E20?

[Username17]

E20 is not going in the direction of 4e, it's building in an entirely new direction on top of SAGA. Why anyone would decide that Star Wars SAGA was a good platform from which to launch a multi-genre game is totally beyond me, but that is what they are doing. I think for a long time, people are going to say "That's like 4e!" about anything they don't like.

The real puzzlement is why they kept the SAGA Feat/Talent distinction. They aren't making anything compatible with old works, so there's no reason to have "Feats" be something passive. The word Feat means that you are actively doing something. That's what the word means. lipping out and stabbing everyone in a room is a feat, being generically better at wilderness survival is not.

In other news: anyone know why all of ggroy's posts are eliminated from this thread?

[Crissa]

I believe Frank means 'trademark' in this case where he says 'copyright', since one refers to names, icons, characters, while the other to strings of words or images.

But the effect is the same: We can't use them and expect not to be sued.

-Crissa

[Korwin]

Whirlwind Attack [Major ]

Your awareness of your surroundings allows you to strike all foes in
range with a flurry of blows.

Attack: Standard action Weapon, melee

Target: all enemy characters in reach Range: reach

(SKILL + Strength modifier) vs. Reflex of each target
Hit: WEAPON +Strength modifier + SKILL damage

Special: Free action

Trigger: You make an Insight or Perception check and dislike the result.

Effect: Reroll the skill check with a +5 bonus.

Brutal Presence [Core]

Your savage ferocity shakes the resolve of those who oppose you,
giving you and your allies the advantage.

Attack: Free action Weapon, Melee

Trigger: You hit an enemy with a melee attack.

Target: 1 enemy hit Range: reach

Effect: Until the start of your next turn, if the target makes an attack
that doesn’t target you, it takes a –2 penalty to its attack and, if it
is within your reach, it takes 1d6 damage. This damage increases to
2d6 at 6th level, 3d6 at 11th level, and 4d6 at 16th level.

Special: Standard action Mind-affecting

Target: 1 character Range: adjacent, sight

Effect: Target gains a circumstance bonus equal to your Strength
modifier on its first Persuasion (intimidate) check before the start of
your next turn.

Maybe its the formating, but it looks very 4ey for me (I but I dont play 4e, so I may be mistaken.)

The powers Talents all have combat and non-combat uses, so they are at least in that regard better than 4e

[Lokathor]

Having forgotten what E20 was and just looking at the PDF, I at first assumed it to actually be some kind of 4e fix or something. It's not just you.

[PhoneLobster]

I just went and read "e20 lite" because some guy just told me to stop trashing d20 Modern because e20 was totally like what d20 modern fans were doing these days or something...

1) Since it isn't actually at a playable level of completion it seems d20 Modern fans clearly aren't actually doing anything at all.

2) Apparently the main guy behind it is one of the guys who wrote Saga Edition. Which explains why e20 looks like Saga/4e, and why it looks unexciting hard to read and generally crap.

3) Yeah the ability formating looks like 4e. Also, it's hard to read and doesn't spark any real interest in me (or any faith that those abilities won't be terrible).

4) There are like 12 different attack/active combat actions. Some of which seemed to lack any meaningful or interesting differentiation. That's before talents and junk which appear to be their own actions sort of. And yet those actions did not seem to include "Disarm", "Sunder" or "Trip". Which is odd because there is totally a "stand back up" movement action.

5) It is really terrible. No. Really, did you have to ask?
I mean...

Cleaving Strike [Core]
Your might allows you to build momentum through one target and
smash into another.
Attack: Standard action Weapon, melee
Target: 1 character Range: reach
(SKILL + Strength modifier) vs. Primary
Hit: WEAPON + Strength modifier + SKILL damage, and make a
secondary attack against a different character in range.
(SKILL + Strength modifier – 5) vs. Primary
Hit: WEAPON + SKILL damage

Someone is taking liberties with shortcuts in their rules writing. Among other things.

Hey look how SIMPLE mere minor abilities are to resolve!

Crushing Charge [Minor]
You use your strength and momentum to your advantage, smashing
through defenses with ease.
Attack: Standard action Weapon, Melee
Requirement: Target must be at least 2 squares away, and your
movement cannot pass through squares containing difficult terrain
or enemies.
Target: 1 character or object Range: reach
Effect: You move up to your speed in a straight line to the closest
square adjacent to the target. Your turn ends immediately after
making your attack.
(SKILL + Strength modifier + 2) vs. Primary and Fortitude
Hit vs. Primary: WEAPON + Strength modifier + Constitution
modifier + SKILL damage.
Hit vs. Fortitude: Target is knocked prone.
Miss vs. Primary: Strength modifier damage.

Yeah thats a walk in the park. But at least we know why people (in weird probably edge case half hits, or maybe in full hits too, who knows THEY DIDN'T MAKE THAT CLEAR) have to stand up again.

Oh and look...

Effect: Until the start of your next turn, if the target makes an attack
that doesn’t target you, it takes a –2 penalty to its attack and, if it
is within your reach, it takes 1d6 damage. This damage increases to
2d6 at 6th level, 3d6 at 11th level, and 4d6 at 16th level.

Out of turn 1 round duration quibbling penalties and measly damage vs your opponents HUNDREDS of hit points (seriously you walk in at level 1 with like 83 effective encounter HP and maybe 220ish for the day).

6) Hey lookies even more, veiled reference to some sort of "Skill Challenges" mechanic...

Special: Interruption
Trigger: You fail a skill check during a noncombat encounter.
(Endurance + Constitution modifier) vs. failed skill DC + 5
Success: You do not count your failed skill check toward the
outcome of the noncombat encounter.

...COOL (or is it...?)


...its like they took everything bad from d20modern, saga edition, and 4e and put it in one place so I could spit on it.

I may have to look into these rules more closely when they actually release them.

EDIT: I will grant you though the alternate "non-combat" skill use on Whirlwind is cool. Because...
A) Significantly boosting your chance to not be surprise by say... combat is in someway considered non-combat.
and B)...
Like most of the secondary skill things it seems to be tacked on and senseless UNTIL you imagine it like this...

"Gragnor the mighty glances around the shadowy room lazily.
Realizing he really didn't put the effort in he uses his mighty Whirlwind of Doom skills to open his eyes wildly and spin on the spot like a wild eyed toddler attempting to glare in all directions at high speed.
Thus noticing the hidden ninja ambush with relative ease."

Or maybe being a total joke is not cool. I can't tell anymore.

[PhoneLobster]

Hi, remember this thread, remember e20?

Well I do, I have been watching e20 like a hawk because I hate it and it's ancestors and see it's release as an opportunity to have something I can, and by god SHOULD, really make fun of in extensive detail.

So you can imagine my dissapointment (but lack of surprise) that this project appears to have been delayed in release by a fairly significant margin.

Officially e20 was supposed to be FINISHED by now. Instead, well after the finish date with no explanation, excuses or even prior mentions there is FINALLY a post claiming that, no, honest to god cross his heart and hope to die, e20 is just now in the "final stretch" and it is now your LAST CHANCE to throw money at the creator of this so far vaporous, already supposedly entirely paid for, and now rather over due project!

WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY. Or not.

Still. It's late for being made fun of. I mean SURE there is a new version of the lite sample pdf but that was out a million years ago and is no different, or more complete, than the one we initially saw.

I am disappointed that e20 has yet to release something I can be properly disappointed with.

In the meantime those idiots who told me e20 is where all the d20 modern and saga fans are getting their kicks these days can go eat it because they CLEARLY are STILL having some temporal displacement issues in their view of reality.

[Kobajagrande]

I admire the man who managed to scam RPG fans for money.

[Slade]

The power system reminds me more of Tob than 4e.
It sounded interesting with multiclassing benefit caster level (free practiced spellcaster feat).

[PhoneLobster]

It's now time for my suddenly semi regular e20 watch thread necromancy ritual.

It's still not out. I really don't get how this works. The funding model was supposedly one in which the author would be in some rather dire shit if he failed to deliver, and here he is WELL past his deadline.

But hey guess what, e20 will be out for Gencon! In August. Only I have my doubts because a relatively brief swing by the forums saw minimal activity and some suggestion that the fucking thing still hasn't been written and even, rather hilariously, it seems that those guys who paid extra for their opinions to be heard... may end up writing portions of the rules themselves. Which isn't precisely what they signed up for... or good... or in anyway making me confident that Sarli will deliver what he promised when he is now re-re-repromising it.

And sadly you can NO LONGER throw your money at GMSarli to fund this exciting project in speculative table top gaming. But at Gencon there WILL be events where the new directions for FUTURE e20 products will be discussed. And I am so VERY sure that those future directions will involve you giving more money to GMSarli for games he hasn't written but might get around to letting you write on his forum. Maybe. Eventually. Sort of. Except for the money up front thing, that's pretty much set in stone. Unlike I dunno, deadlines, and product delivery, or even product.

Of course it's entirely possible that August will roll around, e20 core rule book will so surprisingly not have been cobbled together from whatever Sarli manages to write or shake out of the cracks in the lounge at his relatively inactive forum, and they just run more "e20 demo games" using a bunch of "e20 lite" rules that exist largely in peoples imaginations, and then start collecting sucker money for e20 splat books without delivering ANYTHING.

I'm not saying that WILL happen. I'm just saying that has an alarmingly high likelihood of happening.

In the mean time I'm unlikely to buy this speculative product myself, and somewhat suspect it will be rather hard to, er, acquire for free for the making fun of.

However the world is clearly full of suckers with far too much money for their own good. So if one of you would be e20 investors out there could consider buying me a copy and sending it over with YOUR money that would be grand.

I promise I will produce some extensive making fun of it for you within a fortnight. A month at most. Perhaps a year. Maybe. Possibly I might get someone else to partially make fun of it because I can't completely make fun of it myself. Also you should probably buy and send me the splats as they (speculatively) come out even before I release my making fun of the core so that I can (speculatively) make fun of them at some point in some further speculative future. Maybe. If I get around to it. 2032 at the latest I almost promise. Buy me some other things too.

[echoVanguard]

My assessment is instead that moving away from BAB towards a "skill based" combat system while retaining a 20 level growth curve and a d20 RNG is basically just asking people to take the random number generator and rape it.

"Those who would sacrifice mathematical stability for customization deserve neither."

-Username17

I'm very interested in further analysis of this concept. Frank, would you mind elucidating?

echo

[RadiantPhoenix]

I'm not Frank, but I think I can guess the gist what's going to be said.

The purpose of all rules of make-believe, such as D&D, is to generate a system of resolution for disagreements between those making believe. If your system of resolution doesn't produce acceptable results, your rules are less than worthless, and you are better off playing magic tea party, because it allows more customization while losing nothing in conflict resolution.

In this example, by level 20 skills tend to diverge by at least the length of the RNG, if not several times that; this means that if you use them as a primary method of resolving conflict, at least one of the following will be true:
* people who don't focus on the particular skill that is needed in just this occasion will have no chance of passing, period
* people who do focus on that particular skill will experience no challenge, period

In the worst case, both are true, and everyone is probably unsatisfied.

[hogarth]

But how does skill-based combat equal "customization"?

An ill-conceived attempt at unifying mechanics, certainly. But customization?

[echoVanguard]

So, in other words, the critical concept here is that a 20-level system should not allow accrual of greater modifiers than the entire length of the RNG? I apologize if this seems pedantic, but I'm trying to separate the signal from the noise.

echo

[violence in the media]

But how does skill-based combat equal "customization"?

An ill-conceived attempt at unifying mechanics, certainly. But customization?

I'm guessing that it would allow you to have different BABs for different weapons or weapon groups, as opposed to being equally competent with halberds and daggers (barring a feat focus or something).

[Leress]

If it's going to be Skill-based then it might be like BESM d20 and have different skills for ranged and melee attack and defense and maybe others. It would still be at terrible system.

[Username17]

There are basically two schools of numerical advancement that RPGs use. And they get called a lot of things but people mostly know what you are talking about if you call them "Skill Based" and "Level Based". In the first, you get whatever bonuses you get and in the second you have distinct "power levels". Basically a level based system is more accounting and more restrictive about what can be built, but it potentially gives you a more balanced game system and in any case gives you more information.

To see how this works, let's consider a basilisk from 4th edition D&D and a basilisk from 4th edition Shadowrun. The D&D basilisk is a "level 10 artillery" monster. This means that it has (by definition) attacks and defenses that are vaguely appropriate for PCs in the level 8-12 range. The fact that we know this before even looking at its numbers and thinking about them makes the game a lot easier for the MC. He can pull a basilisk out and put it into an encounter without actually reading it carefully first (for the most part). And of course, this comes with the limitations that the Basilisk is a 10th level monster and it lacks strengths and weaknesses that would be inappropriate for a 10th level challenge. Despite being a stupid lizard it is as hard to trick as a normal 10th level monster. For fuck's sake, the basilisk can't even turn people to stone, because that would be a higher level ability that a 10th level enemy can't have access to. On the flip side is the Shadowrun basilisk. It has a fucking petrification laser on its face and it is a stupid lizard that can be kept entertained for hours with a laser pointer.

The question of which is "better" is actually unresolvable because it's not simple. The SR4 basilisk is unbalanced, being wildly different in difficulty depending upon how it is fought. And figuring out if the basilisk is an "appropriate" challenge for the PCs in a Shadowrun game is quite a difficult problem that may not have a good answer because you don't know ahead of time how the PCs are going to engage with it.

But now let's talk about "Skill Ranks" because they were shit. The basic concept is that things are essentially skill based in that you have whatever piles of skill ranks you happen to have and not less or more. And where levels come in is that they put a hard cap on how high (but not how low) those bonuses can get. So when a character walks in at "Level 10" you really have no idea how good that character is at sneaking. You just know how good he could have been at sneaking. And that value goes up every level, but how good the character actually is does not. So as levels go up, the game becomes less manageable and the level system gives you less information. But, and this is important, it doesn't become less accounting! The level system helps you less but is still exactly as much of a pain in the ass.

Skill Ranks are one of the few innovations of 3e D&D that I can unreservedly state were an unmitigated failure.

-Username17

[hogarth]

There are basically two schools of numerical advancement that RPGs use. And they get called a lot of things but people mostly know what you are talking about if you call them "Skill Based" and "Level Based". In the first, you get whatever bonuses you get and in the second you have distinct "power levels". Basically a level based system is more accounting and more restrictive about what can be built, but it potentially gives you a more balanced game system and in any case gives you more information.

[example snipped]

Using your terminology, wouldn't BAB also be "skill-based" advancement in 3.X D&D? I.e., a level 20 character could have anywhere from +0 to +20 BAB, just like he could have anywhere from 0 to 23 ranks in a skill.

So your comment about "moving away from BAB towards a "skill based" combat system" doesn't make much sense using the definitions you just provided. Of course, I thought it was pretty clear from what you meant when you said that (i.e. that in 3.X, skill values can vary enormously and BAB values generally have less variance).

[sabs]

But in all skill based systems, skill levels can vary drastically.

One of the weird things about D20 is that the skill range is SO big. from 0-23
But any skill system, I can potentially have a huge variance in skill.

Shadowrun for example.
I could have a 0 skill, which actually puts me at -1 for rolling.
I could have a 7 skill, with a magic booster of +3 for 10.

So I can have a variance of 11, depending on my level of focus on a particular skill.

I thought one of the few fun thins about D&D3 was the skill system. It wasn't perfect, but it was much better than proficiencies.

[Lago PARANOIA]

BAB (theoretically) has a minimum floor it can drop to however. This isn't exactly the case and even the proposed fixes like fractional BAB are just slightly less trouble than it's worth. But even so, an 8th level monk only has 2 BAB less than a fighter. Hell, even a wizard only has 4 less.

Skills by contrast go off the crazy train very quickly. By level 5 the difference in skill points between a fighter and a rogue for, say, Move Silently is 9. Throw in armor penalties and the difference gets to be like 13-15. And we haven't even gotten into feats, magical items, racial bonuses, etc..

Skills only work in Shadowrun because of diminishing returns, a low ceiling, and a couple of subsystems that let you push up the skills to the right number. If Shadowrun tried to stretch its reach from 'hobos with guns' to 'mid-level heroic fantasy' the game would collapse even faster than D&D.

[RobbyPants]

Using your terminology, wouldn't BAB also be "skill-based" advancement in 3.X D&D? I.e., a level 20 character could have anywhere from +0 to +20 BAB, just like he could have anywhere from 0 to 23 ranks in a skill.

With multiclassing, you could have a 0-20 range. The range is 10-20 if you either play straight-classed or use fractional BAB.

But, as printed, your range is 0-20. I guess it's technically skill based in that it's not directly tied to level, but rather capped at level. You just get to manipulate your BAB indirectly by multiclassing as opposed to directly by spending skill points.

[RadiantPhoenix]

There's also:
* the prestige class with no base attack bonus (survivor)
* level adjustment
* bloodline levels
* probably some things I've forgotten

[RobbyPants]

There's also:
* the prestige class with no base attack bonus (survivor)
* level adjustment
* bloodline levels
* probably some things I've forgotten

Good point. I don't even think about those things.

[TarkisFlux]

So, in other words, the critical concept here is that a 20-level system should not allow accrual of greater modifiers than the entire length of the RNG? I apologize if this seems pedantic, but I'm trying to separate the signal from the noise.

echo

Not quite. Having a modifier total greater than the length of the RNG isn't necessarily a big deal, and might just mean that the scaling in the game is such that people have really high base modifiers to begin with. The difference in modifiers between characters is the important thing. If people are all supposed to have a chance of success and failure on a roll for a given event, ignoring forced chances from auto-success/failure rules, then the difference between their modifiers needs to be less than a particular amount determined by the size of the RNG and whether it's an opposed check or against a static DC. If people are not supposed to need to roll to succeed, because you don't care about auto-success or auto-failure, then you can have whatever differences between characters of the same level you want, though a ceiling may be useful in these cases for other reasons. And which of those cases should apply is basically a design decision.

3.x muddied the benefits of a level dependent system by using a level independent (aside from the cap) skill system, where people can't be expected to have a minimum level of proficiency in any particular thing. Moving further away from a level system to a system where combat is more skill driven is just begging for people to have inappropriately low or high modifiers at any given level, making the "level" part of your character less meaningful for the purposes of finding appropriate challenges and the relevant DCs (AC and saves in this case).

[echoVanguard]

TarkisFlux, I'm thankful for your effort to clarify, but I'm afraid I'm having some trouble disentantling your "former" clause from the preceding text. What, specifically, in your statement is "basically the whole point of a level based system since it tries to enforce expected ranges for a given level"?

I'm curious, because this is a critical concept in this discussion.

echo

[TarkisFlux]

Sorry, that was an artifact from an earlier thought that got missed on post. Everything after the comma there should have been removed (and it will be in a moment).