4E, Star Wars Saga, and 3.5E Comparisons?

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Ok, maybe some of you guys can help me out.

First off, yes, 3.5E has some problems. However, to my mind, they are not necessarily that difficult to fix. 3.5E as a system, is very solid, and overall, quite excellent.

Now, what exactly does Stars Wars Saga do--that is different from 3.5E?

(1) What changes do Saga make, that are clearly superior to 3.5E--and that are also applicable to using fully in D&D, as opposed to Star Wars?

(2) From what I have seen, some of the changes that Star Wars makes, while good for Star Wars--are not very good for D&D.

I often think that many of the "complaints" about 3.5E--and I forthrightly admit that I agree with many of them--are none the less approachable with a solution that is fairly easy mechanically to do--or more of a matter of data organization, style of writing and subject organization, and *presentation* as opposed to actual structural problems, if that makes any sense?

Your thoughts?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Bagpuss]

I think what it does well and would be good in D&D.


Bonus Feat or Talent each level - removes the dead levels from the game.
Special Abilities (Force or stuff from Bo9S) being balanced per encounter not instead of Vancian Magic. Makes balancing encounters easier.
Everything being retroactive - IE: Increase in INT bonus means an additional trained skill.
Trained Skills and Skill improvement.
Fixed defense progression


Those last to three are the things that make designing higher level NPCs easier and quicker.



Stuff I'm weary about....

Skills progressing at 1/2 level compared to defenses progressing at 1/level - When skills are used against defense or attack bonus, then they start of almost certain to succeed, but because of this progression then end up unlikely to succeed against equal level opponents. This could mean a mage starts off powerful at 1st level and actually gets weaker by 20th, which would be weird.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Interesting stuff there, my friend! I definitely can appreciate the need to cut down on the time it takes to make up a good npc. Sometimes, fuck!--it can be a real headache!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[obryn]

I hope D&D4 takes some of the lessons from Saga, but abandons others. Saga does a damn fine job for a Star Wars game, but I think it'd be a disaster with a traditional dungeon crawl game.

I hope WotC includes...
* Reducing the number of die rolls per combat turn, like reducing iterative attacks
* Simplification of the overall system, including fiddly bits like grapple. (I actually don't think grapple's bad, but I seem to be a minority )
* Less reference time in-game. Spells are the most egregious example of this issue.
* Mook rules for nonheroic characters
* Mix of per-encounter, per-day, and per-level expendable resources.
* Less reliance on buff spells and items
* Improvement of all character abilities, even when multiclassing.

I hope they don't incorporate...
* Melee combat kinda sucking in comparison to ranged combat, in regards to extra attacks
* Armor losing its efficacy at high levels without appropriate talents

I'm wavering on the skill system. I like the simplicity of the Saga system, but I'll be honest - I like the flexibility of skill points, too. I have a feeling 4e will follow Saga's example, though. I think that'll be ok, overall, as long as characters have a decent way (other than taking feats) to catch up on trained skills.

I see Mike Mearl's personal touches on almost everything I've read so far about 4e. I very much trust his rules-writing and rules decisions, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

-O

[Bagpuss]

I hope they don't incorporate...
* Melee combat kinda sucking in comparison to ranged combat, in regards to extra attacks


I inclined to think this isn't going to be as big an issue, the only way to get multiple attacks without reducing your attack bonus is with Duel Weapon Mastery, but their aren't any decent one handed ranged weapons in a fantasy setting. So archers will have to use Double and Triple Attack, so either two attacks at -5 to both or three at -10 to all three. While a ranged fighter is more likely to be able to pick their targets to achieve a full attack than a melee one, they are significantly less likely to hit than a single melee attack.

[Tetsubo]

I plan on picking up Saga as soon as finances allow... I'll be skipping 4E...