SW Saga Edition Thread 2: The Sith Lords

[kreenlover]

anyways, you should love it. If you ever run into any problems, these people will be more than happy to solve basically ANY rules question or dispute. I swear, they must have memorized every single rulebook.

Anyways, enjoy, and I must say that I envy you, starting a SWSE game for the first time!

[Noobborn]

He will be glad to hear it, I will work it out with him.

[Yora]

If nobody in the group played the game before, I sufggest just using the Core Rulebook and setting all the other books aside for now, unless someone wants to use one of the other character races.
Otherwise, those books mostly have prestige classes, force powers, specialized weapons and armor, droids, and spaceships. Usually, the standard versions from the Core Rulebook should cover anything you really need.

[Alejandro]

If nobody in the group played the game before, I sufggest just using the Core Rulebook and setting all the other books aside for now, unless someone wants to use one of the other character races.
Otherwise, those books mostly have prestige classes, force powers, specialized weapons and armor, droids, and spaceships. Usually, the standard versions from the Core Rulebook should cover anything you really need.

Yora is for the most part correct. However, if you have access to Starships of the Galaxy, you should at least use that, if there will be any kind of pilot character. It's extremely useful.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I have a question.

If I prefer 3.5 D&D to 4th Edition D&D, would I still enjoy this more than d20 Revised, or should I just play d20 Revised?

Normally the answer would be obvious, but everyone seems to play Saga Edition nowadays.

[The_Snark]

I'm a little biased, but I'd say Saga.

Saga borrows a few concepts from D&D 4e (or the other way around): skills, the action economy, static defenses as opposed to saving throws. But it doesn't really feel the same. Feats resemble their 3.5 versions more than 4e, Force abilities are more akin to Tome of Battle stuff than 4e's encounter powers. The basic structure of the classes is more like d20 Modern than 4e (except the talents and feats available are a lot shinier).

Revised is... functional. More or less. But it has issues. The vitality/wound system it uses in place of regular HP feels a little out of place in Star Wars, as does the cast-from-HP mechanic that Jedi use with the Force.

And the non-Jedi classes are going to feel lackluster if you're coming from D&D; it feels a little like playing core D&D 3.0 with no spellcasters. Except... less interesting, somehow. This is a game where your class features will be along the lines of "you get +1 to attack or damage rolls, pick 1" or "gain Skill Focus as a bonus feat" or "you can build masterwork items."

[Sidmen]

I have a question.

If I prefer 3.5 D&D to 4th Edition D&D, would I still enjoy this more than d20 Revised, or should I just play d20 Revised?

Normally the answer would be obvious, but everyone seems to play Saga Edition nowadays.

It depends on the bits and pieces that you did and didn't like from 4th Ed. and 3.5th Ed. The following lists the reasons why I, personally (I use this word a lot), like Saga over 3.5 or 4.0; I hope it helps you come to some decision on whether or not you'd like it.

Personally, I really like how saving throws were punched in the face and thrown off a cliff. I like the fact that Saga uses 3 defense scores (instead of 4th Ed's 4 defense scores, which insists on using Armor Class still), and that every attack means that the attacker makes an attack roll - regardless of the source of the attack. If your blasting a fireball and they need to roll out of the way to defend; its an attack on Reflex. If your a poison that needs to overcome their immune system; its an attack on Fortitude. If your trying to impose an illusion on your opponent, tricking their mind; its an attack on Will.

Personally, I hated 3.5th Ed and 4th Ed's massive feat bloat. Saga suffers from it, a little, but after compiling a list of all Feats and sifting them for a Wheel of Time conversion I've found that there are very few outside the Core book that are worth talking about.

Personally, I like Saga's build-your-own class setup, where it uses talents and bonus feats to let you choose your own class features - instead of giving every Paladin Lay on Hands at level 2, I could decide that my divine swordsman improves his ability to wear the heavy armor that he favors, or that he can now channel his smiting ability more.

Personally, I like multiclassing (up yours 4th Ed.), but I hate feeling like I'm forced to multiclass (WTF 3.5, WTF?). And I very much dislike the class bloat prevalent in both 3.X and 4th; even if Saga starts going down that line somewhat, I've never felt that I couldn't just jack the talent trees and give them to one of the other prestige classes.

I'm also a big fan of decoupling spellcasting (the Force) from classes, that way it can be balanced on its own merits and not considered to be holding up an otherwise pathetic character/class.

Just about the only thing I'm not a fan of is the Skill setup, I would've preferred something more like Pathfinder, where Skill Points still exist and can be spread around freely, with a slight bonus to class skills.

[Alejandro]

Saga, being something that WOTC wrote after 3.5 and before 4, is (in my opinion) what D&D 4th edition should have been. Fighter, mage, cleric, and rogue clases, multiclass between them freely, and use the talents and feats of each to specify what kind of fighter you are (Ranger talent tree, Paladin talent tree, etc.) Alas.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I guess the main reasons I don't like 4e is that everything plays approximately the same and the combat and character build options, while modeled in a way that makes a good game, are insanely boring. With multiclassing worth talking about, more "Tome of Battle-y" powers, and a setting I actually care about that might all be less of a problem.

How differentiated are different characters? In 4e my main complaint is that everything is too standardized and the main difference between classes is where you want to stand.

[Mutazoia]

I guess the main reasons I don't like 4e is that everything plays approximately the same and the combat and character build options, while modeled in a way that makes a good game, are insanely boring. With multiclassing worth talking about, more "Tome of Battle-y" powers, and a setting I actually care about that might all be less of a problem.

How differentiated are different characters? In 4e my main complaint is that everything is too standardized and the main difference between classes is where you want to stand.

Well that's a discussion for another thread. It's best to stick with the topic at hand lest the Zealots of 4e jump down your throat and de-rail the thread.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well that's a discussion for another thread. It's best to stick with the topic at hand lest the Zealots of 4e jump down your throat and de-rail the thread.

I figured I was safe on this particular site, but let me rephrase:

How much variety is there to character builds, on a scale of AD&D without kits to Mutants & Masterminds?

[Waar]

I figured I was safe on this particular site, but let me rephrase:

How much variety is there to character builds

Variety is huge, and any one of the base classes can cover a multitude of character ideas, and with multiclassing you also have good precision in hitting your target.
Note that while potetial variety even within the same class is big, there is some concept overlap between classes (for instance both scoundrels and scouts are/can be good at stealth, but they put different spins on it)

[Mando Knight]

And combat usually boils down to "I shoot the guy with my blaster" if you're not a Jedi, but that's kinda to be expected in a Sci-fi game.

[Beleriphon]

I figured I was safe on this particular site, but let me rephrase:

How much variety is there to character builds, on a scale of AD&D without kits to Mutants & Masterminds?

Less than M&M (by a country mile) but much higher than AD&D with or without kits.

As an example:

A first level soldier is going to have a good attack bonus regardless of anything else. But if you choose to focus on melee vs ranged you're going to get very different play styles obviously. Beyond that you can focus on pushing opponents down the condition track or going for sheer damage. At later points you focus on wearing armor like a boss, or work on being awesome with jet packs. That is one class, and not counting prestige classes are pretty clearly meant for base classes to work towards.

In essence each talent tree is kind of like a subclass for the base class. There are some talents are universally useful for a specific class, but that isn't necessarily true across the board. Add free multiclassing and you have plenty of build options without going truly freeform.

Oh, and your soldier can be Force Sensitive without being a Jedi.

[Dienekes]

I guess the main reasons I don't like 4e is that everything plays approximately the same and the combat and character build options, while modeled in a way that makes a good game, are insanely boring. With multiclassing worth talking about, more "Tome of Battle-y" powers, and a setting I actually care about that might all be less of a problem.

How differentiated are different characters? In 4e my main complaint is that everything is too standardized and the main difference between classes is where you want to stand.

Well, it depends on what you mean by differentiated. Every class looks the same. Talent, Feat, Talent, Feat, Talent, Feat, Talent, Feat. If the presentation is the problem then you might not like it.

However, there are a lot of options to choose from within each class. To the point that it is entirely possible to have 4 players pick the Scoundrel class and act completely different. One could be a Scoundrel focused on using the Force (surprisingly effective actually), one can be one hell of a skill monkey, one can focus on sniping down high priority targets, and one can focus on completely disrupting the enemies coordination. Every class is like that, there are numerous effective ways to play them all. Add in multiclassing for no penalty and the options available are pretty great.

Now there are some weaknesses of the system, but they are pretty easy to houserule, much easier than 3.5 in my opinion.

[LibraryOgre]

SAGA is also flexible enough that you can turn it entirely classless without losing anything.

One thing someone learned the hard way about the above rules? Jedi don't start with enough money for a lightsaber.

[IdleMuse]

I figured I was safe on this particular site, but let me rephrase:

How much variety is there to character builds, on a scale of AD&D without kits to Mutants & Masterminds?

Whether or not others agree, I feel very much the same about the little 4E I've played, and it really isn't a problem in Saga; there are many different focusses that characters can be built towards, and although the character /structure/ is similar to 4E (in that there's a standard progressions of talents and feats), the way talents are differentiated is so different from 4E. Characters feel different to play, different to build, and have different requirements, which is I think what you're looking for. In 4E, sometimes the choices you have to make seem not very relevant; this blast power or that blast power, zzzz; rarely is that the case with Saga, where talents are vastly different in what they do.

I actually find Saga character building MORE interesting and varied than M&M; sure, you can do so much more in M&M, there are so many infinite options, but to me I aqlways find characters going the same sort of way, because it isn't hard to do a bunch of things well in M&M, there's almost, TOO much flexbility to do exactly what you want. In Saga, you actually have difficult this-or-that choices to make, which adds flavour and interest, for me, at least.

[Alejandro]

Whether or not others agree, I feel very much the same about the little 4E I've played, and it really isn't a problem in Saga; there are many different focusses that characters can be built towards, and although the character /structure/ is similar to 4E (in that there's a standard progressions of talents and feats), the way talents are differentiated is so different from 4E. Characters feel different to play, different to build, and have different requirements, which is I think what you're looking for. In 4E, sometimes the choices you have to make seem not very relevant; this blast power or that blast power, zzzz; rarely is that the case with Saga, where talents are vastly different in what they do.

I actually find Saga character building MORE interesting and varied than M&M; sure, you can do so much more in M&M, there are so many infinite options, but to me I aqlways find characters going the same sort of way, because it isn't hard to do a bunch of things well in M&M, there's almost, TOO much flexbility to do exactly what you want. In Saga, you actually have difficult this-or-that choices to make, which adds flavour and interest, for me, at least.

I have extensive 4E and Saga experience, and Saga is 10x more customizable, simply because 4E with a few exceptions does not do multiclass or unique characters very well. It CAN do those things, but it is not the norm. Saga outright expects you to do so.

You could tell me to make four 'fighter' characters in Saga, and I could easily make all four of them insanely different from each other, by freely dipping into the different classes for different talents, or staying single classed for more talents from Soldier, and so on.

One PC is straight Soldier and wears armor and shoots a blaster cannon.
Another is a martial arts ninja with some Scoundrel for sneakery.
A third is a sword wielding space pirate with some Noble for leading his or her men to victory.
A fourth is a heavy gunnery specialist that serves as a master gunner on a starship, and also dips into Scout to fill in as navigator when necessary.

All of these would be possible with barely any hard work. :)

[Yora]

I think I just found a major screw-up in the KotOR campaign guide, with a big spoiler about the comic.

Spoiler

Show

Why does Jarael have the Force Sensitivity and Strong in the Force feats? It's a major plot point at the end of the second story arc, that she doesn't have any force potential at all.

Spoiler

Show

When Demagol wanted to see the kids perforce force tricks, it was actually his own hidden force powers that created the efects he desired.

Did that just not have happened yet in the comic, when the guide was written?
That she has levels in soldier but none in scoundrel makes seem that likely. The major asskicking is mostly in the first issues, but later on she is much more all about disguising and bluffing and stuff like that.

[Thrysierius]

I have extensive 4E and Saga experience, and Saga is 10x more customizable, simply because 4E with a few exceptions does not do multiclass or unique characters very well. It CAN do those things, but it is not the norm. Saga outright expects you to do so.

You could tell me to make four 'fighter' characters in Saga, and I could easily make all four of them insanely different from each other, by freely dipping into the different classes for different talents, or staying single classed for more talents from Soldier, and so on.

One PC is straight Soldier and wears armor and shoots a blaster cannon.
Another is a martial arts ninja with some Scoundrel for sneakery.
A third is a sword wielding space pirate with some Noble for leading his or her men to victory.
A fourth is a heavy gunnery specialist that serves as a master gunner on a starship, and also dips into Scout to fill in as navigator when necessary.

All of these would be possible with barely any hard work. :)

Seconded on that. The PC I'm playing in Alejandro's campaign is level 10 composed of 4 Scoundrel, 4 Soldier, 1 Scout and 1 Ace Pilot. After selecting feats that apply to both starship and regular combat, I ended up with a PC who doesn't have quite as high a BAB as the Gunslinger or Jedi but is just as capable with a blaster as he is with a vibro rapier and behind the wheel of a vehicle.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Sounds like it has enough of what I like about 3.5 (multiclassing and character options) and enough of what I actually did like about 4e (sane rules without a boatload of feature creep) that it's worth checking out in lieu of my old d20r books. Thanks guys, I'll keep an eye on this thread.

[Yora]

Does a characters Dark Side score have any effect other than determining at what point he becomes an NPC?

[Waar]

Does a characters Dark Side score have any effect other than determining at what point he becomes an NPC?

Yes, there are some talents, 2 ligth side force Powers, 2 prestige classes and some other stuff from Jedi Academy that requires a darkside score either as a prerequisite, or on your target in order to activate.

edit: anything in particular you were looking for?

[LibraryOgre]

Does a characters Dark Side score have any effect other than determining at what point he becomes an NPC?

I've considered cribbing from WEG and having the Dark Side score provide a bonus to UtF until you turn. The Dark Side is quicker, more seductive, but not, ultimately, stronger.

What I've also allowed, which mimics this to an extent, is letting players spend a Force Point whenever they like... with the caveat that if it's not one of their two-per-session (alternate rule), they get a Dark Side Point. So if you REALLY want to succeed, you can call upon the Dark Side, and get a bonus. You can call multiple times until you "Win"... but, the Dark Side will claim you quickly if you do that, and then its favor goes away.

[Alejandro]

Just make sure you have the right type of players, if you do that. Overly immature players will generally just grab anything they can get and not care about the consequences.

Hey, kind of like Anakin!

[Beleriphon]

What I've also allowed, which mimics this to an extent, is letting players spend a Force Point whenever they like... with the caveat that if it's not one of their two-per-session (alternate rule), they get a Dark Side Point. So if you REALLY want to succeed, you can call upon the Dark Side, and get a bonus. You can call multiple times until you "Win"... but, the Dark Side will claim you quickly if you do that, and then its favor goes away.

I'm a fan of allowing a Force Point to be spent to use any Force power but at the expense of increasing your Dark Side Score by one in addition to any other increases the use might entail.

[Thrysierius]

I'm a fan of allowing a Force Point to be spent to use any Force power but at the expense of increasing your Dark Side Score by one in addition to any other increases the use might entail.

I'm not sure I follow exactly how you mean. Are you saying by spending a Force Point to regain a use of a spent power, say like Vital Transfer, you make that player increase their Dark Side Score by 1?

[Mando Knight]

I'm not sure I follow exactly how you mean. Are you saying by spending a Force Point to regain a use of a spent power, say like Vital Transfer, you make that player increase their Dark Side Score by 1?

More as an addition to that: spending a Force Point to immediately gain any Force Power, even one not normally in your repertoire.

[Thrysierius]

More as an addition to that: spending a Force Point to immediately gain any Force Power, even one not normally in your repertoire.

Ahhh, see that makes more sense now.

[kreenlover]

More as an addition to that: spending a Force Point to immediately gain any Force Power, even one not normally in your repertoire.

Thats how I usually handle Dark Side things. Although, I do like the 2 FP/session and any extra accrue DS points idea. That is a very enticing idea...