Changing the rules (d20 Modern)

[Aussiegamer]

Simplicity was what we were going for. I had never thought of adding DR. Not sure why, just never thought of it. It would increase complexity a bit but also add realism. We used to just let the DM decide what occurred. Concrete wall....no penetration. Wimpy plywood table....why did I take cover again?

yep each level of complexity to their own...most materials have the DR (hardness) stated, so its pretty easy to have that table near by...but GM calls work as well

this just stops players complaining why last time the wall stopped it and this time they did not.

 

[Aussiegamer]

Sorry to derail Chuck's thread a bit.

quick side note: What about melee attacks? unlimited or same -2 rule?

me too

 

[Roudi]

broghammerj - I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I like the fact that you just plain leave some things to the GM. The way things ought to be, I think.

 

[Ranger REG]

Our recoil didn't require new weapons stats. For each bullet fired past the first a -2 penalty occurred. 1st- no penalty, 2nd: -2, 3rd: -4, etc. Double tap allowed two bullets fired with no penalty. A burst shot was 3-5 bullets fired depending on burst setting of a specific weapon. An overall -2 penalty was applied to hit. Then roll d3 to determine how many bullets strike the target.

And that's why I added, "Not fond of ... instituting the recoil rule..."

Not saying it's for everyone. We just thought it made gunplay more realistic.

Only if realistic belong in the variant rules chapter. I just want fast-paced cinematic gameplay. If I want slow and detailed, I'd play Star Fleet Battles.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I would add more rules in (knowing me, as I sometimes do).

Er. Yeah, like hit locations, critical effects, blah blah blah.

 

[EditorBFG]

I agree with the poster above, I love the class structure of Modern. Talent trees are great, regular bonus feats are great, easy multi-classings is great.

That said, the base classes themselves, not so much. The Fast Hero is better than everybody except for maybe the Strong Hero, the Charismatic Hero is mechanically weaker than it should be. But even the Charismatic Hero is Charles Atlas compared to Smart Hero. The Smart Hero is as weak as a D&D Wizard but gets skill points instead of spells-- which does not do the job, IMHO.

I know you're not meant to stay in the base classes very long, but you shouldn't want to flee them as quickly as possible.

First thing I did when I got Modern, I rewrote the six base classes.

 

[Flynn]

I'd second Glassjaw's call for Grim Tales. It's a wonderful adaptation of the D20 Modern engine.

If that isn't an option, I'd at least extend the basic classes out to 20 levels, and then implement the same talent tree approach to both advanced and prestige classes, although I'd go with a pattern of two talents followed by a bonus feat and repeat for these. Or just get rid of the advanced and prestige classes and create talent trees for the base classes out of their abilities.

After that, I'd consider working in some SW Saga changes, but that's just me.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Psion]

Just like the subject says: if you could change any one thing, what would be the FIRST thing to go?

The first thing I did change was nonlethal damage and autofire rules.

Also, if there was one element of the game you absolutely HAD to keep, what that be?

That's a bit of a tricky question. As you may well know, I don't use D20 Modern for all of my modern gaming needs; for most purposes, that game would be Spycraft 2.0.

That said, the niche that it lives in for me is
1) supernatural modern gaming
2) "everyman" gaming, and
3) substrate for third party support

#3 suggests keep most stuff the same for consistency's sake to keep it compatible with what's out there. Of course, if you are soliciting ways to change the system, that might be the last answer you want to hear.

#1 isn't hard to shuffle things around, beyond saying "keep magic rules". Which set of magic rules is another matter; new magic systems for D20 modern is fine with me.

#2 suggests keeping the existing occupation/class structure. That is, separate occupation from class characteristics and keep class meaningful and "personality" related. This allows me to make everyone the same or similar profession but make the most fundamental differences defined at the class level.

I'd also say, I don't want fewer base classes OR base classes that are more general. After making a dozen or so characters for GenCon I can say that the decision space in D20 Modern chargen is nearly too big as it is. There is a certain elegance in being able to pick a class and have that class choice do most of the work for you. I feel that's what games like True20 and (in that it nixes advanced classes) Grim Tales lose compared to D20 Modern.

By corollary, this means I sort of disagree with Roudi. D20 Modern gives you the flexibility of deciding between high choice and "subscription model" classes (base vs. advanced) and that's a good thing[TM].

Not that I don't think that advanced classes can't provide some choice... I love the Blood & Fists classes. But to be fair, one of my players was bowled over by the decision space of the Martial Arts Master and settled with a martial artist. Which just goes further to show the advantage of providing both flexible and subscription style classes.

 

[Committed Hero]

I would keep the class structure, but replace the basic classes with archetypical party roles: for example, an "alert hero" could make a good sentry or investigator, while a "precise hero" might make a good computer programmer or counterfeiter.

Chuck the nonlethal damage rules.

 

[Psion]

I'd second Glassjaw's call for Grim Tales.

I'll second his call for Spycraft 2.0.