Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EvilVegan 06-22-07, 11:11 AM	The new rules for Starwars are very streamlined. So much so I think its a very good indication of what may be in store for 4.0, if such a thing comes to be. The skill system is great, the status conditions are great and have a very easy mechanic, the classes are all identical in structure but not in ability. Anyway, the only thing that makes it not fit directly into D&D is that there are no spellcasters. But has anyone looked over this new system? Its great! I'm going to run/play a D&D campaign soon I hope, using these new rules.
Steely_Dan 06-22-07, 11:31 AM	My group has incorporated the following Saga changes (see below) into our D&D campaign and so far it is working like a charm. -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, 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. -The skill system.
Xeviat-DM 06-23-07, 03:22 AM	I've been waiting for others to post this. I will be encorperating things to my D&D games soon, but I want to get more Saga play done first. Currently, I'm going over the skill system. I'm not sure if I like all of the condencings (it seems odd that forging a signature uses Charisma, even when that signature is getting analyzed far beyond the point of when you signed it).
Soel Griffin 06-23-07, 04:03 AM	-No 5 ft. step. -No iterative attacks – replaced by Double Attack, Triple Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, Dual Weapon Mastery etc. [/B] I'm specifically interested in how these two particular changes are affecting the game, if you don't mind...
Nightwhisper 06-23-07, 05:03 AM	I would guess it would be easier to bring DnD to Saga than the other way round. The only thing you really need to do is reclassify weapons (and possibly up their damage while you're at it to match Saga damage levels) and add a number of spells. Possibly adding a dedicated spellcaster class might be warranted, but a Noble with Force Sensitive probably does pretty well in that role.
ESP 06-23-07, 08:43 AM	I'm in the process of converting my game over to Saga Edition rules as we speak. I've converted the races and classes. I've decided to go with a generic spellcaster I'm calling a Magic-user. The magic system is giving me the most head-ache. I've converted magic item creation and metamagic feats into talent trees ala the force user talent trees. I have "Magical Sensitivity" and "Magical Training" feats as well. If a ranger (scout) wants some basic magic spells, they can take the feats. Magic-users, of course get them as bonus feats. I've decided to go with the spell point sytem from Unearthed Arcana so I don't have to convert all the dozens and dozens of spells over to force power rules. Too much work. Oh, and no more divine and arcane magic. Just magic. Want to pray for your spells? Fine, pray for them. Want to read musty tomes all day? Cool. But now it's just flavor. I'm still ironing out the kinks, but i'll be happy to post my stuff if any one is interested.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 09:38 AM	I was going to do the same thing, but base it on psionics. The psionic system is much better balanced than the UA spellpoint system. Spell points break arcane magic. The reason: Arcane magic scales with level, psionics scale with power points, and the spellpoint system has the same number of power points. So if you want to cast fireball it takes 7 spellpoints and deals 1d6 per level with 10d6 cap at 10th level. For 7 power points though you get 5d6 damage and each additional power point adds a d6, every 2 adds save DC. So to get the same benefit as a 10th level wizard, a psion has to spend 12 PSP (but the save is higher). That's the equivalent of a 6th level spell to cast a 10d6 fireball that a wizard casts as a 3rd level spell. You do get energy substitution and heighten for "free" with psionics, but those should be free anyway. So the spellpoint system doesn't balance this out. Meaning you get more damage/effects for your points. If you have 84 spell points and 84 power points and you want to cast 10d6 fireballs, the wizard can cast it 12 times, the psion can only manifest it 7.
Shado 06-23-07, 03:11 PM	-Diagonal movement is 2-2-2-2, rather than 1-2-1-2.[/B] As much as I love a lot of what I see in Saga, this is one of the dumbest changes they implemented. First thing I house ruled out.
Xeviat-DM 06-23-07, 04:58 PM	As much as I love a lot of what I see in Saga, this is one of the dumbest changes they implemented. First thing I house ruled out. Same here. This was a choice for simplicity over realism, and in this case it will cause all sorts of stupidity on the battle mat.
Lina_Inverse 06-23-07, 07:09 PM	I've decided to go with a generic spellcaster I'm calling a Magic-user. The magic system is giving me the most head-ache. I've converted magic item creation and metamagic feats into talent trees ala the force user talent trees. Making all wizards the same character is never a good idea. Mages are defined by spell lists, giving everyone the same spell list means there all basically the same character. I've thought about it, but it requires a little too much to really call it D&D. The removal of extra attacks requires a complete overhaul of fighters, the best option seems to be ToB style for all the fighter types.
ESP 06-23-07, 08:30 PM	Making all wizards the same character is never a good idea. Mages are defined by spell lists, giving everyone the same spell list means there all basically the same character. You're kidding, right. Their are way two many spells out their to make them all the same. Plus you have plenty of talent trees to branch off with. Personally, I think you would have to be very deliberate to make two mages the same. What I got out of saga edition was the idea of expanding customization and choices. Spell lists limit both. Just my opinion though, what do i know.
ESP 06-23-07, 08:31 PM	I was going to do the same thing, but base it on psionics. The psionic system is much better balanced than the UA spellpoint system. Spell points break arcane magic. The reason: Arcane magic scales with level, psionics scale with power points, and the spellpoint system has the same number of power points. So if you want to cast fireball it takes 7 spellpoints and deals 1d6 per level with 10d6 cap at 10th level. For 7 power points though you get 5d6 damage and each additional power point adds a d6, every 2 adds save DC. So to get the same benefit as a 10th level wizard, a psion has to spend 12 PSP (but the save is higher). That's the equivalent of a 6th level spell to cast a 10d6 fireball that a wizard casts as a 3rd level spell. You do get energy substitution and heighten for "free" with psionics, but those should be free anyway. So the spellpoint system doesn't balance this out. Meaning you get more damage/effects for your points. If you have 84 spell points and 84 power points and you want to cast 10d6 fireballs, the wizard can cast it 12 times, the psion can only manifest it 7. I'll look into that. I have the XPH but it's been awhile. Thanks for the tip. Edit: I went back to Unearthed and reread. A fireball, 3rd level spell, costs 5 spell points + 1 spell point per extra damage die above base. So, wouldn't that be 12 spell points for a 10d6 fireball (5 s.p. for first 3d6 + 7 s.p. for extra 7d6). So it looks like they're the same unless I'm missing something.
Lina_Inverse 06-23-07, 09:32 PM	You're kidding, right. Their are way two many spells out their to make them all the same. Plus you have plenty of talent trees to branch off with. Personally, I think you would have to be very deliberate to make two mages the same. Characters aren't defined by what they can do but what they can't do. The inability of the rest of the party to do things makes your ability to do something valuable. If every mage can learn every spell with no opportunity cost then every mage can do everything thus mages are homogenized.
ESP 06-23-07, 09:43 PM	Characters aren't defined by what they can do but what they can't do. The inability of the rest of the party to do things makes your ability to do something valuable. If every mage can learn every spell with no opportunity cost then every mage can do everything thus mages are homogenized. One of the major themes of the saga edition rules is the ability to multiclass freely in order to create exactly the type of character you want. IMHO this freedom nullifies the need to have over half a dozen different casters. Your choices of feats and talents define you and make your character unique. Even two pure mages will most likely not make the same feat and talent choices. The only limit is your imagination. So even though I see your point I think you're missing the big picture.
Rhialto 06-24-07, 01:39 AM	Characters aren't defined by what they can do but what they can't do. The inability of the rest of the party to do things makes your ability to do something valuable. If every mage can learn every spell with no opportunity cost then every mage can do everything thus mages are homogenized. Those mages can't cast all those spells if they don't *have* them all in their spell books.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 09:32 AM	Characters aren't defined by what they can do but what they can't do. The inability of the rest of the party to do things makes your ability to do something valuable. If every mage can learn every spell with no opportunity cost then every mage can do everything thus mages are homogenized. The way I was picturing it was separate talent trees. For instance: Divine magic talent tree 1 You gain access to X # 1st level divine spells. Requires Wisdom 11 2 You gain access to X # 2nd level divine spells. Requires Divine Magic 1, Wisdom 12 3 You gain access to X # 3rd level divine spells. Requires Divine Magic 1, 2, Wisdom 13 . . . And so on. There is opportunity cost in that if you want to master get 9th level spells you'll need to take the tree all the way up to level 17 at every available level. I'd also take it one step further and only go to 3rd or 4th level with the base class and have PrCs for the masters reaching higher level spells. These would work more like current casters. That way a pure 'spellcaster' can have 3rd or 4th level spells across various disciplines, and has higher level spell slots for metamagic, but doesn't have access to true higher level learning. I would personally make 3 separate trees, divine, nature, arcane. Divine would be charisma based, Nature would be wisdom based, and arcane would be int based. And maybe a 4th tree for augmentation.
The Edda 06-24-07, 09:43 AM	How does Defence work in Saga edition? I'm sure I saw something about it being a Reflex save or something...
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 10:07 AM	The 3 saves are set, like AC was before, and reflex saves are now the same as AC. Attacks have to over come your save to affect you. Its effectively the same as taking 10 on your saves and everyone else rolling to overcome that.
ESP 06-24-07, 10:59 AM	How does Defence work in Saga edition? I'm sure I saw something about it being a Reflex save or something... The 3 saves are set, like AC was before, and reflex saves are now the same as AC. And they go up with your level. All three saves go up one point per level and your classes, and sometimes races, give you a fixed bonuses that do not. It should also be pointed out that your armor and level bonuses to Reflex Defense do not stack unless you take the Fighter (Soldier) Armor talent tree. Some armors also provide a bonus to Fortitude Defense.
ESP 06-24-07, 11:18 AM	The way I was picturing it was separate talent trees. For instance: Divine magic talent tree 1 You gain access to X # 1st level divine spells. Requires Wisdom 11 2 You gain access to X # 2nd level divine spells. Requires Divine Magic 1, Wisdom 12 3 You gain access to X # 3rd level divine spells. Requires Divine Magic 1, 2, Wisdom 13 . . . And so on. There is opportunity cost in that if you want to master get 9th level spells you'll need to take the tree all the way up to level 17 at every available level. I'd also take it one step further and only go to 3rd or 4th level with the base class and have PrCs for the masters reaching higher level spells. These would work more like current casters. That way a pure 'spellcaster' can have 3rd or 4th level spells across various disciplines, and has higher level spell slots for metamagic, but doesn't have access to true higher level learning. I would personally make 3 separate trees, divine, nature, arcane. Divine would be charisma based, Nature would be wisdom based, and arcane would be int based. And maybe a 4th tree for augmentation. I like where you're going with this, but I think I would make the talent trees generic; like the Force talent tree in the Use the Force chapter that anyone with Force Sensitivity can take. My Magic-user has a Summon Familiar talent tree, a Battle Mage talent tree (Combat Casting, Spell Penetration, etc.), a Spell casting talent tree (Eschew Materials, Still Spell, etc.), and a Mage Consular (directly taken from Jedi, reminds me of the Gandalf and Wormtongue thing from LOTR). Then I turned Item Creation and Metamagic into generic spellcaster talent trees. I'm also keeping the Magical (Force) Training feat. Want more spells, take the feat.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 01:19 PM	I like where you're going with this, but I think I would make the talent trees generic; like the Force talent tree in the Use the Force chapter that anyone with Force Sensitivity can take. My Magic-user has a Summon Familiar talent tree, a Battle Mage talent tree (Combat Casting, Spell Penetration, etc.), a Spell casting talent tree (Eschew Materials, Still Spell, etc.), and a Mage Consular (directly taken from Jedi, reminds me of the Gandalf and Wormtongue thing from LOTR). Then I turned Item Creation and Metamagic into generic spellcaster talent trees. I'm also keeping the Magical (Force) Training feat. Want more spells, take the feat. Yea, that was the other way I was thinking of going with it. Either one works. Yours is probably truer to the saga rules.
Darth_Singe 06-24-07, 04:45 PM	I have converted all the base classes from the PHB. It needs more tweaking, and i was able to keep all of the classes with thier own flavor. You can download what I started (definitely rough draft form) here http://www.geocities.com/darthsinge/Converted.zip You will probably have to type in the url manually, as either clicking on the link or copying it takes you to the leaving the wizards page, and messes up the download. just make sure the C in Converted.zip is capital. Like I said, it needs a LOT of work, but it is playable. I am also working on adding starting feats for the classes, like Track for the Ranger, and also porting over a majority of the feats. I didn't even have the SECR when I did most of these conversions, and the astute eyeball might be able to tell. ;)
Lina_Inverse 06-24-07, 11:17 PM	One of the major themes of the saga edition rules is the ability to multiclass freely in order to create exactly the type of character you want. IMHO this freedom nullifies the need to have over half a dozen different casters. Your choices of feats and talents define you and make your character unique. Even two pure mages will most likely not make the same feat and talent choices. Thing is, mages aren't defined by there talent choices and feats so much as there spells. Whereas fighters can have what they can/can't do defined by such, talents and feats aren't going to add real meat to casters. Which is why the multiple spell lists are necessity. There is the d20 caster multi classing issue, but thats a totally separate issue(and applies to caster/non-caster hybrids anyways.)
Steely_Dan 06-25-07, 08:45 AM	I'm still ironing out the kinks, but i'll be happy to post my stuff if any one is interested. I'd be very interested – please do.
Dungeonrenter 06-25-07, 10:30 AM	I have been looking around the internet and I like what little I can find on the changes to the system. However: D&D classes don't need to be as generic as star wars classes do. The thing about a fantasy role playing game is that people are willing to accept classes that are really professions basically this is ok because everybody's "day job" in a fantasy rpg is "adventurer." However, even a guy like Han Solo in star wars needs(maybe needed) to have something that he did/does that made sense in a more modern/futuristic world. So he was a smuggler. I would keep the class features structure of d&d. The differance between d&d and d20 modern/star wars etc would be that d&d classes are non generic. I like the idea of saving throws working like armor, however I am not sure that using reflex saves as armor class in dnd would be such a great idea. I love the skill system idea. It would really really help d&d to allow characters the oportunity to not get totally shafted because nobody has exactly the right skill maxed out. I think this idea with skills would help a ton. Also on Magic: A lot of people seem dedicated to the idea of a "point" system for magic. I think this is a terrible idea. Mana works in computer games because the comptuer does the math. Most people do not want to sit and subtract mana points all the time. The system for force powers seems like a much better idea to me. D&D has the same problem with its magic system that star wars had with the force. Magic users can overshadow pretty much everybody else. However, the real problem is making people spread their magic out more. How many encounters have you run with a party of 6-7th level pc's where the thing the wizard does in rounds 1-2-3 is fireball, fireball, fireball. There are really no encounters for that level that can be challenging after the baddies have taken 3 fireballs. However, after that fight 70%+ of all the parties I have dmed for would REST. Effectively, the party always approaches each combat from rested as often as possible and then uses its highest level spells to the exclusion of other spells. So I am going to say that a system like TOB or Force powers from the saga edition, or even my personal favorite "recharge magic" would be a much better solution to the problem. The cool thing about recharge magic is that it lets the casters stay fully ready for each encounter, however on an encounter by encounter basis it really limits their spellcasting. Casters use spells from all their spell levels. The only real problem with this system is that it completely destroys the idea of attrition. The party never really faces anything without being fully ready. However, my groups always rested after any challenging battle anyway. Anyway, instead of spell points and a number crunch system, why not look into a method that meters magic out to the players better. Something that allows them to only use a certain number of spells per encounter.
Steely_Dan 06-25-07, 11:18 AM	Anyway, instead of spell points and a number crunch system, why not look into a method that meters magic out to the players better. Something that allows them to only use a certain number of spells per encounter. I completely agree. After incorporating a lot of changes from Saga to D&D (combat, skills etc), the only real bugbear left is the D&D magic system. I would love to see something encounter based, ala ToB. The assumed 4 encounters a day has got to go. And per day based doesn't do squat to balance monsters abilities, as they are almost always ready to go with everything in an encounter against the PC's.
Dungeonrenter 06-25-07, 11:36 AM	Has anybody tried to consoladate the d&d skill list using the same sort of principles as were used to consoladate the star wars list? I am working on it, but I wonder if anybody has already done some of it. I don't think using the starwars set up would be quite right for this, because they consoldated some things due to the way STAR WARS was played. We would need to do this based on d&d. So Perception is just like in Star Wars (this is the single greatest change to skills that DND needs, honestly dropping from a 3 roll system to a 1 roll system makes a ton of sense to me!) Stealth is just like in Star Wars (both hide and move silently in one) How about open lock, slieght of hand, and disable device as a single skill with only sleight of hand usable without training. I don't really have time to do the whole list right now, but maybe somebody else has already thought about it and done it. Or: Can the dnd skills stand on their own and just use the skill system as presented in star wars but with the dnd skills?
Dungeonrenter 06-25-07, 11:39 AM	I completely agree. After incorporating a lot of changes from Saga to D&D (combat, skills etc), the only real bugbear left is the D&D magic system. I would love to see something encounter based, ala ToB. The assumed 4 encounters a day has got to go. And per day based doesn't do squat to balance monsters abilities, as they are almost always ready to go with everything in an encounter against the PC's. Another reason why Recharge is good. The monsters can have all their abilties ready as well. Recharge means that PC's can do as many or as few encounters per day as they desire. The only real hang up is "times per day" class abilities. These should be re-evaluated on a "times per encounter" basis and players allowed to recover them using some method.
EvilVegan 06-25-07, 02:57 PM	...A lot of people seem dedicated to the idea of a "point" system for magic. I think this is a terrible idea. Mana works in computer games because the comptuer does the math. Most people do not want to sit and subtract mana points all the time.It isn't any more complex than subtracting and adding Hit points all the time. Instead of taking damage you spend mana. You can even go so far as to make mana potions if you really like video games. Anyway I use poker chips to keep track of my hit points and spell slots already, using them for mana is not much of a change. With chips I can keep track of various things like delayed damage, bonus hp, fast healing/regeneration, and subdual damage just by putting the chips in different places (I scratch out various pools on scrap paper).
Holy_Beholder 06-25-07, 03:11 PM	I like recharge magic, and it would work. The only thing that shouldn't be encounter based is HP, that way multiple encounters are still more dangerous, and people can't just nuke the first one to go into the second with full hp(and probably more spells prepared)
EvilVegan 06-25-07, 03:15 PM	But with rechargable heals you might as well just recharge hp as well.
Holy_Beholder 06-25-07, 06:33 PM	Maybe out of combat spells would be more limited, and combat spells would be fueled by adrenaline or something. That way, you can use them in any big danger. Maybe you only get a certain amount of healing spells out of combat, preferably around 1/8 the total healing you get per day normally. for every encounter
Dungeonrenter 06-25-07, 08:25 PM	But with rechargable heals you might as well just recharge hp as well. Yep, thats the only real problem with the system, and there is no good solution to it....
ESP 06-25-07, 10:09 PM	I'd be very interested – please do. If you have MS word I'll e-mail you the file. It's alot to retype here. If not, I will. Like Evilvegan said, I'm leaning heavily to the Saga Edition rules. My classes are, in some cases, almost 100% verbatim transplants (i.e. the noble). I have only 5 base classes, Fighter (who is the only class to get full BAB), Magic-user (blew the dust off my old D&D boxed sets for that name), Noble, Ranger, and Rogue. Everything else will be a prestige class(when I get around to writing them). I agonized over the Cleric. I couldn't come up with 4 different talent trees, so I simplified. No more divine and arcane magic, just magic. Also, turn undead is a feat. (I can see the what the F are you thinking posts now). I've redone the racial features completely over in the Saga fashion. I'm still chasing my own tale with the magic system. I'm hoping this thread will help me work it out.
The Edda 06-26-07, 10:19 AM	Has anybody tried to consoladate the d&d skill list using the same sort of principles as were used to consoladate the star wars list? I am working on it, but I wonder if anybody has already done some of it. I don't think using the starwars set up would be quite right for this, because they consoldated some things due to the way STAR WARS was played. We would need to do this based on d&d. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and it sounds possible. There are skills out there that are too specific to see much use and skills that are rarely advanced without advancing another at the same time, and these skills could be revised to make the system simpler. Here's how I'd do it: Appraise Bin it. Detracts from roleplaying and far to cumbersome mechanically. Balance, Escape Artist, Jump, and Tumble Become the new Dexterity-based Acrobatics skill. (Maybe Tumble, due to its potency, becomes 'unlocked' after spending 5 or more ranks?) Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, and Intimidate Perform Become the new Charisma-based Speechcraft skill. This one's quite chunky, but I don't think it's over-powering. Disguise for example comes into play far less than the others, and most people who use Diplomacy don't bother with Intimidate and vice versa. Climb and Swim Become the new Strength-based Athletics skill. Concentration Not sure what to do with this one. Again, I find it a little irritating in game, but wouldn't want to remove it completely. Also, despite the description, it is clearly of more use to spellcasters than any other class. Perhaps it could be rolled into Spellcraft, but 'Concentrate' could become a new special action that all characters have access to? Craft If it's important to your game, leave it. I think Forgery should be rolled into this one if you do. Decipher Script Personally I'd ditch it. It's just too specific and can get in the way of some cool code-breaking scenarios. Disable Device, Open Lock, and Sleight of Hand How about a Security check? Probably best to make it Dexterity-based. Handle Animal, Heal, Survival, and Use Rope Perhaps these could be rolled into one. You could keep 'Survival' as a name, and the Wisdom modifier. You might even want to bring Ride in. Hide and Move Silently Dex-based 'Stealth' check. Why not? :-) Knowledge Rather than being a bit prescriptivist about which classes can take which Knowledge skills, perhaps bring in a bit of common sense and leave it up to the DM and players to decide what is appropriate for their characters know. Then you only need one Knowledge check :-) Listen, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot 'Perception'. Wisdom-based? Use Magic Device Bring it into 'Spellcraft'? Then more people can take the skill, even if they can't cast spells.
The Edda 06-26-07, 10:20 AM	Hmm. On closer inspection, it seems that if you're going to streamline the skill system that much, you might as well ditch them altogther and go back to ability checks. I might just do that!!! :-D
Dungeonrenter 06-26-07, 12:25 PM	I've been thinking about this a lot lately and it sounds possible. There are skills out there that are too specific to see much use and skills that are rarely advanced without advancing another at the same time, and these skills could be revised to make the system simpler. I agree with this somewhat. Its sort of what saga system did. If you have two skills that are basically valueless without the other, combine them to a single skill that now does both. If one skill is very specific or seems like it should require training then you can't do those elements of the new larger skill without being "trained" in the skill. I am not sure I agree with your parings though. Appraise Bin it. Detracts from roleplaying and far to cumbersome mechanically. Keep it, but maybe make it knowledge (apprasal). With fewer skills and the benefit from your levels more characters can take a shot at this skill and put it to use. Balance, Escape Artist, Jump, and Tumble Become the new Dexterity-based Acrobatics skill. (Maybe Tumble, due to its potency, becomes 'unlocked' after spending 5 or more ranks?) Basically agree, both escape artist and tumble would require you have it as a trained skill. SAGA didn't put jump in to their acrobatics, I am wondering why. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, and Intimidate Perform Become the new Charisma-based Speechcraft skill. This one's quite chunky, but I don't think it's over-powering. Disguise for example comes into play far less than the others, and most people who use Diplomacy don't bother with Intimidate and vice versa. Wow, wait just a minute. I would put bluff and disgues in one skill, with disguise requiring training. Diplomacy and Gather Information ought to be joined (even though they were not in SAGA) I keep thinking that intimidate should go into one of these skills, but it doesn't fit the idea of either very well. A lair doesn't lead itself to also thinking about treatening and diplomacy and gather information are supposed to represent a totally different skill set. So lets leave intimidate its own skill, it has enough other uses to make it worth it (allowing people to make others shaken in combat). Climb and Swim Become the new Strength-based Athletics skill. Sort of agree although climb and swim usually end up being more important from an "endurance" point of view. Concentration Not sure what to do with this one. Again, I find it a little irritating in game, but wouldn't want to remove it completely. Also, despite the description, it is clearly of more use to spellcasters than any other class. Perhaps it could be rolled into Spellcraft, but 'Concentrate' could become a new special action that all characters have access to? Leave this one its fine it has enough uses to take it anyway. Craft If it's important to your game, leave it. I think Forgery should be rolled into this one if you do. I also think forgery should be a specific craft. But either way that leaves it as a unique skill. Decipher Script Personally I'd ditch it. It's just too specific and can get in the way of some cool code-breaking scenarios. Maybe make this part of perception that requires you to have trained perception? Disable Device, Open Lock, and Sleight of Hand How about a Security check? Probably best to make it Dexterity-based. Not security, legedermain. This is the other place to include forgery. Forgery and Disable Device should require you be trained with the skill. Handle Animal, Heal, Survival, and Use Rope Perhaps these could be rolled into one. You could keep 'Survival' as a name, and the Wisdom modifier. You might even want to bring Ride in. I can see Rope Use in with Survival. Heal and Handle Animal I would keep seperate. Hide and Move Silently Dex-based 'Stealth' check. Why not? :-) This is the prime example of why to do this, nobody ever has one and not the other. Its stupid that they are not a single roll. It just gives a person two chances to fail. Knowledge Rather than being a bit prescriptivist about which classes can take which Knowledge skills, perhaps bring in a bit of common sense and leave it up to the DM and players to decide what is appropriate for their characters know. Then you only need one Knowledge check :-) No, knowledges are good. What knowledges people have gives them a sense of identity. However, with people being able to add half their level means that finally somebody might pass a knowledge local about their home region! Listen, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot 'Perception'. Wisdom-based? Yep, just like SAGA Use Magic Device Bring it into 'Spellcraft'? Then more people can take the skill, even if they can't cast spells. Possibly, but it could also be left seperate. Perform and Ride? I say keep them. The only thing I see with this is that people with 8+int skill points and maybe 6+int skill points might need to be rolled back a little (maybe to 5 and 6 respectively?) because they could possibly take the whole list.
The Edda 06-27-07, 04:04 AM	Good criticisms :-) The Speechcraft skill probably is a little, erm, colourful. The only thing I would disagree with would be Decipher Script as an aspect of Perception. I don't know, it just doesn't 'feel' right. Oh, and one other thing: If you were going to roll in lots of skills in this way, it would probably make sense to reduce the number of skill points per level each character receives. Otherwise the party rogue would end up being fully-trained in every skill in the game (instead of just most of them). ;-)
The Edda 06-27-07, 04:05 AM	Perform and Ride? I say keep them. The only thing I see with this is that people with 8+int skill points and maybe 6+int skill points might need to be rolled back a little (maybe to 5 and 6 respectively?) because they could possibly take the whole list. Just realise you already covered my last point! Ignore me...
Rhialto 06-27-07, 04:55 AM	Alternate system: Do away with the idea of buying skills altogether. If a skill is listed as one of your class skills, you add a bonus equal to half the normal "per level" skill points you get to spend (eg. 4 + (Int Bonus/2) for a rogue). That bonus for class skills may need rebalancing for classes that have unusually alrge or small skill selections to choose from.
Dungeonrenter 06-27-07, 08:50 AM	Alternate system: Do away with the idea of buying skills altogether. If a skill is listed as one of your class skills, you add a bonus equal to half the normal "per level" skill points you get to spend (eg. 4 + (Int Bonus/2) for a rogue). That bonus for class skills may need rebalancing for classes that have unusually alrge or small skill selections to choose from. Yeah, this is very similar to what SAGA allready does. The SAGA method is to give you 1/2 Class level on ALL skills. Then if you have a skill "trained" you get an additional +5 modifier. The new total of your skills is Total Skill Mod = level/2 + Trained + Ability Mod + Misc You select your trained skills at level 1 just like how you currently spend skill points, however you never really have to go back and much around with skill points after that.
shout27 06-27-07, 02:09 PM	For appraise simply attach it to the appropriate Craft Skill, someone with 20 ranks in Weaponcraft is a lot more likely to notice flaws in a Longsword, than someone with Gemcutting for example.
Necroblivion 06-28-07, 11:10 PM	I try not to be too negative on the forums, but I have a gripe with the Saga skill system. I understand the condensing of skills, that makes fair sense. What bothers me is that everyone of a similar class is going to have very near to the exact skill abilities that you do. Not every professional is going to share the same skills that another in his exact same field will. Grr... the end.
Shado 06-29-07, 01:06 AM	I try not to be too negative on the forums, but I have a gripe with the Saga skill system. I understand the condensing of skills, that makes fair sense. What bothers me is that everyone of a similar class is going to have very near to the exact skill abilities that you do. Not every professional is going to share the same skills that another in his exact same field will. Grr... the end. I'm not sure I understand what you're complaining about... The odds of two characters from the same class having the exact same skills is about the same as two characters of the same class in D&D... (slightly increased do to the smaller selection of skills.) There are still class skills... you still only know (train) so many... Everything else is "cross-class" and requires feats or INT increases to add as a trained skill. Is it the "half character level as skill ranks in cross-class" that you don't like?
Necroblivion 06-29-07, 01:19 AM	I had no idea. That's what happens when the uninformed go on blathering eh? :D
Ranger REG 06-29-07, 02:32 AM	Same here. This was a choice for simplicity over realism, Realism, you say. :evillaugh
Xeviat-DM 06-29-07, 04:21 AM	Realism, you say. :evillaugh Yeah ... 1-2-1-2 conforms close enough to the Pythagorean theorem that it is realistic. 2-2-2-2 isn't realistic, but it is simple; apparently it's a holdover from the mini's rules. I don't like it, I won't use it, but that's the rules.
EvilVegan 06-29-07, 08:07 AM	Yeah ... 1-2-1-2 conforms close enough to the Pythagorean theorem that it is realistic. 2-2-2-2 isn't realistic, but it is simple; apparently it's a holdover from the mini's rules. I don't like it, I won't use it, but that's the rules. Play on a hex field.
Ranger REG 06-30-07, 04:10 AM	Play on a hex field. No longer a fan of hex. :devil:
EvilVegan 06-30-07, 08:16 AM	Play on a blank field and use a ruler. :D
keyunp 06-30-07, 09:08 AM	Dress up in costumes, find some sticks and go smacky. :duel:
Ranger REG 06-30-07, 09:32 PM	Dress up in costumes, find some sticks and go smacky. :duel: D&D gamers don't do LARP like Vampire players. :noway:
Keyar81 07-09-07, 05:39 PM	Hmm. On closer inspection, it seems that if you're going to streamline the skill system that much, you might as well ditch them altogther and go back to ability checks. I might just do that!!! :-D Skill checks basically are ability checks, just with ranks that give you a bonus that represent training that makes you better than others at doing a certain task or set of tasks. That makes the game too simplistic for my sake and dulls the options and variety available