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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

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.

That's a good point. Do the 4E roles actually fit for a modern game? The typical D&D defender is always someone that engages his enemy in melee, but melee combat is a strong focus in fantasy settings anyway. The modern world invites more to ranged combat, which in D&D 4 terms would probably be a Striker.

What would a "Ranged Defender" look like? Maybe a Terminator/Battlemech like figure? (In what kind of modern settings does this even make sense)

 

[teitan]

Don't we need a second and third edition of D20 Modern to get a Fourth Edition of it?

 

[teitan]

Surely there isn't much enthusiasm for such a product, though. Haven't the sales of d20 Modern been consistently slow and sluggish since its release?

Sales have put D20 Modern in the top ten consistently, over such popular games as Mutants & Masterminds sometimes actually. The problem with Modern has been the lack of consistent first party support.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Well, I hope free abilities class abilities (e.g., sneak attack) are not built into classes. It is one of the things I dislike about DND (thank you Unearthed Arcana for the combat/martial rogue variant) and why I like d20Modern.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Based on what I have read about 4e to date, I pretty much agree that I much don't want to see many of the 4e mechanics or design philosophy applied-especially per encounter abilities, bleeding combined skills and the removal of skill ranks. However, there are two things that interest me.

1) The Damage track:
Currently, I use
Exhausted when reduced to 50% hit points
Fatigued when reduced to 25% of remaining hit points
Death and Dying Rules from Unearthed Arcana at 0 hp

2) Static Saves: I am not 100 percent sold on this.

 

[DandD]

Perhaps roles should be something akin to Shadowrun.

Instead of a Striker/Defender or whatever, you might rather have an "Enforcer", a Leader would be the "Face" of the Team (with some more combat-ability added), and so on. Actually, don't all D20 Modern-baseclasses have some kind of combat-contribution? The smart hero for example can give out some kind of battle-plan to enhance his team-mates with some boni to dice rolls and such, for example.
D20 Modern tried to incorporate all classes to the fight. It should continue to do so when it changes to the 4th edition rules. Perhaps it will become even better and eliminate the flaws that we will surely find out about 4th edition, as did D20 Modern with the D&D rules.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I've been kinda itching to run a Rainbow 6 style game lately. . . I just don't know that D20 is the right system for a modern game. Too heroic. . . I think some grittier rules set would be more appropriate. . .

Of course, I don't think I could get my players to play it anyway. . so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Greg K]

I've been kinda itching to run a Rainbow 6 style game lately. . . I just don't know that D20 is the right system for a modern game. Too heroic. . . I think some grittier rules set would be more appropriate. . .

Of course, I don't think I could get my players to play it anyway. . so it doesn't really matter.

I understand your pain. I wanted to run an espionage game when d20M was first released. Unfortunately, three of the players looked at how recklessly the three other players (one of them playing the rogue) played their characters and said, "Never! Those guys would get us killed every session. Of course, the three reckless players were gung-ho on the idea.

 

[wingsandsword]

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

Yes, very much so.

D&D comes with a lot of setting presumptions, like assumption of the prevalence of magic items, spellcasting, general magic level and so on. d20 Modern made all magic/psionics optional rules, and even using the d20 Past suppliment for a renaissance-era game, magic was still quite optional (and presumed to be a lot rarer than in D&D).

Also, Star Wars has a lot of setting presumptions in it, even moreso than D&D. Try to use SWSE to run a campaign set in the Star Trek universe, or a Hard Sci-fi setting, or anything other than science fantasy in the mold of old 30's sci-fi serials as reimagined through the lens of Joseph Campbell's concepts of mythology and it won't work right, or at least need a lot of reworking of classes, equipment, starships, species. . .

 

[Remathilis]

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.

While I completely agree with your analysis, your example is flawed. NONE of those characters are "team players", they all fill a unique role as a solo hero. You'd have the same problem if you shoved Conan, Gandalf, Robin Hood and Odyssius on a D&D team and told them to go adventure. It wouldn't work.

However, if you go to a story that has a team dynamic (A-Team, Torchwood, etc) and then use how d20 unequals them in terms of stage time, then you have a valid argument.