Proficiency feat write-up to capture the use of Simple, Martial and Exotic weapons as seems to be the desired concensus here. It definitely captures the flavor of the Saga approach, while maintaining the Simple/Martial/Exotic distinctions that we have agreed to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




The three groupings is pretty cool although I would not be averse to seeing Weapon Group Proficiencies used instead (from Unearthed Arcana, which is OGL).

Note the penalty for not being proficient should be -5 to keep consistent with the -1/-2/-5/-10 rule.


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn,

Are you guys looking for someone to proofread your stuff.  I know its not finished yet, but I've been proofreading stuff for Dream Scarred Press for a couple of months now and I'm more than willing to lend a hand.

Just thought I would offer


----------



## Flynn

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> The three groupings is pretty cool although I would not be averse to seeing Weapon Group Proficiencies used instead (from Unearthed Arcana, which is OGL).
> 
> Note the penalty for not being proficient should be -5 to keep consistent with the -1/-2/-5/-10 rule.




Current OGL is -4, and I've included an optional rule to change those to -5. This protects us legally, and the implementation is as simple as saying you use the Combat Consistency Optional Rule. Please bear in mind that, for legal reasons, we cannot simply duplicate Saga word for word, so there are some differences simply to provide protection in legal matters. Where the OGL backs us (and you'd be surprised where it does and how), there's a high degree of similarity. Where the OGL does not, we have had to pursue alternate means of arriving at similar results, and I think we've done a good job of it, too, but I'm biased, I must admit.

As for weapon groups, I wanted UA weapon groups, but my partner in this venture does not agree, and I stopped fighting the matter after several days of fruitless discussions. The discussion is somewhere in the first five or six pages of this thread. You are free to substitute them in your home games, though. (To be honest, that's what I'm going to do.  )

Enjoy,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> I like the feat but only if you can take it just at 1st level and only once.  Access to one talent tree is not really that powerful.  Heck I may use something similar in my SWSE game.




Actually, that's not a bad idea. However, I am considering getting rid of it just because several people have posted concerns about abuse. Your input might change that, though. Let's see what they say about it.

Thanks,
Flynn


----------



## Dalamar

The Weapon Proficiency feat does not exactly sit well with me as it gives proficiency in all martial weapons with one feat. Maybe I'm just conditioned into thinking it's too good by the current edition, but I would prefer if the Martial group was divided for the purposes of the feat, such as being Martial Melee and Martial Ranged, or something similar.


I'd say that negative levels have to remain their own separate track, otherwise either dying from negative levels has to be removed (creates problems with some spawning undead) or 5 negative levels will be enough to kill even high-level adventurers (its own problem).

Fear should be just a condition track effect. The current DnD way is too cumbersome (enemies fleeing on the second step), plus this is the kind of things that the track was created for. 

Gaze attacks should remain mostly the same, but averting gaze and such should modify defenses instead of requiring a roll of their own. 

No idea really with level loss or paralysis. And I agree with people who have said that SR should be a bonus to defenses.


By the by, the 0/1/2/5/10 progression is used in Mutans and Masterminds 2nd Edition (Though it continues as 25/50/100/etc.) in everything that gets multiplied (number of summons, multiplied durations, area affected, and such), if you feel you need justification for using it.


----------



## Flynn

Good Afternoon, All:

I'm writing today in regards to Alignment, that component of the rules where you indicate in broad and general terms how you will be playing your character. How would you suggest we approach that particular subject?

Should we use alignment as it appears in the SRD?

Should we use alignment as it appears in Basic D&D (i.e. Law/Neutral/Chaos, and no good-evil stuff)?

Should we use allegiances from D20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana?

Should we use nature/demeanor or vice/virtue as found in other games?

Should we do something different that the options listed above?

Should we do nothing at all in this area, and remove the concept entirely from the game?

What do you think?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Animus

I say leave alignment out and let the individual decide how that will be handled.


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> Current OGL is -4, and I've included an optional rule to change those to -5. This protects us legally, and the implementation is as simple as saying you use the Combat Consistency Optional Rule. Please bear in mind that, for legal reasons, we cannot simply duplicate Saga word for word, so there are some differences simply to provide protection in legal matters. Where the OGL backs us (and you'd be surprised where it does and how), there's a high degree of similarity. Where the OGL does not, we have had to pursue alternate means of arriving at similar results, and I think we've done a good job of it, too, but I'm biased, I must admit.
> 
> As for weapon groups, I wanted UA weapon groups, but my partner in this venture does not agree, and I stopped fighting the matter after several days of fruitless discussions. The discussion is somewhere in the first five or six pages of this thread. You are free to substitute them in your home games, though. (To be honest, that's what I'm going to do.  )
> 
> Enjoy,
> Flynn




I completely understand, interestingly someone also posted that M&M does something similar.  One of the things I appreciate about Saga is that they took the time to create a template for penalties and applied that to everything.  The values are easy to remember and much better than odd-ball numbers like 3, 6, 13, etc.

But of course this is your project, I'll just change it when I use it


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Afternoon, All:
> 
> I'm writing today in regards to Alignment, that component of the rules where you indicate in broad and general terms how you will be playing your character. How would you suggest we approach that particular subject?
> 
> Should we use alignment as it appears in the SRD?
> 
> Should we use alignment as it appears in Basic D&D (i.e. Law/Neutral/Chaos, and no good-evil stuff)?
> 
> Should we use allegiances from D20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana?
> 
> Should we use nature/demeanor or vice/virtue as found in other games?
> 
> Should we do something different that the options listed above?
> 
> Should we do nothing at all in this area, and remove the concept entirely from the game?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




I'd like to see the end of alignments and the introduction of virtues/vices, maybe something that ties into replenishing action points when you act towards one of your natures (similar to True 20).

Sorry to mention so many other systems but they have some good ideas which I think will be a good substitute for stuff.


----------



## EditorBFG

Flynn said:
			
		

> As for weapon groups, I wanted UA weapon groups, but my partner in this venture does not agree, and I stopped fighting the matter after several days of fruitless discussions. The discussion is somewhere in the first five or six pages of this thread. You are free to substitute them in your home games, though. (To be honest, that's what I'm going to do.  )



The grumpy partner should pipe up here and explain.

What I wanted was to have both weapon groups and the categories of simple, martial, and exotic. I still do not understand why the two concepts are mutually exclusive, but so I have been told.

In Saga, part of the great thing is you can make characters-- even high level ones-- quickly. So, at 1st level, I want each character to get a big bundle of weapons he can use without the creator having to do any choosing at all. I want a warrior? Aside from equipment, right now I pick 4 skills, a feat, and a talent, and I'm ready to play. That is great. At 1st level, picking 5 weapon groups (or whatever) just slows it down.

Now, as I go UP in levels, if I encounter a weapon I am not proficient with, and I want to use it, I don't think blowing a feat should just get me proficiency with a single weapon (the way D&D does it now). That is lame, a waste of a feat. On the other hand, if I could buy a feat that gets me, say, all bows or all axes, that is a worthy choice.

To my mind, this is how it should work: Simple/Martial/Exotic as categories for determining what 1st level characters get, Weapon Group Proficiency feats for going up in levels.

I am not against Weapon Groups, I love them-- just not at 1st level.

Why can't we have both sets of categories?


----------



## EditorBFG

Animus said:
			
		

> I say leave alignment out and let the individual decide how that will be handled.



The only reason we can't do this is because we want to include abilities like what paladins can do in D&D now. We can't replace Smite Evil with "Smite Whatever Abstract Concept of Negative Philosophy You and the GM Agree On"-- if we did, the description would read like nonsense. Better we include some kind of rule for you to tinker with or replace than leave an empty slot you're required to fill.


----------



## EditorBFG

Gwarh said:
			
		

> How about an antonym for Fatigue, *Vigor * or *Vitality*. Both have a more positive ring to them too. I personally have no problem with Condition track as litterally thats what it's tracking for me, My condition.



We don't have a problem with Condition track per se, except that it is a term from copyrighted material published by WotC which we have no legal right to use.

An antonym like Vitality or Vigor would be much easier to come up with, but since we are talking about single units of penalty, each would have to be called a "Vitality Loss" or something.

Thinking about it this week in my bedridden stupor, I came up with two separate ideas, each miles away from the other.

The first is just "Penalty Level". Simple, to the point, and specific, describing exactly what it sounds like. Not very evocative-- you have to remember, Star Wars is fine with terms like Condition Track because it is a sci-fi setting. But such things sound overly clinical and modern in terms of fantasy. Names are important not only for how they describe things, but the mood they create.

Still, in terms of pure specificity, "Penalty Level" is perfect. Right now we're using "Pain Level," so the change will be easy (Pain Level is cool, just not accurate at all).

Now, way on the other end... how about "Burden"? As in, "Your character takes massive damage and receives a Burden." "You have three Burdens, so you're at -4." Burden, in its larger sense, as a metaphor, is anything you bear that is difficult. "The death of his sister was a great burden to him." "The burden of his role as kingmaker began to wear." Something Tolkeinesque about it, reminds me of Frodo and Sam. I like it, but is it too high-falutin' for this product?

So, which do you guys like? Penalty Level or Burden? Because, so far, they're the only terms I can think of that are generic enough.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Why can't we have both sets of categories?




Here's where I get to be the grumpy partner.  We've already been down that road, and in my mind, it is no longer up for discussion. We came to an agreement, and we should move forward. I don't want to spin my wheels; I want a final product. If weapon groups don't work at first level, then they should not be included at all. No worries. We have something that works, and that we both can accept. Let's move forward.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> So, which do you guys like? Penalty Level or Burden? Because, so far, they're the only terms I can think of that are generic enough.




I'd prefer Penalty Level, since Burden implies Encumbrance to me. I hope we hear from others on the subject soon. 

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Nine Hands

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> The only reason we can't do this is because we want to include abilities like what paladins can do in D&D now. We can't replace Smite Evil with "Smite Whatever Abstract Concept of Negative Philosophy You and the GM Agree On"-- if we did, the description would read like nonsense. Better we include some kind of rule for you to tinker with or replace than leave an empty slot you're required to fill.




Is there anything wrong with adjusting Smite to cover more than just evil?  How about having it as Smite Foes, allowing you to smite anyone.  It gets away from the problems of alignment and gives the character a little more freedom to use it.

Personally I'd like to see the Blackguard become a Talent Tree for the Paladin anyways


----------



## Flynn

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> Is there anything wrong with adjusting Smite to cover more than just evil?  How about having it as Smite Foes, allowing you to smite anyone.  It gets away from the problems of alignment and gives the character a little more freedom to use it.
> 
> Personally I'd like to see the Blackguard become a Talent Tree for the Paladin anyways




I'd want to define the opponents of Smite by some criteria, instead of just allowing its use willy-nilly. Favored Enemy targets a specific creature type you are trained against. Smite should work on some other area, such as alignment or allegiance or nature or whatever, but it should imply a focus for the character, not just the ability to lay some damage down on whoever gets in your way.

At least, that's my perception on it.

As an aside, the Paladin isn't a core class under Fantasy Concepts but a number of abilities are available as talents for selection purposes, so you can recreate the Paladin concept under these rules.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

Instead of condition, health or burden or the like how about fatigue?

defined as:

fatigue: temporary loss of strength and energy resulting from hard physical or mental work; "he was hospitalized for extreme fatigue"; "growing fatigue was apparent from the decline in the execution of their athletic skills"

I think that sums it up really.   


As far as smite/alignment is concearned what if we were to steal directly from the d20 concept of positive and negative energies. SAGA was implemented for Star Wars to begin with so why not have a similar take on the variations of light and dark. A shades of grey spectrum of motives vs. intent. "The ends may justify the means" but not always. If your opponents motives and intetions are signifigantly different from yours you may smite them. A variation of light side/dark side points would be sufficient. The "Gneech" implemented it rather well in his sword and sorcery conversion.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Flynn

*Brief Status Report...*

For me, work on this project has slowed somewhat as I deal with Real Life (tm) problems, but I intend to get some more done this week, once matters are resolved.

Just wanted to give you guys a quick update from my side,
Flynn


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

Thanks Flynn, appreciate the update. Still decidedly anxious...


----------



## Flynn

*Status Update, 10/04/07*

Good Morning, All:

The *Conversion Notes - Monsters* draft has been completed. I think my next section will be *Conversion Notes - Spells*, as I'm running out of things to work on before entering into BFGEditor's arena. I believe that BFGEditor will post an update on Races, the Talent Paths, and Magic sometime soon, as his schedule allows.


*Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
*Character Races*: BFGEditor is nearing completion
*Class-based Talent Paths*: Some initial work has been done
*Feats*: *Section completed!*
*Equipment*: *Section completed!*
*Combat*: *Section completed!*
*Environment & Hazards*: *Section completed!*
*Magic System*: Some initial work has been done
*Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Spells*: Not yet begun.
*Conversion Notes - Monsters*: *Section completed!*

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Animus

Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Morning, All:
> 
> The *Conversion Notes - Monsters* draft has been completed. I think my next section will be *Conversion Notes - Spells*, as I'm running out of things to work on before entering into BFGEditor's arena. I believe that BFGEditor will post an update on Races, the Talent Paths, and Magic sometime soon, as his schedule allows.
> 
> 
> *Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
> *Character Races*: BFGEditor is nearing completion
> *Class-based Talent Paths*: Some initial work has been done
> *Feats*: *Section completed!*
> *Equipment*: *Section completed!*
> *Combat*: *Section completed!*
> *Environment & Hazards*: *Section completed!*
> *Magic System*: Some initial work has been done
> *Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: Not yet begun.
> *Conversion Notes - Spells*: Not yet begun.
> *Conversion Notes - Monsters*: *Section completed!*
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




Yay! I like seeing green! So I can give you my green!


----------



## graylion

*The other stats*



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Afternoon, All:
> 
> I would like some input on how to address the following special abilities under Saga. I just don't remember if these are covered in SWSE, and so I may have to consider alternative approaches (or just leave them as they stand). Please share your thoughts on the following in a Fantasy Saga system:
> 
> *Energy Drain and Negative Levels*
> 
> *Fear*
> 
> *Gaze Attacks*
> 
> *Level Loss*
> 
> *Paralysis*
> 
> *Spell Resistance*
> 
> Thanks In Advance,
> Flynn




Remove negative levels and energy drain transforming it to condition track.

Fear vs. Will

Gaze vs. Reflex

Level loss, gone one of the least favorite items for all players and not a great mechanic (ok get out the pencil and reduce 1 level). use the level track and focus on its time span or persistance.

Paralysis vs. Fort

Spell resistance Hmm.... +5 vs saves or +3,+1,+1,  I can say one thing I like removing and combine things like AC/Reflex but I maybe to attached to spell resistance. I need to chew on spell resistance a bit.

Regards


----------



## graylion

*Alignment*



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Afternoon, All:
> 
> I'm writing today in regards to Alignment, that component of the rules where you indicate in broad and general terms how you will be playing your character. How would you suggest we approach that particular subject?
> 
> Should we use alignment as it appears in the SRD?
> 
> Should we use alignment as it appears in Basic D&D (i.e. Law/Neutral/Chaos, and no good-evil stuff)?
> 
> Should we use allegiances from D20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana?
> 
> Should we use nature/demeanor or vice/virtue as found in other games?
> 
> Should we do something different that the options listed above?
> 
> Should we do nothing at all in this area, and remove the concept entirely from the game?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




I have always been partial to the Palladium alignments as they are far easier to relate than D&D. My apologies my books are in storage and I do not have them at hand. Having said this in our games we do not place such a stranglehold on the D&D alignments.  

Basic D&D alignment died with basic D&D.

I would like to know more about allegiances.

The WOD system spins off into other mechanics like willpower recovery. I am a big fan of the Storyteller System, but not for this function.

So in the end keep the 3 x 3 nine but drop the pressure dependency on them.

Regards


----------



## graylion

*Other Stuff*



			
				graylion said:
			
		

> Remove negative levels and energy drain transforming it to condition track.
> 
> Fear vs. Will
> 
> Gaze vs. Reflex
> 
> Level loss, gone one of the least favorite items for all players and not a great mechanic (ok get out the pencil and reduce 1 level). use the level track and focus on its time span or persistance.
> 
> Paralysis vs. Fort
> 
> Spell resistance Hmm.... +5 vs saves or +3,+1,+1,  I can say one thing I like removing and combine things like AC/Reflex but I maybe to attached to spell resistance. I need to chew on spell resistance a bit.
> 
> Regards




OK now I am answering myself because I answered to quickly on gaze, fear and parlysis. I answered what the roll was not how to handle the effect. I still think in addition to the condition track we will need some other modifiers or descriptions like:

- Modified movement
     Slow spell (condition track plus movement change)
     Paralysis (movement 0 zero, condition track hugh negatives can the hero still slugishly push a last action?
     Fear (no advancement, plus condition track hugh number, but still possible, etc)
     Gaze (failed save oh crap, successful save minor condition track from looking away?

Anyway just rambling. Ok so I need to continue chewing on a few things.

Regards


----------



## Flynn

Well, 4th Edition Developers have released an article on the "Core Mechanic" over on DnDInsider.com, and it separates out AC and Reflex Defenses, but otherwise looks like it's going to work like Saga. Oh, and no more flat-footed or touch ACs, so there's a step back to the old ways of doing things. I like it, and look forward to seeing how it might impact the game.

My current thoughts on Fantasy Concepts, however, are to stick with our original concept of a Fantasy Saga OGL product, and thus keep AC rolled into Reflex. First, it sticks to the original concept. Second, we don't have to retool the work we've already done.

What do you think, guys?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

I say go ahead with the current concept. I can't wait to be able thrown some revised D20 on my playing group!


----------



## resistor

I know I'm not the one who'd have to do the work making the change, but I think it deserves at least some consideration.  While I am definitely a fan of the improvements in SWSE, one of the few bits that bothered me was how armor got divided between Ref and Fort defences.  The proposed 4-defenses system would at least solve that problem.


----------



## graylion

*Reflex Only No AC*



			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> Well, 4th Edition Developers have released an article on the "Core Mechanic" over on DnDInsider.com, and it separates out AC and Reflex Defenses, but otherwise looks like it's going to work like Saga. Oh, and no more flat-footed or touch ACs, so there's a step back to the old ways of doing things. I like it, and look forward to seeing how it might impact the game.
> 
> My current thoughts on Fantasy Concepts, however, are to stick with our original concept of a Fantasy Saga OGL product, and thus keep AC rolled into Reflex. First, it sticks to the original concept. Second, we don't have to retool the work we've already done.
> 
> What do you think, guys?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




I agree keep reflex as you no longer need AC. I am also not so sure that AC will be in the final. Maybe 50/50 this may have been more explanation of AC/Reflex vs. AC stays and we will call it AC, explain the familiar as you make changes. No really all sacred cows exit stage left, thank you for many years of enjoyment but please retire and take your THAC0, Psionic letter code defenses, and your non-weapon proficiencies with you.

Maybe I am being wishful that they will do the right thing.

Anyway...

Regards


----------



## Mokona

*Dungeons & Dragons* 4th Edition is its own beast.  I'd like to stay true to the design goals of this project and avoid distractions like AC versus Reflex Defense.  I vote for _Saga_ rules.


----------



## EditorBFG

Just to touch base with y'all, though Real Life has reared its ugly head, I have managed to get some substantial work done on my projects recently-- Races are essentially done, just pending the final wording of our magic system (so I can more specifically define spell-like abilities). Classes are well on the way-- or I should say, the classes themselves _are _done, Flynn did  most of that work, but we're pressing forward with Talent Paths for each class. This involves less converting and more creating in a lot of ways, so progress is slow. I am fighting hard to make every D&D core class as "buildable" as possible with our fewer classes, and this won't be 100% but it is a over-riding goal I think about constantly.

Prestige classes are the next thing on my plate.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

I've already converted classes, if you would like to take a look. I've also finished out talents; feel free to borrow. These have been playtested fully, from level 1-6 thus far on my homegrown campaign.

Keep in mind, I am using the 1/2/5/10 game mechanic from Saga; all bonuses tied to feats follow this methodology.

Also, I use the following mechanic for saves and AC:
Fortitude = 10 + Level + Con Bonus + Magical Bonus + Miscellaneous Bonus 
Reflex = 10 + Level + Dex Bonus + Magical Bonus + Miscellaneous Bonus (e.g. Armored Defense) 
Will = 10 + Level + Wis Bonus + Magical Bonus + Miscellaneous Bonus 
Armor Class = Reflex + Armor + Shield 

Player Progression Tables:
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Experience+and+Level+Dependant+Bonuses

Rogue:
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Rogue

Ranger:
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Ranger

Warlord (Noble):
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Noble

Fighter:
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Fighter

Skills:
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Fourth+Edition+Skills 

Feats:
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Fourth+Edition+Feats

Determination Points (works like Force points):
http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Determination+Points


----------



## Flynn

Thanks, Moniker, for your thoughts and contributions, but we've already done much of the work you already have. With the exception of talent paths, we're about done with classes. We are fairly close to completion, and I hope to see us getting to a complete draft document of the entire Fantasy Concepts system by the weekend after next, if not sooner.

Looking Forward To It,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Brief Status Report*

Good Morning, All:

Both Magic and Spell Conversions are coming along, as they seem to go together hand-in-hand. I hope to post an update soon that indicates both have been completed. However, it's been a while since I reported in, and thought I should touch base with you guys.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Another Status Update...*

Because of recent work concerns, I haven't had the opportunity to work on the magic and spell sections like I would have preferred. However, I am making an effort to get that section done by Thursday, in hopes of still meeting our deadline.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Flynn,

Are you by chance the author of the PDF floating around out there of the SW Saga fantasy conversion?


----------



## WhatGravitas

Moniker said:
			
		

> Flynn,
> 
> Are you by chance the author of the PDF floating around out there of the SW Saga fantasy conversion?



I think, you're thinking of The_Gneech and his Sword and Sorcery SAGA (which is very good by the way, but you need SWSAGA to really use his stuff).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Flynn

Moniker said:
			
		

> Flynn,
> 
> Are you by chance the author of the PDF floating around out there of the SW Saga fantasy conversion?




Nope, that's not me, that's The_Gneech. I like his work, but as Lord Trinian says above, you need SECR to use it properly. Also, it's more Sword & Sorcery, a good style, but one that doesn't capture the manner in which D&D is usually portrayed. The_Gneech worked on his project about the same time I started this one, if that helps with the timeline.

Personally, I'm looking for a more complete OGL version of some Fantasy Saga rules that will let you play D&D with much the same feel as Saga, even if some rules are different due to legal issues. Soon after starting the project on my own, EditorBFG chimed in, revealing that Big Finger Games was also considering such a project, and offered to join forces. We've been collaborating off and on ever since. (That's mostly due to EditorBFG's being sick and also having to focus on his Real Life job, which is perfectly understandable.)

We are still looking at getting done with the main draft by the end of the month. I'm working on Magic and Spells tonight, and he's working on Talents, Races and Prestige Classes. I will definitely keep you guys appraised of things as we move forward, and I look forward to getting this out to you guys as soon as we possibly can.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Status Update - 10/18/07*

Good Evening, My Friends:

The *Magic* draft, which includes notes on spell conversion, has been completed. It appears that my work, at least on the initial draft is done. The rest lies in the hands of EditorBFG, although if he needs the assistance, I am more than willing to offer it. I expect that we'll be hearing from him soon.


*Character Creation - General*: *Section completed!*
*Character Races*: EditorBFG is practically done.
*Class-based Talent Paths*: EditorBFG is nearing completion.
*Feats*: *Section completed!*
*Equipment*: *Section completed!*
*Combat*: *Section completed!*
*Environment & Hazards*: *Section completed!*
*Magic System*: *Section completed!*
*Conversion Notes - Prestige Classes*: EditorBFG has started work.
*Conversion Notes - Spells*: *Section completed!*
*Conversion Notes - Monsters*: *Section completed!*

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## graylion

*Awsome*

You guys are really doing considering what i think of real life responsibilities. I work 60+ hours per week in food and beverage.

My hat is off too you I can ot wait to see your finalal product.

Regards


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

Sweet!!


----------



## Flynn

The latest update from EditorBFG from this weekend:



> Well, on my end, the good news I have been working. The bad news is, I haven't been in front of my PC for more than 20 minutes this week, so I have been doing talents in a very messy binder. Still, they are practically done, and therefore I may be able to send you something tonight or tomorrow.




Hoping to hear something from him soon,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*A Special Thanks...*

As an aside, I would like to list all of the contributors and supporters that have joined in on this thread in support of this endeavor. My thoughts are to list everyone at least by their ENWorld names, but if you'd like me to include your mundane name in addition, I would be happy to do so. However, out of respect for your privacy, I won't include your name unless you give us permission to do so. (Please understand that this is just a way of saying thank you for your comments, and does not represent any other obligation on anyone's part, okay?)

If you would like to be included in this special "thank you" section, please respond and let me know how you'd like to be identified in the list.

Thank you very much for your time and your continued support of this project,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

Flynn said:
			
		

> If you would like to be included in this special "thank you" section, please respond and let me know how you'd like to be identified in the list.



Can you email me at mokona_ou@yahoo.com.au please?


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

That's a really nice gesture Flynn. However, I came in late to the conversation and I don't think I merrit the honorifics.

Still eagerly awaiting the final product!   



Cheers


----------



## Nine Hands

Cool, I get to be in a RPG book 

Just put me down as John Sussenberger


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

If you think my input has been useful, my forum name will do just fine.


----------



## Dalamar

My user name might be a tad generic, so if you feel that my contribution has been any help, put me down as Wille Backman.


----------



## Flynn

Thanks, guys. Keep the names coming, if you want to be included in the Special Thanks section.

In other news, I've heard back from EditorBFG, and despite his Real Life commitments, he's sure he can wrap up his final pieces (maybe with a little help on my part) by the end of the month, so we should be able to stick pretty close to our original projected availability date, and have a product out in early November.

I'll keep you guys posted,
Flynn


----------



## Emryys

Sounds awesome 
I assume it will be PDF... has a price been determined?


----------



## EditorBFG

Emryys said:
			
		

> I assume it will be PDF... has a price been determined?



PDF and POD. Price will be based on page count, which is actually still kind of in flux, but both Samardan Press and Big Finger Games tend to keep our prices on the low end of the scale-- it's how small to mid-level publishers compete.


----------



## Animus

Flynn said:
			
		

> Thanks, guys. Keep the names coming, if you want to be included in the Special Thanks section.
> 
> In other news, I've heard back from EditorBFG, and despite his Real Life commitments, he's sure he can wrap up his final pieces (maybe with a little help on my part) by the end of the month, so we should be able to stick pretty close to our original projected availability date, and have a product out in early November.
> 
> I'll keep you guys posted,
> Flynn




Yay! I can't wait.


----------



## tsadkiel

Excellent.  I'll be picking up the POD as soon as I can.


----------



## Flynn

*Getting Closer...*

We are nearing the end of the month, and I hope to have an update this week as to when you can expect to see something available. I personally am committed to having something available, at least in PDF, by mid-November, with POD to follow as soon as it can.

More Later,
Flynn


----------



## Ry

Sample statblock anywhere?


----------



## Flynn

Ryan Stoughton said:
			
		

> Sample statblock anywhere?




Nope, not yet. There's a small chapter on converting monsters for use with Fantasy Concepts, so the statblock is likely to look very similar to what you already use, just with appropriate changes to support the new system. We want people to be able to use their existing D20 material as much as possible.

Hope That Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Angellis_ater

Just want to say that I am looking forward to this project - but we are at the end of October, when in November will we see a release?


----------



## Flynn

I expect a release of Fantasy Concepts by November 17th.

EditorBFG has assured me last week that he will be done by today, so I hope to hear from him before the end of the day, or tomorrow at the latest. I have faith in him and I'm sure he'll deliver the goods, but I want you guys to know that if he is unable to complete his portion of the manuscript by this weekend, I will work through next week to write the rest of Fantasy Concepts on my own, and we'll move forward from there. Either way, it will be done.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Status Report 11/02/07*

Good Morning, All:

EditorBFG contacted me last night in regards to the talents, and they are nearly complete from the draft I've seen. We just need to hammer out Prestige Classes and then review the draft once again, with it all pulled together.

We are still on schedule for hitting the release date I mentioned above of November 17th.

More Later,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Status Report 11/06/07*

Good Morning, All:

I have not heard from EditorBFG since November 1st, so I have no idea where we stand on completing the draft, much less review it. This morning, I have requested that he deliver the rest of his portion of the manuscript by Friday. If he does so, then we should still be on schedule to hit the release date of November 17th. (It might be hectic, but it should be doable.)

If I do not have a complete draft by Friday night, I will need to come up with other arrangements if I am to get Fantasy Concepts out by November 17th.

More Later,
Flynn


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> Good Morning, All:
> 
> I have not heard from EditorBFG since November 1st, so I have no idea where we stand on completing the draft, much less review it. This morning, I have requested that he deliver the rest of his portion of the manuscript by Friday. If he does so, then we should still be on schedule to hit the release date of November 17th. (It might be hectic, but it should be doable.)
> 
> If I do not have a complete draft by Friday night, I will need to come up with other arrangements if I am to get Fantasy Concepts out by November 17th.
> 
> More Later,
> Flynn




If you need a hand with proof-reading, let me know.  I do it for Dreamscarred Press now and again.  I even work for peanuts


----------



## Flynn

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> If you need a hand with proof-reading, let me know.  I do it for Dreamscarred Press now and again.  I even work for peanuts




I can't really offer peanuts, but if we take advantage of your offer, how does your name in the Credits and a free copy of the final PDF product sound? 

We'll talk more if we need to call on you, and thanks for offering.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

*Please keep EditorBFG in your thoughts and prayers...*

Good Morning, All:

I have heard from EditorBFG this morning, and his news is sobering, to say the least: a very close friend of his has passed away, and he needs some time to recover. Unfortunately, based on our conversation, I believe that means he will not be able to work on this project before our extended deadline. I definitely feel it is more important that he take the time to recover properly than to try and push himself for this project. He's got a lot on his plate right now, and I don't want Fantasy Concepts to be another burden on him. Please keep him in your thoughts and prayers, as I feel he could use the support at this time.

This puts me in a quandary, though. I hate the fact that I could not meet our original delivery date, and I am committed to meeting the current date: November 17th. As you can tell from our status reports, a great majority of the work on this project has been my own, as EditorBFG has had a number of life issues and higher priorities throughout the development of this project. EditorBFG was perhaps halfway to three-quarters of the way through the talent paths, but a good portion of that was also based on work I sent him to review and possibly include. Prestige classes have not even been touched. I can finish things off, but that pretty much makes the project almost completely my work (save for races, which I could either use EditorBFG's work with his permission, or my own, if he does not give permission.)

My original deal with Big Finger Games was that we would work together to complete a document by the end of October, and then they would sell the PDF while I would sell the POD. Given the current circumstances, the conditions of our Gentlemen's Agreement have not been met, so technically I could move forward with publishing the project on my own, so long as I use my own work. However, my personal integrity says that I should not release a PDF for sale unless I get Big Finger Games' blessing on doing so, because I do not want to create bad feelings with a fellow publisher over any misgivings about how I handle this situation.

Therefore, if Big Finger Games gives me their blessing on moving forward with selling a PDF of Fantasy Concepts, acknowledging that the conditions of our original Gentlemen's Agreement were not met and therefore our deal is dissolved with no malice between the two of us, then I can, in good conscience, release Fantasy Concepts as a PDF.

Either way, I intend to move forward with releasing a POD version of the Fantasy Concepts rules. If you feel that the work is worthy, I would ask that you pick up the POD version as a way of letting me know that my efforts were appreciated.

As my final thoughts, please know that I do not blame EditorBFG in any way for the events that have occurred in his life over the last two-three months, and I would ask that others not do blame him, either. He has had to make some difficult choices based on making a living and dealing with illness and a very personal loss. I think he has made the right choices for him, even if that put the Fantasy Concepts project behind the curve. I don't want this project to reflect poorly on him or his abilities. He's a good game designer, and I have enjoyed working with him. I wish him the best of luck in the future, and I look forward to possible future opportunities to work with him on other projects.

With Warm Regards,
Flynn


----------



## graylion

*Checkup*

Just checking up to see how the project goes. I am sad too hear about BFG's challenges.

However I am also excited to see a released product.

Regards


----------



## Flynn

Thanks for asking, Graylion. I am still on schedule to release the PDF by November 17th. The POD will follow as quickly as I can. Lulu requires that I order a copy and approve it first, before they will release it to the public, so that can take a little longer due to shipping and the like.

Expect to see an announcement about the release in the publications forum on either Friday or Saturday, as well as a post here to link to that announcement. (I am given to understand that it would be inappropriate to announce a direct link to the product in this thread, and I appreciate ENWorld moderators for allowing us to discuss this project here to the level that we have done so.)

More Later,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

A Quick Update:

Currently, without artwork, the raw PDF of the Fantasy Concepts rules weighs in at 100 page (not including a cover). I'm still doing work on it, but it appears that the final product, if artless, will probably be around this page count.

If I introduce art, it'll be closer to the 110-120 page count range, but may take longer to put together.

At that page count, I'm currently thinking that the PDF will sell for around $8, as that seems to be in keeping with the price of non-adventure PDFs, and definitely less than the established publishers at this page count. That also means that the POD will likely be around $14-$15.

I'll continue to keep you guys informed as things move along,
Flynn


----------



## graylion

*Reasonable*

Very reasonable.

as long as there is formatting, bold, ect. I am ok with a pdf that does not have art. However it would be great to have art later. I am a fan of spped first and art later if this is an option.

Regards


----------



## Gwarh

graylion said:
			
		

> Very reasonable.
> 
> as long as there is formatting, bold, ect. I am ok with a pdf that does not have art. However it would be great to have art later. I am a fan of spped first and art later if this is an option.
> 
> Regards




I feel the same. I'd rather have it out now, and buy a copy with Art later. Just use some medieval looking font for the headings and page numbers and your set more or less.


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

Whereas I must agree that I could do without art for the PDF. I would be willing to pay for the product in it's current state so that I start using the system. I of course will also be purchasing the POD once available and the art will definately be inthat product.



Cheers!


----------



## Flynn

Sounds great, guys! Look for it to be released this evening or tomorrow morning directly from the Samardan Press storefront. (See my signature for a URL.)

Big Finger Games has graciously given me their blessing to move forward with the PDF, and I would like to thank them for their kindness and support throughout this entire project. I would also especially like to thank Jeremy Forbing, aka "EditorBFG", for his inspirations and contributions in this process. Jeremy, I definitely enjoyed working with you on this project, and I look forward to the possibility of future collaborative efforts. I'm sorry that life has hit you so hard of late, but judging by the quality of your past works, I'm sure it won't be long before you're bouncing back and putting out more good stuff.

Guys, please take a moment to check out Jeremy's work at Big Finger Games, as well as the other fine gaming products you can find there.

More Later,
Flynn


----------



## Nine Hands

Flynn said:
			
		

> I can't really offer peanuts, but if we take advantage of your offer, how does your name in the Credits and a free copy of the final PDF product sound?
> 
> We'll talk more if we need to call on you, and thanks for offering.
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




Sounds good to me


----------



## Oldtimer

Flynn said:
			
		

> Look for it to be released this evening or tomorrow morning directly from the Samardan Press storefront.



According to my world clock it's 10 in the morning in Austin, TX. Am I the only one eagerly refreshing my browser at http://stores.lulu.com/samardanpress?


----------



## Flynn

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> According to my world clock it's 10 in the morning in Austin, TX. Am I the only one eagerly refreshing my browser at http://stores.lulu.com/samardanpress?




I'm still pulling the PDF together. I found a few layout issues this morning, corrected them, and am now regenerating the PDF. Sadly, it takes an hour to do so, since I'm generating the bookmarks as well. I just hope this is the last trip through... 

I will post something here when it is available, so by all means, keep your eye on this thread for the notice. 

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## GEEKAZOID

I'm very upset. I've selected instant notification for new posts to this thread yet received none. Must be blocked by my IP as spam. I come back and find much has passed.

So it is probably too late to chime in for the "thanks" portion, if I am deseving of such, or to offer my services as an illustrator for your project. (Check out my growing online portfolio at http://geministranger.deviantart.com/.)

I look forward to your finished work.


----------



## Flynn

*It's Here!*

For those interested in Fantasy Concepts, please check out this post;
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3892852#post3892852

With Warm Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Mokona

Checkout complete.    Do you see more money from the POD version or does the increased cost fully offset the price?


----------



## Flynn

Mokona,

To answer your question, I actually see a little more money (around thirty cents more) with the POD, after print costs and Lulu's cut. I definitely hope that some of you will post reviews of the book once you've had a chance to read it through. Does it meet your needs in terms of what we have been working for in this project, or for your gaming needs in general? What do you like about it and what don't you like? It could help others decide if they want to pick it up or not.

For me, I hope that it meets your needs as a Fantasy Saga supplement. There are some differences, of course, because of the fantasy world aspects, and because of the need to be different simply for the sake of legal concerns. For those looking for a halfway step between v3.5 and 4E, and perhaps a way of preparing your gamers for that transition, Fantasy Concepts might also be something of interest.

Also, any additional input would be appreciated, as I would like to release a smallish *Fantasy Concepts Companion* in the next few months to include new character options and optional rules. I tried to be as thorough as I could, but as we all know, sometimes there are things that didn't get covered in a core book that might require some additional development (which can happen in a rushed development such as this one), and that's the idea behind the Companion.

If the Companion does well as a concept, I might continue with additional volumes as needed, such as one that contains elements of 4E that look like they might fit in Fantasy Concepts once we have the 4E SRD to play with. This would allow you to continue your Fantasy Concepts campaigns while using the best features of the next edition.

In short, I definitely would like to continue to support Fantasy Concepts, so long as there are at least a good handful of people that would find the work useful.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Ry

Sorry if this is covereed in a blurb and I just missed it - what's OGC and what's not?


----------



## Flynn

Ryan Stoughton said:
			
		

> Sorry if this is covered in a blurb and I just missed it - what's OGC and what's not?




All game mechanics are Open Game Content. That's basically 95% or more of the entire document. The one-page Introduction is basically the only part that doesn't contain game mechanics.

Hope That Helps,
Flynn

EDIT: Here's the specifics...



			
				Fantasy Concepts said:
			
		

> The following is designated Open Game Content: All game mechanics found in this product, including original game mechanics for character races, character classes, feats, spells, action points, equipment, combat, and environmental hazards, as well as game mechanics derived from the System Reference Document, Modern System Reference Document or Open Game Content generated from the sources listed under Section 15 of this product’s Open Gaming License v1.0a.




The Section 15 for Fantasy Concepts is quite long, as it must include the entire list of products mentioned in the Section 15 of the specific products that contains Open Game Content that I used for this work. When you look at it, realize that I didn't pull OGC from each source, but that more than three-quarters of the sources are listed simply because they are part of an earlier work's OGL Section 15. At this time, I choose not to reproduce the Section 15 in this message, simply because of length. If there is a desire to see it, however, I will do so.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

So, is anyone considering writing a review? If so, please let me know, as I would love to check it out. I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,
Flynn


----------



## Ry

Thanks for the info!  I've bought the .pdf but it will take a while to digest as I didn't follow the project throughout.

I will say this though:  Your selection and use of public domain art was superb.


----------



## Sentinel_Marshall

Excellent work, Im about half way through it at this point. Probably have my first game session this weekend.


----------



## Flynn

Sentinel_Marshall said:
			
		

> Excellent work, Im about half way through it at this point. Probably have my first game session this weekend.




Excellent. I can't wait to hear how it works out for you.  Please feel free to share.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## richardgobble

Hey Flynn,

I purchased your product...and I am impressed.

I am having one game mechanic problem however that I was wondering if you could clear up for me.

You changed the mechanic of the reflex defense.  Instead of adding character level to unarmed reflex defense, you add half character level.

This means that two equal warriors are VERY likely to hit each other at high levels.  In the Saga system it seems (with all other things being equal) that one should expect to hit on a roll of 10 or better.  In your system...the 10 or better is the same at first level...but then begins to drop as the character levels increase...until one only has to roll a 2 or better at 17th level to score a hit.

Am I missing something?  I have tried to project likely equipment and feat purchases but I have found that all other bonuses that could be added have a tendency to balance each other out.  And so I am left with the assumption that at higher levels all hits will land.

I want you to know that I think your work on this project is fantastic, but I am really hung up on this one part.

Thanks for any insight you might have,
Richard


----------



## Flynn

The reason I went with half level on all Defense Scores is because it most emulated the progression curve for saves in standard D20 fantasy games. As Fantasy Concepts is designed to be used with other D20 fantasy games and modules, the numbers needed to remain similar. In addition, the presence of armor and magical aid to Reflex Scores (i.e. AC, in most cases), is more present in a fantasy game, reducing the numbers worked well. Finally, if you look at the Defense Bonus variant from Unearthed Arcana, the numbers range from a +2 on the low end to a +12 on the high end, which duplicates a curve of half level plus 2, same as a good save. That lent itself numerically to support the concept of a half level plus modifiers for the Reflex Score.

Remember that armor replaces the half level modifier, and so you basically end up with numbers that approximate standard D20 fantasy games once armor becomes involved.

There was a significant discussion somewhere in the first half of this thread (somewhere in the first eight pages, I think) on the matter, and opinions on both sides. In the end, the supporters for half level made more solid arguments which, along with the numbers I'd noticed, helped me stand by the decision.

Of course, as always, if you want to try it with full level advancement, by all means, do so. If it works well for you, then it's worth it. The half level will capture the feel of a standard D20 fantasy game a little bit better, though. It all depends on what kind of experience you are looking for in your game.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn

BTW, congrats for making your first ENWorld post, and thanks for doing so in regards to Fantasy Concepts. I appreciate the support and the comments.


----------



## richardgobble

I see...

So what you are saying is that the trend of hits becoming easier with advancing levels is built into Dungeons and Dragons to begin with.  Come to think of it...I guess I knew that...and have complained about it before.

I have been wracking my brain for a good solution to this issue...to no avail.

Anywho...thanks for your quality work on the game.  It has saved me a TON of time in conversion.

Richard


----------



## EditorBFG

It might also be helpful to give warriors one or more of the Armor Specialization talents for free, since a fantasy system should reward armor use more than space opera rules would.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Flynn,

I just ordered your product. I am highly interested in seeing how you handled magic in the game; I look forward to reading your work!

From the discussions here, it sounds like your system went in the same direction my own OGL fantasy product did. I can't wait to dig into it!

Cheers,
Daniel


----------



## Flynn

Moniker said:
			
		

> Flynn,
> 
> I just ordered your product. I am highly interested in seeing how you handled magic in the game; I look forward to reading your work!
> 
> From the discussions here, it sounds like your system went in the same direction my own OGL fantasy product did. I can't wait to dig into it!
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel




I just checked out your site, and I enjoyed noting the similarities and differences in our approaches. I remember some of the discussions early on in this thread in these regards, too.

I hope you find a lot of stuff in Fantasy Concepts you can use for your game, and I'm eager to hear how that works out for you.

Enjoy,
Flynn


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu

Any reviews yet? I'm very curious as to how Fantasy Concepts treats magic (preferably I would like to see something similar to the Force Powers from SWSE, expanded to include fantasy staples such as animate dead, teleport, summon demon, etc).


----------



## Flynn

No reviews as yet, although I am hopeful that one comes out soon.

I can tell you, though, that I did not write a "Force Powers" approach to magic. It is definitely more freeform than Vancian, though. Think conceptually of "Legends of Sorcery" or "Skill-based Spellcasting" and you're close in regards to the implementation I settled on.

Perhaps someone else could comment on their thoughts about the magic system for Fantasy Concepts.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Aus_Snow

Flynn said:
			
		

> No reviews as yet, although I am hopeful that one comes out soon.
> 
> I can tell you, though, that I did not write a "Force Powers" approach to magic. It is definitely more freeform than Vancian, though. Think conceptually of "Legends of Sorcery" or "Skill-based Spellcasting" and you're close in regards to the implementation I settled on.
> 
> Perhaps someone else could comment on their thoughts about the magic system for Fantasy Concepts.
> 
> Hope This Helps,
> Flynn



Well, kinda (helps.)

Would you mind spelling it out a little more, for the curious (such as me) ? That is, without giving too much away, of course. If that's even possible.

If not, I'll understand. But I am rather curious. 

If it helps, I know (and like) Legends of Sorcery. So any references there will be quite useful.


----------



## Flynn

From the book itself:



> *Casting a Spell*
> When casting a spell, you must first choose which spell to cast. If you’re a Mystic or Scholar, you select any spell you know, provided you are capable of casting spells of that level or higher.
> To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell.
> If a spell has multiple versions, you must choose which version to use when you cast it.
> To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration skill check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC of your Concentration skill check. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect. More specific notes on Concentration skill checks may be found under the Concentration skill description.
> Assuming that the above criteria are met, you may cast your spell as a standard action. You must make a magic power check, as defined below, against a DC of 15 + spell level to successfully cast your spell. If your spell description indicates that a specific Save Score must be overcome (or, if using spells written for other D20-based Open Gaming systems, the spell indicates that a Saving Throw applies), then the magic power check must also overcome the Save Score.
> 
> Magic Power Check = d20 + character level modifier + spellcasting ability score modifier + other modifiers
> 
> Character Level Modifier: Your character level modifier is equal to half your character level.
> Spellcasting Ability Score: The ability to cast spells is granted by talents that may be selected by the character. When casting a spell, the spellcaster must select only one talent path to use when enacting that particular spell. Each talent path is associated with a specific ability score. The specific ability score modifier is used to modify this power check.
> Other Modifiers: Other modifiers are rare, but can include talents, feats and even magic items that boost spellcasting power checks under particular circumstances.
> If you attempt to cast a spell and you are successful, the spell effect occurs as described in the spell’s description. If you roll a natural twenty (20) on the d20 used for your magic power check, you automatically succeed with a critical success, and you gain your choice of either double effect (such as double damage for damaging spells or twice the healing for curative spells), or double duration (if the spell has a duration of longer than instantaneous and shorter than permanent).
> If you attempt to cast a spell and it fails, at any step in the casting or invoking process, your spell does not activate and your action is considered spent. If you roll a natural one (1) on the d20 used for your magic power check, you automatically fail as a critical failure, and you gain a Penalty Level as well.




Talents give you access to spells by level and give you a starting number of spells you know. You can increase your spells known through study or prayer, etc.

That's the magic system in a nutshell. I designed it for fast, easy play, as well as making it modular, so you can substitute another system of your own design if you so desire. I realized early on that no matter what I did for magic, some people were not going to like it, so I went with something that could easily be changed, while allowing you to use the rest of the Fantasy Concepts system as it stands.

I Hope That Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Aus_Snow

Thanks for the info. . . but I'm just wondering - does that mean PCs can just keep on casting anything they know (or trying to anyway) all day? I'm sure I"m missing something here. . .


----------



## EditorBFG

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info. . . but I'm just wondering - does that mean PCs can just keep on casting anything they know (or trying to anyway) all day? I'm sure I"m missing something here. . .



Since I conceived this system originally, and worked on it for a while, I'm going to give you a couple missing pieces that will make the Fantasy Concepts magic system work better in play. I ran an FC playtest game at Conquest SF where it became apparent there were problems, but sadly my personal problems caused me to fall away from my work the project before I could transmit that the following changes were necessary:

A) The DC's for spells need to be 10 + *twice* the spell level. 
(Not 15 + spell level. Less elegant, I know, but creates a more desirable success/failure ratio over all 20 levels.)

B) That change made, add the following paragraph at the end of the "Casting a Spell" section at the end of the Casting a Spell section of Fantasy Concepts:

"If you attempt to cast a spell and it fails, at any step in the casting or invoking process, your spell does not activate and your action is considered spent. If you roll a natural one
(1) on the d20 used for your magic power check, or if you fail the roll by 5 or more, in addition you gain a Penalty Level as well."

...and then get rid of the existing final paragraph, It references critical failures, a mechanic not actually defined in Fantasy Concepts.

Note that this is in no way official errata, as I am no longer involved in Fantasy Concepts, but this fixes the problem of spellcasters trying over and over again. Also, it makes 1st level spells easy enough for a 1st level caster to succeed more often than he fails, yet not so easy that a 20th level caster only fails to cast Wish on a natural 1.


----------



## Aus_Snow

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Since I conceived this system originally, and worked on it for a while, I'm going to give you a couple missing pieces that will make the Fantasy Concepts magic system work better in play. I ran an FC playtest game at Conquest SF where it became apparent there were problems, but sadly my personal problems caused me to fall away from my work the project before I could transmit that the following changes were necessary:
> 
> <snip>



Thank you for taking the time to post that clarification/errata/opinion. It does indeed help me to understand (and appreciate) the system. Well, your version. 

The whole FC thing sounds intriguing though. I might just have to check it out anyhow.


----------



## Flynn

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Since I conceived this system originally, and worked on it for a while, I'm going to give you a couple missing pieces that will make the Fantasy Concepts magic system work better in play. I ran an FC playtest game at Conquest SF where it became apparent there were problems, but sadly my personal problems caused me to fall away from my work the project before I could transmit that the following changes were necessary:
> 
> A) The DC's for spells need to be 10 + *twice* the spell level.
> (Not 15 + spell level. Less elegant, I know, but creates a more desirable success/failure ratio over all 20 levels.)
> 
> B) That change made, add the following paragraph at the end of the "Casting a Spell" section at the end of the Casting a Spell section of Fantasy Concepts:
> 
> "If you attempt to cast a spell and it fails, at any step in the casting or invoking process, your spell does not activate and your action is considered spent. If you roll a natural one
> (1) on the d20 used for your magic power check, or if you fail the roll by 5 or more, in addition you gain a Penalty Level as well."
> 
> ...and then get rid of the existing final paragraph, It references critical failures, a mechanic not actually defined in Fantasy Concepts.
> 
> Note that this is in no way official errata, as I am no longer involved in Fantasy Concepts, but this fixes the problem of spellcasters trying over and over again. Also, it makes 1st level spells easy enough for a 1st level caster to succeed more often than he fails, yet not so easy that a 20th level caster only fails to cast Wish on a natural 1.




Thanks for the feedback, EditorBFG. I agree with part two of your suggestion, and would suggest a simple DC 10 + spell level for instead of the twice spell level, to be consistent with the rest of the system. That makes it a lot easier to cast spells at higher levels, but then again, it probably should be easier to cast spells at higher levels. 

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Animus

Flynn said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feedback, EditorBFG. I agree with part two of your suggestion, and would suggest a simple DC 10 + spell level for instead of the twice spell level, to be consistent with the rest of the system. That makes it a lot easier to cast spells at higher levels, but then again, it probably should be easier to cast spells at higher levels.
> 
> Hope This Helps,
> Flynn




In the True20 spellcasting system, you make your power check to cast your spell, and then you make a Will save vs. DC 10 + 1/2 class level round up or suffer a fatigue level *regardless of success or failure*. If I get a chance to run FC, I may do something like that.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Flynn,

After purchasing the PDF and playtesting levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20th level characters of all the classes through combat, consider me a HUGE fan!

There are a couple of changes I made inhouse (such as Armor as DR and AC=Reflex+shield with Reflex equating to touch attacks and a few Talent fixes), but otherwise everything is very well-rounded. I particularly like how you handled Attacks of Opportunity (which I was struggling with in my homebrew). I noticed you eliminated Acrobatic Strike, one of the more overpowered feats in SW Saga; kudoes on that! It was one of the most ill-balanced feats we've had running in my game for a while.

I did find some difficulty resolving exactly what to do with spells and the like, but overall the mechanics great and seem to remain balanced between the classes. The progression table for penalties/bonuses on the 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 model are very sound.

Any suggestions to how you handled learning spells beyond those that were gained through the Talent trees? I didn't seem to find any rules adjudicating as such (or perhaps I overlooked them somewhere).

Cheers,
Daniel


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus

Hmmmm. I bought the pdf, and here's what's leapt out at me in my spastic jumping about.

Page 86 says that the Fort score is = 10 + Constitution modifier + character level modifier + highest class bonus + other modifiers.

What is the "highest class bonus"?

Is Disable Device covered under the Craft: Metalworking skill or some other Craft skill? Opening locks was explicitly mentioned as being under metalworking, but Disable Device doesn't say.

I'm sure I'll have other comments or whatnot at some point.


----------



## Flynn

Moniker said:
			
		

> Any suggestions to how you handled learning spells beyond those that were gained through the Talent trees? I didn't seem to find any rules adjudicating as such (or perhaps I overlooked them somewhere).




Moniker:

First, thank you very much for the compliments. I'm glad the system is working out for you, and I look forward to hearing more from you on your gaming experience with Fantasy Concepts.

In regards to your question, which I've quoted above, I would refer you to the following sentence under the Arcane Mastery talent:



> You may learn more spells by spending a day per spell level in quiet contemplation and study, followed by a successful Knowledge (Arcana) skill check.




The Divine Mastery talent has a similar sentence:



> You may learn more spells by spending a day per spell level in quiet contemplation and study, followed by a successful Knowledge (Religion) skill check.




I tried to give control of any additional restrictions in that arena to the GM. For example, you could require that the character study a ritual, meditate on a prayer book, or study with someone that knows the spell the character desires before you will allow them to learn a new spell.

I did forget to include a DC for these checks, so I would suggest either DC 10 or DC 15, plus the spell's level, as your target. This depends on how easily you want spells to be picked up. If spells are especially hard to learn, you might even start with a base of DC 20. It all depends on how "low magic" versus "high magic" your campaign is.

Please let me know if you have any further questions,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Hmmmm. I bought the pdf, and here's what's leapt out at me in my spastic jumping about.
> 
> Page 86 says that the Fort score is = 10 + Constitution modifier + character level modifier + highest class bonus + other modifiers.
> 
> What is the "highest class bonus"?
> 
> Is Disable Device covered under the Craft: Metalworking skill or some other Craft skill? Opening locks was explicitly mentioned as being under metalworking, but Disable Device doesn't say.
> 
> I'm sure I'll have other comments or whatnot at some point.




Thanks for picking up the PDF, Scurvy Platypus!

In answer to your first question, each class has Save Score modifiers that range from +0 to +2. When you multiclass, you do not add those together. Instead, you take the highest for each category. So, for example, if you have a Warrior (+1 Reflex, +2 Fortitude) and you take a level of Aristocrat (+2 Reflex, +1 Will), then your modifiers become +2 Reflex (because Aristocrat is higher), +2 Fortitude (because Warrior is higher) and +1 Will (because Aristocrat is higher).

In answer to your question about Disable Device, I would refer you to the last trained use of the Craft skill:



> Disable Device (DC 20): With a successful Craft skill check, you may disable a device. The actual DC for the skill check is equal to 5 less than the DC of creating the item (minimum DC 10), as explained in Making Items, above.




Essentially, if you want to disable a device that is created with metalsmithing, then you use Craft(metalsmithing) to disable it. If you want to disable a device that is created with stonesmithing, then you'd use Craft(stonesmithing) to disable it. That's the theory, anyway.

I figure that anything you can make, you should be able to repair or disable. If you can't make it, then you can't repair or disable it. It's just a simplified way of looking at things from a streamlined skill perspective.

If this doesn't work for you in your campaign, you are more than welcome to reintroduce Disable Device as a separate skill as part of your house rules. Hopefully, though, you'll give it a shot and see if you like the rules as written before you try making changes.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## The_Pugilist

Flynn said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feedback, EditorBFG. I agree with part two of your suggestion, and would suggest a simple DC 10 + spell level for instead of the twice spell level, to be consistent with the rest of the system. That makes it a lot easier to cast spells at higher levels, but then again, it probably should be easier to cast spells at higher levels.
> 
> Hope This Helps,
> Flynn




Will the PDF document be updated with this information?  I am thinking of purchasing and I'd like to know if that will be kept "up to date".


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Flynn,

As a designer, what informed your decision to remove Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack from the 3.5 to OGL Fantasy conversion?

Cheers,
Daniel


----------



## Flynn

The_Pugilist said:
			
		

> Will the PDF document be updated with this information?  I am thinking of purchasing and I'd like to know if that will be kept "up to date".




Yes. I do not yet have a schedule as to when the next update will be available, but this will be included at that time. You should be able to download the updated PDF after each errata update.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Moniker said:
			
		

> Flynn,
> 
> As a designer, what informed your decision to remove Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack from the 3.5 to OGL Fantasy conversion?
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel




In general, streamlining combat requires a great reduction in the number of attacks a character can make. Resolving each attack takes time, which adds up and thus slows the combat down. Looking at the intention of streamlining combat, I felt that removing those two feats fell in line with that philosophy.

That being said, if you wish to add them back in, you may do so in your campaign.  I would suggest that the character would have to spend an action point to activate either feat, in order to minimize the number of times you see a series of extended combat rolls interrupt the flow of your combat scenes.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Flynn said:
			
		

> In general, streamlining combat requires a great reduction in the number of attacks a character can make. Resolving each attack takes time, which adds up and thus slows the combat down. Looking at the intention of streamlining combat, I felt that removing those two feats fell in line with that philosophy.
> 
> That being said, if you wish to add them back in, you may do so in your campaign.  I would suggest that the character would have to spend an action point to activate either feat, in order to minimize the number of times you see a series of extended combat rolls interrupt the flow of your combat scenes.
> 
> Hope This Helps,
> Flynn




Noted on the action point to activate. I am glad we're thinking along the same lines; I am going to incorporate many of the items in your PDF into my own rules. 

Cheers~


----------



## Flynn

Moniker said:
			
		

> Noted on the action point to activate. I am glad we're thinking along the same lines; I am going to incorporate many of the items in your PDF into my own rules.
> 
> Cheers~




Cool. Now you have an OGL source to quote, if you need to. 

Looking forward to hearing about your gaming experiences,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Has anyone posted a review for Fantasy Concepts online somewhere? If so, I would like to link to your review. If not, please let me know when you are able to post one.

With Warm Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Alrighty! We've got about three months using this system, and we love it. It's a perfect way to get my players ready for 4th edition's release. Although the rules were certainly different at first, it's going over very well amongst my group. They enjoy the new abilities. I've made a few important changes on my end, and adopted a few homebrewed rules into it:

-Armor as DR
-Steel weapons adds +1 hit/+1damage
-Keen weapons do +1 damage
-Well-balanced weapons do +1 hit
-Steel/worghide armor adds +1 DR
-DR equals 1/2 character level + Armor
-Shock equals Fortitude (for consideration to Penalty levels)
-Defenses are 1/2 level for consideration to formula, with exception of key Defense (which is full level for consideration to formula; e.g. Rogue 1/2 level Fort/Will, full level Reflex)
-Talents come at 1,1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19 (11 talents at 20th level)
-Feats come at 1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 (21 feats at 20th level)
-No restrictions on Skill or Feat choices by class
-The number of damage dice by weapon is modified by 1/2 BAB to hasten combat deadlyness and bring weapon damage on par with spells (e.g. 7th level fighter does 3dX with weapon; 14th level fighter does 7dX with weapon; x equals whatever weapon they use)


Using the Pit Fiend stat type for 4th edition, my NPC tables are now a cinch! Check it out:

Inquisitor Mullen Degraff Level 12 Cleric
Medium humanoid (Aradain) 
Initiative +16 Senses Notice +18
HP 112; Bloodied 66; Second Wind 87
AC 25; Fortitude 23, Reflex 24, Will 30, Shock 28 
Divine Grace (free; at-will) +1 to all Defenses
Zen Defense (free; at-will) bonus to AC equal to Wisdom modifier
Cape of Mountebank (movement; encounter) • Magic
When Mullen wraps cloak around himself, he can Dimension Door up to 10 squares
Dodge (free; at-will) +1 to AC
Damage Resist 9 worghide leather
Saving Throws +0
Speed 6
Melee Grapple (standard; at-will)
Reach 1; +18 vs. AC; 0; Followup: Crux of Alatar +14 vs. AC; 4d4+4
Melee Crux of Alatar (standard; at-will) • Well-balanced Steel Weapon
Reach 1; +14 vs. AC; 4d4+4
Ranged Turn Foes (standard; encounter) • Magic, Enlightened Precision
Reach 30; +14 vs. AC; 12d6
Alignment Oathbound - Chapel of the Twelfth Night (+1 hit)
Languages Auld, Gothric
Skills Initiative +16, Skill Focus Notice +18, Skill Focus Religion +18, Survival +13, Deception +14, Influence +14, Perform +14, Sneak +16, Geography +12
Str 16 (+3) Dex 20 (+5) Con 18 (+4)
Int 12 (+1) Wis 14 (+2) Cha 17 (+3)
Equipment Ivory Mask inlaid with gold, grey Cape of Mountebank, steel crux of Alatar, worghide leather, strange octagonal blue charm of a pool of water with webbing between it

Note Turn Foes does not work on followers of Alatar.



Another example:


Southern Cross Knight Leader Level 8 Warlord
Medium humanoid (Aradain) 
Initiative +19 Senses Notice +11
HP 80; Bloodied 40; Second Wind 65
AC 27 (28); Fortitude 20, Reflex 27, Will 19, Shock 20
Team Fighting (free; at-will) when fighting adjacent to allies, gain +1 to hit/AC
Acrobatic Defense (free; at-will) +6 AC/-4 attack when fighting defensively/+10 total defense
Dodge (free; at-will) +1 AC
Die Hard (free; at-will) at zero HP, do not fall unconscious. Can make standard action 1/round
Elusive Target (free; at-will) gains +8 AC vs. ranged when adjacent to allies
Far Shot (free; at-will) all Close ranged attacks become Point Blank Range
Point Blank Shot (free; at-will) +1 hit/damage within 12
Concerted Attack (free; at-will) all allies gain +4 on flanks when he threatens enemies with melee or ranged
Bravery (swift; at-will) All allies gain +2 to overcome fear-like effects
Damage Resist 7/4 unarmored
Saving Throws +0
Speed 6
Coordinate (standard; at-will)
Allies within 30 feet gain +1 hit/damage Followup: Inspire Courage (free; at-will) Allies within 30 feet gain +1 to all defenses
Ranged Crossbow (standard; at-will) • Well-balanced Steel Weapon
Reach 12; +14 (15) vs. AC; 3d8+2 Followup: Inspire Fervor (free; at-will) one ally within 30 feet gains bonus to damage equal to his level
Ranged Defensive Crossbow (standard; at-will) • Well-balanced Steel Weapon
Reach 12; +10 (11) vs. AC; 3d8+2 His AC becomes 33 (34)
Ranged Two-Shot Crossbow (standard; at-will) • Well-balanced Steel Weapon
Reach 12; +10 (11) vs. AC; 3d8+2/3d8+2  Followup: Inspire Fervor (free; at-will) one ally within 30 feet gains bonus to damage equal to his level
Full Defense (standard; at-will)
His AC becomes 37 (38)
Alignment Oathbound – Southern Cross Knight (+1 to hit)
Languages Auld, Gothric
Skills Heal +11, Skill Focus Initiative +19, Religion +10, Notice +11, Acrobatics +14, Skill Focus Sneak +14, Influence +12
Str 16 (+3) Dex 20 (+5) Con 18 (+4)
Int 12 (+1) Wis 14 (+2) Cha 17 (+3)
Equipment Steel Breastplate, Well-balance Steel Crossbow, Steel Dagger, Keen Bolts


----------



## Flynn

Nice work, Moniker! I like the presentation. Glad to hear you are enjoying the game!

Here in Austin, there's a gaming group that is starting a Fantasy Concepts campaign this month, so I'm happy to see that more people are enjoying the system.

Thanks for sharing,
Flynn


----------



## Harr

Hey guys, I just bought this PDF from Lulu and going over it with one of my players, we both are REALLY liking it very much.

We play C&C right now and honestly the amount of house-ruling and on-the-fly adjudication that I have to make with that system is wearing me down big time. Fantasy Concepts seems to be the ideal solution to both relieve some of that rules-deficit and get us prepped up to jump into 4th when it comes.


----------



## Flynn

Thanks, Harr! I hope you like it. There are a number of groups playing it now, and I trust that you guys will have as much fun as they are. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Harr

I have come across two minor points of confusion so far:

on page 87, under 'Reflex Score', section 'Armor Bonus'. 
_"Armor provides a minimum bonus to anyone who wears it, but a character who is proficient in the use of a certain type of armor receives a larger bonus to the Reflex score."_

I can't find anywhere where it mentions this larger bonus except in this paragraph. The three Armor Proficiency Feats just say something about applying the armor's penalty to attack rolls or not. And the Armor Table has only one 'equipment bonus' column, nothing about another bonus for proficiency.

There is one Talent that gives you +2 for using a specific type of armor (Armor Focus), but the text makes it seem that it's related to proficiency, so I'm wondering if I'm confused or just missing something.

Also, there are a few mentions throughout the book of how a character wearing armor may slow a character down, in the Combat Speed section, in the Movement section, etc, and even a Prestige Talent which says "your base speed is not reduced while wearing armor" yet I can't find anywhere where it specifies what these slower movements due to armors are.

Appreciate any help on these


----------



## Harr

Another small point of confusion:

The Expert Talent 'Crippling Strike' lists 'Sneak Attack' and 'Backstab' as pre-requisites.

I can find the Talent 'Sneak Attack', but 'Backstab' is apparently nowhere to be found. This is mostly based on a text search of 'backstab' which only returned the pre-requisite mention.

Thanks for this and sorry for the nitpicking


----------



## Harr

Ok, one more clarifying question (I'm going through the whole doc during the weekend, lol)

Page 62, 'Skill Format', under 'Armor Penalty':
_"If this notation is included in the skill name line, the character suffers an armor check penalty to checks using this skill when wearing armor with which the character *is not* proficient."_

That's easy enough to understand. But now, I go up to page 29, and look at the 'Armor Proficiency' Feats:
_"Benefit: When the character wears a type of armor with which the character *is* proficient, the character suffers only the armor check penalty listed for the armor and only for *those skills to which the armor check penalty applies*."_

So, does the armor penalty apply to a skill with the Armor Penalty flag when one is proficient with the armor type, or does it stop applying once the character becomes proficient? Can't make up my mind on that.

Sorry if this is a basic question, but I haven't read Saga so I don't even know what the original rule is.


----------



## Harr

One more observation: The weights for both the Weapons and Armor appear to be missing.

Not a big deal of course... in fact I wasn't even gonna say anything but just thought you might like to know, for when you update the PDF or whatever.


----------



## Flynn

Harr said:
			
		

> I have come across two minor points of confusion so far:
> 
> on page 87, under 'Reflex Score', section 'Armor Bonus'.
> _"Armor provides a minimum bonus to anyone who wears it, but a character who is proficient in the use of a certain type of armor receives a larger bonus to the Reflex score."_
> 
> I can't find anywhere where it mentions this larger bonus except in this paragraph. The three Armor Proficiency Feats just say something about applying the armor's penalty to attack rolls or not. And the Armor Table has only one 'equipment bonus' column, nothing about another bonus for proficiency.
> 
> There is one Talent that gives you +2 for using a specific type of armor (Armor Focus), but the text makes it seem that it's related to proficiency, so I'm wondering if I'm confused or just missing something.
> 
> Also, there are a few mentions throughout the book of how a character wearing armor may slow a character down, in the Combat Speed section, in the Movement section, etc, and even a Prestige Talent which says "your base speed is not reduced while wearing armor" yet I can't find anywhere where it specifies what these slower movements due to armors are.
> 
> Appreciate any help on these




Consider it rushed writing, which will need to be clarified, but the first line refers to the Armor Focus talent. My apologies on the confusion there. The speed issue in armor relates to the traditional fact in D20 that Medium and Heavy armor reduces your speed. In the rush to get this finished by the deadline, I forgot to include that information. Medium and Heavy Armor reduce a Base Move of 6 squares to 4 squares, and a Base Move of 4 squares to 3 squares.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Harr said:
			
		

> Another small point of confusion:
> 
> The Expert Talent 'Crippling Strike' lists 'Sneak Attack' and 'Backstab' as pre-requisites.
> 
> I can find the Talent 'Sneak Attack', but 'Backstab' is apparently nowhere to be found. This is mostly based on a text search of 'backstab' which only returned the pre-requisite mention.
> 
> Thanks for this and sorry for the nitpicking




Please drop the Backstab from the requirement. It was a Talent that I decided to drop at the last minute, and I missed that particular reference.

Thanks for pointing this out,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn

Harr said:
			
		

> Ok, one more clarifying question (I'm going through the whole doc during the weekend, lol)
> 
> Page 62, 'Skill Format', under 'Armor Penalty':
> _"If this notation is included in the skill name line, the character suffers an armor check penalty to checks using this skill when wearing armor with which the character *is not* proficient."_
> 
> That's easy enough to understand. But now, I go up to page 29, and look at the 'Armor Proficiency' Feats:
> _"Benefit: When the character wears a type of armor with which the character *is* proficient, the character suffers only the armor check penalty listed for the armor and only for *those skills to which the armor check penalty applies*."_
> 
> So, does the armor penalty apply to a skill with the Armor Penalty flag when one is proficient with the armor type, or does it stop applying once the character becomes proficient? Can't make up my mind on that.
> 
> Sorry if this is a basic question, but I haven't read Saga so I don't even know what the original rule is.




Go with the first line, under Skills. The text for the Armor Proficiency feats needs to be updated as follows:


> *Benefit*: You are proficient in wearing [TYPE] armor. When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, you do not suffer any armor check penalties to your skill checks or attack rolls.
> *Normal*: A character who wears armor with which he or she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to skill checks noted as having an Armor Penalty associated with its use, as well as to their attack rolls.




Hope This Helps,
Flynn


----------



## Harr

Well, we've played a couple sessions so far and we're loving it.

Usually after a 6-8 hour session of 3.5 I'm seeing numbers and stat-blocks floating in the air and my players are ready to tear up their character sheets. After a similar session of C&C my players are fine but I usually feel like I have 2 tons of burden and responsibility weighing down on me from all the 'judgement calls' I had to make. 

With FC, none of that. I woke up the next day from both sessions feeling like I'd actually like to play some more 

I did make a couple changes of my own, I integrated all the 'cascasdeable' skills into a single Knowledge, Crafting, etc skill (never saw the point of the separation), and I re-separated AC from Reflex Score (merging those two is a HUGE alteration that significantly alters, and even unbalances, the basic nature of the game, I think.. plus we know 4th is keeping the separation) but I look forwar to continue well into July/August with these rules, if not adopt them entirely should 4th disappoint.

Thanks again for your work on this,

Harry.


----------



## Angellis_ater

*necromancy*
What are people thinking about Fantasy Concepts now? Are people still playing it? How do you feel it works out now, compared to say 4th Edition?


----------



## Darth Palpy

First of all, thank you, Flynn, for your amazing work !!

You just saved my three years old Eberron Campaign.
With my players bored to death by DD4e and the weight of DD3.5 rules, I was going too make a huge system conversion to please them. 
But suddenly, I saw a light : Fantasy Concepts.... And, because they already love the basic system (I've been GMing SW Saga ED since the first book in the line), well, it was love at first sight, so to speak. 
(And yes, I'm more than a little enthusiastic about it, too )

As for some questions:
-Do you intend to make a "Fantasy Concepts Companion", in a near future ?
-As for Prestige Classes...:
For my part, I use the SW Saga Conversion Guide as an inspiration to make my homebrew conversions, but if for non-spellcasters prestige classes, so far - so good, It's an other problem with spellcaster-based Prestige Classes.
Problems of balance and more have plagued me since then, and I'm borderline desesperate to have some advices. 

Thanks in advance for your answers !!


----------



## graylion

Test


----------

