What needs to be fixed/improved in d20 Modern?

[Kheti sa-Menik]

<snip>
Non-lethal damage
Gadget System (the system is inconsistent with itself)
Aerial and Starship Combat/movement (or more accurately lack thereof)
Robot creation rules (specifically character creation and NPC robot rules)
<snip>

I think that these rules are good. Not sure they should be in the core rulebook.

The class system has become my biggest issue with d20 Modern over time.

I don't mind the class system. It's quite flexible. What we need more of is talent trees for each class.

<snip>
1) Fx rules: Fixed by replacing them with Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin)and Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth (EN World)<snip>

I think there should be an optional system for FX in the core book, Psionics, Magic, maybe something else too, but it shouldn't be assumed to be in every modern campaign. The rules should facilitate running without FX.

<snip>
3) Automatic Weapon Fire<snip>

Agree here. even if it's just a scaling DC mechanism.

<snip>
4) NPC creation: fixed by Foe Factory (Adamant) by HeapThaumaturgist<snip>

How do you mean? I like the D20 Modern paradigm of heroes vs ordinaries.

<snip>
6) The need for some kind of condition track for HP loss. Then, add a second wind mechanic. Maybe characters get fatigued at 50% hp loss, Exhausted at 25% HP loss. Second Wind then gives 25% of max hp back.
7) Negative HP: I'd like to see these removed and replaced with something along the lines of the Death and Dying Rules from Unearthed Arcana. <snip>

I would HATE to see this. This is one of the many many reasons I despise 4e. The Second Wind is stupid, leads to metagaming, and is not realistic at all. I'm open to the condition track though. As long as it doesn't replace hit points. Neg hit points are good.

<snip>
8) Sucky WOTC advanced and prestige classes. They should look at Advanced classes from RPGObjects <snip>

Honestly I think this is just a matter of taste.

<snip>
9) Mediocre to poor support products. They need to look at products from companies like RPGObjects, Adamant, and the GR and EN Publising producs mentioned above to see what quality products look like.
10) Charles "Vigilance" Rice is not writing their supplements
<snip>

Agreed wholeheartedly. especially on 10. Vig's work on the "Blood and X" series is great, especially Blood and Vigilance. That's how to do a D20 supers game.

<snip>
The idea I like most at the moment is splitting classes or rather character advancement in two components - a combat role (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker) and a non-combat role (Face, Sage, Wheelman, Techie*)
Basically, every character selects one combat and one non-combat role. Combat roles grant combat-related powers, and non-combat roles non-combat related powers, obviously. Think for non-combat along the lines of utility powers, but with little to no use in combat. This would probably include a lot of "meta-game" mechanic stuff, maybe with powers like "Idea!" or "Connection" or "Short-Cut".

*) there have been several ideas on non-combat roles, and there might be some work required to distill the best ones. This list is definitely incomplete.


I think a heavy focus on grid-based combat might be inappropriate for the moder genre, so a stronger abstraction of movement and positions might be required.

A big question might be: How generic is the game to be? Default assumption would be as generic a d20 modern, but is that what WotC will be doing? It could be an "Urban Arcana" game...

EDIT:
There is another d20 Modern thread that talks about updating modern to 4E:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=218098

What should also be investigated: Can the 4E Fantasy concpet of Tiers be used in Modern? How so?
Or should it be used differently? Maybe use one tier as "Superhero" tier?

Actually, this sounds a lot like 4e-ing D20 Modern - Roles, powers, etc. Which should not happen in any way, shape, or form. 4e is a bad game, pure and simple. Concentrate on keeping many of D20 Modern's core attributes...the class system, hit points, etc. Add/refine some of the items others have discussed.

I'd like to see a revamp of the wealth system.
Robust releases of materials for D20 Modern. Stop treating it like D&D's little brother. But if a release is only every other month it's fine, just make it quality. No more "D20 Past" style products (gag).

 

[The Black Kestrel]

Classes:
The talents are bland in actual play, and I think they also don't work that well. The mechanics are inconsistent (roll level against DC, cause saving throw and so on)?

Agreed, some of the talent mechanics are inconsistent both internally to the talent system and externally with the rest of the game

The idea I like most at the moment is splitting classes or rather character advancement in two components - a combat role (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker) and a non-combat role (Face, Sage, Wheelman, Techie*)
Basically, every character selects one combat and one non-combat role. Combat roles grant combat-related powers, and non-combat roles non-combat related powers, obviously. Think for non-combat along the lines of utility powers, but with little to no use in combat. This would probably include a lot of "meta-game" mechanic stuff, maybe with powers like "Idea!" or "Connection" or "Short-Cut".

This exists already in the d20 Modern rules. All you have to do is multi-class between one of the "physical" base classes and one of the "mental" base classes

I think a heavy focus on grid-based combat might be inappropriate for the modern genre, so a stronger abstraction of movement and positions might be required.

This is more an argument between two views of game design: simulationist or simplist. Some people prefer greater detail and some prefer simplified rules for faster play. I'm not sure this falls under the "rules that need to be fixed" category.

Mostly? Vehicles and the skill system. Plus feats should be worthy of the name.

What about vehicles and the skill systems is in need of fixing?

For myself:
1) Fx rules: Fixed by replacing them with Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin)and Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth (EN World)

What cuased you to swap out the FX system? Personal choice or a rules/mechanical problem?

2) Martial Arts: Fixed by Blood & Fists (RPGObjects) by Vigilance himself

Again what was wrong with the RAW that cuased you to change to BNF?

3) Automatic Weapon Fire

I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record . What is wrong with the default rules for automatic weapons fire?

4) NPC creation: fixed by Foe Factory (Adamant) by HeapThaumaturgist.

What about NPC creation is problematic?

8) Sucky WOTC advanced and prestige classes. They should look at Advanced classes from RPGObjects.

I agree with Kheti here. Some sucked and some were very good. Its as much a matter of taste IMO as anything else

9) Mediocre to poor support products. They need to look at products from companies like RPGObjects, Adamant, and the GR and EN Publising producs mentioned above to see what quality products look like.

I agree that some of the products WotC released for d20 Modern were sub-par (d20 Past, Modern Locations and chunks of Future Tech come to mind) while many other products were well written. I own quite a few products from the companies you mentioned above and they are not immune to mediocre writing either.

I'm very interested in concrete examples of broken or inelegant game mechanics in need of revision or replacement.

I think that these rules are good. Not sure they should be in the core rulebook.

I'm more interested in finding out what rules don't work well that what should be in a new core rule book. I would argue that the gadget system should be included in any new core rulebook as it greatly increases the usefulness of the Techie AdC not to mention allows players greater flexibility in creating unique items to aid them in the game. I also think that aerial combat rules need to included as well since the d20 Modern included aircraft, but no rules for aerial movement/combat.

Robot creation rules are internally inconsistent. It looks like two different sets of rules were written for creating robot characters and both got included in d20 Future.

Non-lethal damage is such an unpopular rule that many groups replaced it with subdual damage from D&D 3.5. Even WotC designers and freelancers would ignore it and used subdual damage in official products.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed, some of the talent mechanics are inconsistent both internally to the talent system and externally with the rest of the game



This exists already in the d20 Modern rules. All you have to do is multi-class between one of the "physical" base classes and one of the "mental" base classes

Yes, but I dislike that you have to give up "combat" power for "non-combat" power. This only works if we assume a fair mix of both in every adventure and campaign, but that is no way guaranteed. And at this point, there are some inconsistencies, because some talents of Smart, Dedicated and Charismatic are also combat-related. I think it would be better to focus them on their specific aspects.

I am very much in favor of "Gestalting" between Physical and Mental Heroic classes. I wish I had the idea earlier and be able to try it out... But I can run only so many campaigns...

I think that these rules are good. Not sure they should be in the core rulebook.



I don't mind the class system. It's quite flexible. What we need more of is talent trees for each class.


I think there should be an optional system for FX in the core book, Psionics, Magic, maybe something else too, but it shouldn't be assumed to be in every modern campaign. The rules should facilitate running without FX.


Agree here. even if it's just a scaling DC mechanism.


How do you mean? I like the D20 Modern paradigm of heroes vs ordinaries.


I would HATE to see this. This is one of the many many reasons I despise 4e. The Second Wind is stupid, leads to metagaming, and is not realistic at all. I'm open to the condition track though. As long as it doesn't replace hit points. Neg hit points are good.


Honestly I think this is just a matter of taste.


Agreed wholeheartedly. especially on 10. Vig's work on the "Blood and X" series is great, especially Blood and Vigilance. That's how to do a D20 supers game.



Actually, this sounds a lot like 4e-ing D20 Modern - Roles, powers, etc. Which should not happen in any way, shape, or form. 4e is a bad game, pure and simple. Concentrate on keeping many of D20 Modern's core attributes...the class system, hit points, etc. Add/refine some of the items others have discussed.

Yep, that's what I would do. But I am the resident 4E fanboy in this thread, so naturally that's what I want. I see a lot of good concepts in 4E that should be applied to Modern, but also a lot of stuff that needs expanded upon to really make a modern game good. I guess we won't be able to agree on the first part .

I'd like to see a revamp of the wealth system.
Robust releases of materials for D20 Modern. Stop treating it like D&D's little brother. But if a release is only every other month it's fine, just make it quality. No more "D20 Past" style products (gag).

The wealth system could be improved.
Some suggest a mix of "Life-Style", "Assets" and maybe hard money... I guess if 4E is not for you, plundering Spycraft is also a good idea I might be happy if they just fix the "Purchase DC 15" anomaly...

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I LIKED the classes. A lot. And I wouldn't want to lose what they brought to the table, which was infinite flexibility. I always loved to see people make a concept come alive with different selections from the classes. You might have somebody do a Strong/Fast gunfighter or a Strong/Fast swordfighter etc, and have them look very different on paper and very different in play.

I don't like the talents, but I think that's because they were pretty raw. They need refining, unifying, and polishing.

Some of the most controversial things in d20M are my loves. The classless class system (that's what it amounted to, I believe it solves both my problems with classed games AND with classless games) and the Wealth system. Wealth is totally awesome and I'll be sad to see it go. It should be refined and massaged and loved, but most people clamor for its death.

One thing I wanted changed was the requirement that NPCs and PCs play on the same rulebase. Which, while awesome in theory, is hell on GMs. Underlying mathmatics should be balanced and revealed in a different way for GM utility, such that the end numbers need not be arrived through the PC creation system, but the NPC arrived at through the end numbers.

Which is to say: With a PC-type NPC system, one must create the concept and then add the pieces together until the numbers begin to resolve themselves on paper. With an NPC-type NPC system, the concept is matched to numbers whose interaction with the PC-type system is pre-balanced. Not, say, 'perfect', but good enough for government work. Close enough, anyway, that something with game-numbers screen time measured in rounds does not take an hour to generate.

--fje

 

[Armadillo]

As regards to classes, both in my home GMing and my work, the preponderance of multi-classing, indeed, the REQUIREMENT of multi-classing, was my big issue with the Basic/Advanced/PrC set-up.

Even low level NPCs needed to be multi-classed, and basically from 1st level, you had to map out what you were taking, with an AdC in mind, and then a PrC after that.

It made statting up NPCs a HUGE pain . . . .

This was my experience as well. Plus, because of the limited availability of some class skills, you sometimes have to juggle odd combinations of classes and/or backgrounds in order to meet the prerequisites for an AdvC. I started my first d20M game at 3d Level but quickly realized that the PCs needed to start at 5th Level in order to be as effective and heroic as we wanted.

Also, the idea of linking the base classes to the attributes seems like a good idea in concept, but in practice it didn't provide any benefit and actually led to confusion and a lack of clarity.

Then there is the +0 BAB problem. You can easily come up with a character concept that involves two base classes and an AdvC all with +0 BAB, making the character utterly ineffective in combat and unfun to play. This could be solved by implementing the fractional BAB rules from Unearthed Arcana (with some mathematical translation), but it's still awkward.

Another problem was one of perception. I loved the flexibility of the base classes, but I saw many players who were confused by the base classes and who just wanted to get to Gunslinger, for instance, as fast as they could.

The final problem that I've had is with the Feat/Skill breakdown. Some Feats are used in place of skills (i.e. Surface Vehicle Operation; Aircraft Operation, etc.), which can mean that a character has to wait up to three levels before they can take a feat and learn to fly jets. I homeruled this with a vehicle skill system modeled on the specific sub-skills used for Perform and Craft.

I would like to see a more flexible system with ~4 classes: Soldier (Strong/Tough), Scoundrel (Fast/Charismatic), Expert (Smart), Leader (Dedicated/Charismatic). Each class should have 3+ talent trees and a list of 3+ builds, akin to True 20 and 4e.

Generally, I like SW Saga, and I would like to see it adopted as a base for d20M 2d.

 

[Nadaka]

Vehicles: they do not mesh will with either grid based combat or chase scene style frame of reference. Vehicles are also too fragile. An M1A1 main battle tank, with over a foot of advance chobham composite armor, has 64 HP. Thats less than a dire bear of the same size.

For skills? there are too many of them. My plan is to combine most of the skills. However crafts, perform and knowledge skills will remain unchanged (but require half as many skill points per rank).

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

I suppose we won't see eye to eye, Mustrum_Ridcully. I think in fact we're as diametrically opposed on our views of 4e as can be. But that's cool. We're talkin' bout D20 Modern.


I don't have a solution to the wealth system question. I know I just don't like it. I don't think I'd like counting dollars and sense....although I am a notorious book/record keeper so who knows, I may not mind it

I think there should be tradeoffs. If you're good at one thing, you should be less good at others. If you're good at combat, then out of combat you should be a little weaker. If your strengths lie in skill use, then maybe social things and combat things should be your weaknesses.
I don't want PCs (either DMing for or playing as one) that are all strengths and no weaknesses. They don't strike me as realistic at all and don't make for an interesting game.


I just thought of one of my biggest peeves: I don't think anything should have a static DC.
The two biggest that come to mind are:
The Reflex DC for autofire
The Fort DC for massive damage saves

Characters' abilities increase over time, having these DCs not scale makes them meaningless. I don't mean the the DCs should scale with the PCs' power, more with the situation that causes the save.
Examples: The DC to save against massive damage should scale based on how much damage was done. The DC for autofire ought to based on some kind of attack roll combined with some reflection of the shooter's skill in using that firearm.
I'm sure other folks, such as Vigilance, could come up with something better.

The number of skills is just about right. I like separate skills for moving silent vs moving unseen. Seeing and listening are not the same, why dump them into some kind of perception hackjob?

 

[Greg K]

I

I think there should be an optional system for FX in the core book, Psionics, Magic, maybe something else too, but it shouldn't be assumed to be in every modern campaign. The rules should facilitate running without FX.

Oh, I agree that fx should be optional. I was just saying that fx rules in Elements of Magic:ME and the Psychic's Handbook feel more like the portrayal of magic style and psychic powers in books, movies, and comics.

How do you mean? I like the D20 Modern paradigm of heroes vs ordinaries.

Its just a fast NPC creation system based on the system from Spycraft. It was originally something HeapThaumaturgist did for free. However, it was very popular and Adamant published it in, I believe, a more expanded version (I didn't check to see the differences between the two). Its only a few dollars for the pdf.

I would HATE to see this. This is one of the many many reasons I despise 4e. The Second Wind is stupid, leads to metagaming, and is not realistic at all. I'm open to the condition track though. As long as it doesn't replace hit points. Neg hit points are good

.

Not replace HP, but working with it. What I like about the UA death and dying rules is
- that it continues acting as a condition track
- there is no automatic point when you start dying once you reach 0 hp
- characters in d20M have Action Points to help with the rolls to stabilize and avoid death.

You can see the death and dying rules here

I think a second wind mechanic works great for cinematic game, but, imo, it needs a condition track to work. I think it also works to a lesser degree for non-cinematic- people do manage to dig into reserves when tired/fatigued. And, I don't like how 4e handles Second Wind. They are too readily available (i.e, too many of them). Imo, characters should get less second winds. Maybe 1 or 2 per day with additional being a Tough Hero talent. And they should require an Action Point to trigger.

Agreed wholeheartedly. especially on 10. Vig's work on the "Blood and X" series is great, especially Blood and Vigilance. That's how to do a D20 supers game.

I love Vig's work. However, I don't like d20M for supers and, yet, I always recommend B&V when people say they want to do supers with d20M.

 

[Nadaka]

One reason to combine hide and MS to stealth and spot and listen to perception is to benifit PCs.

Do to the opposed nature of the roll's and the number of roll's required, in the long run it is practically impossible to sneak around effectively for more than a round or two at a time.

Suppose you needed to sneak past 5 guys sitting around a campfire in a narrow canyon. You will be within spotting distance for 3 rounds. Even if you roll well enough that they can spot you only on a natural 20 they have a 78.531% chance of detecting you.

 

[jdrakeh]

Wealth needs to go away. I like the idea, really, but the implementation ends up being a bigger PITA than old-fashioned bean counting.