Even WOTC doesn't know the rules to d20 Modern

[Vigilance]

That's too funny. Just a little more proof that the d20 Modern nonlethal damage rules are pretty badly written.

Chuck

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

That's too funny. Just a little more proof that the d20 Modern nonlethal damage rules are pretty badly written.

Maybe instead of D&D 4e we'll be getting a D20 Modern 2.0 first.

 

[Vigilance]

Maybe instead of D&D 4e we'll be getting a D20 Modern 2.0 first.

I dont think THAT is quite called for.

I think d20 Modern is a fine game and VERY well designed.

I just think that one small rule is bad.

Chuck

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I don't see it as really all that bad... Now that I've had time to reflect on it, I like the way it works in play. It's just got problems that it doesn't mesh with other rules too badly.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think the problem is with the article, not so much d20 Modern (although, yeah - that nuke damage seems awfully light). Note that it refers to the Tarrasque as the "biggest" D&D monster, which isn't true, IIRC - I believe that the Behemoth is actually larger.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I dont think THAT is quite called for.

I think d20 Modern is a fine game and VERY well designed.

I just think that one small rule is bad.

I agree, but it has made me wonder we see so many "What will be in 4.0 D&D?" threads, and have for years, but almost never read anything about D20 modern needing a major revision... or even a modest reworking. Even Star Wars had a rapid revision after it's first publishing. Not even a Modern 1.5 yet... *shrug*

Interesting to consider...

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I agree, but it has made me wonder we see so many "What will be in 4.0 D&D?" threads, and have for years, but almost never read anything about D20 modern needing a major revision... or even a modest reworking. Even Star Wars had a rapid revision after it's first publishing. Not even a Modern 1.5 yet... *shrug*

Interesting to consider...

deserves it's own thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=155856

 

[takyris]

That's too funny. Just a little more proof that the d20 Modern nonlethal damage rules are pretty badly written.

Chuck

With respect, bull.

If you want accrual, go to it, but the fact that somebody gave a monster in d20 Modern a Con score of 45 doesn't mean that d20 Modern's nonlethal rules are broken. It means that the guy was obviously doing a D&D monster write-up and didn't check his rules carefully enough.

I won't object if the folks at WotC decide to make it accrue in a future version, but it's working just fine for me at the moment.

 

[Ranger REG]

I just think that one small rule is bad.

Keyword is "small." Not much to make such a big fuss since all you have to do is just implement D&D nonlethal damage.

 

[Ranger REG]

deserves it's own thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=155856

Oh, joy. As if D&D 4e is not enough for you rich money-crapping gamers. :\