# Star Wars Saga, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly



## Dragonblade (Jun 8, 2007)

Now that book has been out for a while, discuss your likes and dislikes.

The Good - Excellent art (even though some is recycled from prior products) and production value. Love the feat and talent system ala d20 Modern. Love the mechanics for the force, skills, combat, space combat, and pretty much everything with some issues below.

The Bad - Square book size? Not a big fan. It feels like a gimmick, doesn't match with my other books and seems designed to obscure the fact that I paid 40 bucks for a lot less content then the previous rulebook by artificially inflating the page count. Still, its a great book so I can't complain too much, but I hope we don't see any more square books.

Also, no substantial setting info on KOTOR, or SW Legacy? Far more interesting settings in my opinion than the overdone Rebellion Era. And Lucas' butchering of the prequels has soured me on the Clone Wars era. I hope to see sourcebooks for those settings soon.

The Ugly - No explanation on leveling beyond 20. But that combined with my utter hatred for a level based action point mechanic really stands out. You should never be forced to level to regain a resource, in my opinion. Never. It bugged me with the whole XP for magic item rules in 3.0 (but you could at least always get more XP), and the action point rules in Eberron just drive me insane. It feels like a DM is forced to rapidly level advance his players. Something like force or action points should replenish every session the way Spycraft does it.

But then to add insult to injury, not only are you forced to level to regain these critical resources, but you hit a wall at level 20.  Absolutely no discussion of level 20 play and its affect on force and destiny points, nor rules on advancing beyond 20 are offered. So once you spend all your Force and Destiny points a level 20 character is just permanently screwed barring GM houserules? This is a huge flaw in the game in my opinion.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 8, 2007)

I've been reading over the book for a few days now, and here are my thoughts:

1)They streamlined the rules, so that's a good thing, right? I mean, it's simpler, isn't it?
Not really. Because it's about 75% the same as the SWRCR, at first glance, you can overlook a lot of the changes and thereby think it's 90% the same. In other words, upon first glance, so many mechanical things are the same, you miss the subtle differences that make a big impact. Some sort of conversion document needs to be forthcoming as a web enhancement, pointing out exactly what's changed, a la 3.0 to 3.5 conversion.

2) No crafting. While they did sorta fold some Tech Specialist abilities into the scoundrel and scout classes, there is no way to mastercraft anything. Some people think it's a good thing, but it's still a big gap IMO.

3) Vehicles and Starships. I understand this is the core rulebook, and I do like the new approach they took to vehicle combat, but the examples are very sparse. The starships not so bad, but there is only one speeder (luke's sandspeeder), one capital class ship (Star Destroyer), one speeder bike (the scout bike from RotJ), etc etc etc. Leaving room for forthcoming sourcebooks is good, but the "out of the box" selection is extremely lacking. Which brings me to...

4) Equipment. Really no different than the RCR, but the equipment chapter is slim. And on top of that, the ranges for weapons takes a step back in Saga. Previously, you had a base range, and for every multiple of that base, you took a -2 to hit, with a cap of 10 range increments. Now, all weapons have Point Blank, Short, Medium, and Long. How far each category is varies for each weapon, but the penalty is static for each range. 

There were lots of things I like about Saga, but in lots of places, they stripped out detail that I felt should have been left in. I mean, if you are going to include Attacks of Opportunity, reach, and some of the other more complicated rules, why take out some of the other features, like the galactic map and astrogation travel times (now it's 1d6 days times youre hyperdrive rating, no matter how far away the destination)? And now area of effect attacks can't deviate, ALWAYS  doing at least half damage (barring Evasion, of course)? Huh?

I'm sure I'll dig up more as I read it more. In the end, it seems like they stripped out a lot of detail, detail I'm sure will be slowly added back in as new suppliments are released.


----------



## Nate Jones (Jun 8, 2007)

Interesting.  Most of the attributes you found "bad" I felt were strengths of the product.  Originally skeptical of the square size, I soon came to see it as a distinct improvement over previous RPG products.  If there ever was a sacred cow of D&D, here it stands.  Hands down, the square format is far more effective than what was used previously.  It feels more natural, it lies flat far easier (An important quality for a reference book), it is far less inconvenient to carry around than RCR, and to be honest, it looks far nicer when laid closed on an end table (Although I'm not sure how often this aspect comes into play).  I for one, hope to see more square books.  

Regarding the lack of specific campaign information regarding the KOTOR-era:  I think the greatest strength of this core rulebook was that it succinctly follows a design goal - model what is seen in the films into a roleplaying system.  While I too am a big fan of the Old Republic era, I'm not sorry to see it absent this book.  At the end of the day, it simply is not part of the films.  Furthermore, in my opinion, it represents a significantly different tone than what is seen in Episodes I-VI.


----------



## Henry (Jun 8, 2007)

One bad so far - ALL diagonal movement costs double; they cut out the "1-2-1-2" thing, which makes for some REALLY odd square movement zones.

It's my first house rule, and I haven't even run the game yet.


----------



## Rhun (Jun 8, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> One bad so far - ALL diagonal movement costs double; they cut out the "1-2-1-2" thing, which makes for some REALLY odd square movement zones.
> 
> It's my first house rule, and I haven't even run the game yet.





I haven't picked up the book yet, but I can already tell I'd be house-ruling this too.


----------



## Felon (Jun 8, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The Ugly - No explanation on leveling beyond 20. But that combined with my utter hatred for a level based action point mechanic really stands out. You should never be forced to level to regain a resource, in my opinion. Never.



You're not regaining the resource. Once an action point is expended, it's gone. In that respect, an action point is (as Unearthed Arcana points) like a magic device with one charge. 

If you dislike the idea of gaining an intangible expendable resource, that is of course your perogative, but I'm not seeing any rational, objective basis for unilaterally saying "never" to the concept.

I guess it's a matter of opinion as to whether action points are so critical that a character is entitled to almost always have one, or whether it just provides a boost for a character that already has an effective array of talents, skills, and feats (and in D&D's case, spells and magic items).


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You're not regaining the resource. Once an action point is expended, it's gone. In that respect, an action point is (as Unearthed Arcana points) like a magic device with one charge.




In which case, you should be able to save them up between levels.

Wasn't there something about regaining force points between fights, though?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jun 8, 2007)

Also, don't forget the Force Secret called "Force Point Recover" which, taken a couple of times, can be a big boon to Jedi. Yoda's got it twice...so he can spend 2 FP's per encounter and get them back at the end. That's pretty renewable at high levels, and not too shabby while levelling.


----------



## Psion (Jun 8, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> One bad so far - ALL diagonal movement costs double; they cut out the "1-2-1-2" thing, which makes for some REALLY odd square movement zones.




Oy. Where'd I put the rolleyes emoticon?

This is definite Barbie "math is hard" material.

Also not a fan of the dumbed down skill system.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Oy. Where'd I put the rolleyes emoticon?
> 
> This is definite Barbie "math is hard" material.



 It's actually the Manhattan distance. Mathematics FTW!

Also, Rystil Arden does this better than me.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 8, 2007)

I generally love everything, but a few things bug me:

1.) There is no way to expand your class skills without multiclassing.

2.) Very skimpy on the sample stuff. Give me 50 more pages with a few more ships, force powers, equipment, sample NPCs, etc. 

3.) The map in the middle of the book. Grrr

Otherwise, I'm liking a lot of it.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I generally love everything, but a few things bug me:
> 
> 1.) There is no way to expand your class skills without multiclassing.




Well, that does kinda make sense in the context of d20. After all, even in D&D there's no way to expand your class skills without multiclassing (except for a couple of obscure feats in splats).


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 8, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You're not regaining the resource. Once an action point is expended, it's gone. In that respect, an action point is (as Unearthed Arcana points) like a magic device with one charge.




IMO, they should be more like Hero Points in M&M, something that's level based and reset at each gaming session. But, that's just me.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> I guess it's a matter of opinion as to whether action points are so critical that a character is entitled to almost always have one, or whether it just provides a boost for a character that already has an effective array of talents, skills, and feats (and in D&D's case, spells and magic items).




Well, you can immediately burn one to prevent death, even if it means breaking the "one force point per turn" rule, so I'd say they are pretty darn critical!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 8, 2007)

Considering the probably 10 minutes per session I've seen blown by players counting out that accursed 1-2-1-2 shuffle, I rejoice at it's demise.  It's not that the math is hard, it's that remembering where you're at when moving diagonally, then moving straight, then diagonally again seems to cause no end of confusion.

The benefits of the square book size have been extensively covered elsewhere.  To whit: less intimidating (and less 'RPGish') for newbies and bookstores, VASTLY easier to hold, stays open better, easier to transport, would fit in a boxed game better.  BTW, it does not, in point of fact, result in less content per page even if you ignore the smaller typeface.

As for Epic rules - d20 Modern didn't have them, D&D 3.0 didn't have them, and d20 Call of Cthulhu didn't have them.  They're neither difficult to figure out (since unlike D&D, you're not dealing with a game-changing power curve every 2-4 levels pre-epic) nor necessary to cover anything in the source material (or much of anything short of Dragonball Z).  In early statting-out tests, I was able to accurately represent characters at 20th level using the unmodified Saga rules that required either 21st-30th level gestalt characters or 31st+ level non-gestalt characters in D&D or d20 Modern.

I'll admit: the sample sections seem incredibly skimpy.  It doesn't matter much to me because I want to use these vastly upgraded rules for other settings, but it's definitely a crimp in using the book to run an actual Star Wars campaign.  The ships are the worst offenders (only ONE capital ship statted, and no space station?), but the sample characters are fairly sparse, too.  Going just by the movies, I'd say Darth Maul or Count Dooku would have been considerably worth statting than General Greivous, for example; also, Jabba the Hutt.

The equipment chapter, on the other hand, I think is nicely streamlined.  The fiddly approach of d20 Modern (or old school D&D with its racks of polearms) seems like it would be wasted on a game that's supposed to be fast and fun in play, not technical.

My only real complaint is that the book is just RIDDLED with typos.  I normally don't mind these, but the overall package is so slick (so much more so than most RPG products), I think it reflects worse on it to have sloppy editing.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 8, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> One bad so far - ALL diagonal movement costs double; they cut out the "1-2-1-2" thing, which makes for some REALLY odd square movement zones.



Probably because it's easier to remember "2-2-2-2" over "1-2-1-2" that plagued the _D&D_ diagonal movement rules by most confuzzled new fans.

It is also one of the strong arguments by pro-hex gamers.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 8, 2007)

I love Star Wars and I love roleplaying, but to be blunt, I already have two editions of the Star Wars D20 RPG and I don't feel like I need another one. If I dig it out again any time soon, I'm far more likely to convert it over to True20 anyway. My feeling is that regardless of the mechanics changes in this edition, it's still just too much too soon. I support Wizards and want to see them do well with all their RPG lines, but I just don't feel like investing in yet another edition of D20 Star Wars. The last version works well enough for my purposes.


----------



## danzig138 (Jun 8, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> seems designed to obscure the fact that I paid 40 bucks for a lot less content then the previous rulebook by artificially inflating the page count.



 You've said this now in a couple of threads. Have you done a word count? A side-by-side comparison of the text from the different editions? Accounting for layout? I'm curious to know how you came to this conclusion of less content, since I haven't seen the book for myself, probably won't for a while, and certainly can't afford to buy it anytime soon. 



> Also, no substantial setting info on KOTOR, or SW Legacy? Far more interesting settings in my opinion than the overdone Rebellion Era. And Lucas' butchering of the prequels has soured me on the Clone Wars era. I hope to see sourcebooks for those settings soon.



 If I was purchasing a SW core rules book, I'd be annoyed at the artifically inflated page count that it would have by haivng information about stuff that I don't consider to be Star Wars - the stuff outside the movies. Knights of the Old Rebublic? Save it for an expansion wher it can be done justice without impacting my core book that should deal only with the movies. 

And I loved the prequels. So with your. . . opinion, we can't really have a civil conversation, you heathen.   



> No explanation on leveling beyond 20.



 Now I don't have any of the expansion books for the previous d20 versions of SW, but I sure don't remember section on post-20th level gaming in the core books. Did I miss something? Again, this seems like something that should be in a supplement. 



> Something like force or action points should replenish every session the way Spycraft does it.



 I disagree. Having them replenish every session (and man, do I hate by-session things, almost as much as duration-by-scene or per-encounter replenishment) makes them less important, and less special IMO. But I also think that things like action/force/hero points should be used for very special situations, and not to make things more cinematic, which is what by-session does IMO. At the same time, I have absolutely no problem with a little sidebar that explains these differences between refreshing points, and gone-for-good points and how it impacts the game, and both are good, just for different groups.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jun 8, 2007)

I love the cover, and I like the square shape. However, I don't understand why people are saying it lays flat easier. It doesn't. For an example of an RPG book that does a great job laying down flat see the third edition GURPS basic book.

While I like the innovative shape, it's obvious that whoever did the layout wasn't really prepared for the change. There is a little less room per page to use (about 1" or 1 1/2" overall) and it really stands out. 

I don't mind the recycled art, as I liked the art from the previous editions. The new art looks pretty good as well -- it's just marred by the strange sense of lump white space caused by the tight page constraints with normal margins.

As for the rules: love the changes. I guess I'll view this as an unofficial update to d20 Modern. I like the simplified skills and the damage threshold system. The talent tree/feat system works well but it isn't very interesting -- it might as well be a level-less system, but I understand why they do it this way.


----------



## JediSoth (Jun 8, 2007)

For what it's worth, according to Amazon.com the Revised Core Rules is 384 pages with 223,318 words. The SAGA edition is 288 pages. They don't have a word count yet. With a smaller page size, I doubt they could lower the font size enough to squeeze more words in nearly 100 fewer pages.

Obviously, word count is not necessarily indicative of quality.

I was pretty hyped up about the SAGA edition when I read the previews, but some of the discussion here has put me off of it. I saw the book in my FLGS and I have to say, I do not like the square shape (nor the small size) at all. Maybe it's new, maybe it's the way of the future, but it does not appeal to my aesthetically. 

I guess part of my problem now is having seen the $40 cover price. It took considerable time to get most of the books of the previous edition because I though they were overpriced. I don't remember the WEG version being that much more expensive than other RPGs. 

JediSoth


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 8, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> But then to add insult to injury, not only are you forced to level to regain these critical resources, but you hit a wall at level 20.  Absolutely no discussion of level 20 play and its affect on force and destiny points, nor rules on advancing beyond 20 are offered. So once you spend all your Force and Destiny points a level 20 character is just permanently screwed barring GM houserules? This is a huge flaw in the game in my opinion.





I understand your point of view,  but i have to argue that you have no need to go over level 20 in Star Wars.   This is not Epic DnD.  If you can't play the kind of game you want between levels 1-20, perhaps it's not the right kind of game for you.  In addition, it would be very easy to adjudicate some Epic Level rules by the GM if you really wanted to.  Few other d20 books have epic level info either. I'm not being smarmy at all,  just stating my thoughts.




			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'll dig up more as I read it more. In the end, it seems like they stripped out a lot of detail, detail I'm sure will be slowly added back in as new suppliments are released.




Yeah, this is exactly what will happen.  I suppose it will be OK if the new sourcebooks are as high quality as this one, but it would have been nice if it were a little fatter.


----------



## Flynn (Jun 8, 2007)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> I guess part of my problem now is having seen the $40 cover price. It took considerable time to get most of the books of the previous edition because I though they were overpriced. I don't remember the WEG version being that much more expensive than other RPGs.




You might consider ordering through Amazon or Walmart.com, then, as the price there is around $26.

Personally, I picked it up and I like it. I find the game mechanics around Force powers to be an outstanding integration of various D20 mechanics, and I like a great majority of the streamlining. I think my only problem really is that grenade-style attacks don't have an attack roll, but instead are treated in the same manner fireball is (i.e. an auto-hit on the area, and a Reflex check for half damage), and I'm smart enough to be able to add that back in. I really think Saga is a step forward in RPG design for WOTC, as it holds a good number of what I would consider to be "second generation" evolutions in the D20 System. Some of it is stuff I'd use for D&D, while some of it definitely is not. (It works for Star Wars, but not necessarily for D&D.)

Just a thought,
Flynn


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Jun 8, 2007)

That much more expensive than other RPGs?  Most core books are that much, with the exception of D&D.

Vampire? $35
True20? $35
L5R? $40
Arcana Evolved? $50
A Game of Thrones? $50
D20 Modern? $40
Call of Cthulhu? $40
Lord of the Rings? $40
Dragonlance? $40
Forgotten Realms? $40
Eberron? $40
Buffy the Vampire Slayer? $40
Qin? $40
Wheel of Time? $40
Exalted? $40
Iron Heroes? $35
Mutants and Masterminds? $40

I could go on, really; these are just a range of prices from my nearby shelf.  Now, $40 is marginally expensive if you're comparing its cost to that of D&D's individual core books ($30), but not overly so.

As a previous poster has suggested, both Wal*Mart and Amazon have the book for about $14 cheaper than the advertised price.

(edit: Just checked my WEG books.  The core book was $35 [1994], the Special Edition Trilogy Sourcebook was $35 [1997], Imperial Sourcebook $25 [1989].  Adjusted for inflation, most of these books would cost about $40 or more today.)

-----

The Good - Most everything in the book.
The Bad - I'm not a fan of the Destiny Points system, just seems extraneous.
The Ugly - Stupid map in the middle of the book.

-TRRW


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Jun 8, 2007)

Flynn said:
			
		

> I think my only problem really is that grenade-style attacks don't have an attack roll, but instead are treated in the same manner fireball is (i.e. an auto-hit on the area, and a Reflex check for half damage).




Actually, this was one of the things I liked.  No more having to roll to hit, then rolling to see where it landed if you missed, then looking up the chart because no one remembers where it is in the book, then rolling again, then rolling damage.  Much quicker for the player to say "I throw a grenade. My attack total is 17", then have the GM compare that number to each of the enemies' Reflex Defense score.

-TRRW


----------



## Gundark (Jun 8, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> One bad so far - ALL diagonal movement costs double; they cut out the "1-2-1-2" thing, which makes for some REALLY odd square movement zones.
> 
> It's my first house rule, and I haven't even run the game yet.




oddly enough I'll be using this rule. For whatever reason my group struggles with the 1-2-1-2-1 rule like nothing else. The new diagonal movement rule makes it easy.


And *DING* post number 1000....that only took me 5 years.


----------



## Rykion (Jun 8, 2007)

I really like the feel of the rules for the Saga Edition.  It's the first D20 Star wars ruleset that has convinced me to run it over WEG's version.  It does have some typos and omissions though.


			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> I think my only problem really is that grenade-style attacks don't have an attack roll, but instead are treated in the same manner fireball is (i.e. an auto-hit on the area, and a Reflex check for half damage), and I'm smart enough to be able to add that back in.



My understanding is that part of the rule for autofire got cut out of the book.  If the attack roll total is not at least 10, the attack completely misses dealing no damage.  I'm planning on using this rule for all area effect attacks.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 8, 2007)

In my personal experience, people who have trouble with 1-2-1-2-1-2 are often very, very bothered by how it breaks their train of thought, and slows an encounter. People who aren't bothered by it always seem able to introduce it even if a rulebook doesn't include it.

Also, I have, literally, seen someone get up and walk away from an effort to teach him roleplaying because the 1-2-1-2 rule was the straw that broke the camel's back. Star Wars has a lot of potential as a gateway. I'd like that gateway to be as inviting as possible.

My thoughts only.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 8, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> Also, I have, literally, seen someone get up and walk away from an effort to teach him roleplaying because the 1-2-1-2 rule was the straw that broke the camel's back. Star Wars has a lot of potential as a gateway. I'd like that gateway to be as inviting as possible.




Funny, i never would have considered that a roleplaying dealbreaker.


----------



## Kesh (Jun 8, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I generally love everything, but a few things bug me:
> 
> 1.) There is no way to expand your class skills without multiclassing.




It's really not necessary. All having a Trained skill does is grant a +5 to the roll. Every skill can be rolled on by every character:

1d20 + one-half your character level + key ability modifier + misc. modifiers

If you're Trained, you get a +5 bonus. If you take the Skill Training feat, you become trained in an additional class skill, and Skill Focus gives you an extra +5 to a Trained skill.

Now, if you're talking about adding skills that are not on your class skill list, then that's true. But, if that's it, just add a feat to your game to allow it. Say, "Cross-Training: Choose a skill not on your class skill list. You may now Train in that skill as if it were on your skill list."



> 2.) Very skimpy on the sample stuff. Give me 50 more pages with a few more ships, force powers, equipment, sample NPCs, etc.




Ships and maybe sample NPCs I can side with. Equipment, not so much, and there's plenty of Force powers given.



> 3.) The map in the middle of the book. Grrr




My only real complaint. I hate tear-out maps in my books.


----------



## Technik4 (Jun 8, 2007)

> But then to add insult to injury, not only are you forced to level to regain these critical resources, but you hit a wall at level 20. Absolutely no discussion of level 20 play and its affect on force and destiny points, nor rules on advancing beyond 20 are offered. So once you spend all your Force and Destiny points a level 20 character is just permanently screwed barring GM houserules? This is a huge flaw in the game in my opinion.




Couldn't you just forget everything you know about Epic rules and add a 21st level? I mean, looking at the book, we see that 18th level requires 153,000 XP, 19th 171,000 (difference is 18,000), and 20th requires 190,000 (difference is 19,000). So, we say that 21st level requires 210,000 XP, 22nd, requires 231,000 XP, and so forth. There, your biggest gripe is fixed.

And saying that a 20th level character is 'just permanently screwed' is laughable. Youre 20th level in a galaxy filled with schlubs! You can use your l33t powers to pwn everyone!

Of course the fact that the two most powerful individuals in the galaxy (Yoda and the Emperor) are both level 20 should indicate that your PCs would have to be pretty important to level beyond that (and I'm glad there aren't pages and pages more of characters statted out - the neatest thing about that section is the little summary about the character).

The only thing that has really bothered me about the book are some of the Typos. Padme's stats include a talent called 'Wanted Alive', which doesn't seem too hard to understand what it does, but would be nice to have written down. The noble table has some numbers shifted improperly (but since the classes are all just talent, feat, talent, after 2nd or 3rd level, its pretty minor).

Good work on the book, its the first Star Wars book I've ever bought besides the original trilogy of novels.


----------



## Henry (Jun 8, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> Also, I have, literally, seen someone get up and walk away from an effort to teach him roleplaying because the 1-2-1-2 rule was the straw that broke the camel's back.




Wow!  That's amazing. Then again, I did use to have the worst trouble with the Knight in chess when I was younger, so different strokes, and all that.



> Star Wars has a lot of potential as a gateway. I'd like that gateway to be as inviting as possible.
> 
> My thoughts only.




Understood; seeing as how it doesn't make a huge difference in play (not like, say, whole mastercraft hullabaloo), it's not a big deal.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 8, 2007)

I am really bothered by the inconsistencies in the skill section.  To take a (not random) example, the Treat Injury skill a numerous uses that appear to be trained only but are not noted as such, while having several uses that include rules for using them untrained but are still Trained Only.

What makes it even worse is that, being a print product, I'll have to pay full price again to get those updated in the book.

Also, I really wish they'd hurry up and post a printable character sheet to the web site.  Photo copying is a pain in the rear.


----------



## Rykion (Jun 8, 2007)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Also, I really wish they'd hurry up and post a printable character sheet to the web site.  Photo copying is a pain in the rear.



It's been there for a few days now.  The link is from Saga Edition corebook page, not the downloads page.  Here is a direct link.
http://www.wizards.com/starwars/downloads/SW_charsheet.pdf


----------



## Psion (Jun 8, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> In my personal experience, people who have trouble with 1-2-1-2-1-2 are often very, very bothered by how it breaks their train of thought, and slows an encounter. People who aren't bothered by it always seem able to introduce it even if a rulebook doesn't include it.
> 
> Also, I have, literally, seen someone get up and walk away from an effort to teach him roleplaying because the 1-2-1-2 rule was the straw that broke the camel's back. Star Wars has a lot of potential as a gateway. I'd like that gateway to be as inviting as possible.




Might I suggest "put it in a sidebar" is a way to keep everyone happy?

Of course, I'll be happy anyways as I'll use the rule whether or it appears in the book. But it makes it that much less likely that I'll participate in a by-the-book game such as a convention game.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jun 8, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The Good - Excellent art (even though some is recycled from prior products)...




I flipped through the book last night and it looked like all the art was recycled. I like the cover treatment though.

As for the 1-2-1 issue, I understand simplifying it, but if you are going to go that route, why not just make it really simple and go with 1-1-1 for any direction?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jun 8, 2007)

In my group we've always counted all movement 1-1-1-1. Orthgonal or diagonal makes no difference to us. Is this a _big_ mistake? We've never had any arguments about it.



			
				CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> As for the 1-2-1 issue, I understand simplifying it, but if you are going to go that route, why not just make it really simple and go with 1-1-1 for any direction?




Yeah! What he said.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 8, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> In my group we've always counted all movement 1-1-1-1. Orthgonal or diagonal makes no difference to us. Is this a _big_ mistake? We've never had any arguments about it.




It's not a big mistake, but one advantage to 2-2-2 is that the exact path doesn't matter (assuming no movement impairing effects).  As long as you know the start square and the end square, all fastest paths to the end square have the same length.

Under 1-1-1 or 1-2-1 the path taken does matter.  Under 1-1-1 you can go a lot further if you travel on a diagonal. 1-2-1 approximates the real distance better, but at the cost of tracking how many diagonals you've taken in your path.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 8, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> It's not a big mistake, but one advantage to 2-2-2 is that the exact path doesn't matter (assuming no movement impairing effects).  As long as you know the start square and the end square, all fastest paths to the end square have the same length.
> 
> Under 1-1-1 or 1-2-1 the path taken does matter.  Under 1-1-1 you can go a lot further if you travel on a diagonal. 1-2-1 approximates the real distance better, but at the cost of tracking how many diagonals you've taken in your path.




QFT.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure why, in a square-grid system, we have diagonal movement and targeting AT ALL.


----------



## Asmor (Jun 8, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not quite sure why, in a square-grid system, we have diagonal movement and targeting AT ALL.




Just an attempt to make things more "realistic," I suppose.

Allowing free movement along diagonals increases the character's effective speed along diagonals.

Not allowing movement along diagonals at all (or going with the 2-2-2 method) decreases the character's effective speed along diagonals.

The real problem here is not the system of counting used, it's the whole idea of using squares for your map. They just don't approximate anything except orthogonal direction well. You could either go with hexes, which are much closer but have their own peculiarities, not to mention are a pain to map with when doing square rooms, or you can bust out a ruler and do it freeform, which is just a big PITA.

After thinking about it for a while, I think I like the 2-2-2/eliminating diagonals idea. It's not perfect, but then this is supposed to be a game and not a simulation.


----------



## Asmor (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It's actually the Manhattan distance. Mathematics FTW!
> 
> Also, Rystil Arden does this better than me.




Thanks for that link, terribly interesting!


----------



## Karl Green (Jun 8, 2007)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> I guess part of my problem now is having seen the $40 cover price. It took considerable time to get most of the books of the previous edition because I though they were overpriced. I don't remember the WEG version being that much more expensive than other RPGs.




I ordered mine from Amazon last Friday and got it on Wednesday with free shipping for $26.37.... I am totally happy with it


----------



## mcrow (Jun 8, 2007)

I'm an old WEG SW fan. Some people don't see that there is much changed between Saga and the other d20 versions. I say, you arn't looking close enough to find all the stuff. 

*The biggest: * Damage & the condition track. This is the greatest thing to happen to d20 since it was invented. 

You get to raise two stats 1 point every fourth instead of 1, one point

*The skill system:* no more ranks (that the rpg gods). Love the "trained" skill rule. Consolidated skills, simple is better IMO. Almost all skills can be attempted untrained, big plus in my book. I like that you have to use a feat to get more trained skills. 

*Force:* using a "use the force skill" is very cool and keeps is simple , plus you automatically get some powers just by selecting it. The Powers are almost perfect. 

*Destiny:* I like it, though it seems a littl forced. NPI. 

The NPC generation and Droid section rock on toast. Again, much more simple yet robust. 

really, I could not be happier with Saga. WotC managed to convert an old WEG d6 fan.


----------



## breschau (Jun 8, 2007)

I'm an old WEG fan too, I can't wait to see what WotC has done to the system.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 8, 2007)

Karl Green said:
			
		

> I ordered mine from Amazon last Friday and got it on Wednesday with free shipping for $26.37.... I am totally happy with it




I took advantage of the free shipping to throw in a couple of packs of Alliance and Empire, too.  Mine should be here by next Wed.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 8, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> It's been there for a few days now.  The link is from Saga Edition corebook page, not the downloads page.  Here is a direct link.
> http://www.wizards.com/starwars/downloads/SW_charsheet.pdf



Thank you very much.  I had not been able to find that at all.


----------



## Jer (Jun 8, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Funny, i never would have considered that a roleplaying dealbreaker.




If you aren't mathematically minded, and you've just been shoved a piece of paper with a list of number on it, a handful of dice of multiple shapes, and you're trying to juggle all of that while someone is telling you the 1-2-1 rule, I could see  deciding that it's too much work for the expected level of fun.  Especially if they've been roped into it by a friend and aren't sure if they're going to like it anyway, or if they're a computer gamer trying out a pencil-and-paper RPG for the first time.

Of course, I still have people in my group who have trouble telling a d12 from a d20 and wondering why they can't hit anything on a given night, so my experience with math-hating folks might be greater than average...


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jun 8, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Of course, I still have people in my group who have trouble telling a d12 from a d20



Key is to tell them that a d20 is made of triangles, a d12 is not, usually seems to help the newbs I've gamed with.


----------



## Felon (Jun 8, 2007)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Well, you can immediately burn one to prevent death, even if it means breaking the "one force point per turn" rule, so I'd say they are pretty darn critical!



Well, it certainly might seem critical to a PC who is about to die, but in a more objective sense, it's only really critical if the PC's deaths are extremely likely to happen without them (like, say, WarHammer RPG, where fate points are also a finite resource resource). I'd say the saga edition delivers some pretty hardy heroes.


----------



## Felon (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> In which case, you should be able to save them up between levels.



Roll over points, huh? A magic item that recharges daily doesn't let unspent charges from the previous day accrue. I currently allow AP's to accrue in my campaign, but I actually am starting to have regrets. Players overstuffed with AP's are a problem, because it equpis them to ruin certain encounters that were intended to be challenging (deadly even).



> Wasn't there something about regaining force points between fights, though?



I think that's the condition track you're thinking of, although I do believe there is a force talent that allows force points to be recovered under certain conditions.


----------



## Felon (Jun 8, 2007)

Force talents are an interesting concept that nobody's talked about yet AFAIK. They are talent trees that aren't linked to a class, but rather are available to any character with the Force Sensitive feat. When you level, you can take a force talent in the place of a class talent.

There are trees for non-jedi traditions too--Sith, Witches of Dathomir, and some other one that the Jedis picked on (the old Jedi council sometimes sound like a bunch of intolerant fascists).


----------



## Felon (Jun 8, 2007)

Something I got a big beef with is the inequity between certain classes. You look at how things pan out and tell me if anybody gets the short end of the stick:

HIT DICE
Noble, Scoundrel--d6
Scout--d8
Jedi, Soldier--d10

SKILLS TRAINED
Jedi--2
Soldier--3
Scoundrel--4
Scout--5
Noble--6

BAB
Noble, Scoundrel, Scout--Tops out at +15
Jedi, Soldier--Tops out at +20


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Wasn't there something about regaining force points between fights, though?




No, that was about regaining your force -powers-

e.g. the Jensaarai Defenders force 'suite' is battle strike (2), Force slam, surge.

Each of these powers can be used once, and then can't be used again until the Jensaaria recovers outside combat or rolls a natural 20 when he 'uses the force'. (he's actually paid for 2 uses of battle strike)

Cheers


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 9, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Something I got a big beef with is the inequity between certain classes. You look at how things pan out and tell me if anybody gets the short end of the stick:
> 
> HIT DICE
> Noble, Scoundrel--d6
> ...




Jedi: Best Bab, Best HP, Worst Skills
Solider: Best Bab, Best HP, Second Worst Skills
Scout: Worst Bab, Medium Hp, Second Best Skills
Noble: Worst Bab, Worst Hp, Best Skills
Scoundrel: Worst Bab, Worst Hp, Medium Skills

I see your point (scoundrel and scout should switch skills) but that doesn't take into account talents and class skills (or starting defenses) that make scoundrels very useful.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 9, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Wasn't there something about regaining force points between fights, though?




There's a Force Technique that lets you get one back at the end of an encounter (and it can be taken more than once). The 'first-level' force-using PrCs -- Jedi Knight, Force Adept, and Sith Apprentice -- all grant Force Techniques every other level.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 9, 2007)

mcrow said:
			
		

> I'm an old WEG SW fan. Some people don't see that there is much changed between Saga and the other d20 versions. I say, you arn't looking close enough to find all the stuff.
> 
> *The biggest: * Damage & the condition track. This is the greatest thing to happen to d20 since it was invented.
> 
> ...



There are some other huge changes that you haven't mentioned, such as adding 1/2 your character level to damage, and saving throws getting a 1 time class bonus (that can be exchanged for a better one if you multiclass or take a prestige class, but you *don't add* the class bonuses together), and instead you add your character level to all of your saving throws.

Also, Initiative is now a skill, Defense/AC is now a saving throw, etc.  Lots of major changes here...


----------



## JEL (Jun 9, 2007)

The only part of the game I don't care for are the aliens.  Greedo was a bounty hunter so all Rodians must be bounty hunters!  Some Bothans are mentioned as spies (how do we even know Bothan is a species?), so all Bothans must be spies!  I realize it's a legacy from WEG, but it's lame and they should have broken from it.  I'd be tempted to just treat aliens as humans in funny masks (which is pretty much how they're handles in the films), if/when I run the game.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 9, 2007)

I received the book two days ago. I have actually read about 130 pages of it. So far, I just can't answer to the "Good, Bad and Ugly" criteria, because I like (almost) everything I'm reading.


----------



## Turjan (Jun 9, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I received the book two days ago. I have actually read about 130 pages of it. So far, I just can't answer to the "Good, Bad and Ugly" criteria, because I like (almost) everything I'm reading.



Neither can I. Although the long list of errata that I saw on the WotC board is a bit sad. Of course, there will always be errata. That's what you get from buying first printings .


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 9, 2007)

JEL said:
			
		

> The only part of the game I don't care for are the aliens.  Greedo was a bounty hunter so all Rodians must be bounty hunters!  Some Bothans are mentioned as spies (how do we even know Bothan is a species?), so all Bothans must be spies!  I realize it's a legacy from WEG, but it's lame and they should have broken from it.  I'd be tempted to just treat aliens as humans in funny masks (which is pretty much how they're handles in the films), if/when I run the game.




The movies aren't the sole data source for the rpg, they have never been.  When further data is availible that fills in more info then just the movies, it is used.  Star Wars has a wealth of information availible at this point from novels, comic books, and video games.  With the exception of the infinities line all of those sources are official parts of the Star Wars universe.

The Bothans weren't a military power due to the Empire's oppression so they adapted to the situation and became spies as an alternative path to power.  Not all Bothans are members of the Bothan spynet but it is the pride of their species due to its role in bringing down the Empire and ending the opression of non-humans across the galaxy.  In later Eras like the NJO era the Bothans began to build up militarily and were creating new classes of capital ships and were a major part of the New Repubic Military.

The movies could never flesh out everything we see in passing since the story of Star Wars follows a specific group of protagonists, its left to the Expanded Universe to flesh out and the EU does the job admirably.


----------



## JEL (Jun 9, 2007)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> The movies aren't the sole data source for the rpg, they have never been.  When further data is availible that fills in more info then just the movies, it is used.  Star Wars has a wealth of information availible at this point from novels, comic books, and video games.  With the exception of the infinities line all of those sources are official parts of the Star Wars universe.




I'm pretty sure we can blame WEG for being the source for a lot of the dumb alien stuff.  Thankfully, I'm not bound by the bad fan fic that is the EU.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 9, 2007)

The Bothans have been featured pretty heavily in the EU, and no not all of it is bad.  The majority is on par with or superior to the movies.  There are definitely some stinkers but its not hard to wade through and find the gems like the Thrawn trilogy, the Rogue Squadron series, Legacy of the Force series, etc.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 9, 2007)

JEL said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure we can blame WEG for being the source for a lot of the dumb alien stuff.



Perhaps (never been a fan of WEG). HOWEVER, even WEG material have to undergo approval review from LFL. I have not yet seen LFL contradicting WEG material ... not yet.



			
				JEL said:
			
		

> Thankfully, I'm not bound by the bad fan fic that is the EU.



Well, there are lots of fans of _EU_ out there. So WotC should not simply ignore their potential income.


----------



## hong (Jun 9, 2007)

JEL said:
			
		

> The only part of the game I don't care for are the aliens.  Greedo was a bounty hunter so all Rodians must be bounty hunters!  Some Bothans are mentioned as spies (how do we even know Bothan is a species?), so all Bothans must be spies!  I realize it's a legacy from WEG, but it's lame and they should have broken from it.  I'd be tempted to just treat aliens as humans in funny masks (which is pretty much how they're handles in the films), if/when I run the game.



 Heck, you have ONE GUY named Darth....


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Jun 9, 2007)

JEL said:
			
		

> The only part of the game I don't care for are the aliens.  Greedo was a bounty hunter so all Rodians must be bounty hunters!  Some Bothans are mentioned as spies (how do we even know Bothan is a species?), so all Bothans must be spies!  I realize it's a legacy from WEG, but it's lame and they should have broken from it.  I'd be tempted to just treat aliens as humans in funny masks (which is pretty much how they're handles in the films), if/when I run the game.




First, let me say I fully understand what you're saying. Planets have more than one climate, the high ground is not a universal solution in a swordfight, and species have more than one potential role.

Second, it's not just WEG legacy anymore even if that's where a lot of that material originated. It is now Star Wars cannon. We could no more break from it than we could decide there were 3 more Death Stars that just didn't finish construction, or the Sith were originally heroic monks who just got misunderstood, or the Y-wing was the coolest starfitghter even with 9 laser cannons. There's a continuity of Star Wars material, and while we can lean on it, add to it, give it context, and modify it in nonintrusive ways, we can;t just break with it.

Third, nowhere in Saga does it say all Bothans are spies. It says they have an inclination toward information brokering, and espionage is a natural part of their culture. Well, aliens from different cultures should have a personality centerline different from humans--who in the real world seem to have an inclination toward open warfare and include games of violence re-enactment as a natural part of their culture. Just as there are pacifist humans, there will be direct-violence Bothans. We discuss how a human would see the norm for other species, not make sweeping declarations about the role of every member of a species. If we fell to hyperbole too often, I apologize.

Honestly, I don't see it as that different from "Dwarves are known for their skill in warfare," or saying halfings are "cunning, resourceful survivors." I mean, dwarves and halflings don't detect as magic so there's isn't some mystic power making all halflings cunning, and Star Wars has the Force to fall back on anyway.

Again, for people just getting into roleplaying through a Star Wars gateway I want a few, easily grasped character hooks for personality. I trust everyone else to make and play they characters they like no matter what the rulebook says.

Owen K.C. Stephens
d20 Triggerman

The next volume is NOW AVAILABLE!
 *Loot 4 Less III: Belts, Boots, Cloaks, & Gloves*


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jun 9, 2007)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Neither can I. Although the long list of errata that I saw on the WotC board is a bit sad. Of course, there will always be errata. That's what you get from buying first printings .



Can you post a link to the errata? All I found in the Errata section was errata for the previous edition, at which is what I suspect you were looking at.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/swrpgrcrerrata


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 9, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Something I got a big beef with is the inequity between certain classes. You look at how things pan out and tell me if anybody gets the short end of the stick:
> 
> HIT DICE
> Noble, Scoundrel--d6
> ...



Closest thing I see to a "short end" is the Scoundrel, who were the skill masters but now have fewer trained skills, and are still tied for worst hit die with the Noble.  At least their Reflex Defense is still decent, but the Scout ties with them there as well, and has better hit dice and more trained skills.

Jedi and Soldier might look like it based on their skills vs. the others, but they make up for it with the biggest hit die per level and best BAB progression.

Also, Jedi characters really only need one skill, Use the Force, to do their thing, and can select talents to enable them to use that one skill in place of several other skills (such as Initiative, Perception, Persuasion, Pilot).  And since most PC Jedis are going to take Skill Focus (Use the Force), that one skill becomes pretty darn potent, especially once Force Powers are factored in to it.  Heck, Force Lightning is by far the deadliest power in the game so far, hitting with the force of a thermal detonator, automatically moving you down one step on the condition track if it hits, and causing you to suffer half damage if it misses.

Soldiers also get a plethora of bonus feats to start with, as well as having the most robust selection of bonus class feats in the game (pretty much every combat feat out there).


----------



## Felon (Jun 9, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I see your point (scoundrel and scout should switch skills) but that doesn't take into account talents and class skills (or starting defenses) that make scoundrels very useful.





			
				Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Closest thing I see to a "short end" is the Scoundrel, who were the skill masters but now have fewer trained skills, and are still tied for worst hit die with the Noble.  At least their Reflex Defense is still decent, but the Scout ties with them there as well, and has better hit dice and more trained skills.



Good eyes. The scoundrel does indeed get the short end of the ol' stick. He gets the lowest hit die, and is less skilled than either a noble or scout. 

This is not a minor oversight. It's a conscious design decision that a bunch of people gave a thumbs-up to during what I hear was supposed to be a very thorough playtesting process. I thought I might be overlooking something, like the scoudrel getting more force points per level, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The scoundrel is quite simply...out-of-whack.

It's most glaring when comparing the scoundrel to the scout. Remathilis is correct in that switching out their skill points would have the obvious balance-conscious thing to do. Rem also mentions talent trees, class skill lists, and starting defense bonuses have to be taken into account, but all of that's a wash. Scoundrels get one talent a level like all other classes. Their skill isn't particularly outstanding (about as generous as a noble or scout's list, which actually aren't really all that better than a jedi or soldier's). Class defense comes to a total of +3 in bonuses just like everyone else. Total wash. 

Evaluating talents is kind of subjective, but having said that, a noble is certainly better equipped to act as a face-man for the party, and a scout is better equipped at stealth and combat. The scoundrel's talent trees are Fortune, Misfortune, Slicer, and Spacer. Frankly, none of them provide a definitive niche for a player IMO. Slicer and Spacer are pretty situational in their usage, making them weak assets. Fortune and Misfortune are mostly just minor buffs and debuffs, but they offer general utility so I suspect that's where we'll see most players gravitate, (actually, I suspect most players considering a scoundrel will give up and gravitate to the scout).

I say this is poorly done, and definitely counts as both a "bad" and an "ugly". Someone go start a thread on the WotC board so we can maybe can official excuse...err, explanation.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 9, 2007)

My main beef is not being able to take a skill cross-classed.  You have to multiclass and then spend another feat on top of that.  The easiest fix is to make the skill training feat let a person take any skill.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2007)

Well, got the book today and been reading over it.  Got to say, i love the rule changes.  I love the damage track, i like how we understand Grapple now, i like the way skills are streamlined and consolidated. 

BUT...and i hate that there is a but...but i don't like the layout of the book.  I flipped through the Revised Edition in my closet (haven't pulled it out in years) and was immensely more impressed with how it looks. WAY more.  So, this just comes down to an aesthetic preference to me.  Fortunately, the rules in the Saga edition are so solid that i would easily start a campaign with those rather than reverting to the "prettier" Revised edition.  I really just wish we could have had the slick look and the content too.


----------



## Victim (Jun 9, 2007)

Scoundrel gets one of the best first level bonus feats: Point Blank Shot.  Useful on its own especially with the massive increase to PB range, and a prereq for other good feats.  Combine that with the misfortune tree with its sneak attack and dastardly strike, and the scoundrel seems much more offensively focused than the scout (with Shake it Off and mostly defensive/skill related talents).  Scouts need Con 13 and Endurance to even get their starting feat.  The scoundrel skill list also seems better than the scout's with Acrobatics, Deception, and Computers over Survival and Climb/Jump/Swim (why aren't you a single skill?).


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2007)

Here's a simple question that I just haven't seen, so I'm assuming it's just me misreading things...  

Does SAGA still have a 5' step? In looking through the AoO rules, it says you provoke an attack whenever you leave a square that's threatened by an opponent, but it doesn't say anything about the 5' step.

Now under the cleave feat, it says that you can't make a "combat adjustment" before your cleave attack, which I assume is similar to the old 5' step, but I can't find a reference for that combat adjustment. Anyone else see what I missed?

--Steve


----------



## Acid_crash (Jun 10, 2007)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> I am really bothered by the inconsistencies in the skill section.  To take a (not random) example, the Treat Injury skill a numerous uses that appear to be trained only but are not noted as such, while having several uses that include rules for using them untrained but are still Trained Only.




I'm confused by what you are saying here... I've got the book, but not with me, and not therefore am I allowed to look and see what you are trying to say about this skill.

Are you saying that this skill is Trained Only, or that only certan aspects are Trained Only and they are just not mentioned as TO in the skill uses option, or what???


----------



## Acid_crash (Jun 10, 2007)

The Good - Square book, streamlined rules, condensed classes and skills and feats and force powers, complete versatility in character design.

The Bad - Reliant on the miniatures rules for the new combat rules and having speeds listed as squares instead of meters or feet.

The Ugly - Lack of Galaxy Map, having a pull out map in the middle of the book, a typical WotC gamemaster chapter that does absolutely nothing to help design adventures or campaigns (about as useless as that ole DMG book for D&D).  

These are my choices as of right now.  

The Good outway the Bad and Ugly by a factor of 10 and this is the first Star Wars game that I can actually see as equal to, and in some aspects, better than WEG Star Wars.  It's about time WotC.

I will forgive you if you rerelease the Galactic Campaign Guide in a new future book for this latest incarnation of Star Wars, cuz that was the best Gamemaster Guide book I've ever read, especially for Star Wars, and just for gamemasters in general.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> My main beef is not being able to take a skill cross-classed.  You have to multiclass and then spend another feat on top of that.  The easiest fix is to make the skill training feat let a person take any skill.



This is another "band and ugly" design decision. If you multi-class, you don't get more trained skills, even if the class you're training into offers more trained skills than the one you came. Going from noble to soldier is a quantifiably better deal than going from soldier to noble--in fact, doing the latter is almost foolish, because the noble very much needs those face-man that it probably didn't get as a soldier.  

I can't think of any reason off-hand why they restricted multi-classing this way. What is wrong with just letting the character gain class skills if the number he currently has is less than what he'd get from the class?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> This is another "band and ugly" design decision. If you multi-class, you don't get more trained skills, even if the class you're training into offers more trained skills than the one you came. Going from noble to soldier is a quantifiably better deal than going from soldier to noble--in fact, doing the latter is almost foolish, because the noble very much needs those face-man that it probably didn't get as a soldier.
> 
> I can't think of any reason off-hand why they restricted multi-classing this way. What is wrong with just letting the character gain class skills if the number he currently has is less than what he'd get from the class?




To be fair, going from noble to soldier, you end up with 12 less starting hit points than if you went from soldier to noble.  I imagine that's why they didn't just automatically up the number of class skills (that and the fact it would pretty much ALWAYS be a no-brainer to take one non-jedi level if you were a jedi).

Also, one thing I've noticed in making characters to explore the system is that, if you don't multiclass or take a PrC, you rapidly run out of bonus feats other than 'Skill Training' and 'Skill Focus.'  So it's not much of a loss, having to take Skill Training multiple times.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Scoundrel gets one of the best first level bonus feats: Point Blank Shot.  Useful on its own especially with the massive increase to PB range, and a prereq for other good feats.  Combine that with the misfortune tree with its sneak attack and dastardly strike, and the scoundrel seems much more offensively focused than the scout (with Shake it Off and mostly defensive/skill related talents).  Scouts need Con 13 and Endurance to even get their starting feat.  The scoundrel skill list also seems better than the scout's with Acrobatics, Deception, and Computers over Survival and Climb/Jump/Swim (why aren't you a single skill?).



Well, you're entitled to opine as you please of course, but I think any suggestion that getting Point Blank Shot as a bonus feat is adequate compensation for the discrepency in hit dice and skills is kind of spurious, especially when the Scout gets one more bonus feat than the Scoundrel (not to mention Point Blank Shot is on its bonus feat list). 

The Sneak Attack and Dastardly Strike feats aren't the powerhouses they were in D&D, and they won't provide the same character-defining niche.

And I think it's kind of questionable to argue that getting a better skill list is compensation for having fewer trained skills, since only your trained skills actually matter (there is no inherent benefit for a skill being on your class list without training).


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> To be fair, going from noble to soldier, you end up with 12 less starting hit points than if you went from soldier to noble.  I imagine that's why they didn't just automatically up the number of class skills (that and the fact it would pretty much ALWAYS be a no-brainer to take one non-jedi level if you were a jedi).



Well, if you multi-class into a skill-oriented class, it seems sensible that you'd actually get skills. You call it a no-brainer deal for the jedi to take a non-jedi level, but as it currently stands it's a no-brainer for him NOT to. If he takes a level in a skill-oriented class, he loses out on hit dice and BAB. He gains...well, pretty little actually. He can pick up proficiency with pistols, I guess.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

Another thing I'm noticing is that there is no real "smart hero" class. If I were to try and create a brainiac character--say an engineer or doctor--I don't think any of the classes would be a good fit. The only class that's really educated is the Noble, and the class skill list is oriented towards social skills, not technical ones. I guess nerdy smart heroes aren't very Star-Warsy.

IIRC, they dropped the techie class from this revision, but they didn't really give it anywhere to go. IMO, what they call the "Noble" class would have fit the bill. They just shouldn't have called it "Noble". To borrow paraphrase Braveheart, what the heck does it mean to be "noble"? It should have been boradened into a general expert-oriented class.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Jun 10, 2007)

Having gotten a good look at it in the FLGS, some thoughts, on the thought that this is a 4e preview:

* For all the griping about allocating skill points for high level characters, the game still keeps the other gripe about high level characters: rolled hit points. A sacred cow that is stupid and inefficient, adding a variable where one need not exist. Give a bonus for size for everyone instead of the max at first level, which makes no sense since there's no roll.

* The idea of half level plus trained plus Skill Focus is great, and needs to be used more. Add this to combat. Make some UA-style weapon groups and call them skills, and let fighters pick from all of them and wizards from none of them and have defenses work the same way. Let armor have a nerfed armor bonus (+1 light, +2 medium, +3 heavy) that always applies to trained users always and everyone gets DR from it; you might want to keep the Reflex Defense skill away from classes that have great armor (like fighters). This is the Core Scaling to go with the Core Mechanic. Doing this makes the epic-level phenomenon of attack bonus outstripping armor class go away.

* This isn't a criticism of the book per se, but can Wizards make a full-size version of the character sheet on its site, instead of one at the size of the book? I understand the issue of including a full-size one with the book, but no such limitation comes with electrons. Oh, yeah, and it's ugly too.

* Can someone playtest the Damage Threshold? I'm intrigued.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I say this is poorly done, and definitely counts as both a "bad" and an "ugly". Someone go start a thread on the WotC board so we can maybe can official excuse...err, explanation.




Since there was playtesting done, maybe you should, heck I dunno... PLAY IT AWHILE before you decide it needs an official "excuse"?

Eyeballing balance is a skill almost no one has, in my experience.

I'll see how it plays before declaring anything broken.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 10, 2007)

Scoundrel does seem like the weakest of the five core classes, but with that said, it *does* seem to have probably the best talents.

Fortune's Favor is absolutely brutal.  Since combat seems to be geared toward 'less time per round, more rounds per combat' with the increased hit points and streamlined system, I wouldn't be surprised if it averages out to an extra action every other combat.

Also, why is sneak attack not defining in this system?  At 1st level, a sneak attacking scoundrel's average damage with a blaster pistol (14) is better than a jedi's with a lightsaber and 15 Str (13) or a soldier's with a blaster rifle (13.5).  If the scoundrel sticks with sneak attack, he should be able to consistently stay ahead of the damage curve of all other characters (unless the party force user discovers the power of the dark side and starts busting out force lightning  ).

Also, unlike D&D's version of sneak attack with its list of 'does not works,' Star Wars sneak attack works against EVERYTHING - including, unless I missed a reference somewhere, droids and vehicles.  The tradeoff being it doesn't work on flanking, which is, admittedly, a big minus, but I could certainly see a damage-oriented scoundrel taking sneak attack and dastardly strike being competitive with other damage-dealers.


----------



## Henry (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Another thing I'm noticing is that there is no real "smart hero" class. If I were to try and create a brainiac character--say an engineer or doctor--I don't think any of the classes would be a good fit. The only class that's really educated is the Noble, and the class skill list is oriented towards social skills, not technical ones. I guess nerdy smart heroes aren't very Star-Warsy.




If you look closely, the Noble is the most kick-butt doctor in the Core Saga rules. They get Treat Injury as a Skill, as well as all the Knowledges (life sciences for example), AND cybernetic Surgery and Sugical Expertise as bonus feats. Short of some kind of talent tree that raises the dead (which the Treat Injury already does within 1 round), then they ARE the doctors of this new Star Wars.



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> Does SAGA still have a 5' step?




Nope - dead and gone. Do, however, check out "Withdraw" action.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 10, 2007)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> The Good - Square book, streamlined rules, condensed classes and skills and feats and force powers, complete versatility in character design.




I really like the streamlining and condensing going on in this book.  I know a lot of people aren't the happiest with skills, but I like it.  I think the preview for the skills was dead on about min/maxing ranks or being a jack-of-all-trades.  Plus, for all intents and purposes, all skills are available.

The square book, IMO, is something I'm indifferent on.  It's nifty, perhaps gimmicky.  I'm not inspired by it, but I don't hate it by any means.  



> The Bad - Reliant on the miniatures rules for the new combat rules and having speeds listed as squares instead of meters or feet.




I have to agree with this too.  Miniatures, IMO, should be optional, not required.


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 10, 2007)

As a long time Star Wars fan and gamer I thought the book was...nice. Better then the previous attempts but still not enough to shake my love of the WEG D6 game. I just don't feel class and level fit the Star Wars universe. I never think of Han as a X level Scoundrel or Scout or whatever. He's a Smuggler. Chewbacca is a Wookiee Mechanic. My players are a Vigilante Jedi, an Alien Space Pirate, A Twi'lek Pod Racer, a Renegade Stormtrooper and a Piloting Droid. It's just easier to 'feel' the atmosphere that way IMHO.

AD


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Nope - dead and gone. Do, however, check out "Withdraw" action.



(On the 5' step). Thanks! I imagine the reference under cleave is a remnant from an earlier edition of the rules then. I like it.

--Steve


----------



## DethStryke (Jun 10, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I have to agree with this too.  Miniatures, IMO, should be optional, not required.




This whole miniatures/squares complain seems like a very fickle one to me.

First, as long as you know how big the square is (1.5m), you know their movement anyway. In that respect, either squares or meters is six and one-half-dozen kind of complaint; People on both sides can argue the same.

Second, the rules clarify how to measure the important details on a board (from where to where, burst always targets the "cross-hairs" of the squares, etc.), which is good. That's not something that many new players are familiar with. If they WANT to use miniatures, they should know how. If you don't want to, then ignore and skip to the next paragraph.

Third, Any group who decides to not use miniatures would decide those line-of-sight and grid related details on the fly anyway ("You see the trooper, and can take a shot from where you are"). The largest problem you've presented is that you have to mentally double the movement in squares to get distance. Determining what anything is x1.5 to get Meters is easy-peasy.

Fourth, miniatures are cool.   
No one is forcing you buy them, but if it gives a boost to RPG sales because the miniatures are cool and they make more money, we get more support as a SW RPG community and more potential players to play RPGs with. Everyone wins.

Fifth, I like lists.

I'm just not seeing a down side enough to make it even worth complaining about, unless that was just your way of saying "You whipper snappers should stay off my lawn with your crazy miniature people!"


----------



## DethStryke (Jun 10, 2007)

The Green Adam said:
			
		

> As a long time Star Wars fan and gamer I thought the book was...nice. Better then the previous attempts but still not enough to shake my love of the WEG D6 game. I just don't feel class and level fit the Star Wars universe. I never think of Han as a X level Scoundrel or Scout or whatever. He's a Smuggler. Chewbacca is a Wookiee Mechanic. My players are a Vigilante Jedi, an Alien Space Pirate, A Twi'lek Pod Racer, a Renegade Stormtrooper and a Piloting Droid. It's just easier to 'feel' the atmosphere that way IMHO.




I'm on the fence with and against this concept. Part of me says that is very true just as you wrote it. Another part of me says that class is a mechanic tool for balancing the game which has benefits beyond flavor text... level is a guide for how good/dangerous anything is, quick reference at best.

Do you think that you could still get the same description for any character - Smuggler or Wookiee Mechanic - if you just introduce your character to everyone else that way? I mean, who cares what combination of skills, feats and classes you put together to make it. The important part is how you relate that through Role Playing at the table...

Thoughts?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 10, 2007)

Actually, aren't miniatures people technically MORE old skool, rather than less?  Dang 2e AD&D whippersnappers, get off my minis-festooned lawn!

Anyway, even if I wasn't using miniatures, why does the squares/meters distinction matter?  Maybe in the Star Wars universe, they refer to their ranges by their unit of measurement - the square!  (Note: I'm sure in some EU source, or maybe even in the movies, someone references the ACTUAL units of measurement they use, but I don't remember it, so...  )  It's actually not a bad unit of measurement even for an abstract system, being 'the space occupied by an average human' and whatnot.

Certainly 'Move 6' is easier to remember/adjudicate on the fly than 'Move 30 but 5 is the smallest relevant distance' - the end result is exactly the same, with or without minis.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Since there was playtesting done, maybe you should, heck I dunno... PLAY IT AWHILE before you decide it needs an official "excuse"?
> 
> Eyeballing balance is a skill almost no one has, in my experience. I'll see how it plays before declaring anything broken.



This is the same obligatory commentary we see in any such discussion. Though it's kind of a jejune sentiment, sometimes it has value and sometimes it doesn't. This is the latter, because it's not a matter of "eyeballing" some elusive abstraction. The discrepencies we're talking about are straightforward quantifiables, and measuring how they balance out isn't all that tricky. Not only is it in fact possible to discuss and analyze data without implementing it, but heck, sometimes it's even a good idea.   And the number of people adept at doing so is in excess of "almost nobody". This isn't rocket science, or rocket art for that matter.

"Seeing how it plays" is not going to reveal that the scoundrel's ratio of quantifiable bonuses (skills, hit dice, BAB) aren't any different than what they appear to be in the book. Moreover, playing it "awhile" just amounts to dismissing an objective analysis for a subjective one that's diluted by external factors. A scoundrel PC might limp along for the entire campaign, and he might be the star of the game, and either way neither are likely to cause the universe to implode, but all that could be said of a commoner PC in D&D. But that doesn't make the commoner a well-designed, well-balanced addition to a party.

No, if analyzing the class without playing it is no good for you--if it MUST be played in order to draw any conclusions--well then, it must be played more than "awhile". It's got to played exhaustively by a diverse group of players testing a vast array of different scoundrel builds for at least several years. Only then can you have a satisfactory conclusion. Let us know how it works out. My bet is that everyone who thought the class got a bum deal before playing it will have their opinions reinforced, while those who thought the other guys were a bunch of Chicken Littles will wind up satisfied that their assessments were confirmed.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Scoundrel does seem like the weakest of the five core classes, but with that said, it *does* seem to have probably the best talents.
> 
> Fortune's Favor is absolutely brutal.  Since combat seems to be geared toward 'less time per round, more rounds per combat' with the increased hit points and streamlined system, I wouldn't be surprised if it averages out to an extra action every other combat.




Well, this is a good example of a quantifiable game element. If you have only one attack per round, and it only scores a crit on a 20, then you may indeed see one every other combat. I don't know how good a sell that is, though, because folks tend to want their abilities to work when they want them to. 



> Also, why is sneak attack not defining in this system?  At 1st level, a sneak attacking scoundrel's average damage with a blaster pistol (14) is better than a jedi's with a lightsaber and 15 Str (13) or a soldier's with a blaster rifle (13.5).  If the scoundrel sticks with sneak attack, he should be able to consistently stay ahead of the damage curve of all other characters (unless the party force user discovers the power of the dark side and starts busting out force lightning  ).



Well, he's going to stay ahead of the damage curve in those situations where he actually get his sneak attack benefit, but that's not going to be one surprise round attack followed by a pumped-up initiative roll and then, assuming he beats the mooks' initiatives, he unleashes a full round of blitzkrieg attacks followed a by a flanking maneuver and then another blitzkrieg. Fewer attacks and a tightened-up definition of "flat-footed" makes it harder to milk that damage-dealing ability.

D&D's sneak attack was the 3.0 designers' clever way of transitioning the thief's backstab ability from a maneuver that required a lot of slow skulking n' stalking into one that connoted sudden action and acrobatics. Star Wars' sneak attack is more akin to....well, a sneak attack.    You're back to having to set up actual ambushes rather than just rolling well on initiative.

I don't see an Improved Feint feat. Perhaps I missed it masquerading under a different name? A sneak-attacking scoundrel really needs stuff like that.



> Also, unlike D&D's version of sneak attack with its list of 'does not works,' Star Wars sneak attack works against EVERYTHING - including, unless I missed a reference somewhere, droids and vehicles.  The tradeoff being it doesn't work on flanking, which is, admittedly, a big minus, but I could certainly see a damage-oriented scoundrel taking sneak attack and dastardly strike being competitive with other damage-dealers.



I was a little disappointed that the skirmish talent just provides a +1 to attack. It could've provided a nice vehicle for flattening your enemies' feet.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> If you look closely, the Noble is the most kick-butt doctor in the Core Saga rules. They get Treat Injury as a Skill, as well as all the Knowledges (life sciences for example), AND cybernetic Surgery and Sugical Expertise as bonus feats. Short of some kind of talent tree that raises the dead (which the Treat Injury already does within 1 round), then they ARE the doctors of this new Star Wars.



Indeed, not only do nobles make good doctors, but all doctors must be noble, for it is the only class that can be trained in Treat Injury. 

Or is there some way in SWSE to train a skill that's not on your class list? If not, I suspect I will favor a house rule that allows the extra trained skills gained from Int. modifier to be chosen freely, heedless of class list restrictions.


----------



## hong (Jun 10, 2007)

Soldiers have Treat Injury as a class skill. So you can either be a rich civilian doctor, or a combat medic. Works for me.


----------



## hong (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> D&D's sneak attack was the 3.0 designers' clever way of transitioning the thief's backstab ability from a maneuver that required a lot of slow skulking n' stalking into one that connoted sudden action and acrobatics.




It's terrible at connoting sudden action and acrobatics. No matter how acrobatic and agile you are, outside the first round of combat you still can't sneak attack without someone to flank for you. Yes, I know about Improved Feint.

Now the IH method whereby you can provide flanking for yourself, or use skill challenges with Tumble and Jump to deny Dex bonus to AC, that's much more "sudden action and acrobatics". D&D sneak attack is more about tactical maneuvering and battlefield control.


----------



## Victim (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Indeed, not only do nobles make good doctors, but all doctors must be noble, for it is the only class that can be trained in Treat Injury.
> 
> Or is there some way in SWSE to train a skill that's not on your class list? If not, I suspect I will favor a house rule that allows the extra trained skills gained from Int. modifier to be chosen freely, heedless of class list restrictions.




Soldiers also have Treat Injury.



> The discrepencies we're talking about are straightforward quantifiables, and measuring how they balance out isn't all that tricky. Not only is it in fact possible to discuss and analyze data without implementing it, but heck, sometimes it's even a good idea.  And the number of people adept at doing so is in excess of "almost nobody". This isn't rocket science, or rocket art for that matter.




Yeah, that's great.  But in our analysis of the class abilities, we can disagree as to the values of various feats and talents.  

For instance, the ability to inflict a -2 on the condition track (-1 Dastardly, plus sneak attack probably generates enough damage) when you get the jump on someone is very good, especially if used as part of a coordinated strategy.  Work with another character who dishes out conditions [scoundrel, bounty hunter or Jedi (Force Stun, Adept Negociator)] or use poison, and you can do a condition spike and inflict extreme penalties.  Sure, evasion and some of the skill rerolls are good, but they don't seem to have talents that fit together so well as part of a strategy.

Similarly, I can argue that the Scout's need to train in Endurance to get their starting feat reduces the value of both their feats and their number of trained skills.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 10, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Anyway, even if I wasn't using miniatures, why does the squares/meters distinction matter?  Maybe in the Star Wars universe, they refer to their ranges by their unit of measurement - the square!  (Note: I'm sure in some EU source, or maybe even in the movies, someone references the ACTUAL units of measurement they use, but I don't remember it, so...  )  It's actually not a bad unit of measurement even for an abstract system, being 'the space occupied by an average human' and whatnot.



For the record, the Star Wars galaxy is on the Metric system, they even use it in the movies. . .

Remember the briefing scene in Episode IV, talking about the exhaust port in the Death Star?  It's repeatedly mentioned as being "two meters wide". 

While they do use a calendar unique to Star Wars, in terms of units of measurement they use Metric pretty much everywhere in the EU or movies whenever one comes up, the only non-metric unit used is parsec for interstellar distance.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't see an Improved Feint feat. Perhaps I missed it masquerading under a different name? A sneak-attacking scoundrel really needs stuff like that.




Well, initiative is a skill, so there is skill training and skill focus feats, right?


----------



## Neo (Jun 10, 2007)

looks nice, but I have to say that as much as I love Star Wars I will not be buying the new version.

I'm getting pretty sick on the whole of this trend of a new Edition every few years nonsense its bad enough with D&D and now we get it with SW, its not about revitalising or rejuvenating the rulesets as that can be done with sourcebooks or options books for existing versions... its about money pure and simple, and I for one am getting pretty tired after 28 years of gaming of having to shell out more £££ every time they decide to defunct one edition so as to make room for another that has relatively minimal changes anyway.

It is this continual respawning in my experience that has been a large dent in the interest of pnp RPG enthusiasts as a whole as well as getting old gamers back into the hobby after a break.  I cannot count the number of times I've discussed with people getting back into gaming, and then they hear a new edition is out and the books they had are now defunct and then the old gamers never return to the hobby because they dont want to have to shell out again.

Nope, for me I have to say I'll be sticking to SW Revised core edition and make/house rules what I need to keep playing it and SAGA can go about its merry way without my hard earned £££ and the same goes for the inevitable D&D 4th.  Enough is most assuredly enough.

The new edition is a very pretty book though and the shape didnt seem such a bad thing.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 10, 2007)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> I'm confused by what you are saying here... I've got the book, but not with me, and not therefore am I allowed to look and see what you are trying to say about this skill.
> 
> Are you saying that this skill is Trained Only, or that only certan aspects are Trained Only and they are just not mentioned as TO in the skill uses option, or what???



Certain aspects (Treat Disease, Treat Poison, Treat Radiation) are listed as Trained Only but include a sentence about the differences between untrained use and trained use.

It's inconsistent and confusing.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jun 10, 2007)

The Green Adam said:
			
		

> As a long time Star Wars fan and gamer I thought the book was...nice. Better then the previous attempts but still not enough to shake my love of the WEG D6 game. I just don't feel class and level fit the Star Wars universe. I never think of Han as a X level Scoundrel or Scout or whatever. He's a Smuggler. Chewbacca is a Wookiee Mechanic. My players are a Vigilante Jedi, an Alien Space Pirate, A Twi'lek Pod Racer, a Renegade Stormtrooper and a Piloting Droid. It's just easier to 'feel' the atmosphere that way IMHO.




And that's okay.  Use the rules system that you think works best for your game.

In my case, I have a character I've played for several years who has been in a homebrew White Wolf system, the WEG d6 system, and every version of the d20 system to date.  He's been around the block a few times.    What I really like is that the designers of the d20 SW game have made some good attempts to try to keep some of the WEG feel, especially with Force powers.  

To each their own.  If the new rules work for you, great.  If not, then don't sweat it.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 10, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Well, initiative is a skill, so there is skill training and skill focus feats, right?




You can use the Deception skill to feint in combat as a standard action; if you've got a Noble ally with Inspire Haste, then you could -- I think -- get encouraged to make the Deception check as a move action. Or possibly inspire yourself with a one-level dip into Noble.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 10, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> If you look closely, the Noble is the most kick-butt doctor in the Core Saga rules. They get Treat Injury as a Skill, as well as all the Knowledges (life sciences for example), AND cybernetic Surgery and Sugical Expertise as bonus feats. Short of some kind of talent tree that raises the dead (which the Treat Injury already does within 1 round), then they ARE the doctors of this new Star Wars.




The absolute most kick-butt doctor in Saga is a Force Sensitive Noble/Force Adept (about the only way to make a good Force Healer is with talents in the Force Adept tree).


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> No, if analyzing the class without playing it is no good for you--if it MUST be played in order to draw any conclusions--well then, it must be played more than "awhile". It's got to played exhaustively by a diverse group of players testing a vast array of different scoundrel builds for at least several years. Only then can you have a satisfactory conclusion. Let us know how it works out. My bet is that everyone who thought the class got a bum deal before playing it will have their opinions reinforced, while those who thought the other guys were a bunch of Chicken Littles will wind up satisfied that their assessments were confirmed.




This book already did that for you.

But hey, feel free to dismiss everyone else. 

Hell, why does anyone need to playtest anything if you can just read things and tell?

The whole reason playtesting is important is that you cant.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It's terrible at connoting sudden action and acrobatics. No matter how acrobatic and agile you are, outside the first round of combat you still can't sneak attack without someone to flank for you.



Yes, getting into the flanking position is where acrobatics comes in. I don't why you say it's terrible at connoting sudden action, other than just being arguementative, because that requires even less explanation. If you beat your opponent on initiative, you can paste him regardless of how long he's been aware of you standing there, merely because you acted first (indeed, the "sneak-attack-lite" class feature that doesn't include flanking is called..._Sudden_ Strike).

EDIT--Still, I don't disagree that it does as good a job at turning skulkers into skirmishers as it was intended to. I think that's partially how the Scout wound up with its groovy little Skirmish ability.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But hey, feel free to dismiss everyone else.
> 
> Hell, why does anyone need to playtest anything if you can just read things and tell?
> 
> The whole reason playtesting is important is that you cant.



Your post wasn't a rebuttal submitted for my consideration, so there wasn't anything to dismiss. You were dismissing me, and seemed quite content to do so, and everyone else who thinks they can make educated esitimations about class balance. So glass houses and all that jazz. 

What playtesting does more than anything is see how much people like the new stuff. It's a focus group more than anything. For instance, in 3.0's development magic missile was being considered for revision into an attack that allowed a Reflex save. It did a bit more damage, and the designers' comment was probably more balanced than a no-save effect.--but they say players hated it.


----------



## Felon (Jun 10, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Soldiers also have Treat Injury.



I scanned for it and didn't see it, but I'm glad it's there.

I would've preferred to see it under the Scout list, since they're already a Wisdom-invested class for Perception and Survival, and the idea of scouts as field medics makes sense.


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 10, 2007)

DethStryke said:
			
		

> I'm on the fence with and against this concept. Part of me says that is very true just as you wrote it. Another part of me says that class is a mechanic tool for balancing the game which has benefits beyond flavor text... level is a guide for how good/dangerous anything is, quick reference at best.
> 
> Do you think that you could still get the same description for any character - Smuggler or Wookiee Mechanic - if you just introduce your character to everyone else that way? I mean, who cares what combination of skills, feats and classes you put together to make it. The important part is how you relate that through Role Playing at the table...
> 
> Thoughts?




I suppose but look at the discussion of Scoundrel as potentially a weaker class then the others. So if level is a guide and reference to how tough something is, a 5th level Smuggler should be as tough as a 5th level Jedi, yet it seems that is not the case.

Everyone in WEG D6 starts with 18 dice in their Attributes. Then they get 7 to modify their skills. Then they get three specializations. If the Jedi puts more dice into his Force Abilities then his Brawling he won't be able to handle a good ol'fashioned fist fight against a Gamorrean. This makes sense considering his other advantages. Give and take without the arbitrary class and level restrictions to age.

This is just IMHO and I'm not looking to argue the point or even convert others to my thinking. To be honest it's more a part of the flavor and atmosphere of the SW universe that I think is better handled by the old WEG system. It just always felt more fun. D20 is people discussing weapon speed ratios and group tactics and such is regards to fictional things like lightsabres and Gungans. D6 is about leaping over the wall as the base explodes under a sky full of space fighters. It's how the different games were written to me.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jun 10, 2007)

Some people said if I want to play beyond 20, then I shouldn't play Star Wars. Well, thats not really the point. The problem is you have a resource that is level dependent but then at 20th level you have no way to ever regain this resource. So if a non-Jedi character (or a Jedi who did not take the ability to reclaim his spent force points) gets to 20th level and uses up all their force points, what are they supposed to do? They are just permanently handicapped? This is a logic flaw in the game itself. And in my opinion its a pretty serious flaw.

I don't necessarily need rules for play beyond 20th level, but they do need to address the problem of 20th level characters restoring spent force points. Or revise the rules to make Force Points a per session resource, or a resource that recovers over time (per day, or whatnot). Which is how it should be in my opinion.

But the rest of the rules rock. I like the feat and talent system (although I think you could have taken it a step further and just made the whole system classless). I love the starship combat rules. I like the way the force works, although I think you should be able to meditate for a round and reclaim a spent force power like the Sword Sage can in ToB, also if you think about Qui-Gon Jin meditating during his fight with Darth Maul, it would even fit the movies well.

Bottom line, is despite the flaws I think this is better than the first two incarnations of d20 SW, and with my house rules, better than even WEG SW. And that is high praise from me.

The authors have not only gotten me excited about playing SW again, but now I'm seriously interested in picking up SW minis for both characters and starships. So again WotC, kudos on making some good product tie-ins.


----------



## Victim (Jun 10, 2007)

Amazingly, analysts on message boards didn't provide a perfect read of the Monk or convetional Mystic Theurges initially.  



> Everyone in WEG D6 starts with 18 dice in their Attributes. Then they get 7 to modify their skills. Then they get three specializations.




Unless you're going to argue that all combinations of attributes and skills are equivalent, then the same issue applies in d6.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 10, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> This is a logic flaw in the game itself. And in my opinion its a pretty serious flaw.




To me, it's a trivial thing at best. If my players get their characters to 20th level in my campaign, it's time for a new campaign.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Crothian (Jun 10, 2007)

If I have to play a game for a year and a half before I even get to the Flaw I'm going to call it a very minute flaw.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I scanned for it and didn't see it, but I'm glad it's there.
> 
> I would've preferred to see it under the Scout list, since they're already a Wisdom-invested class for Perception and Survival, and the idea of scouts as field medics makes sense.




Also, Scouts as members of societies that are highly self-sufficient.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 11, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Your post wasn't a rebuttal submitted for my consideration, so there wasn't anything to dismiss. You were dismissing me, and seemed quite content to do so, and everyone else who thinks they can make educated esitimations about class balance. So glass houses and all that jazz.
> 
> What playtesting does more than anything is see how much people like the new stuff. It's a focus group more than anything. For instance, in 3.0's development magic missile was being considered for revision into an attack that allowed a Reflex save. It did a bit more damage, and the designers' comment was probably more balanced than a no-save effect.--but they say players hated it.




I dismissed you because you proved you know absolutely nothing about rules design. Either you can read things and pick out balance, or playtesting is vitally important.

I have a real good eye for rules, but Ive found time and again that things I didnt think were unbalanced, actually were. And I only noticed this in playtesting.

It's not just a focus group.

And Im not dismissing everyone who thinks they can make an educated guess at balance. Of course you can. Im dismissing the notion that you can add up a class like a math formula, which was what you were saying. 

What I said was, you have read the book, and others have playtested it.

Im going to roll with the judgement of folks who have played it over someone who hasn't. 

I can look at a movie trailer and make an educated guess whether or not it would be good without seeing it. But if I argued with someone who HAD seen it about how well made it was, that would be pretty dumb.


----------



## Allensh (Jun 11, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Some people said if I want to play beyond 20, then I shouldn't play Star Wars. Well, thats not really the point. The problem is you have a resource that is level dependent but then at 20th level you have no way to ever regain this resource. So if a non-Jedi character (or a Jedi who did not take the ability to reclaim his spent force points) gets to 20th level and uses up all their force points, what are they supposed to do? They are just permanently handicapped? This is a logic flaw in the game itself. And in my opinion its a pretty serious flaw.
> 
> I don't necessarily need rules for play beyond 20th level, but they do need to address the problem of 20th level characters restoring spent force points. Or revise the rules to make Force Points a per session resource, or a resource that recovers over time (per day, or whatnot). Which is how it should be in my opinion.
> 
> ...




You could always continue the progression of experience points past level 20 solely for the purpose of regaining Force points. I wouldn't be that surprised to see some kind of mechanic for this. Myself, if I had a character that attained 20th level, I'd probably just have him become one with the Force and start a new one.

Allen


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I dismissed you because you proved you know absolutely nothing about rules design. Either you can read things and pick out balance, or playtesting is vitally important.



Well, you're a surly little fellow today aren't you?

Your attitude was dismisive and hostile before we even got into the matter of playtesting. 



> And Im not dismissing everyone who thinks they can make an educated guess at balance. Of course you can. Im dismissing the notion that you can add up a class like a math formula, which was what you were saying.



You did in fact say that eyeballing balance was a skill that "almost nobody" has. Now you're acknowledging that it's entirely possible.

Not that I mind the shift in position, mind you. There certainly are flat quantifiables within a class, such as hit points, BAB, and trained skills. It's a math exercisie to weigh how the scout makes out compared to otehrs.. If you want to argue that the scoundrel makes up the shortfall somewhere ekse, and that it will blossom to reveal itself during actual play, I'd entertain if not agree with it, as I've done with others above.

But if all you've got are bad manners to fuel your side of the discussion, I'll just report your rudeness and move on.


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Also, Scouts as members of societies that are highly self-sufficient.



Exactly, that's what I meant when I said it made sense.


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Well, initiative is a skill, so there is skill training and skill focus feats, right?



Right, but being able to attempt a feint as a move action would help the scoundrel to milk his sneak attack within a single round as part of a one-two combo. I didn't see anything in the description of feinting to indicate it was melee only either.


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

> Similarly, I can argue that the Scout's need to train in Endurance to get their starting feat reduces the value of both their feats and their number of trained skills.



I wanted to sit down and look at Endurance for a while before replying to this. Endurance seem like a pretty suboptimal feat for a scout, and it doesn't act as a gateway to any feats other than Extra Second Wind. Which does turn it into a matter of personal choice here: do you want another second wind more than you want to train some other skill on the scout's list? If you opt for the former, you come out one feat ahead of the scout. If not, you can pass on the feat and come out ahead on skills with the same number of starter feats, and I'd suggest that WF with rifles is as much of an offensive boost as Point Blank Shot, as rifles serve up a damage and range increment boost. Either way, I'd say you're ahead of the scoundrel's game and that's without even taking hit dice into account.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 11, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Right, but being able to attempt a feint as a move action would help the scoundrel to milk his sneak attack within a single round as part of a one-two combo.



Which is counter to the increased duration of combat that the new ruleset encourages.  Thus, leaving it out becomes a conscious design decision to keep damage lower and lower the value of the sneak attack talents.  This is a good thing, since it encourages scoundrels to take all those other juicy talents they have access to.


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> I wanted to sit down and look at Endurance for a while before replying to this. Endurance seem like a pretty suboptimal feat for a scout, and it doesn't act as a gateway to any feats other than Extra Second Wind. Which does turn it into a matter of personal choice here: do you want another second wind more than you want to train some other skill on the scout's list? If you opt for the former, you come out one feat ahead of the scout. If not, you can pass on the feat and come out ahead on skills with the same number of starter feats, and I'd suggest that WF with rifles is as much of an offensive boost as Point Blank Shot, as rifles serve up a damage and range increment boost. Either way, I'd say you're ahead of the scoundrel's game and that's without even taking hit dice into account.



Have you actually opened the book?  Nothing in this statement accurately reflects any of the mechanics it purports to talk about.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 11, 2007)

Vigilance and Felon - it seems that you two guys are having problems communicating well at the moment.

As a result I must ask you not to reply to each other in this thread again, OK? Feel free to continue posting about things you think are good, bad or ugly, just don't reply to each other.

Thanks.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 11, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Right, but being able to attempt a feint as a move action would help the scoundrel to milk his sneak attack within a single round as part of a one-two combo. I didn't see anything in the description of feinting to indicate it was melee only either.




Doh! I even quoted you saying 'Improved Feint' but my brain interpreted it as 'Improved Initiative'. If you'd said 'Improved Initiative' my comment would have made sense, but as it is my comment is complete rubbish


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 11, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> To me, it's a trivial thing at best. If my players get their characters to 20th level in my campaign, it's time for a new campaign.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



Same, given how rare 20th level characters are in Star Wars, if you've got an entire party of 20th level PC's you probably should be starting a new campaign.

All versions of the rules to date, only Yoda and Palpatine are 20th level, although Legacy-era Luke Skywalker is probably 20th level too.  Even Darth Vader was only 19th level, and Mace Windu was 18th level.  

If you've got an entire party of 20th level PC's, you really should be moving along, just like in D&D if you've got a party of heroes that is each one more powerful than the most legendary heroes of the galaxy, it's definitely time to move along with a new campaign.

If Force Points not replenishing at 20th level is that much of an issue to you and you really want to keep going at 20th level, the simplest solution is to just periodically replenish Force Points every few sessions.


----------



## Henry (Jun 11, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> All versions of the rules to date, only Yoda and Palpatine are 20th level, although Legacy-era Luke Skywalker is probably 20th level too.  Even Darth Vader was only 19th level, and Mace Windu was 18th level.




Heck, in the books, the core characters should probably be moving on, too.  Luke is, what, 60 by the time of the Legacy of the Force series? Han is probably 65-70? If a 20th level character is reaching age 70 or so (human, anyway), verisimilitude ought to have them retiring or dying, anyway...


----------



## Flynn (Jun 11, 2007)

In regards to the Force Point issue, I'd suggest a Force-Point-By-Session mechanic, perhaps similar to the following:


```
Level	FP/Session
1-5	1
6-11	2
12-17	3
18+	4
```

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 11, 2007)

Lack of epic rules is definitely not a fault for a core book.  DnD epic rules weren't integrated into the core until 3.5.  And the rules are so convoluted, I almost wish they hadn't included them


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 11, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> If Force Points not replenishing at 20th level is that much of an issue to you and you really want to keep going at 20th level, the simplest solution is to just periodically replenish Force Points every few sessions.




.... in between ruling the galaxy, giving Yoda some pointers on fencing, and hacking the galatic credits system to become become billionaires.


----------



## atomn (Jun 11, 2007)

While I liked that the grappling rules were simplified, I don't like that it takes two feats (Pin and Crush) to be able to do what you could in the old rules.  I guess the bonus feats make up for this but I don't like that a weaker form of attack costs two feats.  (Although maybe the lower frequency of Large opponents makes it a more viable attack form than in D&D.)

I thought I wasn't going to like the shape of the book but it doesn't really bother me.  I think it's gimmicky but I think it's neutral (no advantage or disadvantage) compared to a regularly shaped roleplaying book.

As others mentioned, I dislike the folded up map in the middle of it.  If it was at the end I wouldn't mind as much.  But I think I'd rather do without it altogether.

I think it does a great job at capturing the feel of the movies.  It looks like the PCs should match what Luke, et al. did in the films.

I haven't read the Force section so I'm not making allegations of class imbalance, but what does everyone think about balancing Force users with normal folk?  I liked in the d20 version that the Jedi took damage in order to use their Force powers.  So there was the decision of doing something fantastic that a normal schlub couldn't do, but weakening yourself in return.  Without a good balancing system, it seems unfair that a Soldier gets the same amount of feats and talents that a Jedi does but can only do mundane things instead of use fantastical Force powers.  Or are the Soldier's feats and talents that much greater to balance the Jedi's overall effectiveness?


----------



## atomn (Jun 11, 2007)

The Green Adam said:
			
		

> As a long time Star Wars fan and gamer I thought the book was...nice. Better then the previous attempts but still not enough to shake my love of the WEG D6 game. I just don't feel class and level fit the Star Wars universe. I never think of Han as a X level Scoundrel or Scout or whatever. He's a Smuggler. Chewbacca is a Wookiee Mechanic. My players are a Vigilante Jedi, an Alien Space Pirate, A Twi'lek Pod Racer, a Renegade Stormtrooper and a Piloting Droid. It's just easier to 'feel' the atmosphere that way IMHO.
> 
> AD




I definitely loved the old WEG version of the game but the one thing that draws me to the d20 classed system are the additional class abilities.  I always found that aside from the roleplaying aspects (personality, modivation, background, etc.), the d6 Templates resulted in very similar characters.  Since similar Templates would use the same skill sets and attributes, I've noticed the main differences in characters would be their race and equipment.  For example, all Pilots are going to want a high Mechanical attribute, a high Space Transport skill and a decent Astrogation skill so it comes down to whether they're a Wookie with a bowcaster or a Jawa with a flechette rifle.  The dimension added by throwing in the various class abilities opens up many more mechanically different characters.  (Did I explain that well?  Just spouting my newfound opinion, d6 is a great product too!)


----------



## Victim (Jun 11, 2007)

Force Powers seem useful, but require a significant feat and talent burn.  All those fancy force talents and traditions are going to be hard to get since a force user still has his class trees to spend talents on and doesn't get any additional talents.  Force Training will likely consume several feats, as well generally give a Jedi MAD since he needs WIS to get more powers.  So, when you take away the feats that the Jedi spends to get his force powers, then the soldier does have more.

Mind Trick is handy, but some of its uses overlap with other skills and talents - like Deception or the Noble fear talent.  Force Slam isn't bad, but a mundane character might simply toss a grenade or hose down an area with autofire when he needs an area attack.


----------



## atomn (Jun 11, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Force Powers seem useful, but require a significant feat and talent burn.  All those fancy force talents and traditions are going to be hard to get since a force user still has his class trees to spend talents on and doesn't get any additional talents.  Force Training will likely consume several feats, as well generally give a Jedi MAD since he needs WIS to get more powers.  So, when you take away the feats that the Jedi spends to get his force powers, then the soldier does have more.
> 
> Mind Trick is handy, but some of its uses overlap with other skills and talents - like Deception or the Noble fear talent.  Force Slam isn't bad, but a mundane character might simply toss a grenade or hose down an area with autofire when he needs an area attack.




Ah, gotcha.  That makes sense and seems fair.  Thanks for the response!


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 11, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> To me, it's a trivial thing at best. If my players get their characters to 20th level in my campaign, it's time for a new campaign.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Agreed.  And such an easy thing to houserule i couldn't even consider it a "flaw."


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Have you actually opened the book?  Nothing in this statement accurately reflects any of the mechanics it purports to talk about.



If I'm in error, by all means point it out, but provide specifics not generalities. I'll even reiterate so you can point out every single inaccuracy about the mechanics.

A scout gets Extra Second Wind as a bonus starting feat if he meets the requirement. So, he can either choose not to meet the requirement of having trained Endurance, and still come out with the same amount of feats as a scoundrel and one more trained skill, or he can train Endurance, thus meeting the requirement, which nets him the bonus feat but basically has him flushing a trained skill.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 11, 2007)

atomn said:
			
		

> I haven't read the Force section so I'm not making allegations of class imbalance, but what does everyone think about balancing Force users with normal folk?  I liked in the d20 version that the Jedi took damage in order to use their Force powers.  So there was the decision of doing something fantastic that a normal schlub couldn't do, but weakening yourself in return.  Without a good balancing system, it seems unfair that a Soldier gets the same amount of feats and talents that a Jedi does but can only do mundane things instead of use fantastical Force powers.  Or are the Soldier's feats and talents that much greater to balance the Jedi's overall effectiveness?




Jedi get talents that allow them to use the Force to achieve things other characters would have to use multiple skills for, and they're better at lightsaber combat.  In terms of pure Force-using oomph, however, they get only a very small advantage over the other classes: Force Sensitive as a bonus feat.

If I were setting out to create an exceptional Force user who wasn't much of a fighter, I would be inclined to use a Noble rather than a Jedi as the base character (FWIW, this is basically how Palpatine is statted up) and then at 7th level go into Force Adept.

For that matter, you could create a very effective Force-using warrior taking just Soldier levels and spending your level-based feats on Force training.

On the flip side, you could make a Jedi who had no Force powers beyond the basic abilities of the Use the Force skill who was just as effective as a heavy Force user by virtue of being an exceptional lightsaber duellist.  Technically, you could use the Jedi class for a pure lightsaber duellist who didn't even have Use the Force as a trained skill, much less Force powers.

I'd say the Force powers are no stronger than the 'mundane' heroic abilities, especially when it comes to combat.  They work out well for Jedi because the Jedi class confers expertise in a melee weapon, and Force powers allow the Jedi to a) survive long enough to get to melee, b) get to melee faster and c) have some ranged abilities to fall back on in a pinch.


----------



## Victim (Jun 11, 2007)

Scouts don't get Extra Second Wind.  They get Shake it Off which also requires Endurance trained (and a 13 Con, unfortunately).


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Scouts don't get Extra Second Wind.  They get Shake it Off which also requires Endurance trained (and a 13 Con, unfortunately).



Ah, gotcha. I lent my book out, so can someone tell me if Extra Second Wind has requirements?

I figure the Con's not a huge deal, unless you're considering a Con-penalized race.


----------



## Victim (Jun 11, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Ah, gotcha. I lent my book out, so can someone tell me if Extra Second Wind has requirements?
> 
> I figure the Con's not a huge deal, unless you're considering a Con-penalized race.




Extra Second Wind also requires trained Endurance.

Sure, 13 Con doesn't sound like that much, especially coming from DnD.  But the 3x starting HD at level 1 that only include Con once makes the extra HP from Con a far less significant portion of a character's HP, especially at low-mid levels.  The Jedi I'm playing has 8 Con and still has a goodly sum of HP.  Plus there are requirements like Rapid Shot's 13 STR.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 11, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Extra Second Wind also requires trained Endurance.
> 
> Sure, 13 Con doesn't sound like that much, especially coming from DnD.  But the 3x starting HD at level 1 that only include Con once makes the extra HP from Con a far less significant portion of a character's HP, especially at low-mid levels.  The Jedi I'm playing has 8 Con and still has a goodly sum of HP.  Plus there are requirements like *Rapid Shot's 13 STR*.




13 _Str?_  I hope that's a typo.  Otherwise I'd really like to hear the rationalization for that.  Is ranged combat now Strength-based somehow?!


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Mind Trick is handy, but some of its uses overlap with other skills and talents - like Deception or the Noble fear talent.  Force Slam isn't bad, but a mundane character might simply toss a grenade or hose down an area with autofire when he needs an area attack.



This reminds of that discussion over in the media lounge forum about Valdemort and how the ability to kill 13 people with a curse isn't really that awesome.

The thing is, in an RPG characters are almost never without their gear, so the need to rely on a gadget doesn't seem like a big limitation (as it certainly would seem to be in any other context).


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> 13 _Str?_  I hope that's a typo.  Otherwise I'd really like to hear the rationalization for that.  Is ranged combat now Strength-based somehow?!



Can't confirm or deny the Str requirement, but I suppose they're taking recoil into account? I kinda like the idea. Strength has always been treated like a dump stat for gunslingers in games (and Dexterity is invariably maxed-out), for obvious reasons, but gunslingers in fiction are usually not featherweights.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 11, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Can't confirm or deny the Str requirement, but I suppose they're taking recoil into account? I kinda like the idea. Strength has always been treated like a dump stat for gunslingers in games (and Dexterity is invariably maxed-out), for obvious reasons, but gunslingers in fiction are usually not featherweights.




True, and fair enough.  It's just very antithetical to d20 as I understand it.


----------



## Felon (Jun 11, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Extra Second Wind also requires trained Endurance.



Ah, I don't feel so bad about mixing them up then. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Henry (Jun 11, 2007)

As for the Rapid Shot requiring STR 13, and Rapid Strike Dexuiring Dex 13, those are not typos, according to Gary Sarli. The reasoning is (1) the need for STR to control recoil and the need for DEX for accurate placement of a second, quick, strike, and (2) it's a game balance idea to get characters to spread out their scores a bit rather than simply concentrating all their attention in one ability score. 

I have to say that this version of Star Wars does more to make ALL stats important than any other d20 game I've yet seen.


----------



## Victim (Jun 11, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> This reminds of that discussion over in the media lounge forum about Valdemort and how the ability to kill 13 people with a curse isn't really that awesome.
> 
> The thing is, in an RPG characters are almost never without their gear, so the need to rely on a gadget doesn't seem like a big limitation (as it certainly would seem to be in any other context).




Well, the awesome stuff is force lightning, which always gives a darkside point (unlike say force grip).   At the risk of thread derailment, where magic really seemed to excel was in weather control, teleportation, object destruction, mind control, memory mods and such.  The ability to kill people with a magic curse (that requires direct line of sight, can miss, and doesn't seem to have that great of range) isn't all that special.  But it's the delivery methods and secondary attacks where the big advantage is.

I like the STR requirement on Rapid Shot, since it prevents massive trade offs of STR for Dex, as seems to happen far too often in games based primarily around gun combat.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 11, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I have to say that this version of Star Wars does more to make ALL stats important than any other d20 game I've yet seen.




Cool.  Then I'd probably use a liberal stat-buy system rather than random dice-rolling.  (Though I don't know what the RAW rule is, not having the book yet.)  If there's a lot of MADness going around, I don't want bad rolls to spoil that for my players.


----------



## atomn (Jun 11, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Cool.  Then I'd probably use a liberal stat-buy system rather than random dice-rolling.  (Though I don't know what the RAW rule is, not having the book yet.)  If there's a lot of MADness going around, I don't want bad rolls to spoil that for my players.




It says to roll 4d6, drop the lowest for stats.  So they should be pretty good.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 11, 2007)

atomn said:
			
		

> It says to roll 4d6, drop the lowest for stats.  So they should be pretty good.




... and 28-point buy is presented as an alternative.


----------



## Dark Psion (Jun 11, 2007)

The Good: 
Simplified skill system: Fewer skills, no ranks and rolling some feats like Track into skills (Tracking is a Trained use of Survival).
No dead levels: All classes and Prestige classes get something at all levels.
The Force is with you: Every PC has Force points and can use them when they need them.

The Bad:
Feats: The first PCs I made were the crew of Firefly and which one was the hardest to create? Kaylee! So many of the feats are combat oriented, creatng a non-combative PC is hard. I had to create a new feat, (Second Chance: that allows you to chose a skill that you are both trained and focused in and you can now re-roll a skill check) The feat list does need to be expanded from just combat.

The Square Book: To be honest, if I was not looking for this book, I would have walked right by it on a shelf because it does not look like a role playing book (or a WotC book).

Lack of Stuff: There are only a few vehilces, gear and iconic NPCs. Part of this is due to the smaller size of the book, but most is due to the book trying to be a Player's Handbook, Gamemasters Guide and a Campaign Guide in one book. 

The Ugly:
Errata: Yeah, once again there are a lot of little mistakes in a WotC book (Surprise    surprise)

Many seem to be changes in the rules that where other mentions were not updated:
Vader is trained in Mechanics, but it is not a Jedi skill. 
In the sample gamming session, the Jedi Sia-Lan has 22 hit points, but on the same page (13) it says Jedi start with 30 + Con mod. 
Padme has a Talent "Wanted Alive" that is not in the book.
The sample Bounty Hunter on page 283 has 4 non-heroic levels, but the Bounty Hunter PrC requires 7 heroic levels.
Cybernetic Prosthesis cause a -1 penalty to Use the Force checks, but neither Darth Vader (4 cyber limbs) and Luke Skywalker (1 cyber hand) have any penalties in their stats.
Also, Luke's stats are for episode VI, but do not include Force Grip that he used on the Gamorean.

Overall, I like it! 
D&D can be overcomplicated for those just starting to game, so a simplified game like this is better to introduce new people to gaming. The one thing that will be life or death of the Saga system will be support books. Personally I would liked to have seen a PHB, DMG and Campaign guide, but we will see how the next two books do; The Force Unleashed and Starships of the Galaxy (See  Amazon.com  )


And BTW, let me be the first to call for a Gamma World Saga System book. We got Droids, vehicles and psychic powers here, just make adjustments for Mutations and defects(if your Defect points exceed your Constitution, your PC become unplayable).


----------



## Armistice (Jun 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> As for the Rapid Shot requiring STR 13, and Rapid Strike Dexuiring Dex 13, those are not typos, according to Gary Sarli. The reasoning is (1) the need for STR to control recoil and the need for DEX for accurate placement of a second, quick, strike, and (2) it's a game balance idea to get characters to spread out their scores a bit rather than simply concentrating all their attention in one ability score.
> 
> I have to say that this version of Star Wars does more to make ALL stats important than any other d20 game I've yet seen.




Spycraft. Just go Saga and I'm impressed. I wish they'd taken the Feat Tree organization from Spycraft, though. As it is, there are way too many general combat feats and not enough feats of any other kind. Some unholy meshing of the two systems is what I'm eventually going to playing with as my flavor of d20. I'm going to play Saga in Vanilla form for a while to understand it's strengths and then I'll take strip the innovation to fuel Spycraft or vice/versa.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 12, 2007)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> The Bad:
> Feats: The first PCs I made were the crew of Firefly and which one was the hardest to create? Kaylee! So many of the feats are combat oriented, creatng a non-combative PC is hard. I had to create a new feat, (Second Chance: that allows you to chose a skill that you are both trained and focused in and you can now re-roll a skill check) The feat list does need to be expanded from just combat.




Yeah; I've got a mostly-done conversion of a PBP NPC who's a pure noncombatant, and she ended up with Skill Focus *five times* and Skill Training once -- as an 18 int Human Noble/Scoundrel who started as Noble (and so has 11 trained skills to start with!). Having said that, dumping the +2/+2 feats in favor of just using Skill Focus was certainly the right call, and there were very, very few other non-combat feats in RCR.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> The Good:
> The Bad:
> Feats: The first PCs I made were the crew of Firefly and which one was the hardest to create? Kaylee! So many of the feats are combat oriented, creatng a non-combative PC is hard. I had to create a new feat, (Second Chance: that allows you to chose a skill that you are both trained and focused in and you can now re-roll a skill check) The feat list does need to be expanded from just combat.





			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Yeah; I've got a mostly-done conversion of a PBP NPC who's a pure noncombatant, and she ended up with Skill Focus *five times* and Skill Training once -- as an 18 int Human Noble/Scoundrel who started as Noble (and so has 11 trained skills to start with!). Having said that, dumping the +2/+2 feats in favor of just using Skill Focus was certainly the right call, and there were very, very few other non-combat feats in RCR.



That is relative to the comment I made earlier. I don't think they regard non-combative PC's as being very Star-Warsy, or fun to play--which probably would displease R2-D2 and C3P0 to no end if they were to hear that.


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> That is relative to the comment I made earlier. I don't think they regard non-combative PC's as being very Star-Warsy, or fun to play--which probably would displease R2-D2 and C3P0 to no end if they were to hear that.




In pulp, such as Star Wars, even the non-combative PCs should be capable in combat when push comes to shove. The further you get away from how Star Wars is presented, you will find it harder to use Saga to cover all the options.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> That is relative to the comment I made earlier. I don't think they regard non-combative PC's as being very Star-Warsy, or fun to play--which probably would displease R2-D2 and C3P0 to no end if they were to hear that.




There are, I think, two distinct camps of (potential and current) Star Wars RPG'ers.  One wants to 'play the movies', the other wants to 'play the universe'.  The new edition seems weighed heavily in favor of the former.  Hopefully future source books will, er, bring balance to the Force as it were, and allow those that want a more immersive experience that option.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 12, 2007)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> In pulp, such as Star Wars, even the non-combative PCs should be capable in combat when push comes to shove. The further you get away from how Star Wars is presented, you will find it harder to use Saga to cover all the options.




... which is why despite investing no discretionary resources in combat ability, below-average Str, and average Dex and Con, Istara Kandorian (the noble/scoundrel NPC I used as an example up-thread) is still quite capable of dropping a standard stormtrooper. Six heroic levels would do that.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Heck, in the books, the core characters should probably be moving on, too.  Luke is, what, 60 by the time of the Legacy of the Force series? Han is probably 65-70? If a 20th level character is reaching age 70 or so (human, anyway), verisimilitude ought to have them retiring or dying, anyway...




That's what I like about the legacy of the force series, they seem to be doing just that. Sure Luke, Han, Leia and the gang are still there, but less and less of the action is focused on them while the spotlight is on the newer generation. It seems to be slowing weaning the readers off of the old guard. I'm sure they won't be gone gone for a very long time if ever, but I do think they are fading from view.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I have to say that this version of Star Wars does more to make ALL stats important than any other d20 game I've yet seen.




What are they doing with charisma that makes it so useful, I'd love to have some good charisma mechanics.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 12, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> What are they doing with charisma that makes it so useful, I'd love to have some good charisma mechanics.




Use the Force is a Cha-based skill, and used to power force powers and talents. Feinting in combat works off of deception (Cha-based skill). And a fair number of buffs and debuffs available to the Noble and Jedi core classes and the Officer PrC work off of Persuasion (also a Cha-based skill).


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 12, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> ... which is why despite investing no discretionary resources in combat ability, below-average Str, and average Dex and Con, Istara Kandorian (the noble/scoundrel NPC I used as an example up-thread) is still quite capable of dropping a standard stormtrooper. Six heroic levels would do that.




Exactly. That's how it should be if you play Star Wars the way it is presented in the movies.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 12, 2007)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> The Bad:
> Feats: The first PCs I made were the crew of Firefly and which one was the hardest to create? Kaylee! So many of the feats are combat oriented, creatng a non-combative PC is hard. I had to create a new feat, (Second Chance: that allows you to chose a skill that you are both trained and focused in and you can now re-roll a skill check) The feat list does need to be expanded from just combat.



This one I agree on.  A few more non-combat feats would be nice.  I do like the idea of the Second Chance feat.



> Cybernetic Prosthesis cause a -1 penalty to Use the Force checks, but neither Darth Vader (4 cyber limbs) and Luke Skywalker (1 cyber hand) have any penalties in their stats.



Actually they do have the penalties to their UtF checks included.  Check the math on their UtF check bonuses; they're lower than what a character of their level should have by the cybernetics modifier.



> Also, Luke's stats are for episode VI, but do not include Force Grip that he used on the Gamorean.



I've seen it argued that Luke didn't use Force Grip per se but Affect Mind/Mind Trick.  I'm of the camp that says Force Grip, but maybe the person that wrote the stat block felt differently.  After all, I wouldn't give Luke the Weapon Finesse feat, but the authors did.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 12, 2007)

I agree there should have been more stuff for non-combat characters included. *Especially* so you could write up Kaylee, allowing me to use this book as written for Firefly too.

I mean, the way Nobles make such great doctors (for Simon), and the way the Scoundrel class works, already make this a great system for Firefly.

But that's a minor quibble. I have to say this is the best RPG I've bought in a long, long time. Since Unearthed Arcana at least.

Chuck


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 12, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> If Force Points not replenishing at 20th level is that much of an issue to you and you really want to keep going at 20th level, the simplest solution is to just periodically replenish Force Points every few sessions.



I remember hearing a proposed house rule someplace (I think it was the WotC boards) about Force Points refreshing at the start of a each adventure.  The flip side to this is that since the players know they'll have the full Force Point allotment for next adventure, they're going to be willing to spend them a lot more often instead of carefully rationing them out, as tended to happen in the d20 Modern games I played.  Of course, if you want the PCs to be able to routinely engage in over-the-top heroics, that just might be the way to go.


----------



## Flynn (Jun 12, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> I remember hearing a proposed house rule someplace (I think it was the WotC boards) about Force Points refreshing at the start of a each adventure.  The flip side to this is that since the players know they'll have the full Force Point allotment for next adventure, they're going to be willing to spend them a lot more often instead of carefully rationing them out, as tended to happen in the d20 Modern games I played.  Of course, if you want the PCs to be able to routinely engage in over-the-top heroics, that just might be the way to go.




It was towards the bottom of the previous page on this thread, I think. I posted a variant above on this page (post #122) that limits the Force Points given per session, but still roughly provides for this same basic functionality. It's a bit more moderated, so the over-the-top concerns are limited in impact.

Hope this helps,
Flynn


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I agree there should have been more stuff for non-combat characters included. *Especially* so you could write up Kaylee, allowing me to use this book as written for Firefly too....But that's a minor quibble. I have to say this is the best RPG I've bought in a long, long time. Since Unearthed Arcana at least.




I'm finding a lot of people telling me that this hammer also makes a pretty decent torque wrench in addition to a great hammer, which to me is a hallmark of a pretty good game design.  A couple of my game group is getting disillusioned from what they read, though, precisely because of the lack of fine-tuning that is in the core book. They want to keep an open mind for when we get a chance to play it, but it's disappointed the group's most rabid Star Wars (and expanded universe) fan, and that came as a surprise to me. His biggest complaint? Loss of granularity of the skills.


----------



## Waylander (Jun 12, 2007)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> . . . The first PCs I made were the crew of Firefly and which one was the hardest to create? Kaylee! . . .




Just as an aside, I haven't received my copy yet but I was toying with using the rules as the basis for a _Firefly_ campaign. I'd be really interested in seeing your versions of the crew.


----------



## atomn (Jun 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> His biggest complaint? Loss of granularity of the skills.




Does granularity refer to how they clumped many skills together?


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm finding a lot of people telling me that this hammer also makes a pretty decent torque wrench in addition to a great hammer, which to me is a hallmark of a pretty good game design.  A couple of my game group is getting disillusioned from what they read, though, precisely because of the lack of fine-tuning that is in the core book. They want to keep an open mind for when we get a chance to play it, but it's disappointed the group's most rabid Star Wars (and expanded universe) fan, and that came as a surprise to me. His biggest complaint? Loss of granularity of the skills.




Paring down the skills is a big bonus with me. I recently did an OGL book (that I dearly wish I could talk more about dangit) where I pared the skills down to something like 10. It actually suited me and my playtest group just fine. 

But yeah, I would consider the fact that SW would work for a variety of sci-fi settings a definite plus.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I wanted to sit down and look at Endurance for a while before replying to this. Endurance seem like a pretty suboptimal feat for a scout,



Endurance is a Skill, not a Feat.  The difference is smaller in Saga than in most D20 systems but it's still a difference.  Also, depending upon the GM, it may be the most important skill in the system or the most worthless.  Just like the social skills are in most d20 games, Endurance can be a huge deal or utterly worthless depending upon the style of the campaign.


> and it doesn't act as a gateway to any feats other than Extra Second Wind.



Which is just wrong, as it is the gateway for Shake it Off as well.  Shake it Off is a solid feat, especially a few levels into the game, when your character can survive enough damage to move a couple steps down the condition track without just dying.


> Which does turn it into a matter of personal choice here: do you want another second wind more than you want to train some other skill on the scout's list?



Since Scouts get Shake it Off, not Extra Second Wind, this statement is not very relevant.


> If you opt for the former, you come out one feat ahead of the scout. If not, you can pass on the feat and come out ahead on skills with the same number of starter feats, and I'd suggest that WF with rifles is as much of an offensive boost as Point Blank Shot, as rifles serve up a damage and range increment boost.



This is just confusing.  It's as if you're changing between being confused as to which abilities are feats, which are skills and which are Starting Feats that the class doesn't have to take.  It makes it difficult to extract meaning from this statement.  I'll assume that you were headed towards this:


> A scout gets Extra Second Wind as a bonus starting feat if he meets the requirement. So, he can either choose not to meet the requirement of having trained Endurance, and still come out with the same amount of feats as a scoundrel and one more trained skill, or he can train Endurance, thus meeting the requirement, which nets him the bonus feat but basically has him flushing a trained skill.



Ignoring the factual error of which feat is granted, we're left with the value judgment on the utility of the Endurance skill.

I foresee Endurance coming up every session, or even two or three times a session, assuming the GM is running the game by the rules.  Running, swimming, facing extreme weather, starvation and thirst, hostile atmospheres, and sleeping in armor are all problems that the iconic Star Wars heroes face with regularity. In my experience, player characters face them just as often.  Assuming the GM doesn't hand wave it (and I've seen it done that way many times, ignoring the endurance mechanics because none of the PCs, fragile things, would survive; or ignoring the interaction mechanics because the PCs, antisocial things, couldn't convince children to take candy) then the skill will be of vital importance.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 12, 2007)

atomn said:
			
		

> I haven't read the Force section so I'm not making allegations of class imbalance, but what does everyone think about balancing Force users with normal folk?



All folk can be Force using folk.  Keep that in mind.

Generally, Jedi can be better at it due to their free Force Sensitive feat and their available talent trees, but any non-droid can become a powerful master of the force.  Arguably, the most powerful force users are not Jedi, nor Sith, but are the Force Adepts and Disciples of other traditions.  Those mo-fos are powerful; at least, their prestige classes let them be extremely powerful.

As for the balance of Force characters versus non-Force characters, it looks solid.  Doing anything more than a few basics with the Force requires a hefty investment of character resources, as already mentioned.  So it should be just fine.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I agree there should have been more stuff for non-combat characters included. *Especially* so you could write up Kaylee, allowing me to use this book as written for Firefly too.




Eh. Especially since 1st-level heroic characters are decidedly non-mookish in Saga, Kaylee as a relatively low-level scoundrel/scout (talents from the fortune, spacer, slicer, and/or fringer trees) spending most of her feats on skill focus should work pretty well. Now, a tenth-level Kaylee would be pretty hard to build, but a 3rd level or a 6th level? Not so much.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> There are, I think, two distinct camps of (potential and current) Star Wars RPG'ers.  One wants to 'play the movies', the other wants to 'play the universe'.  The new edition seems weighed heavily in favor of the former.  Hopefully future source books will, er, bring balance to the Force as it were, and allow those that want a more immersive experience that option.



Well, in the movies, most of the non-jedi characters aren't especilally awesome at combat. Han's not a crack shot or anything, and Chewebacca doesn more as a co-pilot and mechanic than he does as a some melee brute. 

Consider the Saga preview where the skirmish at Sarlacc's pit is recreated using the new rules. Luke kicks butt left and right, never failing at anything. Han, Chewbacca, and Lando, OTOH, are basically the three stooges.

I'd say the movies give us plenty of noncombatant characters to play.


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, in the movies, most of the non-jedi characters aren't especilally awesome at combat. Han's not a crack shot or anything, and Chewebacca doesn more as a co-pilot and mechanic than he does as a some melee brute.
> 
> Consider the Saga preview where the skirmish at Sarlacc's pit is recreated using the new rules. Luke kicks butt left and right, never failing at anything. Han, Chewbacca, and Lando, OTOH, are basically the three stooges.
> 
> I'd say the movies give us plenty of noncombatant characters to play.




Han's no crack shot, but he is possibly the best pilot in the Galaxy, Force or not (ESB). Chewbacca repeatedly mauls and tosses the Empire's elite like they're Keystone Cops (ANH, RotJ). And Lando managed in disguise to sneak into the innermost chambers of a planet's top Crime Lord (RotJ). Luke kicks butt, but his friends are also formidable in their own right.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Ignoring the factual error of which feat is granted, we're left with the value judgment on the utility of the Endurance skill.
> 
> I foresee Endurance coming up every session, or even two or three times a session, assuming the GM is running the game by the rules.  Running, swimming, facing extreme weather, starvation and thirst, hostile atmospheres, and sleeping in armor are all problems that the iconic Star Wars heroes face with regularity.



Wow, two or three times a session, huh? Anyone else want a piece of this? Most of the time they get in their land speeder or spaceship and zoom off to where they need to go. You can come up with "marooned" or "enslaved" scenarios where characters are deprived of their possessions, but Endurance is kind of a weak skill for the same reason Spell Mastery is described by D&D designers as a weak feat. Characters are almost never without their gear.



> In my experience, player characters face them just as often.  Assuming the GM doesn't hand wave it (and I've seen it done that way many times, ignoring the endurance mechanics because none of the PCs, fragile things, would survive; or ignoring the interaction mechanics because the PCs, antisocial things, couldn't convince children to take candy) then the skill will be of vital importance.



Well, you've homed in on why Endurance won't come up every session and won't be of vital importance. Not for most folks anyway. In all the years of playing 3rd edition, I've found it's a rare thing to have a DM ever invoke the fules for forced marches, extended running or swimming, extreme enviironmental conditions, or malnourishment. That seems odd on face value, because long treks across wilderness is par for the genre. Yet, the DM generally doesn't even take note of how many miles the party can travel in an hour. It's usually "a day/week's travel", and then cut to the chase. Maybe there's a random monster encounter before getting there, but that's about it. And this is a game where characters lack mundane means of fast travel. 

I suspect the DM simply views theses rules as nuisances rather than challenges. They're in dsifavor much the same way traps seem to be falling into disuse. The DM doesn't want the character to *not* get to where the adventure is. He doesn't want the party starving to death, dying ignominiously from exposure, or giving up and going home. 

But the ironic thing about this discussion is that proving Endurance to be a wonderful skill to train would actually reinforce the discrepency between the scout and scoundrel. I was actually making a concession.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Han's no crack shot, but he is possibly the best pilot in the Galaxy, Force or not (ESB). Chewbacca repeatedly mauls and tosses the Empire's elite like they're Keystone Cops (ANH, RotJ). And Lando managed in disguise to sneak into the innermost chambers of a planet's top Crime Lord (RotJ). Luke kicks butt, but his friends are also formidable in their own right.



Henry, my post was rebutting a remark about "focusing on the movies" equating to focusing on combat ability. I was pointing out that most of the characters don't contribute through their combat prowess, so your rebuttal doesn't seem to be rebutting my rebuttal except for the part where you contradict me about Chewbacca beating up stormtroopers--something I just don't recall happening a lot.

I really gotta get my book back and look at the droid rules, because C3P0 and R2-D2 are good examples of almost entirely noncombatant characters who make contributions. Does R2-D2 have a class?


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> In pulp, such as Star Wars, even the non-combative PCs should be capable in combat when push comes to shove. The further you get away from how Star Wars is presented, you will find it harder to use Saga to cover all the options.



We're not talking about getting away from how Star Wars is presented. There are Star Wars characters that are lousy at pushing and shoving, and even more to the point, what we were talkiing about the lack of content designed for anything other than pushing and shoving.

For instance, I'd rather have seen the fringer talents become general feats.


----------



## Victim (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, in the movies, most of the non-jedi characters aren't especilally awesome at combat. Han's not a crack shot or anything, and Chewebacca doesn more as a co-pilot and mechanic than he does as a some melee brute.
> 
> Consider the Saga preview where the skirmish at Sarlacc's pit is recreated using the new rules. Luke kicks butt left and right, never failing at anything. Han, Chewbacca, and Lando, OTOH, are basically the three stooges.
> 
> I'd say the movies give us plenty of noncombatant characters to play.




Han is blind during that fight.  Chewie takes no useful actions, really, so it doesn't matter what his stats actually are.  Luke's also the only one who brought his favorite weapon.

It's not like we see the other characters performing at anything near their full potential.  The entire fight is pretty much structured to let Luke show off.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Han is blind during that fight.  Chewie takes no useful actions, really, so it doesn't matter what his stats actually are.  Luke's also the only one who brought his favorite weapon.
> 
> It's not like we see the other characters performing at anything near their full potential.  The entire fight is pretty much structured to let Luke show off.



Your remark about Chewie puzzles me. So, if someone is inactive during a fight, that doesn't show them being a noncombatant? Lando's clumsyness isn't damning?

When do we see these guys at their full potential as awesome warriors? For Han, it's pretty much limited to dogfighting in the Milllenium Falcon, not kicking butt as a gunslinger.


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Henry, my post was rebutting a remark about "focusing on the movies" equating to focusing on combat ability. I was pointing out that most of the characters don't contribute through their combat prowess, so your rebuttal doesn't seem to be rebutting my rebuttal except for the part where you contradict me about Chewbacca beating up stormtroopers--something I just don't recall happening a lot.




Well, in Star Wars, piloting skill IS combat ability - it's being used in the heat of battle to keep from getting killed. Chewie beats up on Imperials in two places -- in the Death Star comm room, and tossing them in RotJ out of the ST-ST like rag dolls.



> I really gotta get my book back and look at the droid rules, because C3P0 and R2-D2 are good examples of almost entirely noncombatant characters who make contributions. Does R2-D2 have a class?




Threepio has levels of Noble (no surprise there) and Artoo has levels of Scoundrel. His only offensive weapon is little low-damage ion blaster.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Well, in Star Wars, piloting skill IS combat ability - it's being used in the heat of battle to keep from getting killed. Chewie beats up on Imperials in two places -- in the Death Star comm room, and tossing them in RotJ out of the ST-ST like rag dolls.
> 
> Threepio has levels of Noble (no surprise there) and Artoo has levels of Scoundrel. His only offensive weapon is little low-damage ion blaster.



OK, Henry, so, um...do you actually have a particular side in this debate? Are the movie characters all effective combatants, or are some of them pretty handily described as noncombatants? Because the whole discussion stemmed from the lack of noncombat feats followed by the assertion that being true to the movies means all characters should have some combat capability.


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Because the whole discussion stemmed from the lack of noncombat feats followed by the assertion that being true to the movies means all characters should have some combat capability.




I was pointing out movie examples of exactly where these two characters DID show combat capability. Other than the droids, there wasn't a single main character who didn't have a chance to shine in combat. Since it was Luke's story, his abilities were focused on, but the rest never ran and hid from a good fight, either. Han shows proficiency in combat, just not hand-to-hand, and Chewie one-on-one was knocking over imperials like tenpins.

EDIT: I will add, though, that I'd love to see possible expansion to more noncombat stuff in future supplements. There are people who want to play it, so it would be nice to cater to that in at least a limited fashion - to give them more examples to base their own stuff off of more than anything.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> OK, Henry, so, um...do you actually have a particular side in this debate? Are the movie characters all effective combatants, or are some of them pretty handily described as noncombatants? Because the whole discussion stemmed from the lack of noncombat feats followed by the assertion that being true to the movies means all characters should have some combat capability.




R2 and 3PO are described as (comparatively) low-level characters.  The example characters seem to assume that for each trilogy, only three characters were actually PCs: Luke, Han and Leia for the OT, Anakin, Obi-Wan and Padme for the prequels.  Chewbacca, Artoo, Threepio and Lando all seem to be statted up as 'cohorts' (to borrow a D&D term), while characters like OT Obi-Wan, Yoda and Qui-Gon (unstatted) would be temporary NPC allies.

In all seriousness, I can't see Threepio as a mid-to-high-level character.  Artoo, perhaps, but his lack of combat abilities is reflected by the fact HE HAS NO WEAPONS.

While you can say that the non-Jedi characters didn't display much in the way of combat ability, consider this: what battles did they LOSE?  Whenever Han or Leia got into a blaster fight, they retreated only in the face of overwhelming numbers (and took down significant numbers of stormtroopers, who are fairly tough in Saga); compare that to how the rebel troopers fared in the opening sequence of Star Wars.  Lando is statted up as only 7th level (compared to 10th, 11th and 12th levels for Leia, Han and Luke); he's competent in a fight as a heroic character should be, but nothing really special.  Despite having no reason whatsoever to be combat-trained, Padme was reasonably effective with a blaster in the first two prequels, certainly moreso than any of the mooks on either side - simply by virtue of being the cinematic equivalent of a PC.

I think one thing you have to keep in mind, especially when converting characters, is that most non-combatants should have most of their levels in nonheroic classes - which don't get bonus feats.  A nonheroic 20 has only 7 feats (8 if human), and of those, at least three are likely to be Skill Training.  Such a character can have a skill bonus of +20 before stat mods, which is more than adequate to make them 'the best at their task' while leaving them essentially useless in combat (50 hp, threshold and defenses likely hovering around 10-12, no weapon proficiencies).  A few noble or scoundrel levels (if the character needs certain talents, for example) won't make them suddenly a combat monster fit to challenge Darth Vader, either - or even Luke.

EDIT: With all that said, I certainly wouldn't object to porting (the few) noncombat feats from other d20 system games.  I just don't think they are needed, or belong, in the core book - any more than you see much in the way of noncombat feats in the d20 Modern or D&D core books.


----------



## Victim (Jun 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Your remark about Chewie puzzles me. So, if someone is inactive during a fight, that doesn't show them being a noncombatant? Lando's clumsyness isn't damning?
> 
> When do we see these guys at their full potential as awesome warriors? For Han, it's pretty much limited to dogfighting in the Milllenium Falcon, not kicking butt as a gunslinger.




Han does at least okay in pretty much every other firefight in the series.  Chewie tosses around or one punches stormtroopers (alas, the ratings mean that we can't actually seem him follow up on the promise to tear someone's arms off ) when he isn't stealing a vehicle and dominating.

Chewbacca standing around doing nothing but Aid Another feels more like the player being absent, bored, tired, confused, whatever than an actual statement of ability.  Anyone comes off like a loser if they just use Aid endlessly, no matter what the character can do on their own.

And I can totally see even a PC failing climb checks like Lando.  It happened fairly recently in a DnD game to a swashbuckler/wizard (soon to be Abjurant Champion).  Not having Climb and some bad luck meant that he spent much of a battle just trying to get into it.  Should all combat characters have Climb?  It doesn't seem stricly necessary especially if the game has combat paths less reliant on STR.  If not, why is it surprising than an otherwise competent guy struggles when thrust out of his element.  Is a fighter not really a combat character because he can't swim in his armor?  Really, it seems especially like a PC for Lando to fail at climbing.  "haha, who needs climb?  I just have a handy grappling hook launcher gadget that makes the DC 5.  Instead I took X, since it might have some combat use."  "You're in disguise as one of Jabba's guards and don't have your normal gear.  Regretably, grappling hooks are not standard gear for them."  "Crap."


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> And I can totally see even a PC failing climb checks like Lando.  It happened fairly recently in a DnD game to a swashbuckler/wizard (soon to be Abjurant Champion).  Not having Climb and some bad luck meant that he spent much of a battle just trying to get into it.




You too, huh? I had a recent session full of nothing higher than a 4 in 9 separate d20 rolls, including everything from changing dice to rolling in trays! 

I think just showing the Sarlacc Pit scene is a bad example, because cinematically speaking, that scene was all about showing Luke's completion of his training, his coming into full Jedi Knighthood. A better example would have been the escape from Clud City - everyone had a part, even Lando and Lobot. Another good example was the raid on the Endor Moon Base. Chewie, Leia, Han, all displayed their capability in combat.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 12, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, I can't see Threepio as a mid-to-high-level character.  Artoo, perhaps, but his lack of combat abilities is reflected by the fact HE HAS NO WEAPONS.




R2's the one with the enormous Wisdom and Perception scores, seeing and thinking of things no one else does, and he's the computer guy.  Also, while he has no weapons organic to his design, plug him into the Death Star and he could probably hijack the superlaser.  

3PO...he's comic relief, which means he passes out bonuses.  Also, he does have social skills.  You don't have to shoot a blaster if you can convince someone else to shoot it for you.

Brad


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

Look, guys you are being seriously arguementative. Instead of just saying "I see where you're coming from", you're coming back with stuff like "oh, he's not a player-character" or "it's Luke's story, so they just held back" or "I write this off as the player being sleepy" (what the...?) or some other comment that basically evades the issues of whether or not anyone other than jedi were steeped in combat feats. 



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> While you can say that the non-Jedi characters didn't display much in the way of combat ability, consider this: what battles did they LOSE?  Whenever Han or Leia got into a blaster fight, they retreated only in the face of overwhelming numbers (and took down significant numbers of stormtroopers, who are fairly tough in Saga); compare that to how the rebel troopers fared in the opening sequence of Star Wars.  Lando is statted up as only 7th level (compared to 10th, 11th and 12th levels for Leia, Han and Luke); he's competent in a fight as a heroic character should be, but nothing really special.  Despite having no reason whatsoever to be combat-trained, Padme was reasonably effective with a blaster in the first two prequels, certainly moreso than any of the mooks on either side - simply by virtue of being the cinematic equivalent of a PC.



OK, now you're opposing me while adopting my position. Heroes can survive and succeed against nonheroes in both Saga and the movies just by their innate "heroicness", not because they're elite warriors. 

What fights did the non-jedis lose? Well, I'll grant Han is a good guy to have on your side in a dogfight, but once they're skirmishing there's not a lot to write home about. In New Hope there's really only the Death Star battle, which is them running in, grabbing Leia, and then fleeing. In Empire Strikes Back, I can't think of any major firefights, because again they're running away until they run into Vader like a brick wall and Han can't touch the guy. It's not even close (and if you start replying "yeah, but that's Darth Vader", then give yourself a whack because that is, once again, very much my point). In Return of the Jedi, they go to rescue Han, and there's no fight when the infiltration attempt fails. They simply surrender and let Luke save the day. And on the ground, the Battle for Endor is pretty much troopers versus ewoks and their slings and log-traps (that's why a lot of folks wound up not liking it after all). In short, you can think up all the mitigating issues you want that excuse a less-than-stellar showing, but at the end of the day, the non-jedis are just not that steeped in kick-butt combat skills. It's not an accident that the examples for the Soldier class is limited to a bunch of minor characters like Admiral Akbar.



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> Han does at least okay in pretty much every other firefight in the series.  Chewie tosses around or one punches stormtroopers (alas, the ratings mean that we can't actually seem him follow up on the promise to tear someone's arms off ) when he isn't stealing a vehicle and dominating.



Yeah, they do okay. That's a pretty good way of putting it. And they'd do okay in Saga just milking their level-based bonuses to attack and damage. But they're not masters of blaster-fu.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> R2's the one with the enormous Wisdom and Perception scores, seeing and thinking of things no one else does, and he's the computer guy.  Also, while he has no weapons organic to his design, plug him into the Death Star and he could probably hijack the superlaser.
> 
> 3PO...he's comic relief, which means he passes out bonuses.  Also, he does have social skills.  You don't have to shoot a blaster if you can convince someone else to shoot it for you.



Indeed. I don't see writing them off as NPC's, especially R2, just because they're not warriors. They do save the others' necks, and it's not like they're just hanging around in the background.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jun 12, 2007)

Jango Fett held his own against Obi Wan, they were pretty much evenly matched.  Of course Jango Fett was killed rather handily by Mace Windu.

What I found very surprising in episode 3 was how easily the Clone Troopers killed off the Jedi.

But if you stick to the original trilogy I don't think there is an instance of a Jedi being bested by a non-Jedi.
Edit: Except for when in a New Hope Han blasts Vader's Tie Fighter allowing Luke to blow up the Death Star.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Look, guys you are being seriously arguementative. Instead of just saying "I see where you're coming from", you're coming back with stuff like "oh, he's not a player-character" or "it's Luke's story, so they just held back" or "I write this off as the player being sleepy" (what the...?) or some other comment that basically evades the issues of whether or not anyone other than jedi were steeped in combat feats.




Chewbacca's "player's" actions in the WotC combat example sound like classic "player isn't paying attention" behavior.

Anyway, here's two non-Jedi shown in the movies as steeped in combat feats: Jango Fett and General Grievous.  The latter, at least, is statted up as being the same level as Obi-Wan; both gave him a good fight.  Boba Fett probably qualifies, too, but as noted in the aforementioned combat example, he got screwed by the dice and Han's use of a Destiny Point.  



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> OK, now you're opposing me while adopting my position. Heroes can survive and succeed against nonheroes in both Saga and the movies just by their innate "heroicness", not because they're elite warriors.




And their effectiveness in d20 is based on their BAB (shared between heroic and nonheroic characters), their stats (shared between heroic and nonheroic characters; Saga doesn't even suggest a lower point-buy for nonheroics), their hit points and defenses (finally, an edge to the heroes!) and their skills, feats and talents (another edge to the heroes).

Unless the PCs are just always much higher level, or are burning Force Points just to survive in every encounter.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> What fights did the non-jedis lose? Well, I'll grant Han is a good guy to have on your side in a dogfight, but once they're skirmishing there's not a lot to write home about. In New Hope there's really only the Death Star battle, which is them running in, grabbing Leia, and then fleeing. In Empire Strikes Back, I can't think of any major firefights, because again they're running away until they run into Vader like a brick wall and Han can't touch the guy. It's not even close (and if you start replying "yeah, but that's Darth Vader", then give yourself a whack because that is, once again, very much my point). In Return of the Jedi, they go to rescue Han, and there's no fight when the infiltration attempt fails. They simply surrender and let Luke save the day. And on the ground, the Battle for Endor is pretty much troopers versus ewoks and their slings and log-traps (that's why a lot of folks wound up not liking it after all). In short, you can think up all the mitigating issues you want that excuse a less-than-stellar showing, but at the end of the day, the non-jedis are just not that steeped in kick-butt combat skills. It's not an accident that the examples for the Soldier class is limited to a bunch of minor characters like Admiral Akbar.




Yet the skirmishing, especially in A New Hope, results in piles of dead stormtroopers while the heroes get through largely unscathed.  Since there's no mechanic for dumping bucketloads of narrative control onto a noncombat character (like the scaling amounts of Drama Points by "class" in Cinematic Unisystem), their ability to mow down mooks better than other mooks do... probably involves combat feats.  Those don't have to represent special training, they can represent heroic luck or whatever else you like.

But the reason Han, Leia and Chewbacca can't touch Darth Vader IS because he's Darth Vader!  That's true both in the film and in the game.  They're well-rounded 10th and 11th level characters against a 19th level combat monster with better stats and an entire army of mooks.  Even if you take away the stormtroopers, Vader should have no serious trouble defeating them.  Do mid-high level D&D PCs with a broad mix of abilities generally stand a chance against a CR 19 dragon when they happen to stumble across its lair?  What about a CR 19 dragon with a nigh-limitless supply of orcs, each with a ring of communication and a composite longbow with +4 arrows?

The situations the non-jedi PCs get into in the movies simply can't be solved by combat.  Even three combat-twinked jedi would almost certainly lose that fight.

For an example of Jedi getting mooked - look at Palpatine slaughtering the non-Mace Windu Jedi in RotS, and the effects of Order 66 on the non-Yoda, non-Obi-Wan Jedi.  Jedi who aren't extremely high level appear to go down easier than, and to do less damage than, high-level non-Jedi.  Combat prowess has more to do with level (generally a convenient shorthand for narrative significance) than it does with class.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Yeah, they do okay. That's a pretty good way of putting it. And they'd do okay in Saga just milking their level-based bonuses to attack and damage. But they're not masters of blaster-fu.




True.  A MASTER of blaster-fu would be 20th level, and be a Soldier 7/Gunslinger 10/Bounty Hunter 3 (or some such combat monster build).  He wouldn't have Scoundrel or Noble or Scout levels holding back his BAB (as Han and Leia do), and he wouldn't 'waste' levels on something like Ace Pilot (as Han does).


----------



## chobin foot (Jun 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Look, guys you are being seriously arguementative. Instead of just saying "I see where you're coming from", you're coming back with stuff like "oh, he's not a player-character" or "it's Luke's story, so they just held back" or "I write this off as the player being sleepy" (what the...?) or some other comment that basically evades the issues of whether or not anyone other than jedi were steeped in combat feats.




The essential problem was that they tried to fit a movie scene into the rules with that Sarlacc Pit "battle", as stated before.

It just wasn't an impressive display of a roleplaying game, IMO. A lot of dice rolling, a lot of frustration heaped on one poor player for no apparent reason ("OKAY, Lando's Player... your character just hangs there. Got it? You hang there & you're forced to make stupid dice rolls until I decide to stop torturing you.").

If I were playing Lando, I would have walked out & never come back after that gaming session. Seemed like a whole lot of wasted time for Lando.

Entertaining movie scene at the Sarlacc Pit... just not impressive as a roleplaying event, IMO  

/also confused by the lack of miniatures in the Sarlacc Pit example


----------



## atomn (Jun 13, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> It's not like we see the other characters performing at anything near their full potential.  The entire fight is pretty much structured to let Luke show off.




Don't forget Leia, she was pretty darn impressive when she put an end to poor Jabba!



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> For Han, it's pretty much limited to dogfighting in the Milllenium Falcon, not kicking butt as a gunslinger.




At the Battle of Endor, Han's pretty accurate with his blaster.  And Chewie was accurate enough to hit a moving speederbike and take it out in one shot.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 13, 2007)

atomn said:
			
		

> Don't forget Leia, she was pretty darn impressive when she put an end to poor Jabba!




True. She did lots of damage, folds nicely into the new level-based damage mechanic. However, Jabba probably put all his levels into low BAB classes (too).



> At the Battle of Endor, Han's pretty accurate with his blaster.  And Chewie was accurate enough to hit a moving speederbike and take it out in one shot.




Han Solo was shooting at mostly low level opponents (no matter how high level his opponents thought they were). Someone has to fill me in on the "rules for shooting vehicles".


----------



## Felon (Jun 13, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Anyway, here's two non-Jedi shown in the movies as steeped in combat feats: Jango Fett and General Grievous.  The latter, at least, is statted up as being the same level as Obi-Wan; both gave him a good fight.  Boba Fett probably qualifies, too, but as noted in the aforementioned combat example, he got screwed by the dice and Han's use of a Destiny Point.



Jengo Fett and General Grievous are very good examples of heroic-level characters giving a jedi a run for his money. I say that with some partiality, as I used Jengo Fett as an example myself this weekend when one of the pundits in our group responded to the notion of running Star Wars Saga the same way some folks did when they first heard about the Star Wars Galaxies MMORPG: "Well, you know, everyone will want to play a jedi". I do like the designers' decision to assume all heroic characters can potentially be extremely effective combatants. General Grievous is a little more tricky to use as an example, since he's not really something a PC could aspire to. In a lot of ways it's better to think of him as a monster.

But this is off my point, which was just that it isn't accurate to say that being true to the movies means making every player character heavily-invested in combat talents and feats. People don't seem to disagree with that statement...yet at the same time they do.



> But the reason Han, Leia and Chewbacca can't touch Darth Vader IS because he's Darth Vader! That's true both in the film and in the game. They're well-rounded 10th and 11th level characters against a 19th level combat monster with better stats and an entire army of mooks



See, referring to what level the characters are, or otherwise describing them in game terms, is kind of a cop-out since this debate stemmed not from how the characters performed in a game, but rather how they performed in a movie (and whether or not the game is reflecting that accurately). You're mixing up the cart and the horse. Lucas didn't decide Han couldn't beat Vader because of their respective experience point totals. He just decided that a relatively normal guy firing a blaster isn't going to take down Vader. The guys designed Saga decided to use level discrepencies to keep Han a badass gunslinger while explaining his ignominious defeat.

But you're right, Han didn't have a chance against Vader because he's Vader. Which means I'm right too.


----------



## Felon (Jun 13, 2007)

atomn said:
			
		

> Don't forget Leia, she was pretty darn impressive when she put an end to poor Jabba!
> 
> At the Battle of Endor, Han's pretty accurate with his blaster.  And Chewie was accurate enough to hit a moving speederbike and take it out in one shot.



As was said, they do well. They're resourceful, they're capable, they've got heart. But are they really deadly warriors elite? Not so much.


----------



## Henry (Jun 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> ...or some other comment that basically evades the issues of whether or not anyone other than jedi were steeped in combat feats.




Wait a minute, though -- you went from "lack of combat capability" and "noncombatants" to "not steeped in combat feats." If I am misunderstanding the first position, then I apologize. 3P0 and R2 are noncombatants, no doubt about it -- but the others, while not hardened warriors, were no slouches in combat, either, and the Saga rules take that tack - while someone doesn't have to be a combat monkey, they're GOING to be combat capable.

I think some people were getting used to having characters who were tech-monkeys, or doctor-monkeys, and making excessive amounts of money or excessively-powerful experimental equipment, and getting their enjoyment off of that. Nothing wrong with it, but in a universe more in tune with the movies, that's not going to happen. I'd love to see an expansion dedicated to such, but in a way I'm glad they kept it out of the core stuff, to make the game quicker and easier to just pick up and run.

Fortunately, we're supposed to be seeing a "starship mod" web enhancement, according to Rodney on the WotC forums, and then the Starships stuff later, so that people can extrapolate their own a bit.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> As was said, they do well. They're resourceful, they're capable, they've got heart. But are they really deadly warriors elite? Not so much.



Maybe I missed something while skimming through the various posts on this matter, but isn't that what SECR was trying to do?  To make it so that characters that aren't "combat elites" as you put it are still capable of holding their own in a fight?  Based on the stats presented in what I've seen so far for the NPCs I've drafted and characters made for my campaign, that's certainly been accomplished.  Even the straight-classed Noble proved able to hold her own alongside the four Jedi characters (campaign is set 500+ years before Ep1).

I agree the Sarlacc Pit encounter wasn't a great example of showing how a party of characters interact, since it was mostly Luke dominating low-level non-heroics, with him and Han getting a couple of lucky shots off against Boba Fett, who really was the only big threat in that "encounter."  As for Lando, according to Rodney when he was rolling out the combat, Lando should have bought the moisture farm in the first round based on the splash damage from the uber-cannon on the sail barge.  Back to Luke, his dice were hot that night, as I don't think he blew a single skill check.


----------



## NilesB (Jun 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Another thing I'm noticing is that there is no real "smart hero" class.



The main effect of the "smart hero" type class(es?) in earlier editions is to define everyone else as dumb; Even when they manifestly shouldn't be.


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> IIRC, they dropped the techie class from this revision, but they didn't really give it anywhere to go. IMO,



It goes anywhere and everywhere.
Anakin is a Jedi with strong technical skills, Chewbacca is a Scout with Strong technical skills, R2 is a scoundrel with strong technical skills.

In Star Wars having technical skills doesn't preclude being good at other things. Having a Tech Expert class made having technical skills preclude being good at other things, thus it made the game less Star Wars.


----------



## Victim (Jun 13, 2007)

NilesB said:
			
		

> The main effect of the "smart hero" type class(es?) in earlier editions is to define everyone else as dumb; Even when they manifestly shouldn't be.
> 
> It goes anywhere and everywhere.
> Anakin is a Jedi with strong technical skills, Chewbacca is a Scout with Strong technical skills, R2 is a scoundrel with strong technical skills.
> ...




Well, that is a bit of a problem, since there's not really a good way for Anakin to get his strong technical skills - his write up doesn't include a way for him to get Mechanics.

But yeah, Anakin is (at least mostly) a Jedi with strong technical skills.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 13, 2007)

Saga edition is suppoused to cover all of the eras, and in the later eras, New Republic and New Jedi Order there are a few characters who's only levels should be Jedi who are mechanically oriented in addition to Anakin Skywalker.  Jaina Solo and Lowbacca were continuously rebuilding and upgrading crashed and damaged ships.  They went into Lukes Academy young, and she was using the force as young as 2 or 3.  There would be no reason for her to have any other class but Jedi, and yet she has to take another class to get the mechanics skill.  By the rules as written, Obi Wan and Anakin couldn't have the mechanics skill, and yet they perform tasks like repairing a ships hyperdrive, jury rigging repairs to a submarine, and buildng a droid and a pod racer from scratch.

If the rules don't reflect the movies, then the rules are insufficient.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, you've homed in on why Endurance won't come up every session and won't be of vital importance. Not for most folks anyway. In all the years of playing 3rd edition, I've found it's a rare thing to have a DM ever invoke the fules for forced marches, extended running or swimming, extreme enviironmental conditions, or malnourishment. That seems odd on face value, because long treks across wilderness is par for the genre. Yet, the DM generally doesn't even take note of how many miles the party can travel in an hour. It's usually "a day/week's travel", and then cut to the chase. Maybe there's a random monster encounter before getting there, but that's about it. And this is a game where characters lack mundane means of fast travel.
> 
> I suspect the DM simply views theses rules as nuisances rather than challenges. They're in dsifavor much the same way traps seem to be falling into disuse. The DM doesn't want the character to *not* get to where the adventure is. He doesn't want the party starving to death, dying ignominiously from exposure, or giving up and going home.




Wow, generalize much? So basically, since you've never enforced the Endurance rules, the feat/skill is useless?

Personally, I've always used the forced march/fatigue rules, and any PC in my games who takes the Endurance feat/skill get's to see it shine. Maybe it's just because I always enjoyed   when Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas chased after the orcs who took the hobbits, but long distance chases, sleep deprivation, etc... are typical in my games.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 14, 2007)

I haven't looked at the rules in depth, but is it possible maybe some of you are setting the book up to fail?  It sounds like the rules reflect the _movies_ very well.  But even so, it's not going to have everything.  F'rex., if there's a Jedi PC whose shtick is "strong apptitude for mechanics," is it really that much of a stretch to allow the player to choose it as a class skill?

If the book has largely nailed the look and feel of the movies, I'd say they achieved their design goal.  If they did not manage to include every single nuance, I would not necessarily say that's a deficiency.


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 14, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I haven't looked at the rules in depth, but is it possible maybe some of you are setting the book up to fail?  It sounds like the rules reflect the _movies_ very well.  But even so, it's not going to have everything.  F'rex., if there's a Jedi PC whose shtick is "strong apptitude for mechanics," is it really that much of a stretch to allow the player to choose it as a class skill?
> 
> If the book has largely nailed the look and feel of the movies, I'd say they achieved their design goal.  If they did not manage to include every single nuance, I would not necessarily say that's a deficiency.




I agree with you. A PC can be an expert in Saga in any skill with just 1 level of multiclassing and 2 feats (you don't need to stay in the class to spend those feats).

So the extent of the issue of granularity seems to be that 1st (and to an extent 2nd) level PCs can not dabbled more in one non-class skill than other non-class skills and that you can't dabble a little more in one skill more than others over a long period of time.


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Wow, generalize much? So basically, since you've never enforced the Endurance rules, the feat/skill is useless?



So, lemme get this straight. You go "wow, generalize much?" and then proceed to follow that remark up with "so basically..." and go straight into a generalization of your own. And not just a generalization, but one that actually misconstrues what I said, which was "it's a rare thing to have a DM ever invoke" the aforementioned rules.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 14, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> If the book has largely nailed the look and feel of the movies, I'd say they achieved their design goal.  If they did not manage to include every single nuance, I would not necessarily say that's a deficiency.




Well, I don't think that the fact Vader can't pick up Palpatine and throw him into the reactor shift is not just a "nuance." Or that you have to be 3rd level or higher if you want to cherrypick skills.


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I haven't looked at the rules in depth, but is it possible maybe some of you are setting the book up to fail?  It sounds like the rules reflect the _movies_ very well.  But even so, it's not going to have everything.  F'rex., if there's a Jedi PC whose shtick is "strong apptitude for mechanics," is it really that much of a stretch to allow the player to choose it as a class skill?



Should it just be treated as a given then that every GM will make that allowance? Or is it possible that feelings of disappointment might be justified on the grounds that a GM won't make such alloances simply because he wants to go by the book?

Regarding "setting it up to fail", stating that a book is perhaps disappointing in some respects isn't the same thing as saying it's failed altogether. Some folks are so quick to be overwhelmingly positive--to want to give it a billion-star review--that they brook no criticism. They magnify any criticism out of its original context, and then tell the critic he's blowing stuff out of proportion. There's been a lot of snark in this thread because of that attitude.


----------



## Technik4 (Jun 14, 2007)

> Well, I don't think that the fact Vader can't pick up Palpatine and throw him into the reactor shift is not just a "nuance."




Why can't he?


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Wait a minute, though -- you went from "lack of combat capability" and "noncombatants" to "not steeped in combat feats." If I am misunderstanding the first position, then I apologize. 3P0 and R2 are noncombatants, no doubt about it -- but the others, while not hardened warriors, were no slouches in combat, either, and the Saga rules take that tack - while someone doesn't have to be a combat monkey, they're GOING to be combat capable.



Here's the cliff notes version of the discussion from where I'm sitting: I agreed with somebody who regretted the book not offering a lot of content (feats in particular) for characters who aren't good at combat (Kaylee from Firefly was given as an example), which was then rebutted by someone who felt that focusing on combat builds made the game true to the spirit of the movies, and then I followed up by pointing out that there were noncombatant characters like the droids and that most of the non-jedi characters were sort of "incidental warriors" at best. That seemed to draw objections out of the woodwork, and things kind of went all over the place from there.

Let me be clear, I think it's great that Saga characters have a general level of capability that lets everyone participate in different sorts of scenes, be they focused on combat, skills, or a mixture (add half-level on damage, add half-level on skill checks--simple and effective). After a certain point, a character won't be a slouch at much of anything. They'll do stuff I don't see characters do in my D&D sessions, like attempt to disguise themselves in order to infiltrate an enemy lair despite many (if not all) members of the party lacking the requisite skills. Very nice. The object of disappointment was the prospect of choosing feats and talents for a character that only does combat "on the side" and whose main contribution is some other area (I'd give examples, but I know how that always works out; folks will dive straight into deconstructing the examples, rather than addressing the point itself).


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2007)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> Why can't he?



It takes feats to do things with someone after you grapple them, even things that a lot of folks reckon wouldn't require any special knack, like pinning, tripping, or throwing their opponent.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 14, 2007)

To make it clear, I don't think Star Wars Saga is a perfect system, or a perfect representation of the movies, or deserves a billion-star rating.

I think it is by a WIDE margin the best game ever made under the d20 license, the best game ever made under d20-based OGL, almost certainly the best tabletop tactics/RPG ever made, and one of the five best RPGs ever made.  I think it deserves a clear 5/5 or 10/10.  (To put those ratings in perspective, I would give d20 Modern a 4/5 or 7/10, True20 a 4/5 or 8/10, and Mutants and Masterminds a 5/5 or 9/10.)

I think it does a good job simulating the Star Wars setting as seen in the six movies, and a decent job of simulating the often-conflicting Expanded Universe.

I ALSO think it has a very sparse list of examples (especially of vehicles), that Mechanics should be a class skill for every class, that there are an inappropriately number of typos for such a high-profile product, that the Droid Hero rules are either very poor or unclear, that the Beast class has room for improvement despite being a brilliant concept, and that the scoundrel is somewhat subpar on paper and in my playtesting.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 14, 2007)

*the first E is Epic *



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> If I have to play a game for a year and a half before I even get to the Flaw I'm going to call it a very minute flaw.




Thats a year and half to allow for WotC to release "ESWSE"...

"For those plucky young jedi who dream of fighting Hecatoncheires Sith Lords".


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> To make it clear, I don't think Star Wars Saga is a perfect system, or a perfect representation of the movies, or deserves a billion-star rating.
> 
> I think it is by a WIDE margin the best game ever made under the d20 license, the best game ever made under d20-based OGL, almost certainly the best tabletop tactics/RPG ever made, and one of the five best RPGs ever made.  I think it deserves a clear 5/5 or 10/10.  (To put those ratings in perspective, I would give d20 Modern a 4/5 or 7/10, True20 a 4/5 or 8/10, and Mutants and Masterminds a 5/5 or 9/10.)



High-praise indeed, the highest being "almost certainly the best tabletop tactics/RPG ever made". How do you distinguish that category from RPG's in general? What else would go in that category besides D20 games?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 14, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The Ugly - No explanation on leveling beyond 20.




But then seriously how many campaigns get to level 20 anyway? I've been playing D&D since 3.0 and I've yet to play a single campaign to level 20. Most campaigns I've played in finish in the low to mid teens at the latest and they take years to run. Most players now days don't play epic campaigns that go on and on indefinitely, hence rules for over 20th level are pretty pointless for most players and GMs, so why waste pages?


----------



## Flynn (Jun 14, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I haven't looked at the rules in depth, but is it possible maybe some of you are setting the book up to fail?  It sounds like the rules reflect the _movies_ very well.  But even so, it's not going to have everything.  F'rex., if there's a Jedi PC whose shtick is "strong apptitude for mechanics," is it really that much of a stretch to allow the player to choose it as a class skill?
> 
> If the book has largely nailed the look and feel of the movies, I'd say they achieved their design goal.  If they did not manage to include every single nuance, I would not necessarily say that's a deficiency.




Considering that even without having training in a skill, you still get a base of half your level when making rolls, it's still possible to make the rolls.

If the only reason you take a level in a different class is to get a skill as a class skill, then why not create a new feat that allows you to take a skill as a class skill instead. Here's a good example from the Netbook of Feats:



			
				Netbook Of Feats said:
			
		

> *CROSS-CLASS LEARNING* [General]
> Pick two skills that become class skills for all your classes.
> *Benefit*: Pick any two skills. The selected skills become class skills for all your classes from this point on.
> *Special*: This feat may be taken multiple times, but does not stack with itself. Choose two new skills to become class skills each time it is taken.
> ...




Hope this helps,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn (Jun 14, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I think it is by a WIDE margin the best game ever made under the d20 license, the best game ever made under d20-based OGL, almost certainly the best tabletop tactics/RPG ever made, and one of the five best RPGs ever made.




Just one point of clarification, but the SECR has not been released as Open Game Content, and was therefore never made under the d20-based OGL. Not that one couldn't create an OGL version of the core Saga Edition system (and I imagine someone is already doing so, even as we speak), but Star Wars Saga Edition is not OGL.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 14, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I think it is by a WIDE margin the best game ever made under the d20 license, the best game ever made under d20-based OGL, almost certainly the best tabletop tactics/RPG ever made, and one of the five best RPGs ever made.  I think it deserves a clear 5/5 or 10/10.  (To put those ratings in perspective, I would give d20 Modern a 4/5 or 7/10, True20 a 4/5 or 8/10, and Mutants and Masterminds a 5/5 or 9/10.)




But how much playtime do you have with the game to be so over-the-top in love with it?  It's been out for a week?  Two?

Given your other ratings, I'm inclined to lean the other way -- I think True20 is a mess, dislike M&M for anything other than Supers, and that d20 Modern would have been a complete waste had it not given birth to Grim Tales.

The more I read of SWSE, the more I see it as a better way to play the movies than the previous d20 incarnations, but seriously lacking for those that want to put their own spin on the SW universe.  I'm far more interested in the latter than the former.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think that the fact Vader can't pick up Palpatine and throw him into the reactor shift is not just a "nuance." Or that you have to be 3rd level or higher if you want to cherrypick skills.




Let's be frank, here:  grappling is a problem in the d20 rules, not the SWSE rules.  It has _always_ been a d20 issue.  Seems they've made some pretty significant changes, but it's not a new system.

Besides, does Vader really need grappling feats for that _one time_ he picked up a guy in the movies and tossed him somewhere?  Ok, two times.  But I don't count that incident on the consular ship.   



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Should it just be treated as a given then that every GM will make that allowance? Or is it possible that feelings of disappointment might be justified on the grounds that a GM won't make such alloances simply because he wants to go by the book?




Sure, not everyone is going to make that allowance.  In fact, I think most people will want to start with the RAW before moving on.  But if that's the case, work within the system, move on, and if the GM makes any changes down the road, or new books come out, or whatever, ask about them.  As we all know, RPGs are pretty fluid in their design, and these things aren't immutable.  In the mean time, there's nothing stopping me as a player, taking a level or two in another class to further my vision of the character.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Regarding "setting it up to fail", stating that a book is perhaps disappointing in some respects isn't the same thing as saying it's failed altogether. Some folks are so quick to be overwhelmingly positive--to want to give it a billion-star review--that they brook no criticism. They magnify any criticism out of its original context, and then tell the critic he's blowing stuff out of proportion. There's been a lot of snark in this thread because of that attitude.




You're right.  I was being a little hyperbolic, but certainly not snarky.  If anyone confused my original post as such, I'm sorry.  Definitely not my intent.  I think being critical is important; constructive criticism is the first path to improvement.  But I think some are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.  It's just not possible to do everything in one publication.  Is it really reasonable to expect that?  This thing's still hot off the grill.  Most have not even played it yet.  There is plenty of time for criticism.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> High-praise indeed, the highest being "almost certainly the best tabletop tactics/RPG ever made". How do you distinguish that category from RPG's in general? What else would go in that category besides D20 games?




Offhand - previous versions of D&D (possibly excluding AD&D 2e, which drifted the furthest from this style IMX), HERO, Savage Worlds, Runequest, almost every major knockoff of AD&D during the late '70s and early-mid '80s.  GURPS and WHFR probably fit, too, but I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with them to be sure; I played both with minis but don't own the books to see if that's how the system is designed to run.

Pretty much any game that began with the assumption of miniatures/counters use and a tactical grid map qualifies (I used a term that refers to a similar class of CRPGs: the D&D Gold Box games, Final Fantasy Tactics, Vandal Hearts, etc.), even if it doesn't require that.  (Note that it doesn't have to be explicit.)  Exalted is an outlier, in that timing is the core of its tactical engine rather than positioning.

The main contrast would be with games that are either explicitly not designed for map-based play (Feng Shui, Mutants and Masterminds, WoD), and/or are strongly aligned to a GNS stance other than Gamism. (FATE/Spirit of the Century, Wushu, Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard, Heroquest).



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> But how much playtime do you have with the game to be so over-the-top in love with it? It's been out for a week? Two?
> 
> Given your other ratings, I'm inclined to lean the other way -- I think True20 is a mess, dislike M&M for anything other than Supers, and that d20 Modern would have been a complete waste had it not given birth to Grim Tales.




Oh, absolutely.  As with any early review, it's subject to the caveat "unless it works nothing like that in play."  On paper, it hits almost every note right for this type of game, and my early playtest and fooling around with the system indicates that it's going to hit those notes when put to the test in actual play situations, too.



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Given your other ratings, I'm inclined to lean the other way -- I think True20 is a mess, dislike M&M for anything other than Supers, and that d20 Modern would have been a complete waste had it not given birth to Grim Tales.




Then it's a safe bet our gaming tastes have absolutely NOTHING in common and we should avoid each others' gaming tables like the plague.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> So, lemme get this straight. You go "wow, generalize much?" and then proceed to follow that remark up with "so basically..." and go straight into a generalization of your own. And not just a generalization, but one that actually misconstrues what I said, which was "it's a rare thing to have a DM ever invoke" the aforementioned rules.




Let me see if I can make it clearer then. You said:



> Well, you've homed in on why Endurance won't come up every session and won't be of vital importance. Not for most folks anyway. In all the years of playing 3rd edition, I've found it's a rare thing to have a DM ever invoke the rules for forced marches, extended running or swimming, extreme environmental conditions, or malnourishment.




To which I responded that in my games (either as a player or GM) it's a rare thing *not* to invoke the rules for forced marches, extended running or swimming, extreme environmental conditions, or malnourishment.

Hence, since like most other rules in RPGs, it'll depend on how each group emphasizes it. Which makes any judgment about how good Endurance is a subjective one.


----------



## Victim (Jun 14, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> To which I responded that in my games (either as a player or GM) it's a rare thing *not* to invoke the rules for forced marches, extended running or swimming, extreme environmental conditions, or malnourishment.
> 
> Hence, since like most other rules in RPGs, it'll depend on how each group emphasizes it. Which makes any judgment about how good Endurance is a subjective one.




That just seems weird to me.  If you have to use those rules, it seems like the group has already screwed up.  When forced marches come into play, you have to be in a hurry AND not using travel magic, or any one of the other mundane forms of transportation that can be faster like horses, boats, etc.  It's generally pretty easy to get around endurance type challenges using other means.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 14, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> That just seems weird to me.  If you have to use those rules, it seems like the group has already screwed up.  When forced marches come into play, you have to be in a hurry AND not using travel magic, or any one of the other mundane forms of transportation that can be faster like horses, boats, etc.  It's generally pretty easy to get around endurance type challenges using other means.




Which is exactly my point. I'm not saying that Endurance is an uber skill in all games. I can definitely see it as useless if you're dealing with a space hopping/smuggler type game in SW. If instead you're part of a Rebel strike force operating behind enemy lines in Kashyyk, it becomes very important.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 14, 2007)

Add in the fact that a forced march induces nonlethal damage, which Endurance helps you resist, but the party as a whole will still have to stop when the weakest member collapses from nonlethal damage, so one person having the feat hardly helps at all.


----------



## comrade raoul (Jun 14, 2007)

On Vader and the grappling rules: Whenever you write rules, you can have structure, flexibility, or simplicity--but you only get to pick two. (For three extremes, freeform games choose flexibility and simplicity; tactical wargames pick structure and simplicity; games like Rolemaster pick structure and flexibility.) Saga Edition clearly trades some flexibility for simplicity, in the name of accessibility, and the much more manageable yet more limited grappling rules are an instance of this. Trying to model everything necessarily compromises simplicity, and it's understandable why the designers didn't go that route.

Personally, I'd model the Vader-Emperor showdown like this.
*Vader's player:* That bastard's frying my son! I want to grab him and toss him down the reactor shaft!
*Gamemaster:* Do you have the Trip and Throw feats?
*Vader's player:* Er, no. Normally I slice things up with lightsabers or choke them with my mind.
*Gamemaster:* Yeah, I know. That's like the fourth time this session you've said that.
*Vader's player:* ... What if I spend a Destiny Point? It's really important.
*Gamemaster:* Sure, go for it. I'll just treat you as having the feats for this encounter.

I don't think that's too much of a problem.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 14, 2007)

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> *Gamemaster:* Yeah, I know. That's like the fourth time this session you've said that.
> *Vader's player:* ... What if I spend a Destiny Point? It's really important.
> *Gamemaster:* Sure, go for it. I'll just treat you as having the feats for this encounter.
> 
> I don't think that's too much of a problem.




This is why I like destiny points, actions points, whatever you want to call them, they fill in the flexibility gap that a poster talked about a few posts up. They allow players to break the rules and make the scene happen the way they want it, regardless of how the rules would play out.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 14, 2007)

Indeed destiny points can fix this. 

One of the houserules I'm thinking of using is allowing, on a case by case basis, the use of any feat/talent requiring a skill check if you don't have it but with a -5 penalty. I just don't like to think of feats and talents as on/off abilities. Never did.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 14, 2007)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> Saga edition is suppoused to cover all of the eras, and in the later eras, New Republic and New Jedi Order there are a few characters who's only levels should be Jedi who are mechanically oriented in addition to Anakin Skywalker.  Jaina Solo and Lowbacca were continuously rebuilding and upgrading crashed and damaged ships.  They went into Lukes Academy young, and she was using the force as young as 2 or 3.  There would be no reason for her to have any other class but Jedi, and yet she has to take another class to get the mechanics skill.  By the rules as written, Obi Wan and Anakin couldn't have the mechanics skill, and yet they perform tasks like repairing a ships hyperdrive, jury rigging repairs to a submarine, and buildng a droid and a pod racer from scratch.



Well, that can easily be remedied by allowing characters to spend their bonus trained skill selections from Intelligence on any skill, even if it's not a class skill.  All those characters spent one of their bonus trained skills from Intelligence (I'm sure they'd have at least a 12 Intelligence right out the gate) on Mechanics.

Like the moggle said, there's no such animal as an absolutely perfect role-playing game, if only because nobody runs their games in exactly the same way.  Best that can be hoped for is a system that requires very little "fiddling" to make it suit your style of play.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 15, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> This is why I like destiny points, actions points, whatever you want to call them, they fill in the flexibility gap that a poster talked about a few posts up. They allow players to break the rules and make the scene happen the way they want it, regardless of how the rules would play out.




Erm, not really.  The example above is resolved through GM fiat.

There's a much simpler way of handling it.

Vader's player says "I want to kill Palpatine to save my son."
So Vader:
-Activates Battle Strike (yeah, he doesn't have it in the book, why he doesn't I don't know), gets a nice roll of 27, spends a Force Point, and does an additional 5d6 to his next attack.
-Spends a Destiny Point to get a critical hit on his next attack.
-Makes an unarmed attack at 2d4+10d6+6 damage.  Rolls 40 something; higher than Palpatine's Threshold.

The GM narrates this as Palpatine falling down the reactor shaft, to his death.

edit: I guess that would mean Palpatine was down low on the condition track.  Ah well.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 15, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Let's be frank




Can I still be Baby Samurai?



Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Destil (Jun 15, 2007)

Well, I just absorbed most of the book (giving it a quick once-over), and played a short session and over-all I'm rather impressed.

And of course I must nit-pick, but right away I'll say I would happily run this with only ...4? house rules, and I don't say that often.

So has anyone else picked up on:

Multiclassing: You only get 1 of the 3-4 starting feats when you multiclass into a class. That's good. But these feats aren't on the class bonus list, so you need to spend a character level feat to get them!?! you're telling me a scoundrel who becomes a jedi and takes force sensitive can't, with her 2nd jedi level, take lightsaber proficiency as a jedi bonus feat? I've reread these rules a few times now just hoping I'd missed it, but I'm still not seeing it... House-rule #1

Too many Str skills!!! It makes the score less useful, not more. That's my house-rule #2: Climb, Swim and Jump are Athletics, any class that had any one of these as a class skill gets Athletics instead. Any race that has a conditional bonus feat with one instead gets it with athletics, but only with one form of locomotion. #2

No way to train in a nonclass skill short of multiclassing. I think simply allowing Skill Training to apply to any skill of your choice, and change the bonus feat list for each class to instead include Skill Training (only in a class skill) is the most elegant solution. #3.

Two squares per diagonal. This would actually be my house rule #1, but if I run this I don't think my players will notice the change (I doubt any of them know that it's 1 then 2 squares now), so I'm simply not bringing it to their attention in the first place. So we'll call it 3.5.


----------



## Asmor (Jun 15, 2007)

Destil said:
			
		

> Two squares per diagonal. This would actually be my house rule #1, but if I run this I don't think my players will notice the change (I doubt any of them know that it's 1 then 2 squares now), so I'm simply not bringing it to their attention in the first place. So we'll call it 3.5.




Waaah? I'm totally confused now, wasn't there a whole big thing in this thread earlier about how movement in Saga IS always 2 squares per diagonal, instead of D&D's 1-2-1-2 pattern?


----------



## Destil (Jun 15, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Waaah? I'm totally confused now, wasn't there a whole big thing in this thread earlier about how movement in Saga IS always 2 squares per diagonal, instead of D&D's 1-2-1-2 pattern?



Sorry, it is. That's what I'm referring too, I just got a bit confusing there in my tendency to twist grammar.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 15, 2007)

What I didn't like about the game:

The Gamemastering advice.  All sorts of stuff in there I don't like, from advice that tells you to lie to your friends (last paragraph first column pp245), "GM's can't really cheat", to the metagaming "should always be discouraged because it detracts from _real roleplaying_" (italics mine).


----------



## Henry (Jun 15, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> The Gamemastering advice.  All sorts of stuff in there I don't like, from advice that tells you to lie to your friends (last paragraph first column pp245), "GM's can't really cheat",




Definitely discussion for another thread, but really, they can't - they could just as easily add more foes as take them away, they could fudge die rolls to try and enhance the evening's entertainment, they could improv rules for a cool and exciting action that a player wants to try with a destiny point, etc. DM fudging and misinformation has been hotly debated since the beginning of RPG's, but some of the best DM's I've ever known are masters of rules manipulation and die manipulation on the fly - just like some of the worst I've ever known are, either.



> to the metagaming "should always be discouraged because it detracts from _real roleplaying_" (italics mine).




I need to look that up. Someone actually used the phrase, "REAL ROLEPLAYING" in the Star Wars book? THIS I gotta see.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 15, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Erm, not really.  The example above is resolved through GM fiat.
> 
> There's a much simpler way of handling it.
> 
> ...




The problem is that this example is also resolved by DM fiat but to a lesser extent since the GM robbed the player of the oppertunity to tossing (or doing something else to) the Emporer prone body himself.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 16, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> All sorts of stuff in there I don't like . . . "GM's can't really cheat", to the metagaming "should always be discouraged because it detracts from _real roleplaying_" (italics mine).



What RPG has ever given advice contradicting these?


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 16, 2007)

Faraer said:
			
		

> What RPG has ever given advice contradicting these?




Oh, there are a few.

It's not like that advice is necessarily _bad_ or anything; it could be bad, depending on the group, but so could the opposite advice.

It's just that I don't like it.

The "real roleplaying" thing is hilarious.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 16, 2007)

Faraer said:
			
		

> What RPG has ever given advice contradicting these?




Burning Wheel explicitly contradicts "GMs can't cheat."  It makes a big deal out of spreading the power much further around the table, up to and including encouraging players to call the GM if he steps outside the rules.  Burning Empires actually includes formal limits on the GM's resources.

Essentially all RPGs with conflict resolution rather than task resolution mechanics incorporate a strong element of metagaming; in something like Primetime Adventures, the entire gameplay aspect is purely metagame to the roleplaying.  RPGs (or RPG-like wargames, if you don't consider them "real RPGs") that encourage tactical, Gamist play often don't discourage players from using player knowledge as well as PC knowledge, any more than Warhammer Fantasy Battles exhorts players to only read one army book.  Any RPG that makes extensive use of puzzles encourages metagaming; I'm pretty sure at least some of those explicitly encourage challenging the players, not their characters.


----------



## Felon (Jun 16, 2007)

Good Thing: Raising a character's Int modifier allows the character to train a new skill.

Good Thing: Track is not a feat, just a trained-only function of the Survival skill.

So-So Thing: Stealth is stated to only require cover or concealment "usually". That's not exactly what I'd like to see, but it's an improvement over D&D's notion that it's flat-out impossible to creep up on someone (or creep past them) without those conditions.

Bad Thing: No way to train skills not on your class list (so, with regards to tracking, it's effectively limited to scouts because nobody else has Survival on their class skill list).

Not-So-Sure Thing: Is there any PC out there who won't have Initiative and Perception trained? 

I'm sure this is covered somewhere but I can't find it: is it possible to have no trained skills due to a negative Int modifier?


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 17, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'm sure this is covered somewhere but I can't find it: is it possible to have no trained skills due to a negative Int modifier?



Only place anything like that is referenced is under the Beast and Non-Heroic classes at the back of the book, where is cites a minimum of 1 trained skill.  Would probably be safe to assume the same holds true for the heroic classes.

As for you comment regarding trained in Initiative and Perception, answer would be not many.  Though I did finish converting a Human merc from RCR to SECR, and he's only got Initiative as a trained skill; character and player were both noted for being pretty oblivious, but at least the SECR version of the character can find his buttocks with both hands.  The player... debatable.


----------



## arscott (Jun 17, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think that the fact Vader can't pick up Palpatine and throw him into the reactor shift is not just a "nuance." Or that you have to be 3rd level or higher if you want to cherrypick skills.




I think that's more a problem with the way they built Vader than with the grapple rules.  Any time we see him in conflict that's not a lightsaber duel, Grappling seems to be his preferred tactic.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 17, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I need to look that up. Someone actually used the phrase, "REAL ROLEPLAYING" in the Star Wars book? THIS I gotta see.



I think everyone is overexaggerating the "real roleplaying" part. IMNSHO, their attempt to find flaws in the book using this example is overreaching.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 17, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> IMNSHO, their attempt to find flaws in the book using this example is overreaching.




Well, in my case I think the game is pretty awesome, though I have yet to play.  But it looks really cool and I want to try it out.

If the worst thing in the game is advice... the game is pretty good.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 17, 2007)

If there is anything you should take from the advice in the book is that you shouldn't hide behind the rules or go through the session speaking entirely in metagaming. You're supposed to be and participating in a story, not a series of random events and encounters. There has to be a point to the adventures.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 17, 2007)

I am extremely impressed with the condition track.  It replaces ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, nausea, poison, energy drain, paralysis, etc.  I think I will adopt it for any D&D game I run, since it gets rid of the "cascading effects" problem to a large extent.

I wonder if prestige classes and multi-classes are tactically mandatory, or if one could get by as a 20th level Jedi.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 18, 2007)

My players and myself had our fortnightly _D&D Planescape_ campaign yesterday, and we ported over the following changes form _Saga_:


*-Charge is a standard action

-Withdraw is a move action.

-No 5 ft. step.

-Diagonal movement is 2-2-2-2, rather than 1-2-1-2.

-No iterative attacks – replaced by Double Attack, Triple Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, Rapid Strike, Dual Weapon Mastery etc

-No confirmation rolls for critical hits – a longsword automatically critical hits on a natural 20, a rapier automatically critical hits on a natural 19, or 20, and a keen rapier automatically critical hits on a natural 18, 19, or 20.

-Half character level as bonus damage on attacks.*


There was definitely more movement, and the combats were tactically more interesting.  There were still plenty of full attacks, but no one missed the diminishing return iterative attacks, Double and Triple Attack worked out great.  The lack of the 5 ft. step and the new withdraw action as a move action was so cool and elegant.  And the fact that charge is a standard action makes for some interesting choices and is more fun for everyone.


The party consists of:


*-CN drow psion (seer) 10

-CG half-orc barbarian 2/ranger 10

-N human spirit shaman 12

-LG half-celestial human psychic rogue 8

-NG gold dwarf divine bard 4/fighter 1/battlesmith 1/deepwarden 2/dwarf paragon 1/hammer of moradin 3*


They went up against:


*-4th level drow warriors (x10)

-6th level drow chaos monks (spring attack build x4 and grapple build x4)

-9th level drow druid

-8th level drow sorcerer

-1st level illithid chaos monk*


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 18, 2007)

Is there any difference between using 2 weapons and taking the feat to reduce the penalty to -5 or taking double attack and take the -5 to attack for 2 attacks besides the flavor?


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 18, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Is there any difference between using 2 weapons and taking the feat to reduce the penalty to -5 or taking double attack and take the -5 to attack for 2 attacks besides the flavor?




Well with Double Attack you can get two attacks at –5 with a two-handed weapon getting 2 x Str bonus on each hit.

With Dual Weapon Mastery III you can attack once with each weapon with 1 x Str bonus on each hit at no penalty.  The penalty for Dual Weapon Mastery II is –2, and for Dual Weapon Mastery I it is –5.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 18, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Is there any difference between using 2 weapons and taking the feat to reduce the penalty to -5 or taking double attack and take the -5 to attack for 2 attacks besides the flavor?



Double Attack is restricted to one weapon category each time the feat is selected, while Dual Weapon Mastery can be used with any weapon category, and by the time you'd qualify for Double Attack, you can take another level of DWM and get two attacks at a -2 penalty.  You wouldn't get the damage output of Double Attack with a two-handed weapon, but you could make multiple attacks at a much lower penalty.

And for a double pistol character with DWM I to III, the Rapid Shot feat and Trigger Work talent, there's no loss in damage output whatsoever.


----------



## Felon (Jun 19, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I am extremely impressed with the condition track.  It replaces ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, nausea, poison, energy drain, paralysis, etc.



This is actually a point well worth noting. Champions of the hit point system have often dismissed the idea of some sort of injury penalty as locking players into a downward spiral of death, but we've always had that in D&D in the form of the likes of ability damage, negative levels and such.  

Then again, I'm not sure if throwing it all under the ubiquitous category "steps down the condition track" is desirable. I can tell you that very little scares my group as much as the thought being hit with a negative level.


----------



## Felon (Jun 19, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If there is anything you should take from the advice in the book is that you shouldn't hide behind the rules or go through the session speaking entirely in metagaming. You're supposed to be and participating in a story, not a series of random events and encounters. There has to be a point to the adventures.



Doesn't sound like there's anything fresh to take from that. And as much I'd rather the players get involved in the story, there are folks who have plenty of fun with random events and encounters. To each their own.


----------



## Felon (Jun 19, 2007)

arscott said:
			
		

> I think that's more a problem with the way they built Vader than with the grapple rules.  Any time we see him in conflict that's not a lightsaber duel, Grappling seems to be his preferred tactic.



I don't know that logic really follows. What sort of combat should Vader be doing without a lightsaber? Bare-knuckle boxing? 

I doubt Vader should be written up as some sort of wrestler (except maybe a lark) just because he likes to do basic phenomenally-strong cyborg stuff like picking folks up in the air one-handed. No, I think it's a pretty legitimate complaint that grappling's a dead end without feats, and you can't do stuff with it that you and I could do if we were grappling.


----------



## Felon (Jun 19, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> There was definitely more movement, and the combats were tactically more interesting.



Good to hear. I suppose it stands to reason that if you get a move action, and you're not allowed to burn it to gain additional attacks, then you're going to use it to move whenever you can. Why not?


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I suppose it stands to reason that if you get a move action, and you're not allowed to burn it to gain additional attacks, then you're going to use it to move whenever you can. Why not?




But you can still take a full round action worth of attacks (Double Attack, Dual Weapon Mastery, Whirlwind Attack etc), and you have to be careful moving wherever you want because of AoO.  And even with the withdraw action being a Move action, your starting square is the only one considered non-threatened.

Charge being a standard action is so much fun, as characters can withdraw as a Move action, and then charge somebody's ass in the same round.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 19, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Well, that can easily be remedied by allowing characters to spend their bonus trained skill selections from Intelligence on any skill, even if it's not a class skill.  All those characters spent one of their bonus trained skills from Intelligence (I'm sure they'd have at least a 12 Intelligence right out the gate) on Mechanics.




This was an idea I first saw in Conan OGL, and I thought it was a good one then (class skill points spent on class skills, bonus skill points spent on what the hell you liked).

I'm pretty certain I'll incorporate it in my (eventual) star wars campaign.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 19, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> This was an idea I first saw in Conan OGL, and I thought it was a good one then (class skill points spent on class skills, bonus skill points spent on what the hell you liked).



Which is where I got the notion from.  Only had a one player in my current game take advantage of it so far, but it's nice to have on the books.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 19, 2007)

arscott said:
			
		

> I think that's more a problem with the way they built Vader than with the grapple rules.  Any time we see him in conflict that's not a lightsaber duel, Grappling seems to be his preferred tactic.



Well, the only instance we see in the movies of Vader "grappling" would be ANH when he's choking Captain Antilles.

Though I'm wondering if it could be covered under the grabbing rules instead of the full-bore grappling rules?  Don't have my book handy, but if you can attack with a light weapon (such as a fist) while grappling, then that explains how Vader was able to lift & choke Antilles.  Had him in grabbed and was doing unarmed damage to him, with the descriptive effects of raising him off the ground and strangling the poor bloke.

Just a thought.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 19, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Well, the only instance we see in the movies of Vader "grappling" would be ANH when he's choking Captain Antilles.




That, and picking up the Emperor and tossing him into the bowels of the Death Star. While missing one hand.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 19, 2007)

That's not grappling that's artistic license on a Bantha Rush. (Oh that's a feat now, and he doesn't have that feat either)


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 19, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Well, the only instance we see in the movies of Vader "grappling" would be ANH when he's choking Captain Antilles.




That wasn't Grappling, that was Force Grip at point blank range.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 19, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> That, and picking up the Emperor and tossing him into the bowels of the Death Star. While missing one hand.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



One intrepretation I saw of this was Vader used Battle Strike, spending a Force Point to get the extra 2d6 damage, then made an unarmed attack on the Emperor, spending a Destiny Point to make it an automatic critical hit.  He rolled an obscene amount of damage (maxed out his bonus damage dice, which under SECR apparently get doubled along with the regular damage roll), and the GM ruled was enough to drop the Emperor, then applied the creative description of the old geezer literally getting shafted.

Kinda like how Han's "wild swing" at Boba Fett was, in game terms, enough to drop the bounty hunter, but the GM gave Fett a wild, over-the-top death sequence instead.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 19, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> supposed to be and participating in a story, not a series of random events and encounters. There has to be a point to the adventures.




That's metagaming. A series of random events and encounters is just gaming.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 19, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's metagaming. A series of random events and encounters is just gaming.




A series of random events and encounters is life.

Gaming is a series of events and encounters, they are rarely random (well very few GM's I know use encounter tables).


----------



## Victim (Jun 19, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Well, the only instance we see in the movies of Vader "grappling" would be ANH when he's choking Captain Antilles.
> 
> Though I'm wondering if it could be covered under the grabbing rules instead of the full-bore grappling rules?  Don't have my book handy, but if you can attack with a light weapon (such as a fist) while grappling, then that explains how Vader was able to lift & choke Antilles.  Had him in grabbed and was doing unarmed damage to him, with the descriptive effects of raising him off the ground and strangling the poor bloke.
> 
> Just a thought.




Actually, Anakin seems to be quite good at close in grappling combat in his fight with obiwan as well.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 19, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> One intrepretation I saw of this was Vader used Battle Strike, spending a Force Point to get the extra 2d6 damage, then made an unarmed attack on the Emperor, spending a Destiny Point to make it an automatic critical hit.  He rolled an obscene amount of damage (maxed out his bonus damage dice, which under SECR apparently get doubled along with the regular damage roll), and the GM ruled was enough to drop the Emperor, then applied the creative description of the old geezer literally getting shafted.




Or, you know. He could have been Grappling. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 20, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Or, you know. He could have been Grappling.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



Ah, but under RAW, grappling requires feats.  Feats that Lord Vader does not have.  Ergo, no grappling 

You can grab someone without feats, but you can't do much, especially not the Old Sith Fogey Press'n'Toss.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 20, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> ...the Old Sith Fogey Press'n'Toss.




Ah, that brought a smile to my face.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jun 20, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Ah, but under RAW, grappling requires feats.  Feats that Lord Vader does not have.  Ergo, no grappling
> 
> You can grab someone without feats, but you can't do much, especially not the Old Sith Fogey Press'n'Toss.




Can't you spend a Force Point to pretend to have a feat you don't have?

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 20, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Can't you spend a Force Point to pretend to have a feat you don't have?




I haven't got far in the book myself yet, but if you can't it seems like a fairly decent house-rule (which I've used in all other action point... uh, I mean force point systems )

Cheers


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 20, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I haven't got far in the book myself yet, but if you can't it seems like a fairly decent house-rule (which I've used in all other action point... uh, I mean force point systems )
> 
> Cheers




You can't, and in this case there's actually a reason (although it's easy to get around): Spending a Force point on the Force Training feat would always be at least as good as spending one to recover an expended Force power, and most often better.

If you houserule it to say 'any feat other than Force Training,' it would probably work.


----------



## Asmor (Jun 20, 2007)

I don't even see how that would work... Aren't you limited to one force point per round, or is that just a faulty assumption because that's how action points work? If you are limited to one force point per round, and the "temporary" feat only lasts one round, then congratulations... You just burned a force point so that for 6 seconds your character's force point reserve was 2 higher than it was a couple moments ago... and now it's 3 points lower.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 21, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I don't even see how that would work... Aren't you limited to one force point per round, or is that just a faulty assumption because that's how action points work? If you are limited to one force point per round, and the "temporary" feat only lasts one round, then congratulations... You just burned a force point so that for 6 seconds your character's force point reserve was 2 higher than it was a couple moments ago... and now it's 3 points lower.




You're thinking of 'Force Boon,' which wouldn't work, as you say.  There are, IIRC, a *very* limited number of circumstances where you might be able to spend three FP this way, so you'd be getting a "free" FP, but those are vanishingly rare - if they exist at all; I might be thinking of the 'Master of the Force' special ability from the minis game.

I was talking about 'Force Training,' however, which adds (1 + Wis mod) Force powers.  With a Wis of at least 12, you could grab a standard action FP and a swift action FP and use both in the round, rather than using a FP to refresh one of the Force powers you already know.  Hence, using a FP to replenish a known Force power would be almost entirely useless.  I suppose if you wanted to use it again, but not necessarily that round - but then, why not wait and spend the FP *later*?


----------



## Asmor (Jun 21, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> You're thinking of 'Force Boon,' which wouldn't work, as you say.  There are, IIRC, a *very* limited number of circumstances where you might be able to spend three FP this way, so you'd be getting a "free" FP, but those are vanishingly rare - if they exist at all; I might be thinking of the 'Master of the Force' special ability from the minis game.
> 
> I was talking about 'Force Training,' however, which adds (1 + Wis mod) Force powers.  With a Wis of at least 12, you could grab a standard action FP and a swift action FP and use both in the round, rather than using a FP to refresh one of the Force powers you already know.  Hence, using a FP to replenish a known Force power would be almost entirely useless.  I suppose if you wanted to use it again, but not necessarily that round - but then, why not wait and spend the FP *later*?




Ah, I stand corrected.


----------



## Destil (Jun 21, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Can't you spend a Force Point to pretend to have a feat you don't have?
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam



It could also be overpowered for Skill Training and Skill Focus (+1d6 vs +5).

I think it would be better to allow a destiny point to mimic a feat for 1 round, since those are a lot more limited.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 21, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Doesn't sound like there's anything fresh to take from that. And as much I'd rather the players get involved in the story, there are folks who have plenty of fun with random events and encounters. To each their own.



I know. I don't hang around with them. They don't talk much.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 21, 2007)

Destil said:
			
		

> It could also be overpowered for Skill Training and Skill Focus (+1d6 vs +5).
> 
> I think it would be better to allow a destiny point to mimic a feat for 1 round, since those are a lot more limited.



I think that's a good idea, too. Destiny Points are rare. In Vaders case, the use of a destiny point was certainly warranted - he used it to fulfill his destiny, after all.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 21, 2007)

I'm thinking grappling should be house-ruled to -5 to hit, free attack if you miss, like disarming. Then, life makes more sense.

I'm a big fan of the idea of opening up the game to varied tactics and imaginative play, not restricting characters from grabbing or tripping.


----------



## darkelfo (Jun 22, 2007)

A partial answer to the Scoundrel's imbalance:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sagaenhancement1

Great stuff!


----------



## Asmor (Jun 22, 2007)

darkelfo said:
			
		

> A partial answer to the Scoundrel's imbalance:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sagaenhancement1
> 
> Great stuff!




Most excellent!

I really like the tech specialist feat... It's very elegant how it inherent increases the cost of modifications... I.e. if you start out with a 1000 credit item and mod it, it costs 100 credits to mod and it becomes worth 1200. Next time, it costs 120 credits to mod and it's worth 1440... One more costs 144 credits...

EDIT: NM, it's late and I didn't read it well... I guess by the RAW you can't modify it more than once... Although I'm not so sure it would be a bad house rule to allow that...


----------



## Destil (Jun 22, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> One intrepretation I saw of this was Vader used Battle Strike, spending a Force Point to get the extra 2d6 damage, then made an unarmed attack on the Emperor, spending a Destiny Point to make it an automatic critical hit.  He rolled an obscene amount of damage (maxed out his bonus damage dice, which under SECR apparently get doubled along with the regular damage roll), and the GM ruled was enough to drop the Emperor, then applied the creative description of the old geezer literally getting shafted.
> 
> Kinda like how Han's "wild swing" at Boba Fett was, in game terms, enough to drop the bounty hunter, but the GM gave Fett a wild, over-the-top death sequence instead.



You know the biggest problem with Vader isn't one scene in RotJ...

It's the entirety of Phantom Menace.

He dosn't have any levels of any non-jedi base class. But Annie isn't a jedi in Ep. 1 and he certainly has at least 1 heroic level at this point.

Realistically he should have most likely been a human scoundrel or scout with Force Sensitivity and Skill Training (Use the Force) (of course in his case it represents natural ability instead of training) at 1st. He 1st level talent should be Force Pilot. This lets the 6 year old Anakin participate in all events of Ep. 1 as a 1st level character and matches his skills in the movie fairly well (I'd go with scoundrel since outlaw tech would fit him pretty well if you want to give him more levels before jedi).


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 22, 2007)

Destil said:
			
		

> It's the entirety of Phantom Menace.
> 
> He dosn't have any levels of any non-jedi base class. But Annie isn't a jedi in Ep. 1 and he certainly has at least 1 heroic level at this point.
> 
> Realistically he should have most likely been a human scoundrel or scout with Force Sensitivity and Skill Training (Use the Force) (of course in his case it represents natural ability instead of training) at 1st. He 1st level talent should be Force Pilot. This lets the 6 year old Anakin participate in all events of Ep. 1 as a 1st level character and matches his skills in the movie fairly well (I'd go with scoundrel since outlaw tech would fit him pretty well if you want to give him more levels before jedi).



I just noticed they didn't translate his original stats well.  I was so used to his old stats I never even noticed what they did with him in SECR until you pointed it out.

In the OCR, they called him a Level 1 Fringer (now Scout).  Yeah, his talent would be Force Pilot, with Force Sensitivity and Skill Focus (Use The Force) as his starting feats.

I'd call that a typo worthy of errata myself.


----------



## Felon (Jun 23, 2007)

darkelfo said:
			
		

> A partial answer to the Scoundrel's imbalance:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sagaenhancement1
> 
> Great stuff!



Yeah, it is great stuff. There's our Kaylee.

THEY CUT THIS??? 

Folks are gonna have to pull up this web page for years to come? Hope we at least get a PDF version eventually....


----------



## Asmor (Jun 23, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hope we at least get a PDF version eventually....




You know, it never occurred to me to turn stuff from web pages into PDFs before... Definitely a lot more convenient to save.


----------



## EditorBFG (Jun 23, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Ranger REG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is an old argument, and I hope we won't have it here, but...

People want different thinsg from games. Some people want a story. A story is not a series of random events, it is a structured sequence of events proceeding towards a cilmax followed by denouement.

The Saga RPG chapter seems to be saying that Star Wars games should not be a series of random encounters, because to emulate the films-- at least two of which tell stories _masterfully_-- the RPG should be about telling a story.

And a GM cannot metagame, except by having an NPC act illogically based on factors outside the reality of the game. But manipulating events for the enjoyment of the players? For many of us, that _is_ GMing.


----------



## jeffh (Jun 23, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> In my personal experience, people who have trouble with 1-2-1-2-1-2 are often very, very bothered by how it breaks their train of thought, and slows an encounter. People who aren't bothered by it always seem able to introduce it even if a rulebook doesn't include it.
> 
> Also, I have, literally, seen someone get up and walk away from an effort to teach him roleplaying because the 1-2-1-2 rule was the straw that broke the camel's back. Star Wars has a lot of potential as a gateway. I'd like that gateway to be as inviting as possible.
> 
> My thoughts only.



I can't imagine that person was very serious about it in the first place.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 23, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Folks are gonna have to pull up this web page for years to come? Hope we at least get a PDF version eventually....



Well, the article does mention it will be printed and expanded upon in a later book.  But I'd say that for now what we've got is enough to go on, barring fully-fleshed out rules to build things from scratch.

Although there are quite a few house rules to cover building stuff, such as the one Matt "Tao" Myers is kind enough to host, found here


----------



## Asmor (Jun 23, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> I can't imagine that person was very serious about it in the first place.




How many people are? In general, role playing isn't the kind of hobby you wake up one day and say "Man, I need to get me some of that!" Sure, some people are like that... Hell, I was. But for the most part I think people need to be roped into it, kicked dragging and screaming until they finally understand how rocksome* it is.

It's for their own good, really.

Rocksome: Adj. Rocking and awesome


----------



## chaotix42 (Jun 23, 2007)

A question: there is a sidebar in the Force Powers section on Choosing Your Force Powers. It mentions that low-level characters should take easy-to-activate powers, citing Force Stun as an example of a hard-to-activate power. It specifically says it has a "DC 20 (or higher)" check to activate. Looking at Force Stun however, there is no such DC listed. I looked elsewhere and couldn't find anything on baseline DCs for powers. Some have a table of effects, with more potent results the higher your UtF check is (15, 20, 25, etc.). The only power with a high starting DC is Sever The Force, starting at DC 25. All of the others are merely attacks against the different defenses with no minimum check level required to activate. What gives? Just an error, maybe? or am I missing something?


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 25, 2007)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> A question: there is a sidebar in the Force Powers section on Choosing Your Force Powers. It mentions that low-level characters should take easy-to-activate powers, citing Force Stun as an example of a hard-to-activate power. It specifically says it has a "DC 20 (or higher)" check to activate. Looking at Force Stun however, there is no such DC listed. I looked elsewhere and couldn't find anything on baseline DCs for powers. Some have a table of effects, with more potent results the higher your UtF check is (15, 20, 25, etc.). The only power with a high starting DC is Sever The Force, starting at DC 25. All of the others are merely attacks against the different defenses with no minimum check level required to activate. What gives? Just an error, maybe? or am I missing something?



Most likely just an error.

Of course, what constitutes a "high DC" depends on how the character is built.  A 1st level Jedi with a high Charisma and Skill Focus (UtF) is going to find DC 15 to be laughably easy, and DC 20 not that far out of reach, making powers like Battle Strike, Force Slam, Force Thrust and Mind Trick frighteningly effective against opponents of similar levels.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jun 26, 2007)

The good? 
Changes in the Skills, condition track, most of The Force mechanics. Everything else thar remained the same from previous editions.

The bad?
The game is all about squares, miniatures and combat.
Most of the combat rules was dumbed down to a miniature-game level-of-simplicity.
Changes in combat messed around with most of the already balanced and solid rules from d20 system.
Also, as a personal opinion, I don't like all this enforced "heroic" thing. Charatcer should be and feel better than common people by their good choices and action, not because they are meant to be better. The same with being a hero.
The rules are too paternalistic, you gotta be real dumb to make a bad character. And all this paternalism is towards combat.
There no rules for travelling, the astrogation rules suck bigtime. there is almost no rules covering allthe stuff that happens outside of combat.

The ugly?
Have you ever played any Final Fantasy game? if yes, have you ever played the FInal Fantasy Tactics version? if yes, than think that the Saga edition could easily be called Star Wars Tactics too.
Also, the Dark Side is not what it used to be...


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 27, 2007)

I have to agree with Ainatan to some degree, the changes to combat seem not properly play tested. While making withdraw a move action is certainly going to lead to a more fluid flowing combats the repercussions of that don't seem to have been thought through. 

Melee characters are going to find it near impossible to get a full attack action on someone, making Duel Weapon Mastery feats pretty near useless for them.

Why wasn't Dodge, changed when they simplified everything else? After all it's not like it would be over powered to have it improve your Reflex defense all the time.

No character is ever going to fall to the dark side because it's so easy to get rid of the dark side points, and so easy to see when you are in danger of turning. It doesn't have the temptation of earlier editions either. You could kill a village full of sandpeople, and then level up and pay off the dark side point debt.


----------



## ValenarJaeldira (Jun 27, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> No character is ever going to fall to the dark side because it's so easy to get rid of the dark side points, and so easy to see when you are in danger of turning. It doesn't have the temptation of earlier editions either. You could kill a village full of sandpeople, and then level up and pay off the dark side point debt.




This is why I am going to house-rule the Force-Point payoff as permanent.  You need to get rid of a dark side point?  Sure, then you only get 4+1/2 level Force Points from now on.  The Darkside gets you power now, but if you ever want to come back from it, you will lose power later.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 27, 2007)

Hmm interesting, I'd be tempted to rather than lose a force point, that force point is classed as dark side. Still available but if you ever use it, you gain an additional dark side point, thus next level you are 3+1/2 level and 2 dark side force points. Each time you gain a dark side point one of the force points you get on leveling up becomes tainted by the dark side.


----------



## atomn (Jun 27, 2007)

A "Bad" in my opinion is adding the Bellow as a racial ability of Ithorians.  I thought it was silly in the Clone Wars and making it now a racial ability is the kind of re-write that frustrates me about Episodes 1-3.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 27, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Most of the combat rules was dumbed down...




Would you mind giving a few examples of what you think has been dumbed down?



> Also, as a personal opinion, I don't like all this enforced "heroic" thing. Charatcer should be and feel better than common people by their good choices and action, not because they are meant to be better. The same with being a hero.




I haven't read this section of the book, but I'd argue that being a PC automatically makes you "better" than most of the riff-raff in the galaxy.



> The rules are too paternalistic, you gotta be real dumb to make a bad character.




Or just unfamiliar with RPGs and/or the d20 system?  Even if this is the case, I don't understand why it's a bad thing.  If it's easier to make bad characters, is that a sign of a better RPG?



> And all this paternalism is towards combat.




I don't quite understand this statement.  Do you mean that the paternalism of the rules guides people towards combat, or that the rules themselves are too focused on combat?  In either case, I'd argue that combat is a huge part of the movies, so I'm personally ok with that being a major focus of an RPG with a design goal of specifically modeling the movies.  But I also don't that as very different from 3.5.



> There no rules for travelling, the astrogation rules suck bigtime. there is almost no rules covering allthe stuff that happens outside of combat.




Well I gotta agree that that is a pretty huge oversight.  Space travel has always been an important part of the movies.  Unfortunately, it's always moved at the ever-cliche "speed of plot" so I guess one could argue "Hey, in the movies, they got there when they got there," so hard and fast rules aren't that necessary at the moment.  I'm personally with you and feel that's something we should have in the core book.  Hopefully there will be some alternate rules for astrogation down the road.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 27, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> No character is ever going to fall to the dark side because it's so easy to get rid of the dark side points, and so easy to see when you are in danger of turning. It doesn't have the temptation of earlier editions either. You could kill a village full of sandpeople, and then level up and pay off the dark side point debt.




An interesting alternative might be to either randomise the gaining of dark side points (1d3 at a time) or randomise the buying off of dark side points (each force point has a 50% chance? Make a Wis check vs total number of dark side points held? something else?)

I like the idea of randomised gaining of dark side points, so you really wouldn't know how close to turning you actually were...


----------



## Henry (Jun 27, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> You could kill a village full of sandpeople, and then level up and pay off the dark side point debt.




So a village of Sand People contains 5 + 1/2 your level inhabitants?  I do see your point,though, especially because there are two conflcting sections on Force Pts for DSP's -- one says it takes a swift action, and the other says it takes quiet concentration and study, with the implication that it should happen off-camera. If you can dump your DSP's the second after you get them, it really is a poor trade-off; there is no down-side to taking Dark Side Force powers, because you can get one or two uses out of them with almost every adventure.

It is one section I'm thinking of house ruling, but I'm not sure just HOW strong I want to make it.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jun 27, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> No character is ever going to fall to the dark side because it's so easy to get rid of the dark side points, and so easy to see when you are in danger of turning. It doesn't have the temptation of earlier editions either. You could kill a village full of sandpeople, and then level up and pay off the dark side point debt.



What I've implemented for my games is the following:

If by character action you show that you haven't truly atoned, then the DSP comes back.

So to use the example of slaughtering a village of sand people for giggles, yes a PC could "atone" by dropping a lot of his Force Points to reduce his Dark Side score.  If however, in the next coule sessions, he goes ahead and commits another act of cold-blooded murder, then not only does his Dark Side score go up by one for his recent actions, but all those points he supposedly "atoned" come right back to bite 'em on the aft decks, since by his actions the PC has proven that he hasn't learned his lesson.  Oh, and those Force Points you essetianally wasted are still gone.  Same would hold true of his favored mode of attack was Force Lightning, or Force Grip to torture someone.

It proved quite useful for making the good guys toe the line back in the d6 days, especially the Jedi characters.

Edit: And it's one full day of meditation per point you want to drop your DS score in my games.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 27, 2007)

You could switch it so that you need to spend Destiny points to get rid of DSPs.  That, or do the heroic redeeming action thing.

Then make the Dark Side more tempting: allow characters to call on the Dark Side and gain a DSP and a Destiny point to be spent in that encounter/round.  Of course that Destiny point can't be used to get rid of DSPs.  And once you turn to the Dark Side you can't call on the Dark Side any more.  

If I was going with this house rule, I'd have PCs turn to the Dark Side at 1/2 their Wis or 6 or something smaller.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 27, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> There no rules for travelling, the astrogation rules suck bigtime. there is almost no rules covering allthe stuff that happens outside of combat.




This could be a feature of the game.  Maybe the designers wanted to leave out rules for these things so that the GM could rule as he saw fit, ie. use fiat.  I think that might be a good way to go.  (People who do want rules for these things can pretty easily house rule it - basically using opposed rolls a lot, or a roll vs. one of the Defense scores.  Saga looks very flexible that way.)


----------



## Destil (Jun 27, 2007)

Really, the *system* for astronavigation is good: it elegant and looks like it should get the job done. Problem is that there's not *data* to use with it, no map or example travel times, which the system really needs.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 27, 2007)

Destil said:
			
		

> Really, the *system* for astronavigation is good: it elegant and looks like it should get the job done. Problem is that there's not *data* to use with it, no map or example travel times, which the system really needs.




I suspect there will be a map and a less abstract system in Starships of the Galaxy, but unless you're doing a lot of planet hopping under tight game-time constraints, I think I'm pretty comfortable with interstellar travel moving at the speed of plot.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 28, 2007)

Destil said:
			
		

> Really, the *system* for astronavigation is good: it elegant and looks like it should get the job done. Problem is that there's not *data* to use with it, no map or example travel times, which the system really needs.




What I would do is just have the PCs show up whenever if time is not an issue.

If it is an issue, then I'd have them roll their Astrogation against whatever's causing the issue.  Do they need to get there before another ship?  Opposed Astrogation (sorry, Use Computer) rolls, +5 per .5 difference in hyperdrive rating.  Or something like that.

edit: I think that would capture the feel of Star Wars well.  I don't know if consulting a chart to look up travel times would.  Which is why I personally think it's a feature.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jun 30, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Would you mind giving a few examples of what you think has been dumbed down?




Diagonal movement is now 2-2-2-2 and not 1-2-1-2-1-2;
A natural 20 is a automatic critical;
No more 5 ft. step;



> I haven't read this section of the book, but I'd argue that being a PC automatically makes you "better" than most of the riff-raff in the galaxy.




yes, but the difference in saga between pc and npc classes is too steep for my taste. But that's not the main problem, the main problem is concept. I like games where actions defines the character, and not the contrary. I understand saga is the contrary. I think PCs must be "potentially" better than ordinary people because they go on adventures, do incredible stuff, face all kinds of dangers and by making their choices they can become heroes or not. That's how I like to play, how I like to feel it, even if the Fighter gets more feats than the Warrior (so the rules ARE enforcing PCs to be better than NPCs). But in saga, when you get 3 HD in first level, get a bonus on damage based on level, better defenses based on level, etc, all that feeling that the character is becoming powerful by the player's choices go away. The overall feeling of the book, when i read it, was that your character is much more powerfull than other people because he is a Hero. hey! but why he is a Hero??




> Or just unfamiliar with RPGs and/or the d20 system?  Even if this is the case, I don't understand why it's a bad thing.  If it's easier to make bad characters, is that a sign of a better RPG?
> 
> I don't quite understand this statement.  Do you mean that the paternalism of the rules guides people towards combat, or that the rules themselves are too focused on combat?  In either case, I'd argue that combat is a huge part of the movies, so I'm personally ok with that being a major focus of an RPG with a design goal of specifically modeling the movies.  But I also don't that as very different from 3.5.




Don't get me wrong, i did not say being easy is a bad thing. And i did not even say it was easy or hard to make a powerful character.
I think one of the fun elements of any RPG is character creation and customization. I've seen hundreds of characters being made in my gaming life, while playing D&D for example. I saw crappy combat-oriented characters, and unbeatble ones, i've seen character useless in combat but good in anything else, and the contrary also. I've seen people creating all kinds of characters for all kinds of playing styles. For me, all that is fun, and making an overall bad character is also funny, because the game is not only about the character creation. But the Saga edition had a design phylosophy to ensure every character created should be useful in any situation, and they really enforced it with most of the changes from the previous edition. And also if not worse, they mainly preocupation was to ensure all characters to be useful in combat. That bothers me. Combat IS a huge part in the movies, but maybe I don't want to create a Star Wars game that mimics the movie. Maybe I want to play a game with very little combat.
It looks like to me they made so much effort to create a game that could "simulate" all we saw in the movies, created so many rules that it doesn't matter what choices you make your character IS gonna be as "heroic" as those in the movies, that all you can do with it is to play games with the same "feel" of the movies. Maybe I don't want to play a "fast-paced-action-game" with a "cinematic-combat-feel". Star Wars is more than that, it can be more than that. But the book is ALL about that, and i feel it is ONLY about that. And this sucks.



> Well I gotta agree that that is a pretty huge oversight.  Space travel has always been an important part of the movies.  Unfortunately, it's always moved at the ever-cliche "speed of plot" so I guess one could argue "Hey, in the movies, they got there when they got there," so hard and fast rules aren't that necessary at the moment.  I'm personally with you and feel that's something we should have in the core book.  Hopefully there will be some alternate rules for astrogation down the road.




That's a matter of personal taste. As I said before, I don't like to play games that mimics the movies, with these "plot tools". I like to play it real, to feel it is real. I don't like to play star wars as if I was in one of the movies, i like to feel I'm inside the star wars galaxy. I enjoy this "immersion" in the game. It's just playing style. 
Unfortunately, the game is for people that has the "game-is-a-movie" playing style, as if they were creating a movie with their characters' actions. That's why they think it is funny to choose their PCs destiny, to decide, for example, their characters are gonna fall to the dark side, than maybe come back, etc. 
I don't like it, i like to play as if I WAS the character himself. I personally want to feel the desire to search for power quicker and tap the dark side. To not fall to the dark side must be a challenge to me alos. That's why I don't like the DS rules, because they are made for the "game-script" style of playing.  Just search for Rodney's reasoning to why no more Dark side points etc, he says basically falling to the dark side must be a player's choice for his character. That's not bad, just not my cup of tea. I don't enjoy playing like that.
Back to the lack of travelling rules, the game gives me that feeling that the story only "happens" when combat is occuring. All that happens between combats are just "irrelevant" story plots that lead to another combat. "Irrelevant" because we don't need to actually play them, just consider that they happened. Than a little talking, more plot device and finally what the game is about: "fast-paced-heroic-combat". That's why I made the comparison to Final Fantasy Tactics.
Almost all the rules in the game are about combat. There are few possible situations that are not combat oriented. To explain that, think about D&D. Nobody out there has the guts to say D&D is not combat oriented, and it gladly is. But there are lots of situations in D&D that occur outside combat, and they are as fun and important as the combat itself. Situations like, travelling, buyings/selling stuff, creating stuff, exploring places, searching/disarming traps, resting/healing, city duties, etc. There are many rules and powers, many spells too, that are meant to be used outside combat. And all that, the situations and the rules, creates that "roleplaying" atmosphere that we all love and differs the game from CRPGS, card games, etc. But SAGA also lacks that. They took away the craft skill. Why? To create the "cinematic feel" of the game. And of course, spending days crafting a weapon is not "cinematic"... well, but it IS RPG, at least for my taste. 
SAGA is a great game, and a very successful edition, because it reached its purpose. Unfortunately, for me, it does not create the kind of atmosphere and feeling I enjoy in my games. Of course, anyone can say "it's not about the rules, the GM and players play the way they like". Yeah, but the kind of playing style the book enforces is unquestionable, and thats what we are talking about.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 30, 2007)

Dude, NPCs can take levels in heroic classes.

The ARC Trooper example is Nonheroic 6/Soldier 3/Elite Trooper 3. Not only does he have levels in a heroic class, he has levels in a *Prestige* class.

So "PCs are born better"? Nonsense.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jul 1, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Dude, NPCs can take levels in heroic classes.
> 
> The ARC Trooper example is Nonheroic 6/Soldier 3/Elite Trooper 3. Not only does he have levels in a heroic class, he has levels in a *Prestige* class.
> 
> So "PCs are born better"? Nonsense.




I did not say that. I said PC classes, or "Heroic" classes are more powerful than NPC classes.
And I said the difference is to steep for MY TASTE. And also said that the design concept that is the base for this difference is the one that enforces a sytle of playing that is not my cup of tea.
Sure they can take levels in heroic classes, but that only confirmes my opinion.
Imagine farmer with non-heroic levels, than something happens and he joins the Rebel Alliance, and starts to level up in Soldier class. WHOA, his power more than triplicated, he is a "true heroic character by SW standards". "Now that he is important to the plot he receives the proper power to do all that cool stuff the movie charcater do" .
The quantification of this sudden increase of power, or the difference between heroic lvls or non-heroic lvls is not what bothers me most, but the desgign concept behind it. This character was just a side-character, not important to the story, things happened and he became one of the protagonists, one of the stars, the Hero. The game designers wrote a whole Jedi Coucenling to explain why the rules are the way they are, what was the purpose of this edition. Thats exactly what I don't like. It's unrealistic, it feels silly to me, it sometimes even feels like cheating, it breakes the type of "roleplaying" atmosphere i like to enforce in my games. It's not for my style of playing. I enjoy much more a "status quo" kind of gaming. Saga is a cinematic gaming.

Entiendes?


----------



## Asmor (Jul 1, 2007)

Think of it this way...

The power's always been there, or the potential at least. There are hundreds of people in a small town, millions in a large city, billions on a planet and almost infinite numbers of people out there in the galaxy at large. The story can only focus on a few at a time, though... Should it focus on Joe Farmer who's going to tend his moisture farms until the ripe old age of 43 when his planet is randomly destroyed by the death star, which he never saw coming, or should it focus on his neighbor Jack Farmer who's always had a wanderlust in his soul and a knack for kickin' ass, who doesn't know it but tomorrow he's going to find his ticket off this one-horse backwater planet?

I know which story I'd rather watch/read/play.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jul 1, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Think of it this way...
> 
> The power's always been there, or the potential at least. There are hundreds of people in a small town, millions in a large city, billions on a planet and almost infinite numbers of people out there in the galaxy at large. The story can only focus on a few at a time, though... Should it focus on Joe Farmer who's going to tend his moisture farms until the ripe old age of 43 when his planet is randomly destroyed by the death star, which he never saw coming, or should it focus on his neighbor Jack Farmer who's always had a wanderlust in his soul and a knack for kickin' ass, who doesn't know it but tomorrow he's going to find his ticket off this one-horse backwater planet?
> 
> I know which story I'd rather watch/read/play.




I thought about that! I'm not saying the book is bad or wrong the way it is, it just enforces a style of gaming that is not mine.
I have the book.
I'm playing a SAGA campaign.
It's being awesome. The combat is pure fun. 
I'm not complaining about what the book can or can't be. It's a RPG book, it can be almost anything I want the way I want. I'm complaining for what the book IS. What it enforces, all the game concepts behind the rules.
Sure I can take the rules and use them to play it with the kind of style I enjoy, but it doesn't change the fact that the book IS focused on a cinematic style of gaming, the rules WERE dumbed down to reach that concept and combat IS the main focus, even more than it is in D&D, and evertyhing in the book is about it. All the paths lead to it. All the rules, the character concepts, powers, feats, almost everything leads to the "fast-paced-cinematic-combat". Does it works? Sure, combat is pure fun, the book is ALL about, but it is also ONLY about it. They made a fantastic effort to reach it, but forgot all the rest that also makes the game a roleplaying game.
As I said in my first post, the book is all about squares, miniatures and combat.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jul 1, 2007)

You could always just have no NPCs with the NPC class, they have only heroic class levels.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2007)

And of course Star Wars Saga is cinematic. It's based on a cinema series. To be anything but cinematic would be to miss the whole point of adapting Star Wars to a RPG, wouldn't it?


----------



## HeinorNY (Jul 1, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> You could always just have no NPCs with the NPC class, they have only heroic class levels.




And that's exactly what's going on in my campaign. I also took away the bonus damage per lvl, the extra HD in the first lvl, and other minor stuff, "smarted up" some of the combat rules, just to reach the standard D20 level of complexity, changed the dark side rules, so "Early in her training, a Force-user finds that the dark side greatly enhances her abilities. After a time the dark side demands more and more of those in it's embrace."
After 12 sessions I'm still adjusting it to my group's taste, but it is working pretty nicely.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jul 1, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And of course Star Wars Saga is cinematic. It's based on a cinema series. To be anything but cinematic would be to miss the whole point of adapting Star Wars to a RPG, wouldn't it?




It depends man. It's a matter of personal opinion, so it can't be right or wrong, good or bad.
Star Wars is not just the movies. It is also lots of books, games, comics, all that information in wookeepedia, (but not the wookieepedia itself), it's a universe, a big setting. I'd rather have a book about how to play in the Star Wars Setting instead of a book to play the star wars movies, got it? 

For the last time, i did not say the book is bad or wrong for being cinematic only, i said it is bad (for me) because it does not cover my style of playing. I don't totally like it or dislike it, I just think it could be much much better, thus I'm a little disapointed.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jul 1, 2007)

I usually kick the Dark Side up a notch.

I play "The Dark Side".  As the GM, the Dark Side is alive and hungry and willing to make a deal.  It is, essentially, the Devil.

I bribe, I cajole, I nudge.  I give out free power.  I guarantee victories.

Nobody takes me up on it.  

--fje


----------



## HeinorNY (Jul 1, 2007)

In our first Star wars campaign using the D20 system, years ago, since everybody was playing Jedi characters, the GM's main objective was to create situations to tempt the character and players to give themselves to the dark side. Many fell, led by anger and revenge and the will to destroy the opponents at all cost. Others tapped the dark side for fear of dying or failing their missions. It was really cool to tempt the character into getting a little more power using a Dark Point. In the earlier levels it was pretty powerful, but the possibility to fall to the dark side was very vivid and was around us all the time. But not with SAGA, since to get some power from the Dark Side the character needs to spend some character resources, as talents and force powers. It's harder to tempt the players buy a talent, it is possible, but IMO not as half fun as it was in the previous editions.
One of my player gave me an ideia that characters simply could not get rid from their DarkSide score, they should not be able to spend a Force Point to atone. It would be permanent as if the character was fully a dark sider, only reversable through really dramatic and heroic actions. I'm still thinking about it.


----------



## Kaffis (Jul 1, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Some people said if I want to play beyond 20, then I shouldn't play Star Wars. Well, thats not really the point. The problem is you have a resource that is level dependent but then at 20th level you have no way to ever regain this resource. So if a non-Jedi character (or a Jedi who did not take the ability to reclaim his spent force points) gets to 20th level and uses up all their force points, what are they supposed to do? They are just permanently handicapped? This is a logic flaw in the game itself. And in my opinion its a pretty serious flaw.




When you get to level 20 and run out of Force points -- you should consider yourself out of luck and due for retirement to a nice, non-stressful beach planet.

Seriously. I mean, you're already among the half dozen most powerful beings in the universe, if you haven't amassed enough power to delegate the danger to others by now, well, I don't know what to say.

Think about it this way. If Yoda and Palpatine are 20th level characters...

... a 20th level Noble has at least a planet to run, probably a sector. With that office comes bodyguards, secretaries, and chefs. Drive your desk and you don't really need Force points to save you from danger. As for force points to help you on your persuasion rolls -- you've got a +10 on top of your massive attribute and skill training... you can handle the negotiations with the lesser beings without the Force.

... a 20th level Soldier has a fleet to command. You've got MPs and capital ships protecting you even as you go into battle. Hell, a 20th level soldier probably isn't leading from the front lines anyways, he's got his 16th level Generals and Admirals out there to delegate to as he coordinates his army's strategic operations on multiple fronts from his safe HQ on the capitol world.

... a 20th level Scoundrel runs his own syndicate/guild, can produce bounty hunters with a snap of the fingers, and generally has everybody in such awe or fear of him that nobody would try to kill him anyways. Alternatively, he might just own a really profitable grey-market garage, tricking out the spaceships for the ace smugglers and crime moguls alike, and if any of them get uppity and think about offing you to avoid payment -- you can talk your way out of it and just take the loss, it's not like you don't have the money to spare.

... a 20th level Jedi has the Force point recovery technique. If you don't, well, you deserve to run out, sorry. Sure, you can't go willy-nilly, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to maintain a steady use of one or two per encounter indefinitely, and that's better than anybody else can do of any level. Alternately, you can hunt around for dark siders to redeem if that's your destiny.

... a 20th level Scout probably has the most to complain about in this regard. The harsh wildernesses don't go any easier on you (especially not when you're probably seeking out even more inhospitable uncharted systems than when you were young), and the nature of your passion isn't one that you can delegate easily.

Point being, of course, that when you're Yoda-and-Palpatine-level-kind-of-powerful, you don't assume much personal risk anymore, because the only things that are a challenge for you anymore involve such broad strokes and legions of people under your command.


----------

