d20 Modern: What Would you change part II

[Vigilance]

Well, depending on how the balance of the classes works out, I might make the mental classes somewhat whimpy. I just felt like d20M went too far. The Smart and Charismatic Hero had low BAB, Defense and pretty mediocre saves.

As someone who ran a lot of military campaigns that were heavy in combat, those classes were avoided like the Bubonic Plague.

 

[EditorBFG]

Well, depending on how the balance of the classes works out, I might make the mental classes somewhat whimpy. I just felt like d20M went too far. The Smart and Charismatic Hero had low BAB, Defense and pretty mediocre saves.

Yeah, it did go too far. The number of players who go into a game wanting to be good at fighting clearly dwarfs the number of players who want to be lousy in a fight but good at negotiating or hacking computers. If you're going to have social guy and skill guy as separate classes-- a move I don't really understand the point of, especially regarding social guy-- they should also have combat niches to fill.

In D&D-- a game where the classes work better than d20 Modern-- even the wimps have an important combat function. Wizards can't fight personally, but put out lots of damage, clerics heal you after the fight, rogues get sneak attack, etc. If all those options are just feats now, why would anyone choose the other options when they can play attack guy or defense guy and get the same feats? I would rather play a fighter with sneak attack or a fighter with magic missile, but in D&D if I want sneak attack, I need to be a rogue. It doesn't sound like this system will work that way.

I don't think, as a design philosophy, the idea of creating character classes that a small minority of players will want to use is in any way helpful. If there are six classes-- more than you need, I think, if implemented as currently conceived-- each class should be designed with at least a reasonable possibility that 1/6 of players will want to play that class. When you step back and look at Reputation guy, can you honestly say that 1 out of 6 players is gonna go, "Yeah, that's the class I want?"

In a generic modern setting, this is hard. In D&D, by contrast, when I want to play I social guy, I think paladin or bard. Now, a paladin is a great combatant period, and a bard helps the other characters do better in combat, and is skill heavy and a spellcaster to boot. Unless you can make a Charisma character as attractive as the paladin or bard, I think the social stuff is better off ported over as an option for another class.

As you say, "Well, making sure all the roles are cool is where I earn my money", but the fact is that it was also where the Modern designers-- a very talented group of writers-- were supposed to earn their money too. And as far as making all the classes attractive options, they did not. So, to my mind, either you've already come up with a brilliant way to do what they failed to do, or adopting their basic division of class roles might be a decision that bears reconsideration.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Of course you don't want your system to model nothing but military combat gametypes.

That is, I feel, the major fault with SpyCraft 2.0. It claims toward generalism, but everything feels heavily designed to the core James Bond Spy Movie tropes with "well you can change it this way" afterthoughts added in. From names to stylistic choices to balance choices it is a SPY GAME with rules for doing other things.

d20Modern felt, on the whole, a little more generalist. Still, perhaps, the action movie type of thing, but less about one genre of movies.

I've had military games where the most effective combatants were full-class Dedicated with shootist feats.

I've been toying with a flat across-the-board +1/2 Level to all Saves, Attacks, and Defense with modifications that can, from that point, be purchased or which are part of classes.

--fje

 

[Greg K]

See, I like having the smart and charismatic the way they are. Yeah, if you are running a military game or other combat heavy game, they are not getting used. However, run another game where the strenghts of the smart or charaismatic characters strengths and not combat are heavily emphasized and strong or tough hero might not get used.

What I like about the d20 Modern structure is that if you want a strong guy who goes against type and fits the smart hero role rather than the strong hero role, you take smart hero rather than strong hero and give him a really good strength score. Similarly, you could do the opposite and give your really intelligent guy strong hero instead of smart hero and put his highest or second highest intelligence rather than strength.

Now my complaint is strong hero and fast hero. I prefer the strong hero as presented in the polyhedron. Off hand, I don't recall what bothered me with fast hero.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

As you say, "Well, making sure all the roles are cool is where I earn my money", but the fact is that it was also where the Modern designers-- a very talented group of writers-- were supposed to earn their money too. And as far as making all the classes attractive options, they did not. So, to my mind, either you've already come up with a brilliant way to do what they failed to do, or adopting their basic division of class roles might be a decision that bears reconsideration.

I think where Modern somewhat falls down is it didn't do enough to differentiate the classes based on talents INTO something that was combat-able. There are combat-able talents for the three mental classes, but they largely are less powerful than they should have been or dispersed in different ways across several classes.

For instance, Charismatic has the "I'm A Bard" line of talents. Unfortunately, the leadership talents are really underpowered for what you get. The Charismatic has to burn a turn, make a check, and then can't impact his whole party until around 6th level AND cannot impact himself. Whereas the bard can do something similar to the entire party and himself from the word Go.

Additionally the "Aids Guys In Combat" thing was also given to the Smart hero in the Plan talent, which seems generally superior to Coordinate/Inspiration, especially early on.

--fje

 

[Psion]

Of course you don't want your system to model nothing but military combat gametypes.

That is, I feel, the major fault with SpyCraft 2.0. It claims toward generalism, but everything feels heavily designed to the core James Bond Spy Movie tropes with "well you can change it this way" afterthoughts added in.

See here Chuck... next time you tell me you never see people talking smack about Spycraft, I want you to remember this post.

When Chuck sited this particular problem with D20 Modern, and I was nodding in the background having run into this myself. (Including presently, as I am making pregens for a gencon game). The problem with D20 Modern is that the characters are built as if skills are going to play a strong role in the system, but then they don't follow through by making non-combat activities appealing by amping up the skill system.

 

[jaerdaph]

Well, depending on how the balance of the classes works out, I might make the mental classes somewhat whimpy. I just felt like d20M went too far. The Smart and Charismatic Hero had low BAB, Defense and pretty mediocre saves.

As someone who ran a lot of military campaigns that were heavy in combat, those classes were avoided like the Bubonic Plague.

I always found this was less of a problem if the players multiclassed like they were voting in a Chicago election - early and often.

 

[Mokona]

I think what I'm probably burned a little by is the weird BAB choice in d20M. So I want to make a vicious gunslinger, who's therefore FAST, but he therefore doesn't get the same BAB as a Melee guy?

Yes, the Fast Hero base class was a glaring failure in D20 Modern as Gunslingers don't want to have worse BAB than Swordsmen (or apparently being strong makes you a better shot than being agile).

Mokona's rules of "good" class systems...

1. Base Attack Bonus

All warriors have a Fighter base attack bonus whether they're an armored tank or a hard hitting brute. At least two classes should have Fighter base attack bonus progression. Perhaps base attack bonus is less important in your 2.0 system but until I believe that I would want players desiring Fighter BAB to have more than one option.

2. Skills

Classes that sacrifice basic attack proficiency (such as Base Attack Bonus) for some other focus need their other focus to be relevant in encounters. Rogues (in Dungeons & Dragons) use Move Silently/Hide to gain surprise round attacks and Tumble to get in to flanking position for bonus Sneak Attack damage. Most genres include combat so all classes need something to do that doesn't require them to dedicate rare slots to narrow/weak combat abilities. Again, Rogues are able to dedicate only 1/8th of their class skills (or less if they have any Int bonus) to Tumble to buff their combat capacity.

3. Special Abilities

Classes should have minimal overlap in special abilities. Star Wars Saga Edition does a great job of breaking up the Talents. This makes it easier to choose a class in the first place.

4. Multiclassing

Minimize the penalties for multiclassing and you greatly enable character concepts. Fractional BAB, &c are great steps in this direction.

5. Flavor

Choices players are required to make during character creation should be intuitive and grokkable (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3636334&postcount=80). It immediately makes sense that my physical and mental abilities are divided into six attributes. It's a little disconcerting to think that my class, which is basically an archetype or a career, is something generic and meaningless. Pushing all the flavor out of generic classes and in to professions or feat chains creates too much complexity for most players.

 

[EditorBFG]

See, I like having the smart and charismatic the way they are. Yeah, if you are running a military game or other combat heavy game, they are not getting used. However, run another game where the strenghts of the smart or charaismatic characters strengths and not combat are heavily emphasized and strong or tough hero might not get used.

Not to be catty about this, but what games are these, and how often have you seen them played?

For the vast majority of games, the Charismatic hero is an unattractive option, and Smart and Dedicated heroes aren't much better. The fact is, even in low combat games, the "strengths" of the Smart/Charismatic heroes have always been better conveyed through role-playing then mechanics. Since you can't build player decision making or creativity into a class, I think they need something else.

Also, the d20 system is built around combat. You may not like it, but that's how it is built: there are more rules about how things work in combat than any other situation. Therefore, a character who is less capable in combat is less capable in the system as a whole. I love narrative systems, and I am happy to spend whole game sessions interacting instead of fighting, but classes are mechanical constructs based on the existing system, not on role-playing as a platonic ideal. Therefore each class needs a combat role/advantage to be an attractive option.

Additionally the "Aids Guys In Combat" thing was also given to the Smart hero in the Plan talent, which seems generally superior to Coordinate/Inspiration, especially early on.

Plan made me really want to play a Smart hero when I first bought the book. Since it was my first read, I had not yet noticed that Plan required a starting Research talent-- "Linguist" or something equally sexy-- so I could not get it until 3rd level. Nor had I noticed that Smart heroes had the Wizard BAB without getting, you know, magic missile. That let that the air out of my sails real quick.

 

[jonrog1]

I've been toying with a flat across-the-board +1/2 Level to all Saves, Attacks, and Defense with modifications that can, from that point, be purchased or which are part of classes.

--fje

That's a sexy-sounding bit of game design right there, mister.

Here's the other issue with the attribute classes -- and don't think I'm piling on here, Vigilance, I really like the occupation idea you've got, and have a feeling it interacts with PC's in a way we're just not anticipating from previous design -- anyway, the point is that if you do goose up the general system to have non-combat attribute classes shine, those situations tend to exclude the combat monkeys. So you wind up with alternating bits of shine and suckage, a sort of "oh, here's my bit of the evening' story" rather than an organic "okay, how are we going to tackle THIS?" Again, this can be dodged with a good GM, but that's where those six classes just fall down a bit for me. (One of the reasons I like the SAGA skill system, to tell the truth)

And again, if you don't hang the single good BAB on melee guy, and/or spiffy Smart/Cha abilities pop in at first level -- which is highly probably if you're on the feat-a-level system -- then I promise to simply stfu and buy your product with the same eagerness I've bought everything else you've written. If my lieutenant can Plan and/or Inspire, AND then go Gather INfo from the villagers and shmooze for better weapons, then sucking up the low BAB is more than fine.