Hey everyone. Gary M. Sarli, one of the designers who worked on Star Wars Saga, is currently working on a system called "e20," or evolution 20. The purpose of the project is to create an evolutionary descendant of the d20 SRD. The system will be genre neutral (acting much like d20 Modern did, as a system for multiple genres of play). For those who like the 3e/SAGA system, this project might interest you. He is going to be using the patron model in order to fund this project. By paying between 20-200 dollars you can get the ability to have varying levels of input on the project, possibly affecting the outcome of its direction. I thought some of the posters in this forum might be interested in something like that. The link to Gary's explenation is here: link.
e20. It even sounds good ! I'm sold !
e20system.gmsarligames.com/faq.html
It looks like he's leaning in favor of d20M style classes, and a skill mechanic similar to that used in SWSE.
One of the biggest departures of the e20 System from earlier d20-based games is the inclusion of weapon skills. There is no longer such as thing as "weapon proficiency"; instead, each weapon group (a fairly broad category) has an associated skill; if you're trained in it, you have a higher skill modifier (which in turn is used to make attacks, etc.), just as you would with any other skill.
That is pretty much what I did with The Land of Nod. I recalculated defenses so that they all start from 15 instead of 10, and only gain +1/2 your heroic level as a bonus to defense instead of + your heroic level. I created a set of feats to grant a +5 bonus to your heroic Fortitude or Heroic Will defense. (I have a feat that grants a +2 bonus to your Heroic Reflex defense, but I think I am going to remove that feat. Between class bonuses and cover, I think it is easy enough to boost your Reflex defense as is. I sort of want people in the Land of Nod to get hit more often then they would in Star Wars, unless they dive for cover.) I stated that all classes only gain +1/2 their heroic level as a BAB. I stated that characters no longer ever take a -5 to hit if they are not proficient with a weapon. However, characters proficient with a weapon gain a +5 bonus to hit with that weapon. I then created a feat for weapons that is allegorical to skill focus (which I called weapon mastery, since weapon focus already exists). This feat grants characters a +3 or +5 bonus to hit depending on their level composition (people who only have classes with a full BAB in the RAW gain a +5 bonus, otherwise you gain a +3 bonus). Classes that used to be full BAB classes instead gain weapon mastery as a class starting feat with unarmed attacks, simple weapons, and one weapon group in which they are proficient of their choice. It is not exactly the same, but I was confined by trying to keep the balance of Star Wars Saga edition. It seems to me, however, that the ideas are coming from the exact same place. I wanted weapon groups to interact with defenses in the exact same way skills do. In effect, I wanted weapon groups to become skills...
I found this tid-bit fascinating...One of the biggest departures of the e20 System from earlier d20-based games is the inclusion of weapon skills. There is no longer such as thing as "weapon proficiency"; instead, each weapon group (a fairly broad category) has an associated skill; if you're trained in it, you have a higher skill modifier (which in turn is used to make attacks, etc.), just as you would with any other skill.
That is pretty much what I did with The Land of Nod. I recalculated defenses so that they all start from 15 instead of 10, and only gain +1/2 your heroic level as a bonus to defense instead of + your heroic level. I created a set of feats to grant a +5 bonus to your heroic Fortitude or Heroic Will defense. (I have a feat that grants a +2 bonus to your Heroic Reflex defense, but I think I am going to remove that feat. Between class bonuses and cover, I think it is easy enough to boost your Reflex defense as is. I sort of want people in the Land of Nod to get hit more often then they would in Star Wars, unless they dive for cover.) I stated that all classes only gain +1/2 their heroic level as a BAB. I stated that characters no longer ever take a -5 to hit if they are not proficient with a weapon. However, characters proficient with a weapon gain a +5 bonus to hit with that weapon. I then created a feat for weapons that is allegorical to skill focus (which I called weapon mastery, since weapon focus already exists). This feat grants characters a +3 or +5 bonus to hit depending on their level composition (people who only have classes with a full BAB in the RAW gain a +5 bonus, otherwise you gain a +3 bonus). Classes that used to be full BAB classes instead gain weapon mastery as a class starting feat with unarmed attacks, simple weapons, and one weapon group in which they are proficient of their choice. It is not exactly the same, but I was confined by trying to keep the balance of Star Wars Saga edition. It seems to me, however, that the ideas are coming from the exact same place. I wanted weapon groups to interact with defenses in the exact same way skills do. In effect, I wanted weapon groups to become skills...
Yep! Reminds me of the old TRS StarFrontiers D100 game were everything was a % skill. Weapons skills were divived into groups like : blasters, blades, rifles, etc.
Once you have a skill system in place and it works on the same game mechanic as the attack system, haven't a whole other set of rules guiding how you get better at attacking does seem redundant. Now that saves and defence/AC have been folded into one system, I wonder how long it will take to fold attacks and skills into one system? Frankly, it's not something that bothers me all that much. The mechanic is just the mechanic. How you picture and describe what your character does is the fun part.
In some sense, 4e has already folded the skill/attack mechanic into the same thing. Not quite. But it is close. Both skills and attacks add 1/2 your level + a relevant stat modifier + a bonus from a feat. The only difference is that skill proficiency adds a fixed bonus (always +5), and your race can add to your skill bonus, whereas the bonus to attacks from proficiency varies on the weapon, and you add a magic enhancement bonus from the item.
Personally, I really like the idea of attacks and skills handled using the same mechanic. It makes combat and non-combat feel equally important. However, you are right, its not the biggest of deals either way. But the reason why I made the change for Saga has mechanical backing. I feel that the developers made a mistake with Saga. They had both skills and attacks work against defense. End game, the numbers work for skills and attacks work out to be the same. But, in the early levels, the numbers can very greatly. The best attack bonus you can get at level 1 is about +4/+5. The best skill bonus you can get is +14/+15. Defenses were scaled to deal with attack numbers, not skill numbers. The end result, Use the Force, a skill used to make a number of attacks, is horribly overpowered in the early levels of the game. By recalculating the defense numbers to work off a skill value, and reworking attacks to work in the same way skills do, I managed to fix that problem.
I imagine that e20 is doing what it is doing for a similar reason, though I can't really know...
Once you have a skill system in place and it works on the same game mechanic as the attack system, haven't a whole other set of rules guiding how you get better at attacking does seem redundant. Now that saves and defence/AC have been folded into one system, I wonder how long it will take to fold attacks and skills into one system? Frankly, it's not something that bothers me all that much. The mechanic is just the mechanic. How you picture and describe what your character does is the fun part.
In some sense, 4e has already folded the skill/attack mechanic into the same thing. Not quite. But it is close. Both skills and attacks add 1/2 your level + a relevant stat modifier + a bonus from a feat. The only difference is that skill proficiency adds a fixed bonus (always +5), and your race can add to your skill bonus, whereas the bonus to attacks from proficiency varies on the weapon, and you add a magic enhancement bonus from the item.
Personally, I really like the idea of attacks and skills handled using the same mechanic. It makes combat and non-combat feel equally important. However, you are right, its not the biggest of deals either way. But the reason why I made the change for Saga has mechanical backing. I feel that the developers made a mistake with Saga. They had both skills and attacks work against defense. End game, the numbers work for skills and attacks work out to be the same. But, in the early levels, the numbers can very greatly. The best attack bonus you can get at level 1 is about +4/+5. The best skill bonus you can get is +14/+15. Defenses were scaled to deal with attack numbers, not skill numbers. The end result, Use the Force, a skill used to make a number of attacks, is horribly overpowered in the early levels of the game. By recalculating the defense numbers to work off a skill value, and reworking attacks to work in the same way skills do, I managed to fix that problem.
I imagine that e20 is doing what it is doing for a similar reason, though I can't really know...
You're absolutely right. Here's the rub: When I was doing development on Saga -- in fact, during the period toward the end where I was the only one working on it -- I came up with the idea of ditching base attack bonuses and weapon proficiencies and making it where attacks work just like skills.
I played around with it for a couple of days, convinced I had something brilliant, and then I flinched: "No, this is too radical -- Chris, Rodney, and Owen will veto it, and they'll just think I'm an idiot for trying something so off-the-wall."
In retrospect, this was probably the single biggest design mistake I ever made. I was absolutely going in the right direction, and D&D 4E went to almost the same place (but not quite) -- I totally should have trusted my instincts, but I didn't.
That's one of the biggest reasons that I decided to go forward with the e20 Project:
- I want to take a chance and do things that seem off the wall, just to see if they work.
- I want to trust my instincts and have faith that a legion of patrons looking over my shoulder will catch it if I do start to do something dumb.
- I want to see if we can completely rethink the way we make games.
- Most importantly, I don't want to have any regrets -- and leaving Saga feeling "unfinished" will bother me forever.
If anyone has any questions, you can ask me here and I'll respond ASAP. If possible, though, I'd appreciate it if you dropped by our forums and posted there -- I'd like to concentrate all the discussion in one place so our thoughts can build on each other.
I'm not entirely sold on this project, at least not yet, so I'm wondering how you feel about people who haven't paid in showing up in your discussion board? I get the impression that you're okay with it, but I wanted to make sure.
Absolutely! Whether you've already made a pledge, you're just thinking about it, or you just want to share your thoughts, feel free to drop by and make a post.
If you're on the fence, I'd hope that the forums help you form an informed opinion on the matter -- even if that opinion is that you're not interested. I'd rather someone decide that its not for them now rather than realizing that after they've put their money into it.
Prom
Well, I thought people might like to know about the one dice roll for hitting and damage that Gary is suggesting. It sounded like a odd idea at first but it's rather brilliant, I think. Check out the e20 forum and learn more.
Prom
Is it something like the Margin of Success system that Silhouette uses?
Right now there are very good arguments both for and against it. People are being asked to playtest this rule using average damage for weapons as the static damage (if this makes it into the game different values might be used instead and he's already said HP will be adjusted to account for this) and give feedback in the e20 forums.
Also, it works really well in Silhouette. If you tweak the numbers right it could work for your game. The only problem I foresee with that idea is maximizing every single to-hit bonus you can get is also giving yourself a damage bonus.
you just use a Percentage based multiplier rather than Integers:
from -20% for each pip below the newly elevated 'ToHit",
to kick on +10% for each pip above the nominal tohit
I know folks have a hard time with advance math theory in their games,
but aint finding 60% bonus of 9points somethig folks learn in the fifth grade?
(the answer for those playing along at home is 5 extra damage )
Another problem you've already likely covered is the fact in melee combat you're effectivly adding strength twice to damage.
From what I gather this will all be handled by having most modifiers apply to the attack roll only (since this carries over to the damage roll). Feats, talents, etc, will all be balanced with this mechanic in mind if it makes it into the game.
Prom
Prom
The Beta Version of e20 should be available around the 1st of March, just got an e-mail from Gary.
Prom
Beta? Already? I am pretty sure you mean the alpha version at this stage of the game... no?
When finished, the e20 Lite beta will be a broad overview of the game and its mechanics to give everyone a better idea of what I have in mind for the project. It should give enough information to see what a 1st-level character looks like (e.g. some sample talents for each class, a selection of feats, etc.) and a handful of low-level opponents, so you could actually run a very short and simple adventure to try it out.
Prom