3.5 or d20 Modern?

[Von Ether]

I'm finally thinking of getting rid of my 3.0 books and "updating" the question is should I go 3.0 or d20 Modern?

A lot of the suppliments I've gotten over the years seem to echo d20 Modern sensibilties from Spycraft and SG-1 to the Horizion series and White-Wolf's d20ization of the Trinity game and Eberron. I'd also get a whole game for $40.

On the other hand, if I got 3.5, I'd be completely updated, but then it's a $90 update. I'd get updated monsters and spells, but other than a few tidbits, I've found 3.0 DMG to be a waste for my style (no offense, but I don't need reams of magic items or dungeon archecture).

So if you were in my shoes, what would you think?

 

[CronoDekar]

I suppose it'd depend on how much you need the core books versus how much you want d20 Modern. There are plenty of SRDs online with most of the info from the core books (my favorite), so if you didn't need it that much or don't have any problems with printed pages, then you might be able to delay getting the 3.5 books.

I'd say go by an FLGS, flip through d20 Modern for awhile, and see how much you like it. I think the d20 Modern and Urban Arcana books are really spiffy, but I haven't gotten much game use out of them.

If price is an issue, you may want to turn online for some shops. It looks like buy.com is selling the core books for only $18.87 each, so you could save some $30 if you went that way (odd, since for a lot of stuff Amazon is cheaper). Looks like they've also got d20 Modern for cheapest.

 

[Thanee]

If you play D&D, buy the 3.5 books (just the PHB and MM).

I think Spycraft (and SG-1) is a completely different system from d20 Modern, I'm not sure if those two can be mixed, or there is any benefit from doing so.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ghostwind]

If you are favoring the d20 modern system, I suggest you take a serious look at Bad Axe's Grim Tales. It takes the d20 Modern principle and expands upon it greatly, allowing you to use it for just about anything. It's as close to d20 GURPS as you are likely to get.

 

[Von Ether]

I admit that Grim Tales was also a thought, but last I heard their "encounter calculator" sounded like more math than I really wanted to do ... though I was intruigued to hear that GT's gun rules was designed to be in between the restrictive style of d20 M and the cinematic style of SC.

On a side thought, one reason d20 Modern tempted me is that it seems that version of psionics was the best middle ground. No psionic combat and M.A.D that makes a little more sense with d20 M's build.

 

[takyris]

I think the biggest difference between the two is that in D&D 3.5, classes are still archetypes and strongly influence personality of character in the average game. (Not in all games, no. But in the average game, yes.) In D&D 3.5, people introduce themselves using their character class, or a close synonym of their character class, or (in the experienced group trying to reach rules transparency) using every possible descriptor except the character class.

In d20 Modern, the base classes won't do that for you. That's both good and bad -- or really, can be good or bad depending on your group. While 3.5 (and 3.0 before it) does a great job of making it possible for two 8th level fighters to be different, or for two 12th level wizards to be different, d20 Modern (in my opinion) makes these differences even larger, so that you can have a group comprised entirely of Fast/Dedicated characters who are described and roleplayed completely differently, and who have utterly different roles in the party. With occupations, these differences grow even larger.

In my campaign, that's almost always a good thing. People have the freedom to make a unique character concept that they can roleplay well, and then can go about making that character to meet their needs. But a) it's, generally speaking, a lot more work, especially for the GM, until you build a good collection of NPCs that work in your campaign (ie, the typical guard, the typical criminal, the typical computer guy, etc), anb b) if your group is into roleplaying because they like archetypes, this game is going to irk them to no end. Liking archetypes doesn't make you less of a roleplayer or less experienced or less anything -- most great fantasy novels are built on archetype characters, and that's one of the reasons I like 'em.

But it has a definite flavor. Two characters can identify themselves as (for example) Knights of St. Pelor, Mission Street Chapter, and one of them can be a Strong/Tough, and the other can be Fast/Dedicated, and they can be serving under the command of their Smart/Charismatic leader.

That helps at all? Like I said: both games are good. Both games also have things that irk people, things people think are unbalanced, or things people think are stupid. But it really depends on your group and what's right for it.

 

[takyris]

Also, one particular note of emphasis, for something that I know bugged a lot of people coming to d20 Modern. In D&D, the basic assumption seems to be that you get most of your cool abilities from your class, and that Feats and Skills are icing on the cake (notable exceptions: the Fighter and the Rogue, although the former at least is one of the front-runners in the "This class sucks!!!!" threads, and people regularly complain about spellcasters replacing the party Rogue at mid-to-high levels).

In d20 Modern, however, feats and skills make the character. Those are the really big sources of power -- class abilities, generally speaking, stack well with the feats and skills, or add to feats and skills, but aren't enough to make a powerful character in a particular area all by themselves -- it's the acquisition and purchase of feats and skills that make the character begin to shine (which is why you get so many more of them in d20 Modern).

Again, this is a matter of taste. Some groups are fine with having power come from feats and skills, while other groups are always going to feel that their characters are underpowered and lame, either because they're poorly built (the players didn't understand the focus in d20 Modern) or because they're constantly comparing them to D&D characters in terms of what they could do or what class abilities they had.

 

[buzz]

On a side thought, one reason d20 Modern tempted me is that it seems that version of psionics was the best middle ground. No psionic combat and M.A.D that makes a little more sense with d20 M's build.

The psionics in d20M are the same psionics in 3.0 (and not the improved psionics in 3.5) with levels 6-9 filed off. For the most part.

D20M, though complete in a single volume, does not have nearly the amount of creatures, spells, powers, and magic items that D&D does (though you could certainly cannibalize your 3.0 books for that; d20M pre-dates 3.5 and should work with them just fine).

The question is: What game do you want to play? Do you want to play D&D? Get 3.5; it's great. Do you want to play something that is not D&D? Get d20M.

Or better yet, get both. Given the discounts you can find on the books new at places like buy.com and Amazon, or how cheap you can generally find them used, you can afford it all. $90? Full price is for suckers.

Or even better yet, grab the SRD and MSRD and play them for a while and then see which you like better. As long as you have the XP table from the 3.0 PHB and the info on awarding experience from the 3.0 DMG, you have everything you need to make full use of the updated SRDs.

Me? I love 'em both. I don't really understand choosing between then, however, as they're very different games, best used for very different purposes.

 

[Turanil]

I suggest Grim Tales, then add Green Ronin's Psychic Handbook.

Concerning 3.5, you could first download the SRD for free...

 

[MonsterMash]

Alternatively you could pick up the Mongoose Modern Pocket Handbook and Pocket PHB which list at 19.99 dollars and are sold by amazon in the US at about 17 bucks apiece. Then the only WotC you really need is the 3.5 Monster Manual.

There is also a pocket DMG from Mongoose.