# Sword and Sorcery Saga v. 1.02 and NEW Adventure Conversion!



## The_Gneech (Aug 17, 2007)

My sword-and-sorcery conversion of _SWSE_ is ready for perusal here:

http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/index.html

Granted, it seems a little anti-climactic after the big 4E announcement, but still! Anybody out there who wants to take a look at it, try to break it, tell me what they like or hate about it, and so on, please do with my blessing and gratitude!

-The Gneech 

EDIT: The file above is now version 1.02, which adds a stat block for wolves (which were supposed to be there before but fell out somehow) and fixes a few typos.

ANOTHER EDIT: 8/24/2007 - I have added a new adventure conversion here:

http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/downloads/swords_against_sorcery_conversion.pdf

This is a _S&S Saga_ conversion of "Swords Against Sorcery" for _Runequest/Lankhmar_ by Mongoose Publishing, which I highly recommend and can be purchased as a PDF here:

http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=21713

This conversion includes rules for Undead in _S&S Saga_, as well as statistics for 



Spoiler



tiny monstrous hunting spiders, large monstrous hunting spiders, undead giant salt spiders, the Gray Mouser, a third level cult priestess, skeleton warriors, and 15th level lich nobles


!

Enjoy, and please let me know what you think!

UPDATE 12/21/2007 -- I have added a character sheet and a finalized High Fantasy Races writeup. My next project will be a character creation quicksheet. Enjoy! I have added some errata to the main page, as well.

UPDATE 12/23/2007 -- Character creation quicksheet added! http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/downloads/saga_character_creation_quicksheet.pdf


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 17, 2007)

Thanks! This looks like tremendous fun -- and this makes me sad that I didn't allocate funds for a copy of Star Wars Saga this pay period


----------



## Khuxan (Aug 18, 2007)

Wow, that looks awesome. 
Have you considered releasing the parts that aren't ripped from SWSE as Open Game Content so others can use them? I haven't read it in depth, but it looks like your spell system is quite different from SWSE's.


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 18, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Wow, that looks awesome.
> Have you considered releasing the parts that aren't ripped from SWSE as Open Game Content so others can use them? I haven't read it in depth, but it looks like your spell system is quite different from SWSE's.




Thanks!

At this stage it's not quite robust enough to stand alone really -- but by all means snag the spell system for house rules if you'd like! Everything that was "just like in _SWSE_" I put in a placeholder so that I wasn't just cribbing off closed content material.

As for publishing it as an OGL release, I'd be happy to discuss it with a publisher, but I would say it was premature to really invest in a project like that with 4E around the corner.

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 18, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Thanks! This looks like tremendous fun -- and this makes me sad that I didn't allocate funds for a copy of Star Wars Saga this pay period




Hee.  I'm certainly hoping it will be!

-The Gneech


----------



## Emirikol (Aug 18, 2007)

Darn, I'm getting an error when I try to download it.  "Linearized..blah blah blah"

jh


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 18, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Darn, I'm getting an error when I try to download it.  "Linearized..blah blah blah"
> 
> jh




Huh. Okay, try this one:

http://www.rumblepurrlion.com/stuff/dungeons_and_dragons/saga_players_guide_web.zip

-TG


----------



## Wraith Form (Aug 18, 2007)

Cool, thanks for releasing this.  (Not all of us are "bowled over" by the 4th Ed news.)

So next I hope we'll see Saga + Mutants & Masterminds = kick-arse supers game!


----------



## kaomera (Aug 18, 2007)

This kind of seems to be overshadowed by some other stuff going around here at the moment, but I just wanted to say "Thanx!" I've only skimmed it so far but it looks really, really cool (and it kind of kills two birds with one stone for me at the moment).


----------



## Emirikol (Aug 18, 2007)

Hey, that download worked great 

Looking it over, I'm much impressed   Way to go.  Gives a good feeling for a S&S type of game.

Jay


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Aug 18, 2007)

Looks great. Looking forward to reading it


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 18, 2007)

That is fantastic! Too bad I have so many games going on already, or I'd love to play this while waiting for 4e.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Aug 18, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> My sword-and-sorcery conversion of _SWSE_ is ready for perusal here:
> 
> http://www.suburbanjungle.com/saga_players_guide_web.pdf
> 
> ...





Actually with your premission and if I can get a few players I'd like to do a playtest of it play by post.


----------



## Fenris (Aug 19, 2007)

DarwinofMind said:
			
		

> Actually with your premission and if I can get a few players I'd like to do a playtest of it play by post.




I'd be up for that!


----------



## Khuxan (Aug 19, 2007)

Fenris said:
			
		

> I'd be up for that!




Ditto, as long as my inexperience in PbP and living in a different timezone doesn't adversely affect things.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Aug 19, 2007)

Time zone doesn't matter as long as you can post at least once a day.   

I'll set up a recruiting thread here in a moment and link to it.


Playtest is up, http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3711140


----------



## Khuxan (Aug 19, 2007)

Do High Men get illiteracy or Knowledge (literacy)? The document doesn't specify.

Also, there are three references to "buying X with skill points", which you might want to change to "select as a trained skill"


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 19, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Do High Men get illiteracy or Knowledge (literacy)? The document doesn't specify.
> 
> Also, there are three references to "buying X with skill points", which you might want to change to "select as a trained skill"




High men get Knowledge (Literacy). And you're right, re: selecting as a trained skill. I'll change that for the next round. 

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 20, 2007)

DarwinofMind said:
			
		

> Actually with your premission and if I can get a few players I'd like to do a playtest of it play by post.




Awesome! =) Go for it!

-The Gneech


----------



## damiller (Aug 20, 2007)

I have only given it a quickly look, but THANK YOU very much for the time you have spent on this. I was going to start a Conan campaign, but could not bring myself to learn all those rules (of the Conan game). Now I have a SAGA conversion that will do the job BETTER.

THANKS A MILLION.

(Oh, and if you would like any art work for further updates, if you have any planned, I will gladly do them, as my way of saying thanks. Just pm me.)

d


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 20, 2007)

damiller said:
			
		

> I have only given it a quickly look, but THANK YOU very much for the time you have spent on this. I was going to start a Conan campaign, but could not bring myself to learn all those rules (of the Conan game). Now I have a SAGA conversion that will do the job BETTER.
> 
> THANKS A MILLION.
> 
> ...




You're welcome! 

re: art, please e-mail me at thegneech (at) gmail.com, I'd love to see what you've got. Thanks!

-The Gneech


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Aug 20, 2007)

Gneech, If you've constructed any of that DM suppliment materials yet perhaps you could email it to me

darwin (at) daropedia (dot) info


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 20, 2007)

I haven't yet, but as my first scenario includes some undead, I'll probably be putting together info on that at least in the next couple of weeks. I expect they'll be very similar to the homunculus/construct class, except with a d12 hit die, no increasing size characteristic, and intelligent undead (i.e., Int 3 or higher) able to multiclass into heroic classes. Skeletal undead will probably also have DR of 1/2 their level (minimum 1) vs. slashing and piercing.

-The Gneech


----------



## Erekose (Aug 21, 2007)

Really like what you've done with this - looks like a great alternative for a non-D&D fantasy RPG


----------



## Acid_crash (Aug 21, 2007)

This is actually pretty cool, great job. With 4e coming out next may, I think I will run this game that you have created and when 4e comes out, have a comet blow into the world I will run in and have it change how the world works and convert the game to 4e...

I really like what you have written here.  Pat yourself on the back a few times and feel good, and if you have any updates please pass them along.  

When I do get a group together and we do run a game using these rules, do you want us to tell you what we did and how things went?


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 22, 2007)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> This is actually pretty cool, great job. With 4e coming out next may, I think I will run this game that you have created and when 4e comes out, have a comet blow into the world I will run in and have it change how the world works and convert the game to 4e...
> 
> I really like what you have written here.  Pat yourself on the back a few times and feel good, and if you have any updates please pass them along.
> 
> When I do get a group together and we do run a game using these rules, do you want us to tell you what we did and how things went?




Yes, I'd love to hear! Thanks much!

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 22, 2007)

Erekose said:
			
		

> Really like what you've done with this - looks like a great alternative for a non-D&D fantasy RPG




Thank you! 

-TG


----------



## Kanegrundar (Aug 22, 2007)

Very cool, Gneech!  You saved me a TON of time by doing this!


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 22, 2007)

Pleased to be of service.  Let me know how it turns out!

-TG


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

Looks very cool from what I've seen so far!

One question, though: at a glance, barbarians, horse lords and sea people all look to be rather screwed over on the stat mods, whereas high men and easterlings get a big edge.  High men don't get many other benefits (common men actually look like a bit more attractive choice at first glance), but Easterlings look like they have a HUGE advantage over other characters - bennies for both martial and magical characters, favorable stat mods, a penalty to a stat that's less important in Saga than in any other d20 game, and bonuses to three very common skills?

Admittedly, Saga doesn't seem to have worried all that much about race balance, either, so perhaps it's a small enough issue to just skip over; I just wanted to ask where you were coming from with these stat mods.


----------



## deamonprince (Aug 22, 2007)

*Thanks!*

I haven't had a chance to read the PDF in-depth, but from a speed-read I like what I see. Thank you for taking the time and energy to adapt Saga Edition rules to Fantasy roleplaying. Nicely done!


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 22, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Looks very cool from what I've seen so far!
> 
> One question, though: at a glance, barbarians, horse lords and sea people all look to be rather screwed over on the stat mods, whereas high men and easterlings get a big edge.  High men don't get many other benefits (common men actually look like a bit more attractive choice at first glance), but Easterlings look like they have a HUGE advantage over other characters - bennies for both martial and magical characters, favorable stat mods, a penalty to a stat that's less important in Saga than in any other d20 game, and bonuses to three very common skills?
> 
> Admittedly, Saga doesn't seem to have worried all that much about race balance, either, so perhaps it's a small enough issue to just skip over; I just wanted to ask where you were coming from with these stat mods.




Thanks! 

re: ability mods, I used the standard model of "1 physical stat is worth 2 mental stats" (which is why half-orcs get -2 Int and Cha to pay for their +2 Str in _D&D_, for example).

I created the races primarily with setting flavor in mind, but also for each one to particularly shine when in their favored class. For example, if you look at the Aristocrat (Royalty) in the NPCs appendix, the High Man variant loses some of his combat ability (Melee Defense and Knowledge: Tactics) but becomes a super-focused statesman. Similarly, someone from the Sea People would probably not make that great a Scout, but is custom-made to be one heck of a Rogue.

In the case of the Easterling, there's not _that_ much benefit for martial characters, really. Adding Martial Arts to their bonus feats doesn't give them an immediate benefit, and any really dedicated martial artist character is probably taking levels in Warrior anyway, which means the benefit is redundant anyhow. That combined with -2 Con is likely to make the Easterling actually a sub-standard choice for making a martial artist -- but might make a scholar interested in picking up a little hand-to-hand ability.

Of all the races, the one I'd say gets the shaft probably is the Horse Lord, because they are, if you'll excuse the expression, rather one-trick ponies. Without their riding and horsebow, they don't have much to go on. I might beef them up a little in future iterations, but I'm not sure how just yet.

My real worry at this point, is if maybe the favored class mechanic I came up with doesn't front-load characters too much. But I haven't figured out a good solution to that yet either.

-The Gneech


----------



## Klaus (Aug 23, 2007)

Y'know, someone described "Eragon" as "Star Wars, but with magic swords and dragons instead of lightsabers and X-wings". It occurred to me that this would be a nice setting for a S&S Saga.


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 24, 2007)

Having only a passing familiarity with _Eragon_, I can't really say. But the ruleset is pretty flexible ... tweak a few rules about magic and add elves, dwarves and hobbits, it could easily do _Lord of the Rings_ for instance.

-The Gneech  

PS: I may just have to get some of those art packs for future releases!


----------



## Acid_crash (Aug 25, 2007)

I am hoping that you'll add on the staple fantasy races and racial talents at some point.


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 25, 2007)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> I am hoping that you'll add on the staple fantasy races and racial talents at some point.




Well, that would kinda negate the point.  But I suppose I could write up a "high fantasy conversion" of my sword and sorcery conversion!  I'm not sure at that point it wouldn't be easier just to stick with 4E. 

-The Gneech


----------



## FickleGM (Sep 3, 2007)

Well, after the shipwreck left the party on an uncharted jungle island, they (Sea People - Rogue & Scholar, Barbarians - Noble & Warrior, Easterlings - Rogue & Scout) dealt with giant buzzards (they drove them off), hunting lionesses (the party ran) and savage monkey-people (they defeated them).  They then repaired the ship and took to sea before calling an end to the session.

I want to thank you, Gneech, for your Sword & Sorcery conversion.  I had fun running the game and the players had a good time, as well.  I think that I like it better than True20 (the verdict is still out, but between SWSE and the S&S conversion, I definitely feel that S&S SAGA may be more to my liking than True20).

While I like what I've seen from SWSE, sci-fi really isn't my first choice for genres, so I found this Sword & Sorcery conversion to be just what I needed.  If nothing else, it will tide me over until D&D 4e comes out.

Well done, Gneech.


----------



## Father of Dragons (Sep 3, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I think that I like it better than True20 (the verdict is still out, but between SWSE and the S&S conversion, I definitely feel that S&S SAGA may be more to my liking than True20).



That is, of course, true _this_ week.  You did choose that screen name for a reason.


----------



## FickleGM (Sep 3, 2007)

Father of Dragons said:
			
		

> That is, of course, true _this_ week.  You did choose that screen name for a reason.




Uh oh, they're on to me.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 6, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Well, after the shipwreck left the party on an uncharted jungle island, they (Sea People - Rogue & Scholar, Barbarians - Noble & Warrior, Easterlings - Rogue & Scout) dealt with giant buzzards (they drove them off), hunting lionesses (the party ran) and savage monkey-people (they defeated them).  They then repaired the ship and took to sea before calling an end to the session.




Sounds awesome!   



			
				FickleGM said:
			
		

> I want to thank you, Gneech, for your Sword & Sorcery conversion.  I had fun running the game and the players had a good time, as well.  I think that I like it better than True20 (the verdict is still out, but between SWSE and the S&S conversion, I definitely feel that S&S SAGA may be more to my liking than True20).
> 
> While I like what I've seen from SWSE, sci-fi really isn't my first choice for genres, so I found this Sword & Sorcery conversion to be just what I needed.  If nothing else, it will tide me over until D&D 4e comes out.
> 
> Well done, Gneech.




Pleased to be of service! Keep me posted about how it goes!

Also, feel free to post stats for those encounters here, they sound very cool. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Oldtimer (Sep 6, 2007)

Nice work!

One question: In the Master Tactician Talent Tree (Warrior class) you have "Distraction: SWSE p. 52.". I can't find that talent there. Could you be thinking of "Draw Fire"?


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 6, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Nice work!
> 
> One question: In the Master Tactician Talent Tree (Warrior class) you have "Distraction: SWSE p. 52.". I can't find that talent there. Could you be thinking of "Draw Fire"?




Very probably. I'll look at my notes tonight and make sure. There were several re-named talents, and I forgot to identify them as such in the current iteration -- I'll fix that for the next version.

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 7, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Nice work!
> 
> One question: In the Master Tactician Talent Tree (Warrior class) you have "Distraction: SWSE p. 52.". I can't find that talent there. Could you be thinking of "Draw Fire"?




Yes, that is a renamed "Draw Fire". Here is a list of all the conversions:

ROGUE
Able-Bodied Seaman: As Hyperdriven, p. 47.
Old Sea-Dog: As Stellar Warrior, p. 47.
Sea Legs: As Spacehound, p. 47.

SCHOLAR
Wilt the Spirit: As Adept Negotiator, p. 39.
Arcane Persuasion: As Force Persuasion, p. 40.
Crush the Spirit: As Master Negotiator, p. 40.

SCOUT
Luck of the Wild: As Fringe Savant, p. 50.

WARRIOR
Distraction: As Draw Fire, p. 52.

This information will be updated in the next iteration.

-The Gneech


----------



## Armistice (Sep 8, 2007)

Downloaded it. Read it. Like it. Great work Gneech and I'm looking forward to seeing any new iterations of these rules. As they are, it's playable and I'll be giving it a testdrive soonest.


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 8, 2007)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> So next I hope we'll see Saga + Mutants & Masterminds = kick-arse supers game!



I gave this a tiny nudge since I was actually serious, but I'm (admittedly) not 133t enough to create the game/rules myself.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 9, 2007)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> I gave this a tiny nudge since I was actually serious, but I'm (admittedly) not 133t enough to create the game/rules myself.




It will have to come from someone else, I'm afraid.  I ran a very intense _Champions_ campaign for 5 years, and by the time it was over I was pretty much done with supers.

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 9, 2007)

Armistice said:
			
		

> Downloaded it. Read it. Like it. Great work Gneech and I'm looking forward to seeing any new iterations of these rules. As they are, it's playable and I'll be giving it a testdrive soonest.




Thanks!  Let me know how it turns out!

-The Gneech


----------



## Klaus (Sep 9, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Thanks!  Let me know how it turns out!
> 
> -The Gneech



 I shared this with one of my friends, who loves his SAGA, and he adored it to no end. He wants to know about more books from this Gneech dude.


----------



## FickleGM (Sep 9, 2007)

I started a 1-on-1 S&S Saga with my wife this morning.  She's playing a barbarian scout (a bounty hunter) and alongside an NPC warrior, had two battles where they fought off giant geckos and another adventuring party (a lower level group that was convinced by the PC's quarry that the PC was the bad guy).  If they weren't on a river barge, the fight may not have went so well, but after knocking one of the adventurers into the water, the battle quickly went her way (the dude started drowning and the adventurers split their forces to save their friend).  The only roleplaying opportunities came with convincing the NPC Warrior (who had the barge) to work with my wife's character and a failed attempt to convince the other adventuring party that she wasn't the evil-doer.

We stopped playing, due to football kickoff (I had to watch my Packers beat the Eagles), but it was a fun couple hours.  Her character has the spell, Remote Viewing, which helps her locate her bounties (not to mention her tracking abilities).

Anyway, I'm now looking forward to the second session of two games...

So far, it's been fun, but the spells may have to be looked at more closely as we go on.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 10, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I shared this with one of my friends, who loves his SAGA, and he adored it to no end. He wants to know about more books from this Gneech dude.




Well! Thanks for spreading the word.  For those who are curious, my bibliography is here:

http://www.gneech.com/bibliography.html

1998 was my last publication in the gaming field, but there are a few notable items on there...

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 10, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> We stopped playing, due to football kickoff (I had to watch my Packers beat the Eagles), but it was a fun couple hours.  Her character has the spell, Remote Viewing, which helps her locate her bounties (not to mention her tracking abilities).
> 
> Anyway, I'm now looking forward to the second session of two games...
> 
> So far, it's been fun, but the spells may have to be looked at more closely as we go on.




What level is she? The DC's for Remote Viewing go up pretty fast ... if she poured resources into the Magician feat, skill training in Spellcraft, etc., giving her around a +10, and the bounties are strangers (DC +10), she's going to be hard-pressed to find them further than a few miles away.

The DCs for all of the spells were sorta "eyeballed" based on comparable abilities in _SWSE_ and could use some serious playtesting. Unfortunately, I won't be able to even start my own game for another 2-3 weeks.

-The Gneech


----------



## FickleGM (Sep 10, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> What level is she? The DC's for Remote Viewing go up pretty fast ... if she poured resources into the Magician feat, skill training in Spellcraft, etc., giving her around a +10, and the bounties are strangers (DC +10), she's going to be hard-pressed to find them further than a few miles away.
> 
> The DCs for all of the spells were sorta "eyeballed" based on comparable abilities in _SWSE_ and could use some serious playtesting. Unfortunately, I won't be able to even start my own game for another 2-3 weeks.
> 
> -The Gneech



 She started at level 6 (they are level 1 in the group game).  The way you designed it, however, Remote Viewing can be "built" upon.  So, while she increases her risk of a backlash, she can make multiple rolls.  That is one of the things that I'm going to be looking at...


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 11, 2007)

*Classic High-Fantasy Races*

I thought it would make a good mental exercise, so here it is! Note that these are my own take on the “classic” races, rather than a straight port of D&D races, so there’s a bit more Tolkien in them than Gygax. Still, mechanically they should be perfectly feasible, even if you prefer different fluff. This will go up as a separate .PDF on the S&S Saga website eventually.

Dwarves
Dwarves are a race of superb miners and craftsmen, usually dwelling underground in mountainous or hilly parts of the world, where they search endless for gems and precious metals. Dwarven society is orderly and stable, to the point of often seeming hidebound or reactionary to outsiders. 

Appearance and Habits: Dwarves are somewhat shorter than men, averaging 4-5', but more thickly built. Most dwarves are somewhat reserved and have a prickly sense of etiquette; to a dwarf, the world has rules and traditions that are to be honored. While they tend to be clannish and standoffish, you can usually depend on a dwarf to keep their word to the letter, if not the spirit.

Ability Scores: +2 Con, -2 Cha
Lettered: Dwarves gain Knowledge (Literacy) as a bonus skill.
Slow Movement: Dwarves’ base speed is 4 squares instead of 6. However, their movement is not hampered by armor or carrying a heavy load.
Subborn: Dwarves get a +2 racial bonus to their Will defense, as well as an additional +2 to resist Persuasion, hypnotism, or other compulsion attempts.
Low-Light Vision: Long used to living in caves and caverns, dwarves ignore concealment (but not total concealment) from darkness.
Conditional Bonus Feat: Dwarves who are trained in Craft get Skill Focus (Craft) as a bonus feat.
Favored Class: Scholar or Warrior.

Elves (Eldritch/High Elves)
The High Elves are an ancient race, the first truly sentient beings to inhabit the world. So long-lived as to effectively be immortal, their lives can still be ended by mischance or violence. Although their temperament varies widely from individual to individual, all tend to have an air of otherworldliness about them.
Appearance and Habits: High elves are slightly taller than men, lean, and strongly-built. Both sexes tend toward long hair; some men grow wispy facial hair but most do not. Coloration varies, but tends towards very pale skin with either dark or blonde hair. Many are aloof and still dress and speak in the manners of ancient days, seeing the world currently about them as just a passing phase and thus not terribly worried about keeping up with it – but all are very striking presences.

Ability Scores: +2 Int, +2 Cha
Lettered: High elves gain Knowledge (Literacy) as a bonus skill.
Accumulated Lore: High elves may make any Knowledge skill check untrained, as the Noble “Educated” talent. High elves have lived through most of history, and have forgotten more things than most mortals ever learn.
Immortality: High elves are immune to normal diseases and do not age.
Natural Magician: High elves gain Magician as a bonus feat and are immune to backlash.
Low-Light Vision: High elves love night and the stars, and may ignore concealment (but not total concealment) from darkness.
Minimum Level: High elf player-characters must be a minimum of 5th level, representing a “young” high elf; thus it is not recommended that players be allowed to select the high elf race unless the rest of the group is at least 3rd level. “Typical” NPC high elves are 10th level.
Favored Class: Noble

Elves (Half-Elves)
Half-elves are rare, but when found are statistically equivalent to High Men from S&S Saga, except they have favored class: any (as Common Men).

Elves (Silvan/Wood Elves)
Less otherworldly than their eldritch kin, the wood elves are nevertheless an antique race, tied to their forest homes by bonds of tradition and blood. Making their homes in trees and valley caves, wood elves can be as capriciously beautiful or terrible, nurturing or destructive, openly welcoming or fiercely territorial as nature herself. Wood elves are particularly known for their “strike-and-fade” tactics in the forest, rising up out of nowhere to rain deadly arrows on their foes, then disappearing into the foliage.
Appearance and Habits: Wood elves are slightly smaller than men and tend towards being slight of build. Most wear simple but well-made clothing of colors similar to those in nature, such pine green or sky blue. Wood elf scouts tend to wear clothing that will blend into the forest around them, which varies according to the seasons.

Ability Scores: +2 Dex, -2 Con
Lettered: Dark elves gain Knowledge (Literacy) as a bonus skill.
Immortality: Wood elves are immune to normal diseases and do not age.
Conditional Bonus Feat: A wood elf with Weapon Proficiency (Martial) gains Weapon Focus (shortbow) or Weapon Focus (longbow) as a bonus feat.
Born to the Wood: Wood elves may reroll any Survival check, but must take the second roll, even if it’s worse. They also gain a +2 racial bonus to all Stealth checks made in a forest.
Low-Light Vision: Wood elves love night and the stars, and may ignore concealment (but not total concealment) from darkness.
Minimum Level: Wood elf player-characters must be a minimum of 3rd level, representing a “young” elf. “Typical” NPC wood elves are 6th level.
Favored Class: Scout

Elves (Trow/Dark Elves)
Dark elves are a wicked race who live underground and hate both the light of day, and those who dwell willingly in the sunlight. However, they are master crafters, having particular skill with silver, platinum, and other white metals. Like their surface cousins, dark elves are nearly immortal by nature – but are far more prone to dying from violence than any surface elf.
Appearance and Habits: The dark elves, so named as much for their wicked nature as for their obsidian skin, are the smallest of the elves, being somewhere between the height of halflings and dwarves. Their appearance tends toward the extreme – being either hideously deformed and ugly, or being startlingly beautiful to the point of enchanting. They favor dark clothing with silver or platinum fittings.

Ability Scores: +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Cha
Immortality: Dark elves are immune to normal diseases and do not age.
Magic Resistance: Dark elves get +5 to all Defense scores, skills, or ability checks when resisting spells and spell-like effects. This stacks with both Dodge and Improved Defenses.
Darkvision: Dark elves can see perfectly well in complete darkness.
Sunlight Vulnerability: Dark elves move down -1 persistent level on the condition track when in direct sunlight, and -2 persistent levels in particularly bright and hot conditions, such as a desert.
Minimum Level: Dark elf player-characters must be a minimum of 3rd level, representing a “young” elf. “Typical” NPC dark elves are 8th level.
Favored Class: Rogue

Gnomes
Gnomes are a somewhat smaller, surface-dwelling variety of dwarf. Like their larger, more dour cousins, gnomes are excellent craftsmen and miners. By contrast, however, gnomes are cheerful, energetic, and somewhat mischievous. Gnomes are generally not drawn to martial professions; many however feel a strong connection to nature and the land around them, taking to gardening and farming. Most gnomes, while playful, are good-hearted rascals; a few, however, are very wicked indeed.
Appearance and Habits: Gnomes are quite small, usually ranging from 2-3' in height. All have a tendency towards round noses and rosy cheeks. Men tend to have at least a perfunctory beard under their chin, and many have very long, braided hair and beards. Women usually have long hair as well, but it is kept up out of their faces in braids or buns. Gnomes of either sex usually wear bright colors, and pointy hats (with or without large feathers) are common.
Ability Scores: -2 Str, +2 Dex
Small: As small creatures, gnomes gain a +1 size bonus to their Reflex defense and a +5 size bonus on Stealth checks. However, their lifting and carrying limits are three-quarters those of medium characters.
Speed: Gnomes have a base speed of 4 squares.
Lettered: Gnomes are very conscientious about educating their young, and so gain Knowledge (Literacy) as a bonus feat.
Low-Light Vision: Long used to working in caves and caverns or wandering under the stars, gnomes ignore concealment (but not total concealment) from darkness.
Natural Magician: Gnomes gain Magician as a bonus feat and are immune to backlash.
Tricksy: Gnomes may reroll any Deception checks or Spellcraft checks having to do with illusion, but they must take the second roll, even if it is worse.
Favored Class: Scholar or Scout

Halflings
A generally peaceful race of amiable stay-at-homes, most halflings strenuously avoid adventures, as they make one late for supper. However, there are a few odd families that have a strain of wanderlust within them, and these unusual halfling specimens occasionally find themselves involved in epic tales spanning continents ... carrying their tobacco pipes all the while.
Appearance and Habits: Halflings are generally around 3' tall and normally proportioned, although many are a bit pudgy around the middle. They have hairy, leathery feet and usually prefer to go barefoot. In all things, from clothes to equipment, halflings prefer simple, well-crafted items, not wanting to get “above themselves.” Usually gregarious, halflings like good food and pleasant company, and often are (or pretend to be) a bit thick, as it makes them more sympathetic. Those who cross them, however, often find to their surprise a hard steel core under all that pudge.

Ability Scores: -2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Wis, +2 Cha
Small: As small creatures, halflings gain a +1 size bonus to their Reflex defense and a +5 size bonus on Stealth checks. However, their lifting and carrying limits are three-quarters those of medium characters.
Speed: Halflings have a base speed of 4 squares.
Hidden Reserves: Halflings may reroll any Endurance check, but must take the second roll, even if it is worse.
Toughness: Halflings gain Toughness as a bonus feat.
Favored Class: Rogue

Orcs (Half-Orcs)
Orcs with mannish blood, or men with orcish blood, are mechanically equivalent to Barbarians from S&S Saga, except they have favored class: Rogue or Warrior. They can usually pass for men at a glance, but will be discovered with a thorough inspection unless they succeed at a Deception check.

Orcs (True Orcs)
Foul, brutish creatures with minds full of hate, most orcs take their only pleasure from acts of malice and cruelty, destroying the beautiful, or tormenting the helpless. They hate sunlight (though many learn to tolerate it in time) and are prone to short, violent tempers. While it is conceivable that an orc might rise above its savage heritage, it is all but unheard-of.
Appearance and Habits: Orcs vary wildly in appearance, in accordance with their chaotic nature, but all are scarred and ugly. Their skin color tends to be shades of reddish brown, grey, or black, but greenish varieties are not unknown. Most are slightly smaller than men, with longer arms and somewhat stumpy legs, although some particularly big brutes can be seven feet tall or taller. Orcish society is not kind to the weakling orc, so those who are not gifted with strength must become particularly cunning to survive, much less get ahead.

Ability Scores: +4 Str, -2 Int, -4 Cha
Darkvision: Orcs see perfectly well in complete darkness.
Berserker: Orcs gain Berserk as a bonus feat.
Daylight Vulnerability: Orcs suffer the same daylight vulnerability as Dark Elves, unless they take Endurance as a trained skill.
Favored Class: Warrior

Behind the Curtain
What’s With Elvish Minimum Levels?
Well, elves in classical fantasy are often a race of supermen – but that sucks for character balance. And besides, for all that orc-butt Legolas was kicking, he wasn’t really any more of a superman than Aragorn or Gimli. So it seemed to me the most elegant way to reconcile elvish überness with play balance was to impose “minimum levels”. A 10th-level elf lord isn’t any more powerful than a 10th-level human warrior – but you’re not going to see any 1,000-year-old 1st level elf nonheroics, either.

-The Gneech


----------



## Klaus (Sep 11, 2007)

Neat!

I'd do a couple of teeny-tiny changes:

Dwarves:
Stubborn: Dwarves gains a +2 bonus to Defenses against Persuasion, Hypnotism and other Compulsion effects.
Tireless: Dwarves may reroll Endurance checks, but must take the second roll, even if it's worse.

Halflings:
Hidden Reserves: A halfling character gains a +2 bonus to Will Defense.
Out of Harm's Way: A halfling trained in Stealth gains Skill Focus (Stealth) as a bonus feat.

All Elves:
Elf Senses: Elves may reroll Perception checks, but must take the second roll even if it's worse.

Dark Elves:
Natural Magician


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 11, 2007)

Re: halflings, I can see the Stealth bonus, but why +2 to Will defense instead of an Endurance reroll? It always struck me that one of the remarkable things about halflings is that they keep soldiering on when everybody expects them to just roll over and die.

-The Gneech


----------



## Klaus (Sep 11, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Re: halflings, I can see the Stealth bonus, but why +2 to Will defense instead of an Endurance reroll? It always struck me that one of the remarkable things about halflings is that they keep soldiering on when everybody expects them to just roll over and die.
> 
> -The Gneech



 I see that more of a mental resilience than flat-out Endurance (which would be the purview of the dwarves). For instance, in LotR, halflings rerolling Endurance would be running far more easily than the Three Hunters.

In LotR, halflings just never gave up (well, Frodo tried to, but Sam wouldn't let him).

Maybe a flat bonus to all Defenses?


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 12, 2007)

How about a bonus Fate Point per level as "Hidden Reserves," rather than defensive bonuses?

It can be used to buy off Taint (thus, resisting corruption), add to your Defense scores for around (thus, making you more resilient), or enable you to cheat death (getting knocked out instead of killed).

-The Gneech


----------



## Mokona (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks to you, The_Gneech!    I think your (_Saga_-based) sword & sorcery rules for spells have the perfect style for my new campaign: China as a fantasy nation.

Despite the fact that my games (using non-human races, for example) are High Fantasy, I prefer low magic settings.  I especially like the dark aspect of turning in to smoke and losing health as whisps of you drift away.    My current low magic game is powered by *D20 Modern* rules but I'm not    really happy with the results.  _Saga_ will be much better.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 13, 2007)

Awesome! Glad you like 'em! 

-The Gneech


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Dec 4, 2007)

*bump*

Just directed to this link, and I gotta say this looks pretty groovy.


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 8, 2007)

Unfortunately, Real Life ate my gaming recently, so the updates etc. have been much slower coming than I'd hoped. I still have this project on my current "to do" list, tho, and hope to be getting back to it soon.

-The Gneech


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2007)

Very cool! Thanks for sharing.

Nice application of the system. I'm definitely nabbing bits of this (with credit where it's due.)


----------



## Flynn (Dec 11, 2007)

Gneech,

You might consider checking out *Fantasy Concepts* for anything you could use for your conversion efforts. I've already done a lot of OGL work to bring Saga-inspired material into usable and releasable Open Game Content, if it helps. Contact me offline if you have any questions. Just trying to help out a fellow gamer. 

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 21, 2007)

UPDATE, 12/21/07 - I have added a character sheet and a finalized High Fantasy Races writeup. My next project will be a character creation quicksheet. Enjoy!

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 21, 2007)

Flynn said:
			
		

> Gneech,
> 
> You might consider checking out *Fantasy Concepts* for anything you could use for your conversion efforts. I've already done a lot of OGL work to bring Saga-inspired material into usable and releasable Open Game Content, if it helps. Contact me offline if you have any questions. Just trying to help out a fellow gamer.
> 
> ...




I'll definitely be checking this out as the project goes forward.  Thanks much!

-The Gneech


----------



## Lorthanoth (Dec 22, 2007)

Damn... now I HAVE to buy SW:SE  Fantastic material - really captures the swords and sorcery feel! Wish I'd done this for my Rana Mor PbP now...


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 24, 2007)

Glad you like it! 

NOTE: I have now added a character creation quicksheet which includes seven pregenerated and ready-to-play 1st-level characters: the Court Dancer, the Gentleman Thief, the Magus of the East, the Sellsword, the Street Rat, the Wayward Apprentice, and the Wolf Girl. Enjoy!

-The Gneech


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 24, 2007)

I just wanted to say that your work here has managed to sell me on Star Wars SE. I honestly had (and have) _zero_ interest in using d20 for Star Wars roleplay but I _am_ always looking for lighter, more flexible, d20 System variants to model fantasy and this seems to do the trick nicely. Thanks for all of the effort that you've put into this (WotC should throw you some paying work, man).


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 27, 2007)

Thanks, pleased to be of service! I'm not really interested in working for Da Man, tho. I did my time at White Wolf, and that was enough trying to make money in the gaming industry for me. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Lorthanoth (Dec 27, 2007)

I feel the urge to cry "You snivelling Zamoran cur!" whenever I read these rules. I'm on an REH buzz at the moment.


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 27, 2007)

Lorthanoth said:
			
		

> I feel the urge to cry "You snivelling Zamoran cur!" whenever I read these rules. I'm on an REH buzz at the moment.




Then my efforts have not been in vain! 

-The Gneech, who fully supports REH buzzes


----------



## Walking Dad (Apr 9, 2008)

Hey Gneech! I really like your work.
Any problems, if I use your work in a future playtest?


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 9, 2008)

By all means, please do!  Thanks much!

-The Gneech


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 22, 2008)

Would you be interested in incorporating the Critical Fumble Deck as well, and/or AP values for weapons (like those in the Conan RPG) ? Just thought they might also suit the feel, and the system you've put together.

Anything planned for S&S Saga, in the near future? I hope so, because I really like it so far.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Apr 22, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Would you be interested in incorporating the Critical Fumble Deck as well, and/or AP values for weapons (like those in the Conan RPG) ? Just thought they might also suit the feel, and the system you've put together.
> 
> Anything planned for S&S Saga, in the near future? I hope so, because I really like it so far.



To be honest, I'd be against incorporating those without a good reason. While it's amusing to read fumble rules of one sort or another, I loathe them in actual play. They rank right up there with Save or Die in terms of GMs simply screwing over players.

Adding in AP stuff... that seems like it'd be unnecessarily complicating things. Unless I'm missing something.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 22, 2008)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> To be honest, I'd be against incorporating those without a good reason. While it's amusing to read fumble rules of one sort or another, I loathe them in actual play. They rank right up there with Save or Die in terms of GMs simply screwing over players.
> 
> Adding in AP stuff... that seems like it'd be unnecessarily complicating things. Unless I'm missing something.



Fair enough. I'd like to get the creator's opinion, however.

I'll just have to (agree to) disagree with the CF deck being a case of 'GMs simply screwing over players'.

The main reason for suggesting its use is that it's awesome fun.  Secondly, the Critical Hit Deck is already incorporated in S&S Saga, and the two work _very_ well together.

And as for AP, there is already DR and 'AC' for armour, as well as specific DR for several types. So having AP to help against DR, particularly with stuff like full plate, wouldn't be totally out of the question, I would've thought. Complicated? No. But to everyone's taste? Certainly not. It's from Conan OGL (along with several other parts of S&SS), and does a good job there, so. . .

Of course, adding those rules in is pretty simple, and I could always do that myself. I only wanted to get The_Gneech's word on whether they might mesh well with the rest of his rules. I don't have anything invested in that happening or not, and there's no axe to grind either.

Anyway, that's my reasoning, as it stands. But, like I said, I'm not fussed what happens really.


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 4, 2008)

Hello! Sorry it took me so long to respond; I had an old e-mail address in my profile so I wasn't getting subscribed threads notices.

Anyway! Regarding the Critical Fumble Deck, I don't have a very conclusive opinion on it simply by virtue of never having used it. My general experience with fumbles (mostly in Rolemaster/MERP) is that they aren't as much fun as critical hits, because when they happen to players they feel screwed, and when they happen to your badguys all fear/respect/terror goes out the window.

However! If your group is already using the fumble deck and enjoys it, there's no reason not to keep on using it. The same general guidelines would apply to their use as do to the critical hit deck (saving throws turn into attacks, etc.), but without having the actual product to reference from I can't really get more specific than that.

-The Gneech


----------



## Sadrik (Aug 9, 2008)

Nice job.

If only the travesty 4e is were more like this...

A note on the racial stat mods:
I never liked the precept that certain stat mods were deemed better than others yet they cost no more when buying the stat via stat points during character creation. Also, in regard to these rules specifically. It seems, I don't own SWSE, that the stats are fairly balanced out in what they do.

Here is what I have been able to gleen from your materials:
STR -> melee attack bonus
DEX -> REF, ranged attack bonus
CON -> FORT
INT -> Skills???
WIS -> WILL
CHA -> arcane attack bonus

It appears that they are fairly balanced.


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 9, 2008)

Thanks.  Overall _SWSE_ is very good about stat balance, except that it's a little weak in Charisma except for Nobles, which is one reason why I shifted "arcane attacks" over to Cha.

One idea from 4E that I did like and I'm thinking of stealing, is redoing the racial mods so that instead of "+2/-2" races get +2 to one "physical" stat (Str, Dex, Con) and +2 to one "mental" stat (Int, Wis, Cha). Also, working on _Uncanny Midnight Tales_ gave me some other insights into the system workings that I'd like to incorporate into _S&S Saga_ when I get the chance.

-The Gneech


----------



## Sadrik (Aug 11, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> One idea from 4E that I did like and I'm thinking of stealing, is redoing the racial mods so that instead of "+2/-2" races get +2 to one "physical" stat (Str, Dex, Con) and +2 to one "mental" stat (Int, Wis, Cha).



The stats are not exactly 1 mental and 1 physical, it is just +2 to two. Ex. tiefling is +2 int, +2 cha

If you wanted to go in that direction though I might suggest:
Human +2 any
Half-elf +2 dex
Half-orc +2 str
Dwarf +4 con, -2 dex
Halfling +4 dex, -2 str
Wood Elf +2 dex, +2 wis, -2 con
High Elf +2 dex, +2 int, -2 con
Dark Elf +2 dex, +2 cha, -2 con
Gnome +2 int or cha, +2 con or dex, -2 str
Orc +4 str, -2 int
Kobold +2 dex, +2 cha, -2 str
Goblin +2 dex
Hobgoblin +2 dex, +2 con, -2 cha
Bugbear +2 str, +2 dex, +2 con, -2 int, -2 cha

The human groups you have might be...
Barbarian +2 str, +2 con, -2 to int or cha
Common Men +2 any
High Men +2 int, +2 cha, -2 str or con
Easterlings +2 int, +2 wis, -2 con
Horse Lords +2 dex, +2 con, -2 int or cha
Sea People +2 str, +2 dex, -2 int or cha


----------



## pukunui (Oct 15, 2008)

Just wanted to jump in and say that I really like what you've put together here, Gneech. As much as I've been pro-4e more or less since its announcement, and while it is mostly a vast improvement over 3.5, I'm finding that it's still just not quite what I want ...

However, one of the other guys is running a SWSE game, and I'm absolutely loving it. For all the talk of streamlining the D&D rules with 4e and all that, I think that SWSE is, with a few exceptions, far more streamlined and elegant a system than 4e. I vastly prefer the talent-based system to the powers-based system.

So more and more I keep thinking that it would be quite fun to use SWSE as the basis for a fantasy game. There are some things in your conversion that I'm not sure I like or would want to use, but there's a lot there that I really like a lot (and I'm eagerly awaiting version 2.0 as I suspect it may be even more to my liking than your version 1.02 -- any idea when you'll have 2.0 finished?).

I don't know if my group would go for it though. They seem to like 4e. I've asked if anyone would be interested in playing SWSE as a fantasy game, though, so we'll see what they say.


Cheers,
Jonathan


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 15, 2008)

Thanks! FWIW, I'm working on a 3.5-to-Saga conversion currently, so if your group prefers something closer to standard _D&D_, that might suit them well. 

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 15, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Thanks! FWIW, I'm working on a 3.5-to-Saga conversion currently, so if your group prefers something closer to standard _D&D_, that might suit them well.
> 
> -The Gneech



Thanks but no thanks. 3.5 was not our cup of tea.

I'd prefer a straight Saga to "fantasy" conversion (like what you've already done) but with the "best of 4e" thrown in.

My only real concern with using Saga rules for fantasy is that you can't do the heavily-armored warrior trope very well -- at least not at high levels. I wonder how difficult it would be to graft AC back onto the Saga rules ...

What I'm actually thinking of at this point is using the Saga rules for PCs but continue to use the 4e monsters and such. I _really_ like 4e from a DM's point of view. Pretty much the only two things I don't like about 4e are the class structure (talents are so much better than powers) and the plethora of dissociated mechanics.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 15, 2008)

pukunui said:


> My only real concern with using Saga rules for fantasy is that you can't do the heavily-armored warrior trope very well -- at least not at high levels. I wonder how difficult it would be to graft AC back onto the Saga rules ...




Actually, the warrior (soldier) class can really tank up w/ armor. Check out the armor mastery talent tree.



> What I'm actually thinking of at this point is using the Saga rules for PCs but continue to use the 4e monsters and such. I _really_ like 4e from a DM's point of view. Pretty much the only two things I don't like about 4e are the class structure (talents are so much better than powers) and the plethora of dissociated mechanics.




You'll have to watch out for wonky math, there ... 4E progression is based on everything being 1/2 level, while SWSE is based more on 3/4-level-with-variations. I've no doubt it can be done, you'll just have to keep your eyes open.

My "XP Budget for Saga Edition" document (on the S&S Saga site) includes my best whack at some of the "page 42"-style rules, so you might look into that as a starting point. I'm working on a system for building creatures and monsters, which will also have some info. It doesn't use exactly the 4E model, but it is greatly simplified over 3E.

-TG


----------



## pukunui (Oct 15, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Actually, the warrior (soldier) class can really tank up w/ armor. Check out the armor mastery talent tree.



You're right. I was forgetting about that (not having played a soldier in SWSE yet).



> You'll have to watch out for wonky math, there ... 4E progression is based on everything being 1/2 level, while SWSE is based more on 3/4-level-with-variations. I've no doubt it can be done, you'll just have to keep your eyes open.



Hmm. And, of course, the other thing is that SWSE is still based on 20 levels, while 4e went to 30. I wonder if it would work to simply tack on another 10 levels of talent/feat/talent/feat/etc?



> My "XP Budget for Saga Edition" document (on the S&S Saga site) includes my best whack at some of the "page 42"-style rules, so you might look into that as a starting point. I'm working on a system for building creatures and monsters, which will also have some info. It doesn't use exactly the 4E model, but it is greatly simplified over 3E.



Will do.

I'm also going to check out that "Fantasy Concepts" pdf at some point.

So is your S&S Saga 2.0 on hold now (since you said you're doing a 3.5 conversion)?


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 15, 2008)

pukunui said:


> So is your S&S Saga 2.0 on hold now (since you said you're doing a 3.5 conversion)?




No, I'm basically working on them concurrently, as lessons learned from one are going into the other and vice-versa. Really, they're not that different from each other -- it's just a matter of classes and spells.

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 15, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> No, I'm basically working on them concurrently, as lessons learned from one are going into the other and vice-versa. Really, they're not that different from each other -- it's just a matter of classes and spells.
> 
> -The Gneech



Oh ok. Cool. How's it coming?


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 15, 2008)

Well, there are three major items on my "Saga-ized gaming" plate right now:

*The Monster Book*
This is basically written; it needs to be laid out and be given another pass of editing/proofreading, but the core material is done.

*The D&D 3E Conversion*
The classes are mostly finished and I'm working on the spellbook. Once that's done I still need to incorporate the weapons/armor sections (which are more-or-less already written as appendices to the monster book) and the encounter building document. I'm still working out some of the details as to how spells will work to hit the right "_D&D_" notes while remaining quick and easy to use.

*S&S Saga 2.0*
This is largely a set of notes at the moment. Most of the classes will not change in a big way, although I'm looking at shuffling the Scholar around a bit. I suspect that the spells will get a pretty thorough rewrite (and hopefully a few new additions) in order to simplify them a little further and get them a little closer to the "dark and dangerous magic" feel I wanted.

As for an exact timeline, I can't really say, it depends on how much work and family life interfere.  I would guess that the monster book will be done by the end of October, and the others will be following sometime in November, but I wouldn't swear to it. 

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 15, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> *The Monster Book*
> This is basically written; it needs to be laid out and be given another pass of editing/proofreading, but the core material is done.



Oooh, a monster book. This will be for the S&S Saga?



> *S&S Saga 2.0*
> This is largely a set of notes at the moment. Most of the classes will not change in a big way, although I'm looking at shuffling the Scholar around a bit. I suspect that the spells will get a pretty thorough rewrite (and hopefully a few new additions) in order to simplify them a little further and get them a little closer to the "dark and dangerous magic" feel I wanted.



When I first had the idea of using the SWSE rules for a fantasy game, I was just going to take all the Force powers as is and reflavor them into magic, but I do like some of the other stuff you've included. Also, the Arcane Attack Bonus concept is pretty good too.

Here's a question (having skimmed through much of the 1.02 document last night): how would you do a crusading cleric/paladin type of character? I think the Jedi class would make for a good paladin or cleric, but I can't remember if you included one or not ... and it seems like magic is purely arcane -- there's no divine magic?

Also, why no "Knowledge (nature)"?

Also -- any plans to incorporate stuff from the new SWSE sourcebooks? There's some fantastic stuff in _The Force Unleashed_ and some good stuff in _Knights of the Old Republic_ as well (although, oddly enough, there's some material that's repeated in the two books).



> As for an exact timeline, I can't really say, it depends on how much work and family life interfere.  I would guess that the monster book will be done by the end of October, and the others will be following sometime in November, but I wouldn't swear to it.



Take your time!


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 16, 2008)

pukunui said:


> Oooh, a monster book. This will be for the S&S Saga?




It should work for all of my _Saga Edition_ kitbash games, actually, _S&S Saga_ included. 



pukunui said:


> When I first had the idea of using the SWSE rules for a fantasy game, I was just going to take all the Force powers as is and reflavor them into magic, but I do like some of the other stuff you've included. Also, the Arcane Attack Bonus concept is pretty good too.




That was my original idea too, but I decided I wanted to do something that would take it away from _Star Wars_ a bit.



pukunui said:


> Here's a question (having skimmed through much of the 1.02 document last night): how would you do a crusading cleric/paladin type of character? I think the Jedi class would make for a good paladin or cleric, but I can't remember if you included one or not ... and it seems like magic is purely arcane -- there's no divine magic?




I didn't include anything that was specifically a crusader, just because it didn't seem to fit the sword-and-sorcery vibe. You could certainly make a paladin-like character via warrior/scholar multiclass. (The _D&D_ conversion includes paladins.)



pukunui said:


> Also, why know "Knowledge (nature)"?




I figured Survival would handle that.



pukunui said:


> Also -- any plans to incorporate stuff from the new SWSE sourcebooks? There's some fantastic stuff in _The Force Unleashed_ and some good stuff in _Knights of the Old Republic_ as well (although, oddly enough, there's some material that's repeated in the two books).




I've got the _KotOR_ book but haven't read it; don't have _FUCG_ yet, but I probably will before too long. If I spot something worth stealing, I'll definitely incorporate it; I looked at _Threats of the Galaxy_ when working on my critter rules, for instance.



pukunui said:


> Take your time!




Thanks.  FWIW, I'm writing these things primarily for my own use, so I want to get 'em finished quickly and keep my campaigns rolling!  As soon as my current _Red Hand of Doom_ 3.5 campaign finishes, all of my games will be _Saga Edition_-based.

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 16, 2008)

Oh, and no, there's no arcane/divine schism in _S&S Saga_, it's all just "magic." As far as _S&S Saga_ is concerned, a spellcasting priest is a sorcerer who has rank in the church (which is why the Priesthood Talent Tree is part of the Scholar class).

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 16, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> It should work for all of my _Saga Edition_ kitbash games, actually, _S&S Saga_ included.



Cool. And you're putting it out for _free_?!



> That was my original idea too, but I decided I wanted to do something that would take it away from _Star Wars_ a bit.






> I didn't include anything that was specifically a crusader, just because it didn't seem to fit the sword-and-sorcery vibe. You could certainly make a paladin-like character via warrior/scholar multiclass. (The _D&D_ conversion includes paladins.)



OK.



> I figured Survival would handle that.



Fair enough, I suppose.



> I've got the _KotOR_ book but haven't read it; don't have _FUCG_ yet, but I probably will before too long. If I spot something worth stealing, I'll definitely incorporate it; I looked at _Threats of the Galaxy_ when working on my critter rules, for instance.



_FUCG_ has some really great stuff in it.



> Thanks.  FWIW, I'm writing these things primarily for my own use, so I want to get 'em finished quickly and keep my campaigns rolling!  As soon as my current _Red Hand of Doom_ 3.5 campaign finishes, all of my games will be _Saga Edition_-based.



That's awesome that you're willing to give them to the rest of us for free.



The_Gneech said:


> Oh, and no, there's no arcane/divine schism in _S&S Saga_, it's all just "magic." As far as _S&S Saga_ is concerned, a spellcasting priest is a sorcerer who has rank in the church (which is why the Priesthood Talent Tree is part of the Scholar class).



Yeah, I kind of figured. I suppose you could distinguish between priests and magicians through flavor ... a "fireball" type spell could be described in the traditional way for a magician but as a "flame strike" type column of divine fire for a priest. Something like that.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 16, 2008)

Heehee.  I got no choice! _Saga Edition_ isn't OGL. 

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 16, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Heehee.  I got no choice! _Saga Edition_ isn't OGL.
> 
> -The Gneech



Ah yes. Of course. Well, it's all much appreciated. You _could_ just keep it all to yourself ...


----------



## pukunui (Oct 20, 2008)

Hey John,

I've got some questions for you regarding the upcoming v2 of your S&S Saga conversion:

1) Would you be able to give me some sort of summary of the changes you're making with v2? What aspects of 4e are you adding to the conversion? What other changes are you making? Will you be fleshing out your prestige classes?

2) I'm not very familiar with "low magic" fantasies like Conan the Barbarian. I take it, though, that there aren't really magic items in these settings. How would you suggest I go about adding magic items to the Saga system?

3) Does the "clerical investment" scholar talent provide any mechanical benefit? I don't really see the point of it ...

4) I'm curious as to your choice of prerequisites for some things ... for instance, why does the spell _curse of the long death_ require the Remove Poison talent? Also, why did you choose to put minimum level requirements on some talents? AFAIK, there are no talents in SWSE that do this (although there is _one_ Jedi talent that has a minimum BAB requirement). Just wondering why you chose to deviate from the SWSE standard?

5) How compatible/incompatible is 4e with the Saga d20 system? If I were to go with a fantasy-themed Saga conversion (whether it be yours or some other one), I would still like to be able to use 4e - particularly the monsters and magic items. The only stumbling blocks I can think of are AC and 30 vs 20 levels (as I realize that 4e isn't just the old 20 levels with another 10 stacked on top). The question is: how much of a stumbling block are those two things? Could I just take a 4e monster and just use their Reflex or would that mess things up? Could I just treat their AC as their Reflex score? And could I take a Saga class and tack another 10 levels onto it using the same progression and not have it mess things up too much? I'm not sure you can answer all of these questions, but I thought I'd put them out there anyway. Perhaps it would be best if I started a new thread on this topic.


Cheers,
Jonathan


----------



## ValhallaGH (Oct 21, 2008)

Jonathan,

A partial answer to number 2.  There are magical items in traditional sword and sorcery, but they don't fit the high fantasy mold.  They tend to be plot devices (ancient artifacts that show up for one story, the only weapon that can slay the monster coming tonight to kill Conan, etc) and are taken away about as quickly as they are handed over.  Their only purpose is to give the heroes a _chance_ at victory, or the villains a nearly unassailable edge; actually achieving victory requires the heroes to be quick, skillful, smart, and a bit lucky.

If you wanted to add magic items, I would recommend using special effects rather than numerical bonuses.  Fire, cold, lightning, necrotic, and other damage types; healing / harming powers; transportation effects, and so forth.  This retains the wonder and style of magic without the risk of severe imbalance that comes from increasing numbers.  And a sword of fire is more appealing than a steel blade because it is _fire_; however, if the PCs are reduced to a simple steel blade then they can still manage quite well.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2008)

ValhallaGH said:


> Jonathan,
> 
> A partial answer to number 2.  There are magical items in traditional sword and sorcery, but they don't fit the high fantasy mold.  They tend to be plot devices (ancient artifacts that show up for one story, the only weapon that can slay the monster coming tonight to kill Conan, etc) and are taken away about as quickly as they are handed over.  Their only purpose is to give the heroes a _chance_ at victory, or the villains a nearly unassailable edge; actually achieving victory requires the heroes to be quick, skillful, smart, and a bit lucky.
> 
> If you wanted to add magic items, I would recommend using special effects rather than numerical bonuses.  Fire, cold, lightning, necrotic, and other damage types; healing / harming powers; transportation effects, and so forth.  This retains the wonder and style of magic without the risk of severe imbalance that comes from increasing numbers.  And a sword of fire is more appealing than a steel blade because it is _fire_; however, if the PCs are reduced to a simple steel blade then they can still manage quite well.



Thanks, Valhalla. That's actually exactly the kind of magic item I would prefer to have in my games anyway. I tried to strip magic items of any mechanical enhancement bonuses in my 4e game but my players rebelled. I offered them a sort of "generic enhancement bonus" instead but they didn't like the idea.

However, if it came as a default part of the game (as opposed to a house rule introduced mid-game), then they'd be probably more likely to accept it.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Oct 21, 2008)

Glad I could help.

I actually agree, that magic items are far cooler (and actually useful at any level) when done that way.

Unfortunately, D&D requires the increasing numbers to survive.  For 4e games, I'd suggest that you use the low magic option (give the item level / enhancement bonuses as inherit bonuses for your PCs, and then hand out Masterwork Armors as appropriate) and include magic items that are purely effects, instead of effects and bonuses.

Good luck and good gaming.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2008)

ValhallaGH said:


> I actually agree, that magic items are far cooler (and actually useful at any level) when done that way.



Yeah.



> Unfortunately, D&D requires the increasing numbers to survive.  For 4e games, I'd suggest that you use the low magic option (give the item level / enhancement bonuses as inherit bonuses for your PCs, and then hand out Masterwork Armors as appropriate) and include magic items that are purely effects, instead of effects and bonuses.



That's what I proposed doing but my players vociferously objected.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Oct 21, 2008)

pukunui said:


> That's what I proposed doing but my players vociferously objected.



Wow.  I wonder why.  It's a power _increase_, so it shouldn't be a problem for some-time munchkins.

Maybe they just like being limited to total reliance upon various pieces of equipment?


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 21, 2008)

pukunui said:


> Hey John,
> 
> I've got some questions for you regarding the upcoming v2 of your S&S Saga conversion:
> 
> 1) Would you be able to give me some sort of summary of the changes you're making with v2? What aspects of 4e are you adding to the conversion? What other changes are you making? Will you be fleshing out your prestige classes?




The only aspect of 4E I have in mind to move directly over is the XP Budget system, which I've already done here.

The general list of changes I have in mind:


Revamp the races. The Horse Lords are underpowered and rather dull by comparison, and I'll probably remove negative stat mods and just go with bonuses.
Change favored class to give you +1 hp/level of favored class, rather than an extra talent.
Give the spells another pass at editing to find ways to simplify them; hopefully add a few more.
Revise weapon and armor stats/rules. This part will also be in the monster doc, which will probably be done by the end of the coming weekend.

I probably won't address the prestige classes this time around, but will do them as a separate document later.



pukunui said:


> 2) I'm not very familiar with "low magic" fantasies like Conan the Barbarian. I take it, though, that there aren't really magic items in these settings. How would you suggest I go about adding magic items to the Saga system?




ValhallahGH expressed it pretty well -- there _are_ magic items, but they tend to be a lot less common and a lot more powerful -- sorta skipping the "+1 dagger" phase and jumping straight to the "artifact" phase. They also tend to not stick around very long.

Small-scale healing potions and the like can easily be put in; beyond that, when it comes to magic items, try to come up with neat and funky effects rather than numerical bonuses. For a weapon or armor, I wouldn't go above a +1 bonus -- the system is already scaled to balance without magic items. Instead, things like a _gem of true seeing_ or a _carpet of flying_ should be the kind of thing to look for.



pukunui said:


> 3) Does the "clerical investment" scholar talent provide any mechanical benefit? I don't really see the point of it ...




No, it's a social benefit. It makes you a vested priest of an established church, which usually confers some authority and access to resources.



pukunui said:


> 4) I'm curious as to your choice of prerequisites for some things ... for instance, why does the spell _curse of the long death_ require the Remove Poison talent? Also, why did you choose to put minimum level requirements on some talents? AFAIK, there are no talents in SWSE that do this (although there is _one_ Jedi talent that has a minimum BAB requirement). Just wondering why you chose to deviate from the SWSE standard?




I'd have to look at it again, but IIRC _curse of the long death_ has Remove Poison as a prerequisite, because Remove Poison is a prerequisite of Brew Poison.

The minimum level prerequisites, as I recall, were usually for play balance, or because a certain talent didn't "feel right" below a given level. Again, I'd have to look at the specific talent to say.



pukunui said:


> 5) How compatible/incompatible is 4e with the Saga d20 system? If I were to go with a fantasy-themed Saga conversion (whether it be yours or some other one), I would still like to be able to use 4e - particularly the monsters and magic items. The only stumbling blocks I can think of are AC and 30 vs 20 levels (as I realize that 4e isn't just the old 20 levels with another 10 stacked on top). The question is: how much of a stumbling block are those two things? Could I just take a 4e monster and just use their Reflex or would that mess things up? Could I just treat their AC as their Reflex score? And could I take a Saga class and tack another 10 levels onto it using the same progression and not have it mess things up too much? I'm not sure you can answer all of these questions, but I thought I'd put them out there anyway. Perhaps it would be best if I started a new thread on this topic.




It's not _directly_ compatible at all; you'd be better off using 3.5 materials, which can be converted on-the-fly by flipping the saving throws to defense scores. (Again, the monster doc will have guidelines for this.)

I haven't examined how _Saga _will perform past 20th level, but it should be viable. There will be a slightly larger discrepancy between attacks and defenses, particularly for characters with the 3/4 BAB, but it won't completely break the way 3E does.

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> I'll probably remove negative stat mods and just go with bonuses.



That's a 4e thing, isn't it? 



> Change favored class to give you +1 hp/level of favored class, rather than an extra talent.



I've never liked the whole favored class thing anyway, so I'll most likely drop it just like they did with the actual SWSE rules.



> Give the spells another pass at editing to find ways to simplify them; hopefully add a few more.



I was just looking at a few of them and I was wondering about "attack action". I assume that means you have to make an attack using the arcane attack bonus, but that's not really an action all of its own, is it? Should it read "standard action" or something?

On a related note, I see that some of your spells cost XP. One thing that I really like about 4e is that there is no way to lose XP any longer. If I wanted to use your system but get rid of all XP costs, what would you suggest I use instead? A monetary cost?



> Revise weapon and armor stats/rules. This part will also be in the monster doc, which will probably be done by the end of the coming weekend.



Cool! Can't wait!



> I probably won't address the prestige classes this time around, but will do them as a separate document later.



OK. If I do end up going with a SAGA fantasy game instead of 4e, it'll be a while before anyone needs a prestige class anyway ... and if I do need some before you've done yours, I'll probably just convert a SWSE one.



> ValhallahGH expressed it pretty well -- there _are_ magic items, but they tend to be a lot less common and a lot more powerful -- sorta skipping the "+1 dagger" phase and jumping straight to the "artifact" phase. They also tend to not stick around very long.



Yeah. That's cool. I've always loved artifacts but I've never gotten to use any in a game. The 4e ones look pretty cool. I doubt they're all that compatible with the Saga rules though. 



> Small-scale healing potions and the like can easily be put in; beyond that, when it comes to magic items, try to come up with neat and funky effects rather than numerical bonuses. For a weapon or armor, I wouldn't go above a +1 bonus -- the system is already scaled to balance without magic items. Instead, things like a _gem of true seeing_ or a _carpet of flying_ should be the kind of thing to look for.



Yeah, I don't like standard +x items anyway. It's the _flaming_ in flaming sword that I like. Have you got any guidelines for potions? I know you've got that some of the spells can be turned into potions, but I don't see anything about healing potions (in fact, I don't really see any rules for healing at all in your pdf).



> No, it's a social benefit. It makes you a vested priest of an established church, which usually confers some authority and access to resources.



OK. So it would be up to me as GM to determine if it has any mechanical benefit?



> I'd have to look at it again, but IIRC _curse of the long death_ has Remove Poison as a prerequisite, because Remove Poison is a prerequisite of Brew Poison.



OK. I see that now. My next question is thus: why does brew poison require remove poison as a prerequisite? Is that so you can't harm yourself with your own poisons? Also, do you have any rules for poisons or do you just use the 3.5 ones or something?



> The minimum level prerequisites, as I recall, were usually for play balance, or because a certain talent didn't "feel right" below a given level. Again, I'd have to look at the specific talent to say.



I wonder if there's some other way to do it. I don't really like the idea of having minimum level requirements, at least not for base class talents. That is part of what I like about the SWSE talents -- that they _don't_ have things like minimum level requirements. It's much more open-ended that way.



> It's not _directly_ compatible at all; you'd be better off using 3.5 materials, which can be converted on-the-fly by flipping the saving throws to defense scores. (Again, the monster doc will have guidelines for this.)



I was afraid you'd say that. 

I'd be willing to consider using 3.5 classes that have been converted to talent-tree classes that use the Saga system in all other respects. But I would be hesitant to use anything else from 3.5, particularly the overly complicated monsters with their horrible statblocks and the overly complicated combat resolution mechanics. I seriously came to loathe 3.5 towards the end ... The primary reason I like 4e is that it's so much easier to DM - both in terms of the complexity of combat and the complexity and formatting of monsters and their statblocks. If only the 4e classes were the same ... but instead of simplifying them as well, they've only gone and made them _more_ complex!



> I haven't examined how _Saga _will perform past 20th level, but it should be viable. There will be a slightly larger discrepancy between attacks and defenses, particularly for characters with the 3/4 BAB, but it won't completely break the way 3E does.



Good to know.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 22, 2008)

pukunui said:


> That's a 4e thing, isn't it?




True. 



pukunui said:


> I was just looking at a few of them and I was wondering about "attack action". I assume that means you have to make an attack using the arcane attack bonus, but that's not really an action all of its own, is it? Should it read "standard action" or something?




It should be standard action, yes. One of the reasons I'm revising _S&S Saga_ is because it was my first attempt and I was still learning the system, so there's a lot of stuff like that in there.



pukunui said:


> On a related note, I see that some of your spells cost XP. One thing that I really like about 4e is that there is no way to lose XP any longer. If I wanted to use your system but get rid of all XP costs, what would you suggest I use instead? A monetary cost?




The main purpose of XP costs is to make it REALLY expensive for PCs to cast a spell, in a way that hurts. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep high-level characters from _wishing_ themselves crazy-high stats and so forth. XP is the one thing that players really hate to give up. Treasure? Pfah. Hit points? No problem! XP? Aaaah!

So if you don't want to charge XP, you're going to have to find something equally valuable for them to give up. The only real option I can see that comes close is ability scores, which are even _more_ valuable. You can get new XP by slaying orcs. You can only get ability scores by slaying enough orcs to go up four levels...



pukunui said:


> Yeah. That's cool. I've always loved artifacts but I've never gotten to use any in a game. The 4e ones look pretty cool. I doubt they're all that compatible with the Saga rules though.




I haven't looked much at the 4E artifacts, so I can't really say. It might be that if you get rid of the plusses and just keep the wonky effects, they'd work.



pukunui said:


> Have you got any guidelines for potions? I know you've got that some of the spells can be turned into potions, but I don't see anything about healing potions (in fact, I don't really see any rules for healing at all in your pdf).




_S&S Saga_ uses the same healing rules as _SWSE_ for the most part. A healing potion would probably be equivalent to a _SWSE_ medpack. Some of the creatures in the monster doc have potions of a sort, which are written up thus:



			
				Gneech's Monster Doc said:
			
		

> *Healing Draught* The lizardfolk witch doctor carries a flask of healing draught. As a standard action, the witch doctor can drink it or administer it to an ally; whoever drinks the healing draught immediately regains 1d8+3 hit points and moves +1 step on the condition track. (The healing draught is difficult to make and doesn’t retain its potency for long, so the witch doctor generally only has one available during any given encounter.)




Alternatively, you could say that one use of a healing potion confers a free second wind or the benefits of the Indomitable talent, or something similar.



pukunui said:


> OK. So it would be up to me as GM to determine if it has any mechanical benefit?




Pretty much. The role of priests varies wildly from campaign to campaign. In a _Conan_-esque campaign, they're more likely to be the badguys and get a sword up the gullet, while in a _Robin Hood_ campaign even the lowliest brigand would think twice before attacking Friar Tuck.



pukunui said:


> OK. I see that now. My next question is thus: why does brew poison require remove poison as a prerequisite? Is that so you can't harm yourself with your own poisons? Also, do you have any rules for poisons or do you just use the 3.5 ones or something?




That was the idea, yes. Generally speaking, learning how to administer antidotes is more basic and widespread knowledge than learning precisely how to brew poisons. The rules for poison, such as they are, are the same as in _SWSE_ -- generally an attack against Fort defense that either moves the target down the condition track, or confers some condition such as _blind_ or _slowed_. (Fairly similar to the 4E method, as I understand it.) There's some more info on poisons in the monster doc as well.



pukunui said:


> I wonder if there's some other way to do it. I don't really like the idea of having minimum level requirements, at least not for base class talents. That is part of what I like about the SWSE talents -- that they _don't_ have things like minimum level requirements. It's much more open-ended that way.




To get away from that model, actually, for the 3.5 conversion I've been giving some of the more magical abilities a minimum AAB requirement; as every class gets AAB, even though some get it slower than others, this provides flexibility while still keeping some of the more overpowering abilities in the "gotta earn it" category.



pukunui said:


> I was afraid you'd say that.
> 
> I'd be willing to consider using 3.5 classes that have been converted to talent-tree classes that use the Saga system in all other respects. But I would be hesitant to use anything else from 3.5, particularly the overly complicated monsters with their horrible statblocks and the overly complicated combat resolution mechanics. I seriously came to loathe 3.5 towards the end ... The primary reason I like 4e is that it's so much easier to DM - both in terms of the complexity of combat and the complexity and formatting of monsters and their statblocks. If only the 4e classes were the same ... but instead of simplifying them as well, they've only gone and made them _more_ complex!




Converting them to talent trees was the first step for my 3E conversion; that part was fairly easy. It's just the spells that are slowing me down now.



			
				Saga Edition-style Barbarian said:
			
		

> *Instinctive Reaction Talent Tree*
> *Acute Senses* Reroll any Perception check, but you must take the second result even if it’s worse.
> *Improved Initiative* Reroll any Initiative check, but you must take the second result even if it’s worse.
> *Improved Uncanny Dodge* You cannot be flanked. _Prerequisite:_ Uncanny Dodge.
> ...




As far as other game elements, take a look at the monster doc when it's done and let me know what you think. Keep in mind that some of the stat blocks in the monster doc will seem quite long because they've got the rules associated with a power in question right on them. (Things like "swallow whole" and "petrifying gaze" have been streamlined as best I can, but still take a good-sized paragraph to summarize.)

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 22, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> It should be standard action, yes. One of the reasons I'm revising _S&S Saga_ is because it was my first attempt and I was still learning the system, so there's a lot of stuff like that in there.



OK cool.

Just curious as to where you got some of your spells -- are they from the Conan and Grim Tales games? They certainly don't look like 3.5 spells (and they don't - for the most part - look like Force powers ...). Did you just make some/all of them up from scratch?



> The main purpose of XP costs is to make it REALLY expensive for PCs to cast a spell, in a way that hurts. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep high-level characters from _wishing_ themselves crazy-high stats and so forth. XP is the one thing that players really hate to give up. Treasure? Pfah. Hit points? No problem! XP? Aaaah!



Fair enough. I guess the way they solved that issue with 4e was by simply removing things like _wish_ altogether.



> So if you don't want to charge XP, you're going to have to find something equally valuable for them to give up. The only real option I can see that comes close is ability scores, which are even _more_ valuable. You can get new XP by slaying orcs. You can only get ability scores by slaying enough orcs to go up four levels...



Hmm. This is something I'll have to think about some more ...



> I haven't looked much at the 4E artifacts, so I can't really say. It might be that if you get rid of the plusses and just keep the wonky effects, they'd work.



Essentially, they've made some "low-level" artifacts that you can put into your game earlier, so they're not all epic-level things. Also, every artifact is more or less intelligent, with its own goals and personality, and each one also has a concordance score. If you do stuff that it likes, your score goes up, and you unlock more of the artifact's abilities. If you do things that it doesn't like, the score goes down and it eventually tries to rid itself of you. Even if it likes you, though, it'll eventually leave.



> _S&S Saga_ uses the same healing rules as _SWSE_ for the most part. A healing potion would probably be equivalent to a _SWSE_ medpack. Some of the creatures in the monster doc have potions of a sort, which are written up thus:



OK. I think I would need to have some sort of healing potion that actually healed hit points. The healing in SWSE is the biggest thing that my group _doesn't_ like about the rules. They would demand that I at least give them healing potions.



> Alternatively, you could say that one use of a healing potion confers a free second wind or the benefits of the Indomitable talent, or something similar.



I could make healing potions that do these things as well as ones that heal hit points, too, couldn't I?



> Pretty much. The role of priests varies wildly from campaign to campaign. In a _Conan_-esque campaign, they're more likely to be the badguys and get a sword up the gullet, while in a _Robin Hood_ campaign even the lowliest brigand would think twice before attacking Friar Tuck.



Seems to me like in that context, "priest" should just be a roleplaying thing. I don't really see the point of having a mechanical feature (eg. a talent) that confers no obvious mechanical benefit.

I do, however, like the idea of priests largely being noncombatants. I've always kind of felt like clerics and paladins overlap as "holy warriors". There should be one or the other.



> That was the idea, yes. Generally speaking, learning how to administer antidotes is more basic and widespread knowledge than learning precisely how to brew poisons.



OK. That makes sense.



> The rules for poison, such as they are, are the same as in _SWSE_ -- generally an attack against Fort defense that either moves the target down the condition track, or confers some condition such as _blind_ or _slowed_. (Fairly similar to the 4E method, as I understand it.) There's some more info on poisons in the monster doc as well.



I didn't even know there were poisons in SWSE. Shows how much I know!  EDIT: That's because they're in the GM's chapter and I hadn't ever looked at it before just now. Most of those things could be ported quite nicely over to fantasy ... off the top of my head, the only stuff that's "missing" is the other sorts of energy damage (electricity, sonic, cold). 



> To get away from that model, actually, for the 3.5 conversion I've been giving some of the more magical abilities a minimum AAB requirement; as every class gets AAB, even though some get it slower than others, this provides flexibility while still keeping some of the more overpowering abilities in the "gotta earn it" category.



That's a good idea and there is one precedent for it in the SWSE rules (there's a jedi talent that requires a minimum BAB).



> Converting them to talent trees was the first step for my 3E conversion; that part was fairly easy. It's just the spells that are slowing me down now.



I'd only be interested in the classes, I think. _Maybe_ the spells but I don't know.



> As far as other game elements, take a look at the monster doc when it's done and let me know what you think. Keep in mind that some of the stat blocks in the monster doc will seem quite long because they've got the rules associated with a power in question right on them. (Things like "swallow whole" and "petrifying gaze" have been streamlined as best I can, but still take a good-sized paragraph to summarize.)



To be honest, the _length_ of the statblock isn't such an issue. What I really hated about 3.5 statblocks was that they were essentially a wall of text and they can't be used as-is unless you've memorized all the rules because special abilities, spells, feats, immunities, and the like aren't listed in the statblock so you end up having to look stuff up all over the place. The nice thing about 4e statblocks is that everything is spelled out right there in the statblock so you don't have to look stuff up elsewhere in order to run a monster.


EDIT: With regard to switching to giving races only bonuses to stats instead of penalties ... I wonder how compatible the 4e races would be with the Saga rules? Racial encounter powers aside, it seems like they could work fairly well. I like the idea of having several different races of humans, but I don't know if I can manage without dwarves, elves and halflings.  I also can't decide whether I prefer the old way or the new way of doing racial stats. The new way clearly has fewer balance issues, but at the same time, I like the idea that some creatures are worse at things as well as better ...


EDIT AGAIN: Would it work to take something like a stun grenade and reskin it as a _thunderstone_, or would it be too powerful? I was just thinking that something like that could be used with the condition track in mind.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 22, 2008)

pukunui said:


> OK cool.
> 
> Just curious as to where you got some of your spells -- are they from the Conan and Grim Tales games? They certainly don't look like 3.5 spells (and they don't - for the most part - look like Force powers ...). Did you just make some/all of them up from scratch?




They're mostly my own creation, based on spells I remembered from Howard, Leiber, or Lovecraft, and/or Ray Harryhousen movies. 



pukunui said:


> OK. I think I would need to have some sort of healing potion that actually healed hit points. The healing in SWSE is the biggest thing that my group _doesn't_ like about the rules. They would demand that I at least give them healing potions.
> 
> I could make healing potions that do these things as well as ones that heal hit points, too, couldn't I?




Sure, no reason why you couldn't. The main reason _S&S Saga_ doesn't is because it's a harsher implied setting.



pukunui said:


> Seems to me like in that context, "priest" should just be a roleplaying thing. I don't really see the point of having a mechanical feature (eg. a talent) that confers no obvious mechanical benefit.
> 
> I do, however, like the idea of priests largely being noncombatants. I've always kind of felt like clerics and paladins overlap as "holy warriors". There should be one or the other.




You could always give priests the ability to reroll Persuasion checks, to represent the "added weight" of their social status when it comes to haggling, intimidation, etc.



pukunui said:


> To be honest, the _length_ of the statblock isn't such an issue. What I really hated about 3.5 statblocks was that they were essentially a wall of text and they can't be used as-is unless you've memorized all the rules because special abilities, spells, feats, immunities, and the like aren't listed in the statblock so you end up having to look stuff up all over the place. The nice thing about 4e statblocks is that everything is spelled out right there in the statblock so you don't have to look stuff up elsewhere in order to run a monster.




Saga Edition statblocks can still sometimes be a wall of text.  Check out Emperor Palpatine's stat block sometime! But hopefully it's more useful text.



pukunui said:


> With regard to switching to giving races only bonuses to stats instead of penalties ... I wonder how compatible the 4e races would be with the Saga rules? Racial encounter powers aside, it seems like they could work fairly well. I like the idea of having several different races of humans, but I don't know if I can manage without dwarves, elves and halflings.  I also can't decide whether I prefer the old way or the new way of doing racial stats. The new way clearly has fewer balance issues, but at the same time, I like the idea that some creatures are worse at things as well as better ...




I don't have a lot of experience with the 4E stat block, so I can't really say. Encounter powers could be handled like a talent tree if you were so inclined.



pukunui said:


> Would it work to take something like a stun grenade and reskin it as a _thunderstone_, or would it be too powerful? I was just thinking that something like that could be used with the condition track in mind.




Nope, a stun grenade would be a perfectly feasible thunderstone analogue. Just crank the price up a bit!

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 22, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> They're mostly my own creation, based on spells I remembered from Howard, Leiber, or Lovecraft, and/or Ray Harryhousen movies.



Oh ok. I think, for my own purposes, that I'm going to start with the Star Wars Force powers and then add stuff that I feel might be missing (as well as remove any Force powers that just don't fit a fantasy setting).



> Sure, no reason why you couldn't. The main reason _S&S Saga_ doesn't is because it's a harsher implied setting.



Right. I like harsh. I loved Dark Sun back in the 2e days. However, I've never liked the "15 minute adventuring day" phenomenon, which is something my group has struggled ever since 3.5. The SWSE healing rules only seem to make it worse ... and despite WotC's claims to the contrary, 4e's healing system does nothing to alleviate the problem either.

What I want is a healing system that will enable the PCs to keep on going and going just like the Energizer Bunny ... ha ha ha. 



> You could always give priests the ability to reroll Persuasion checks, to represent the "added weight" of their social status when it comes to haggling, intimidation, etc.



That's an idea.



> Saga Edition statblocks can still sometimes be a wall of text.  Check out Emperor Palpatine's stat block sometime! But hopefully it's more useful text.



Yeah, I have seen those. That's partly why I was hoping to be able to use 4e monsters ... the 4e statblock design, with its color coding and its rules inclusiveness, is better. However, if I have to go back to the 3.5/SWSE way of doing statblocks, I'll just have to put my graphic design diploma to good use ...



> Nope, a stun grenade would be a perfectly feasible thunderstone analogue. Just crank the price up a bit!



Awesome. 

Hey, here's a question (I'm just brimming with them!):

How compatible would the d20 Modern books (and, more specifically, the d20 Past supplement) be with Saga? I don't know if you're at all familiar with the crpg _Arcanum_ (one of my favs, despite its flaws -- I regret misplacing my hardcopy), but it's got a fun blend of magic and steam-punk technology. I was actually thinking of trying something similar, and I figured the d20 Past supplement would be the best source for that kind of thing (unless you can think of a better one?). Thoughts?


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 22, 2008)

pukunui said:


> OHow compatible would the d20 Modern books (and, more specifically, the d20 Past supplement) be with Saga? I don't know if you're at all familiar with the crpg _Arcanum_ (one of my favs, despite its flaws -- I regret misplacing my hardcopy), but it's got a fun blend of magic and steam-punk technology. I was actually thinking of trying something similar, and I figured the d20 Past supplement would be the best source for that kind of thing (unless you can think of a better one?). Thoughts?




Should work well enough, just flip the saves to defenses and replace weapon stats as appropriate. It won't be quite "system native" but should still be usable for an encounter or what-have-you.

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 23, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Should work well enough, just flip the saves to defenses and replace weapon stats as appropriate. It won't be quite "system native" but should still be usable for an encounter or what-have-you.
> 
> -The Gneech



I was actually thinking in terms of "steampunk" type equipment ... I'm only assuming that there is any in d20 Past as I don't actually have a copy of the book. I was thinking it might be fun to have some techie stuff in the game. I was also thinking of converting SWSE's droids into varying levels of constructs/warforged type creatures.

Despite the bad graphics and such, _Arcanum_ was a fun game. I really liked the mixing of magic and Victorian-era steam engine technology (which is funny considering that I didn't really like Eberron). I suppose that's also what I liked about the old Final Fantasy III game I had for SNES. LOL.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 23, 2008)

I seem to remember d20 Past having nothing like that at all, just equipment from the actual past, despite having other things (classes, etc.) decidedly not so. Well, one might assume. 

There are, however, several 3rd party sources for 'd20 steampunk', if you have a hankering for that stuff in general. Most of it will be compatible with (because based on) d20 Modern, if not SWSE of course. The Imperial Age line is one place to look, for example.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 23, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> I seem to remember d20 Past having nothing like that at all, just equipment from the actual past, despite having other things (classes, etc.) decidedly not so. Well, one might assume.
> 
> There are, however, several 3rd party sources for 'd20 steampunk', if you have a hankering for that stuff in general. Most of it will be compatible with (because based on) d20 Modern, if not SWSE of course. The Imperial Age line is one place to look, for example.



OK thanks. I'll have a look around.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 23, 2008)

John - did you ever check out that Fantasy Concepts pdf? I want to know if it's worth spending money on (I know it's only $8 but still ...).


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 24, 2008)

pukunui said:


> John - did you ever check out that Fantasy Concepts pdf? I want to know if it's worth spending money on (I know it's only $8 but still ...).




I bought a print copy and skimmed through; it didn't light any fires under me, to be honest.

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 24, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> I bought a print copy and skimmed through; it didn't light any fires under me, to be honest.
> 
> -The Gneech



Good to know. Thanks.

So my players have voted to keep "high fantasy" races (they don't want just humans) and they also want to keep the old +/- racial ability mods rather than the new +/+ ones. Do you think it will work to just use any old d20 race with Saga? One thing I liked about 4e was that they managed to balance the races without needing level adjustments. One thing I'm trying to do is see how many, if any, of the Star Wars races can be reskinned as fantasy races. The ewoks, for instance, could be reskinned as halflings with minimal changes, I think. But one of my players really enjoys playing monster type races -- he really wants to play an orc but so far I've never let him. His 4e character was a minotaur. Any thoughts?


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 24, 2008)

pukunui said:


> Good to know. Thanks.
> 
> So my players have voted to keep "high fantasy" races (they don't want just humans) and they also want to keep the old +/- racial ability mods rather than the new +/+ ones. Do you think it will work to just use any old d20 race with Saga? One thing I liked about 4e was that they managed to balance the races without needing level adjustments. One thing I'm trying to do is see how many, if any, of the Star Wars races can be reskinned as fantasy races. The ewoks, for instance, could be reskinned as halflings with minimal changes, I think. But one of my players really enjoys playing monster type races -- he really wants to play an orc but so far I've never let him. His 4e character was a minotaur. Any thoughts?




Well, I have a version of the standard high fantasy races here:

http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/downloads/saga_high_fantasy_races.pdf

You can also find a ton of the _Star Wars_ species converted here:

Saga-Edition.com: The Star Wars Saga Edition RPG Databank » Races

The main thing with standard d20 races is that a lot of them have "+X to Y" abilities, which in _Saga Edition_ are usually converted to rerolls, ability to take 10, or conditional feats ("Moongalian Devil-Lizards who are trained in Jump get Skill Focus (Jump) as a bonus feat." instead of "+8 racial bonus to Jump," for example.) This is done to avoid too many stacking modifiers, which throw game balance out of whack. So as long as you keep this in mind when importing them in, you should be good to go.

Gary Sarli, one of the original _Saga Edition_ designers, put together a conversion document here:

Saga Edition Conversion Guidelines :: GMSarli Games

Finally, if you don't want to use my "orc" writeup, I recommend Gamorreans as an orc analogue.

Hope this helps!

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 25, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/downloads/saga_high_fantasy_races.pdf



No offense, but your race writeups aren't really to my taste.



> You can also find a ton of the _Star Wars_ species converted here:
> 
> Saga-Edition.com: The Star Wars Saga Edition RPG Databank » Races



This just seems to be a "if you want this race, see page xx in this book or look at an article on wizards.com" ... Maybe I'm just missing the section on conversions?



> The main thing with standard d20 races is that a lot of them have "+X to Y" abilities, which in _Saga Edition_ are usually converted to rerolls, ability to take 10, or conditional feats ("Moongalian Devil-Lizards who are trained in Jump get Skill Focus (Jump) as a bonus feat." instead of "+8 racial bonus to Jump," for example.) This is done to avoid too many stacking modifiers, which throw game balance out of whack. So as long as you keep this in mind when importing them in, you should be good to go.



Yes. This is exactly what I would do. 



> Gary Sarli, one of the original _Saga Edition_ designers, put together a conversion document here:
> 
> Saga Edition Conversion Guidelines :: GMSarli Games



This one seems like it could have some useful stuff in it, although it's geared towards converting a character from the old Star Wars game to the new one but it has got some useful info, I suppose.



> Finally, if you don't want to use my "orc" writeup, I recommend Gamorreans as an orc analogue.



Yes, I was thinking the same thing.


Sorry if I seem ungrateful. I guess I'm just being picky ... 



I just thought I'd mention some of the changes I'm thinking of making:

1) I'm going to ditch Initiative as a skill. I never understood why they made it one in SWSE. I'm going to add Insight as a skill, though, and I'm going to port over the "feint" usage of Initiative, as well as some of the Perception usages.

2) I'm going to combine Climb, Jump and Swim into Athletics like in 4e.

3) I'm going to use a number of the 4e combat/movement rules -- eg. 1:1 diagonal movement, bull rush and grapple being simple ability vs defense checks, and that kind of thing. Although that being said, the SWSE rules for grappling aren't as bad as 3.5's were.

4) I'm not going to track XP. I'm just going to do the "everyone levels up when it seems most appropriate" thing.

5) I'm going to see if I can somehow use 4e's rituals and alchemical items. The biggest issue I can see would be balancing the cost and dealing with the 30 levels vs 20 levels discrepancy.

6) I'm thinking of making second wind a per encounter ability rather than per day. I don't know how much of an effect this would have on balance ... the Extra Second Wind feat would thus enable you to use a second wind more than once an encounter. I don't know how often that would ever come up, though. This one's still very much up in the air. Perhaps I could make it useable a certain number of times per day but still only once per encounter. Perhaps as many times per day as your Con modifier (minimum 1)? Thus the feat and talent keyed to it could still grant an extra usage per day.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 25, 2008)

Sorry if I'm bombarding you with stuff, but I'm new at the whole "game design" thing, so I need all the help I can get!

Anyway, I was wondering if you'd be willing to have a look at this post and let me know how you would respond to some of the points raised - specifically the issue of converting a system that's heavily oriented towards ranged combat into one that's more about melee combat. I will admit that I still like 4e's forced movement mechanics (pushing, pulling and sliding, as well as all the minor teleports), but I don't know how one would emulate them with Saga.

For instance, 4e's eladrin have a racial ability that lets them make a short range teleport (6 squares, I think) once per encounter. How would you translate something like that into Saga? Would it be too powerful for a talent? Too powerful for a racial ability?

The Force doesn't allow people to teleport so there's no real precedent. The Force doesn't really let people turn invisible either (another D&D staple), does it?


----------



## pukunui (Oct 26, 2008)

How's the monster book coming along?

I was thinking that adding a "steampunk" element to this would be as simple as taking some of the non-laser weapons (slugthrower rifles and pistols and the like) from SWSE and using them along with swords, axes, bows and what-have-you.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 27, 2008)

Unexpected trip to Richmond over the weekend; the monster book will prolly be a few days, but still this week.

As for the pushing/sliding, etc., take a look at the "Optional Critical Hit Effects" in _Uncanny Midnight Tales_.

I don't think _Saga Edition_ is any more range-friendly or melee-friendly ... there are plenty of _SWSE_ combats that have turned into people ducked behind boxes trading shots at each other.

From a GM perspective, the best way to make combat move, no matter what game system you use, is to have goals other than "Kill the monster!" for the encounter. If you build an encounter using the usual guidelines, a toe-to-toe fight is going to favor the PCs almost every time, so it makes no sense for them to do anything but full attack. Instead, you've got to give the creatures something to achieve that the PCs want to prevent -- have them chase an NPC all around the board, for instance.

-The Gneech


----------



## drothgery (Oct 27, 2008)

pukunui said:


> 1) I'm going to ditch Initiative as a skill. I never understood why they made it one in SWSE.




I imagine Initiative is a skill in SWSE because they figured it had very skill-like mechanics, so why not make it a skill? Besides, then skill focus (initiative) works like classic d20 Improved Initiative, so you save the space of a feat. The problem with making initiative a skill was that almost everyone takes it, so effectively all characters have one less trained skill than the rules say they do.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 27, 2008)

Unless you have sneak attack or some other ability that hinges on getting the drop on somebody, having a high initiative isn't actually as useful as many people think most of the time. Especially for the heroic classes, there aren't that many situations where letting an NPC take the first shot is going to turn the tide of battle that much.

Of course, if you've got fiercely competitive players who all want to get a piece of the badguy first, that's another issue... 

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 27, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Unexpected trip to Richmond over the weekend; the monster book will prolly be a few days, but still this week.
> 
> As for the pushing/sliding, etc., take a look at the "Optional Critical Hit Effects" in _Uncanny Midnight Tales_.
> 
> ...



Thanks, John. I've told my group that I'm going to run a straight up SWSE campaign as well, as that will involve the least amount of work to get a new game up and running. I've got a great idea for a zombie-filled "ghost ship" since this Friday is Halloween.

However, I think I may have lost my GMing mojo ... and I should probably spend more time with my family, too (it's very easy to let this RPG stuff turn into an obsession. Sigh ...).

But that being said, I am still interested to see how you continue to develop your conversion. It may reinvigorate my desire to GM. But take your time please!


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 27, 2008)

Keep in mind it's supposed to be fun!  If it's becoming work, by all means step back and reassess your goals.

A fun game that's good enough is far better than a perfect game that's no fun!

-The Gneech


----------



## pukunui (Oct 27, 2008)

The_Gneech said:


> Keep in mind it's supposed to be fun!  If it's becoming work, by all means step back and reassess your goals.
> 
> A fun game that's good enough is far better than a perfect game that's no fun!
> 
> -The Gneech



Good points. Thanks.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 19, 2008)

Wanna give us an update, John?


----------



## Northern Guard (Nov 27, 2008)

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I think The_Gneech has done some fantastic work here. Although I'm not running a game solely off the S&S rule set, I will be running a low-magic, human-centric campaign using 4th Edition I'll be adapting some of the rules (such as the different Human sub-races etc) for 4th edition.


----------



## Reef (Dec 5, 2008)

Just wanted to say I'm really impressed with this so far.  It's looking like we might be using this instead of 4E when our current Star Wars game wraps up.

Seriously looking forward to 2.0 and the monster book .


----------



## -Archangel- (Dec 5, 2008)

I haven't read much so far but I noticed you gave the Nobles same characteristics are Nobles in SWSE. I do not think that is good for medieval S&S setting. 
Nobles of those times were usually as good a warrior as any commoner soldier if not better. Giving them weak bab and d6 HD is not appropriate for the medieval Noble.
Actually, girls were not, but the men were. You have to take this things into account somehow.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 5, 2008)

-Archangel- said:


> I haven't read much so far but I noticed you gave the Nobles same characteristics are Nobles in SWSE. I do not think that is good for medieval S&S setting.
> Nobles of those times were usually as good a warrior as any commoner soldier if not better. Giving them weak bab and d6 HD is not appropriate for the medieval Noble.
> Actually, girls were not, but the men were. You have to take this things into account somehow.



In _Sword & Sorcery_ (generally, of course) I'd say it works just fine. Nobles and the like, in such settings, are not usually strong fighters, at all. But then, there's a _lot_ of S&S I haven't read, just as there is a fair bit I have. So, maybe not. But I'd be willing to wager, perhaps. . .


----------



## Reef (Dec 5, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> In _Sword & Sorcery_ (generally, of course) I'd say it works just fine. Nobles and the like, in such settings, are not usually strong fighters, at all. But then, there's a _lot_ of S&S I haven't read, just as there is a fair bit I have. So, maybe not. But I'd be willing to wager, perhaps. . .




I believe you're right.  I'm in the middle of "The Coming of Conan" and there's a whole lot of the 'civilized' noble types.  It seems appropriate.  For the lead from the front warriors, I'd just do it multi class, or come up with a prestige class similar to Officer (warlord?).


----------



## David E (Dec 5, 2008)

I also wanted to express my excitement for 2.0 and especially for the monster book (I can never get enough monster books!).  I'm very impressed by this whole project, Gneech


----------



## Slider Wade (Dec 6, 2008)

Waitaminute, I just printed out v1.02 to hear minutes later that v2.0 is on the slate? 







Exactly when is it slated for release?


----------



## Reef (Dec 6, 2008)

Slider Wade said:


> Waitaminute, I just printed out v1.02 to hear minutes later that v2.0 is on the slate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not soon enough, by my reckoning .  He was talking about releasing some new stuff (um...the monster book, I think) around the end of October, but I guess something came up.

Can't really complain, free product and all that, but I'm really champing at the bit to see 2.0.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 31, 2009)

So John, how's version 2 coming along?


----------



## GEEKAZOID (Mar 21, 2009)

2.0?
2.0?
2.0?


----------



## daddystabz (May 24, 2009)

How difficult would it be to use your Sword and sorcery rules as the backbone for running Pathfinder? Since Pathfinder is basically just 3.5 I would think it would be a very simple conversion.  You could even leave the Pathfinder races and classes the way they are I'd think.  What are your thoughts on it and would you be able to leave the xp progression of the Pathfinder classes the same?


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Jun 5, 2009)

Do you have the other monster classes?  I've got beast, construct and undead from various write-ups.


----------



## -Archangel- (Sep 24, 2009)

Seems he is even worse then me in finish what he started 

And I came here to complain how he didn't take into effect that SW world dislikes armors and none of the important character wears armors. 
That is why armors seem bad in SWSE. 
But for D&D armor is a standard and the mechanics around those need to be improved. I would suggest removing Armored Defense from the list of talents and give the effect of that talent to all classes while creating a new talent to be a prerequisite for Improved Armored Defense.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 24, 2009)

Well, in all honesty, it's unlikely that I'll do much more with this idea, for a reason that took me entirely by surprise: I don't really need to.

The truth of the matter is that by carefully pruning available character options, 4E (at least at lower levels) will work just fine for a S&S-type game. I first suspected this might be the case when I saw Punjar: The Tarnished Jewel. My players for the most part are either neutral to 4E or actively like it, so I might as well take advantage of the DDI utilities.

FWIW, I'll post the "Monster Book" in its unfinished form, for anyone who might want to take up the mantle. I'll also post notes on my "Sword & Sorcery 4E" game, if anyone's interested in guidelines of scraping the suck off of 4E.  Here's my game's intro packet for starters:

http://www.rumblepurrlion.com/stuff/dungeons_and_dragons/Zanxadar_player_background.pdf

Thanks for the interest, all! 

-The Gneech


----------



## fireinthedust (Mar 15, 2010)

Just posting to say that I'm really enjoying the conversion.  Well done on the S&S stuff I've read so far.


I'm looking to convert Rifts to SAGA, and I think the magic system will work for the campaign (as the focus is on guns and tech in a cowboy setting).

I'll check it out and see what needs what as I go along!


----------

