D&D 4E d20 Modern 4E - I want it!

[Greg K]

I think it might be better if the next D20 Modern were more focused and presented with more of an implied setting. I think one of the system's weaknesses is that it tries to be too much to too many.

I don't wan't it focused on an implied setting. I would, however, like a wider variety of campaign models, especially non-fx models, to reflect what can be done-

Also, do we need a D20 Modern that covers fantasy and space opera when we have D&D and SWSE?

In my opinion, yes. Not everyone wants DND and Star Wars for their d20 fantasy and space opera in which case they are not going to want to spend money for books they are going to ignore and rewrite everything.

 

[xechnao]

Modern should be "Banlieu 13". And perhaps a bit of "Enemy at the doors".

 

[Greg K]

I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, but for those not familiar with d20Modern, classes being unequal in combat or social situations was intentional. The designers wanted to encourage multiclassing which is why the basic classes were limited to tenth level. You were supposed to take a level or two in a class and then multiclass between one or two classes plus your original class. This should have been explained in the book, but the explanation appears in the Modern Player's Companion (The Game Mechanics) along with an explantion that not every concept needs an advanced class and several examples of using multiclassing to build a concept.

Personally, I think it works fairly well. Low level heroes with a few levels in various base classes do a good job of duplicating a lot of handling a lot of TV characters (Monk, The Enforcer, MacGuyver, Magnum, Miami Vice, Cop dramas). When you start getting past that point, you are getting into characters like John McClaine, Riggs, Walker Texas Ranger

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, but for those not familiar with d20Modern, classes being unequal in combat or social situations was intentional. The designers wanted to encourage multiclassing which is why the basic classes were limited to tenth level. You were supposed to take a level or two in a class and then multiclass between one or two classes plus your original class. This should have been explained in the book, but the explanation appears in the Modern Player's Companion (The Game Mechanics) along with an explantion that not every concept needs an advanced class and several examples of using multiclassing to build a concept.

Personally, I think it works fairly well. Low level heroes with a few levels in various base classes do a good job of duplicating a lot of handling a lot of TV characters (Monk, The Enforcer, MacGuyver, Magnum, Miami Vice, Cop dramas). When you start getting past that point, you are getting into characters like John McClaine, Riggs, Walker Texas Ranger

I am willing to believe that this was the intention, and I even dare say it worked, at least in the limits of the 3.x/D20 system.

I for example played an Smart/Strong Hero, and that worked astoundingly well.

Maybe a better approach would have been to make it more "Gestalt"-like.
Everybody chooses one physical and one mental ability he focuses on, and gets appropriate abilities for both classes?

The question might be how to map class abilities or class combinations to Roles. I am still pretty certain that a mundane "Controller" type class is impossible, at least as long as we're looking at the time frame of a single combat encounter. You need high tech or magic for that, and that doesn'T fit into every campaign.

 

[arscott]

There are two kinds of modern games: Intrigue games and Action games.

Action games focus on combat. If you're an infantry squad fighting Nazis in WWII France, you're in an action game. If you're superheroes, defending New York from invading aliens, your in an action game. D&D 4e is an action game (albiet not a modern one), and most of the design philosophy carries over well--combat roles like leader, defender, controller, and striker. In-combat balance being the focus of the system. And so forth.

In intrigue games, most of your encounters involve talking to people, research, sneaking, manipulating strange devices, and so forth. If you're tracking an elusive vampire through the streets of Chicago, you're in an intrigue game. If you're intercepting Soviet Communications in East Germany, you're in an intrigue game. There can be combat, but it's not the primary focus of the game. Often the combat should be very one-sided: either posing no threat to the PCs or being an obvious run away/surrender scenario.

In such a game, the idea of scene-by-scene balance becomes impossible--you have to embrace the time-to-shine philosophy. Sure, the Gunslinger is better at combat that the Hacker. Combat is the Gunslinger's time to shine. Likewise, the Hacker is better with the computers than the Gunslinger. Whats important is that each scene either a) provide an opportunity for each character to meaninfully contribute in a fun way (for example, the Hacker can still shoot at the badguys, even if the gunslinger is better) or b) that the scene is resolved very quickly (Since there's no real way for the Gunslinger to contribute the the Hacker's computer infiltration, then it should probably be resolved in a roll or two).

The important thing to remember about time-to-shine rules is that the focus is on time. Sure the hacker gets to shine in the computer scene and the gunslinger gets to shine in the combat scene, but if the hacking scene takes five seconds and the combat takes an hour, that's not giving the hacker his due. In the hacking scene for instance, perhaps the meat of the challenge isn't breaking into the computer itself but deciding what to do once you're broken in. This decision making process is something that the gunslinger can participate in, but it's still the Hacker's time to shine because he's the one at the keyboard and probably the one guiding the conversation.

As far as roles for this time-to-shine philosophy, I think Alternity had it perfect: Combat Spec, Free Agent, Diplomat, and Tech op. Because many of those roles can very widely in capability and focus, It takes a little more work on the part of the DM than the Action Game. But to me, it's well worth the extra effort.

If WotC is going to make a Modern Game, I hope it's an Intrigue game (if only for reasons of variety--I imagine I'll be bored with an action-based D&D game fairly quickly).

Heck, if they don't announce plans for a Modern Game by the time 4e comes out, I'll probably start work on my own, maybe even for commercial release.

 

[arscott]

The question might be how to map class abilities or class combinations to Roles. I am still pretty certain that a mundane "Controller" type class is impossible, at least as long as we're looking at the time frame of a single combat encounter. You need high tech or magic for that, and that doesn'T fit into every campaign.

How high tech are we talking? I'd classify the powers below as controller powers.

Cover Fire (standard; at-will) • Autofire, Weapon
Range Medium; Effects squares in a 2 square radius.
Until the start of your next turn, make a Str-based attack vs AC against every creature that enters an affected square. The target takes [W] damage

Kneecap (standard; encounter) • Precision, Weapon
Range Close; Dex-based attack vs. AC against one creature. The target takes [W]+dex damage and is slowed until he receives medical attention (DC 25 heal check; one minute)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

<snip interesting observations and analysis>

Very interesting, I think that's a good observation.

The question might be: What should d20 Modern focus on? What will work best?

I am pretty certain that the 4E designers know how to do an Action game. The question might be
- Can 4E be adapted for an Intrigue game, or is its focus on Action so strong that you'll need a new game system (still based on a D20, there is little reason not do this)
- Are the WotC designers "fit" to handle Intrigue? (There is some reason to believe they might, but on the other hand, they might take some time to get out of the "Action" mindset)
- What market is more interesting (larger) for WotC? Intrigue or Action?
- Is it possible to combine Intrigue and Action in one system? That's what Shadorwun seems to do, but how good it does that is another matter. Often enough, hacking/decking and astral exploration are reduced to a minimum, and deckers and mages always have a strong combat component then. Legwork (speaking to various people, activating connections and so on) seems to work pretty well for all types of characters (though it's also possible specialize a character very strongly in this type of work, making other characters useless)

I think there is a market for both Action and Intrigue related games. Personally, I like Intrigue, but I don't want to go without Action (maybe cool "intrigue" mechanics might change that). I'm definitely in for not forgetting the play in roleplaying.

(site note: Combat in "Intrigue" is probably less tactical and more strategic. It's not about choosing which power to use in which round, it's about choosing the time and place of the confrontation and ensuring the availability of sufficent resources)

...

Regarding the two encounter powers you describe: Cover Fire surely looks like a possible Controller power, but I think Knee Cap could also be a Defender or Striker power. How many more of these powers can you make up? Are they enough for one class?

 

[Terramotus]

I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, but for those not familiar with d20Modern, classes being unequal in combat or social situations was intentional. The designers wanted to encourage multiclassing which is why the basic classes were limited to tenth level. You were supposed to take a level or two in a class and then multiclass between one or two classes plus your original class. This should have been explained in the book, but the explanation appears in the Modern Player's Companion (The Game Mechanics) along with an explantion that not every concept needs an advanced class and several examples of using multiclassing to build a concept.

Personally, I think it works fairly well. Low level heroes with a few levels in various base classes do a good job of duplicating a lot of handling a lot of TV characters (Monk, The Enforcer, MacGuyver, Magnum, Miami Vice, Cop dramas). When you start getting past that point, you are getting into characters like John McClaine, Riggs, Walker Texas Ranger

Understood. But I don't think it works out that way. But the system doesn't really lend itself to what was intended. I think the system encourages specialization. First, not very many of the talents for the base classes are evocative or unique. If some of the class abilities of the advanced classes were talents, it would be closer to what they want. But as it is, if you want to really do some cool stuff you need to beeline for an advanced class.

Additionally, If you want to do something skill related, you're encouraged to specialize so as to get those high skill ranks. Being good at combat also requires a significant investment in feats. Further, the advanced class that lets you do the "MacGuyver" type stuff, Field Scientist, requires a bunch of skills and you can't get to Scientific Improvisation until, minimum, 5th level, at which point you've taken 5 levels of the worst base attack bonus. Meanwhile, the other guy in the group is two levels into Gunslinger and is Double-Tapping every threat while you stand by and watch. It's difficult to catch up at that point if you want to be good at both.

But I also think human nature encourages that. What we think of heroes, we remember them for what they're good at - fastest gun in the west, able to get tortured and beaten to a pulp and still keep going, able to sneak into any facility. It's only natural to keep getting better at what we're good at. Most people don't go to college to shore up all of their weak points, they go to develop something they like and are good at into a profession.

Also, I think the rules as written require more out of a group of players to keep the party cohesive than, say, D&D does. Monk is a cool character. MacGuyver is a cool character. John McClaine is a cool character. But they don't necessarily work well as a team. While Monk is using his enormously high skills to investigate the scene and find clues for an hour, McClaine and and McGuyver are standing around with their hands in their pockets. And when the climactic ending comes, instead of Monk getting to have his d'enouement with the villain revealing his plot, McClaine, thrilled to have something to do, caps the poor sap with two to the head and one to the chest. MacGuyver's still bored, and is probably considering blowing something up at this point just to have something to do.

Or worse, while Monk is gathering clues, McClaine is tired of this crap and intimidates the suspect into spilling eveything he knows, thus obviating Monk's whole schtick.

That becomes a lot less annoying when Monk and MacGuyver have something to do when the guns get drawn. There needs to be more of a level playing field. Not that MacGuyver should be the equivalent of Rambo, but I think the assumption needs to be made that these characters are action heroes, regardless of class, and that an effort needs to be made to make sure all classes have things they can do in combat. Borrowing some of the leader type mechanics from 4E would probably be a good start for the more intellectual archetypes. I like SAGA for this, but the 4E mechanic of all classes sharing the same BAB has interesting implications as well.

Besides, having classes based on archetypes doesn't prohibit multiclassing to get things exactly right at all. Look at the Wizards character optimization boards for the crazy alphabet soup of classes some of those characters come up with.

Maybe it's just my group's game style - we ran a roleplaying heavy intrtigue/action hybrid. But having good role separation and making sure all characters have time to shine doesn't necessarily mean that the guy who wants to play a hacker needs to be doomed to loser-land in combat. (As a side note, we've solved this problem in my Future game with a large starting wealth score to buy cyberware, which can make up for a lot, and a few houserules to the classes.)

 

[arscott]

(site note: Combat in "Intrigue" is probably less tactical and more strategic. It's not about choosing which power to use in which round, it's about choosing the time and place of the confrontation and ensuring the availability of sufficent resources)

My experiences with d20 modern bear that out somewhat. But I think a lot of the tactical element remained, for a few reasons. One, of course was that Modern is still very much a tactical game, from a rules standpoint. The other, though, was more complicated. The shift from "action" to "intrigue" was very much a shift from a fast paced, think-with-your-gut experience to something more cerebral. So, circumstances permitting, they usually had fairly complicated tactical plans going into a situation. Of course, the fact that one of the PCs had the plan talent encouraged this too.

Regarding the two encounter powers you describe: Cover Fire surely looks like a possible Controller power, but I think Knee Cap could also be a Defender or Striker power. How many more of these powers can you make up? Are they enough for one class?

I'm sure I can come up with quite a few more, though they'd probably get stale pretty quickly. But I think that's a function of the weapon, not the role. Guns are just a lot less versatile that more traditional weapons--They put holes in things, and that's about it.

What sort of mechanics do you see being used when a gun-wielding Defender is fighting another gun-wielder? A lot of stuff that I expect 4e fighters to have just doesn't work conceptually with ballistic weapons.

Maybe it's just my group's game style - we ran a roleplaying heavy intrtigue/action hybrid. But having good role separation and making sure all characters have time to shine doesn't necessarily mean that the guy who wants to play a hacker needs to be doomed to loser-land in combat. (As a side note, we've solved this problem in my Future game with a large starting wealth score to buy cyberware, which can make up for a lot, and a few houserules to the classes.)

Oh, I'm not suggesting that the hacker should suck at combat. I just think that he shouldn't be as good as the gunslinger. I see him as something like a skill-focused 3e rogue. Someone who doesn't focus their character resources toward being good at combat, but nevertheless can have a significant impact with free class abilities like sneak attack. (Ignoring for the moment the rogue's inability to use those abilities against half the monsters in the book and eventual displacement in the arena of skill use by a wizard with the right spell selection).

In my d20 Modern Game, the group's hacker was also the group's sniper. Between sniping and hacking in tactical situations, he was basically the "influence the combat from afar" guy. It was pretty cool (and most of the other non-combat characters had similar in-combat shticks).

It's just that I, as the GM felt obligated to throw a bunch of random combats at them so just so they (and I, in the capacity of the threats they faced) could use their abilities. That should never happen. Mind you, The one actual combat-focused character rarely got a chance to use his abilities, because they were so conditional in nature.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

*picks up a sword and stands between the 4e crap monster and his D20 Modern*

I hope and pray that none of the mechanics from 4e make it into any kind of "revised" D20 Modern. WOTC should be continuing the D20 Modern line as is, with a robust release schedule of quality product.