Shadowlord said:
I mean that d20M, SW, CoC, WoT... all d20 games, succeed in binding everything needed for play in 1 book only, where D&D needs 4 or 5. 
Well, it's 3 books in D&D, not 4 or 5. And the fact that you need more than one book there has several reasons:
D&D is high on magic, whereas d20M only adds it as an option. Where d20M only dedicates a couple of pages to magic, D&D has around 130 pages of spells and magic in general in the PHB, plus around 70 pages on magic items, including how to create them, in the DMG. Add to that the need of more condiditions (held, level-drained), and you have around 200 pages extra just for magic.
Then, while d20M mostly uses NPCs and a couple of animals as "monsters", D&D sports a whole 200+ pages book only for monsters, so you have all the things you came to know over the decades: Dragons, Demons, Devils, Mythical Beasts.... add to that the pages in the DMG with NPC tables, and you have another 200 pages extra.
Then, D&D needs more info on world building, while in d20M, you can draw upon your knowledge of the real world, and this gets another couple of pages.
So you see, if you didn't have monsters and magic in D&D, you could make the PHB a little thicker (around 380 pages, just like d20 System Books), and get another game with just one book. But that would not be D&D any more. Also, in D&D the players need only one (cheaper) book, and only the DM needs the other two.
Of course, you need another book with a campaign setting in it if you don't want to create your own, using the guidelines of the core rules, but that's the same with d20M.
D20M has better skills worked out,
Don't forget that they had a lot of time to learn between D&D and d20 Modern, and with the revision of the rules, I think D&D's skills will get streamlined like the ones of d20M
a more fluent combat system (massive damage is great!),
The massive damage rules don't really add to the fluency of the game, since they appear much more often than before. D&D has a higher Treshold, but that's OK since in D&D you can deal a lot more damage, what with magic and all that, so later on that threshold is not so big any more.
That's not necessarily an advantage. It's different. I like both systems, but there are both people who like a highly generalized system and people who like a highly specialized system.
D&D has them, too. My first 3e Character has been having a really nice career so far: from normal fighter to bladesinger to divine champion to high bladesinger to chosen of corellon.
If you mean the Starting Occupations: they're more suited for the modern games, but I'm not sure if they'd fit into a fantasy game (or if we need them there)
?
Examples, please.
Well, what do you need those in fantasy game for?
gamesmastering & setting section in one book...
That's true, but D&D is much more detailed in those things. Besides: the real settings will be released as separate campaign settings, like the Urban Arcana Campaign Setting in May.
In short, you've got much more non-combat elements whereas in d&d it's all still too dungeon oriented.
I have to disagree: Some of the Setting Material we have in D&D is extremely detailed, without any (or only very little) combat-related stuff in it. In the FRCS, for example, we have info on the calendar, every-day life in Faerûn, an abbreviated history of toril, geographics.... And seen the Silver Marches Sourcebook? Only a couple of Pages with combat-oriented material (e.g. feats, spells, prestige classes), and much more info on the lay of the land, politics, the big cities, even what plants you can find there.
Before anyone thinks that I hate d20M: On the contrary. I like the setting very much. But I don't think it's better than D&D, or worse: it's
different! Both have their focus (fantasy or modern, respectively) and are good at it. But I doubt that d20M will spell the doom of D&D. I think D&D will remain the most popular d20 game.
