D&D 4E d20 Modern 4E - I want it!

Ranger REG

Explorer
Kheti sa-Menik said:
*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.
"As is"? WotC have underutilized the concept of the d20 Modern talent trees that only third-party publishers are able to fill in.

Only now they finally caught on. It started on Star Wars Saga Edition and now will be in 4e.

As is. Hah!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DarkKestral

First Post
TwinBahamut said:
I really would like to see a revised "4E" version of D20 Modern. The D20 Modern Core Book was one of the greatest things ever made by WotC in the 3E era. However, I hope they do a few things to improve the game next time around.

1) Get rid of the emphasis on Urban Arcana. I know D20 Modern started development as an Urban Arcana supplement for D&D, but that doesn't justify putting so much effort into a setting that doesn't really have much precedent or widespread popularity. They would have been better off giving Shadow Chasers, Agents of Psi, and Genetech a bigger role, or putting more effort into futuristic or historical settings earlier.

2) No more books like d20 Future. D20 future tried to do too much with too little space, and really suffered as a result (especially since there was no integration between chapters and some chapters were just terrible). The more focused books, like D20 Apocalypse and D20 future Tech, worked a lot better.

3) Tech levels, as they were used in D20 future, simply don't work. They are too simplistic to even be applicable in campaign design, and are a terrible balancing mechanism.

4) Vehicle/spaceship rules just need to work better next time, particularly from the perspective of how they will actually be used by characters in an adventure or campaign.

5) Next time WotC wants to make a Mecha Crusade project, they really need to hire someone who actually knows more about the mecha genre. The D20 Future mecha chapter was terrible...

1) Urban Arcana was probably a bit ahead of its time, I think. Nowadays, with Dresden Files + Laurell K. Hamilton's stuff and other 'dark urban modern fantasy' out there, I think it's more doable as a campaign setting. It'd need more focus though, and some of the elements changed or removed. Definitely shouldn't focus too much on it though, when there's a lot of settings you could build around.

2 through 5) totally agreed. Particularly: I partially think that there should not be vehicle-specific operation feats. I don't mind it if there's a feat that says something like "Vehicle Savant" which negates all of your penalties for unfamiliarity with vehicle operation, but I think the default should be "if you bought it, you're familiar with it. If you don't, and it's your first time in that type of vehicle, then assume unfamiliarity until you can get someone trained to teach you how to operate it or you've had it in your possession a certain amount of time, but after that, you are good to go, no additional expenditure required." (There should be a basic cost for training, so people who don't want to quest just to find training don't have to.) Also, tech levels can work, but they should generally be assumed to be for determining item cost and who can instantly work what types of technology without an unfamiliarity trial period, and not much else. Beyond that, pointless for determining almost anything.

As for myself, I'd have the basic game be like the advanced classes of d20 Modern core are now, for the most part, in that they're pretty nicely setting-agnostic, though with more abilities that are broadly useful and fewer narrow range activated abilities. Some of the abilities just seem too narrow.

After that, it should be a couple of major genre categories (like d20 Sci-Fi, d20 Apoc, and d20 Horror that cover general things that a lot of the sub-genres will have. Eras shouldn't really be a focus, except maybe where the era pretty much defines the general genre (Wild West would be an era sourcebook that's also a genre sourcebook, for example). As appropriate, I'd like to see settings that showcase 1 or 2 different genres and go into them in depth. (So the post-Singularity setting showcases the Sci-Fi setting, while a Bughunters setting might be Sci-Fi + Apoc.) Redos of settings done for the current incarnation would be welcome.

Also, while Wealth levels are good, I'd like to see wealth level maybe be a measure of basic cash income per unit time, (basically, your average income after bills) while the game on the whole runs on 'real cash on hand' for purchases while wealth level being your "credit rating," as in your supply of credit to obtain more cash (at a cost of future income/credit). so that spending too much too quickly is possible, but it also makes it so that in general, you can't lose your house and home to spending too easily either. Ideally, it would allow players to interconvert some amount of cash and wealth level and remain balanced, no matter how the transaction goes. The amount of min-maxing and the number of rediculous wealth loopholes is pretty bothersome, and well done, I think a re-jiggered money system would fix many of the problems people have with the gp system as well as the current wealth level system.
 

Armadillo

Explorer
I'm looking forward to a new edition of d20M. I'm just sorry that we're having to wait so long. Still, there's hope for next year.

I would like to see fewer base classes that would offer players both more class skills and a clearer role. Four classes would be good: Soldier (Strong-Tough), Daredevil (Fast, but with a Wheelman Talent tree), Scoundrel (Charismatic), Smart (+Dedicated).

Also, they need to do something about the +0 BAB problem. In d20M, it is all too easy to have a multi-class character that has taken three classes, each with a +0 BAB at first level.

The Wealth system also should be optional and/or include guidelines for using cash. I liked the Wealth system, but found it difficult when I wanted to offer the PCs cash rewards during play. Plus, a cash alternative might address the concerns of the people who don't like the Wealth system at all.

TwinBahamut said:
They would have been better off giving Shadow Chasers, Agents of Psi, and Genetech a bigger role, or putting more effort into futuristic or historical settings earlier.

Amen. There are some great capsule settings for d20M, WotC just did nothing to follow-up on them. Other settings that could be expanded upon include Alternity, Star Frontiers, and Age of Adventures. It could also use a superspy setting along the lines of James Bond or SHIELD. Plus, it'd be nice to WotC do something with that GiJoe property of Hasbro's.
 
Last edited:

Armadillo said:
I'm looking forward to a new edition of d20M. I'm just sorry that we're having to wait so long. Still, there's hope for next year.

I would like to see fewer base classes that would offer players both more class skills and a clearer role. Four classes would be good: Soldier (Strong-Tough), Daredevil (Fast, but with a Wheelman Talent tree), Scoundrel (Charismatic), Smart (+Dedicated).

Also, they need to do something about the +0 BAB problem. In d20M, it is all too easy to have a multi-class character that has taken three classes, each with a +0 BAB at first level.
I think that is pretty much automatically taken care of with the new level dependend modifier on ability/skill checks, defenses and attacks...
 

Aristotle

First Post
I want Modern 4E to be absolutely free of variance from D&D 4E, aside from cap systems that follow the themes of the core mechanic to allow for the use of more advanced items. I think by allowing drag & drop access to character classes, talent trees, and especially monsters you get a greater amount of genre freedom and a MUCH larger product pool from "mainstream" products into the niche product line. No. Not everything will make sense in every campaign. The campaign designer will have to be selective about what bits of which products he or she introduces into a campaign. Then again, modern already has that issue given the number of genres it tries to support.

Core modern, with D&D elements, should be able to run modern, near future, and near past games either with or without overt supernatural elements. This includes drama/intrigue, action, and horror themes. Modern campaigns with less obvious supernatural presences would be supplemented through character classes built to use existing powers rather than a new power system.

The primary product line to support modern should be genre books. Near Future high-tech, Post Apoc., Hard Space, Fantasy Space, and Supers. Each one touching on the 2 or 3 main variations of each genre as sample settings.
 

So, I was thinking a bit about "non-combat" roles, and here is a list of roles I could identify. I will not claim it's exhaustive and that some roles might need melding, but it's a start:
I did not attempt to break down the roles for different "encounter types" (combat, social, dungeoneering or whatever one might come up with).

Speaker
The speaker is the "face" of the party. He represents their interest and negotiates deals with other NPCs (ranging from buying a new fancy sword over dealing out a fair price for the party services over representing the party's case in court to convincing the dragon that it might be okay to leave the heroes instead of burning them to ash...).

Middleman
The middleman is the guy who finds people, information and wares. He asks around in shady taverns, mingles in the mass and is generally always where something interesting might be talked about.
This role might sometimes collide with that of the Speaker, but while the Speaker is prominent, the Middleman is hidden and discrete. He might arrange a meeting between a contact and the Speaker. It's his job to convince the contact that it's okay to at least see the Speaker, and then it's the Speakers job to convince the contact to spill his beans or the sell the goods (for a reasonable price, off course).

Examiner
The Examiner is the guy who judges peoples character or trustworthiness, and get's the information he wants. He can be a seducer or a torturer, or just a man with a keen sense of character. He is the person the Middleman might ask to check out if an informant actually is a reliable source or just blowing steam, making things up to get the gold pieces coming. He is the one that tells the Speaker what the judge really wants to hear (or if he has already made up his mind and it's time to come up with Plan B)

Sage
The party's sage is versed in history, politics, arcana, physical science and technology. If he doesn't know the answer, he sure knows in which book or which library he has to look to find one. He's probably also versed in many languages (at least written)
He is the one the Speaker might go to to explain the appropriate manner towards a a Troll King, or where the middleman might go to learn about the implications of asking around for pamphlets of Pelor in the Mind Flayer city.
In a modern setting, he is probably also very handy with a computer, and he might have a forensic lab.

Guide
The party's guide is responsible for navigating the party through dangerous terrain. He knows how to survive in the wild, and how to read tracks. He has good senses (which might make him aware of traps, that he or the sage can disarm).
In a modern setting, he would probably also be designated driver and/or pilot.

Non Role Stuff
Some activities don't seem to fall directly into roles.
Athletic or Stealth abilities might be passed to a single role, but that seems rarely to work out well. For example, in a Shadowrun inspired game, every character needs to be stealthy, unless he stays at home. Overland travelling in D&D requires every PC to be able to overcome obstacles like cliffs or rivers, though the Guide might be helpful here.


Since there are a quite a few roles, it's reasonable to assume that some characters will cover more then one. It might also be necessary to combine some of them generally, or split some up, but so far I failed to identify clear candidates (though I guess the social related stuff is pretty close to be combinable. In many D&D 3.0 or Shadowrun campaigns, a single PC would have covered basically all of it, while the rest would play only second fiddle...)
 

arscott

First Post
I think you're being a bit too specific with roles. After all, D&D has only four combat roles, why should an intrigue game have 6+ non-combat roles?

It seems like the first three characters you posted were all just "interaction" guys. If I wanted to play a faceman, then I'd want to be able to be at the very least a speaker and an examiner, and probably a middleman too.

The sage and the guide, though they look pretty different at first glance, also share a role: the "expert". They have specialized knowledge which they use to overcome obstacles and insure the party gets to where it needs to be so that the conflicts happen--One transports the party to the physical conflict site, the other basically builds the informational setting, insuring that the party is in the proper frame of reference to understand the conflict that is happening.

As a side note:

I think that contacts work surprisingly well as powers, than as a finite list of people with poorly defined benefits. Consider the following


Comp Tickets (10 minutes; weekly) • Contact, Resources
Using your connections, you may obtain free tickets, passes, or invitations that allow a number of characters equal to your charisma bonus to attend an entertainment or social event (such as a play, a baseball game, or a formal dinner). The tickets do not include any special benefits (such as backstage passes) not available to other guests.

Deep Background (10 minutes; weekly) • Contact, Information
You gain a contact within an organization. Typically, the contact is a new NPC whom you are considered to have met 'off screen; However, the GM may instead choose to grant contact status to a previously encountered NPC. The contact is not a mindless flunky, but nor is he a member of the inner circle.

The contact's attitude becomes one step friendlier to you that that of the organization, and the contact will provide information based that new attitude. The contact retains this improved attitude until you use this power against a different attitude, at which time the contact reverts to his previous attitude. The former contact does not, however, alert his organization or act against you based in information shared while on better terms.

Occult Opinion (2 hours; weekly) • Contact, Skill
You know an expert of the occult who is able to identify supernatural creatures and phenomena. If provided with a physical sample or a detailed description, the occultist can attempt to identify the creature or phenomenon via an Arcana check. The occultist is considered trained in the skill, and has an intelligence modifier equal to your wisdom modifier.
 

arscott said:
I think you're being a bit too specific with roles. After all, D&D has only four combat roles, why should an intrigue game have 6+ non-combat roles?
Just brainstorming some ideas. As I said, it might be reasonable to "unify" certain aspects. And it might depend on the focus of a game how you want to unify certain roles.

It seems like the first three characters you posted were all just "interaction" guys. If I wanted to play a faceman, then I'd want to be able to be at the very least a speaker and an examiner, and probably a middleman too.
Assuming that there is really only one face guy, you're absolutely right. If everyone is supposed to engage in social encounters (which depends on the kind of game or campaign you plan), further subdivisions might be necessary. For a "generic" intrigue game, unifying the 3 roles seems okay. But if a lot of play time is focused on PC/NPC interaction, you need more.

The sage and the guide, though they look pretty different at first glance, also share a role: the "expert". They have specialized knowledge which they use to overcome obstacles and insure the party gets to where it needs to be so that the conflicts happen--One transports the party to the physical conflict site, the other basically builds the informational setting, insuring that the party is in the proper frame of reference to understand the conflict that is happening.
It depends a bit on the focus of a group - coming from Shadowrun and D20 Modern, I say "Designated Driver" (Rigger) and Scientist/Hacker (Decker) seem to be two roles that can easily be divided.

As a side note:

I think that contacts work surprisingly well as powers, than as a finite list of people with poorly defined benefits. Consider the following


Comp Tickets (10 minutes; weekly) • Contact, Resources
Using your connections, you may obtain free tickets, passes, or invitations that allow a number of characters equal to your charisma bonus to attend an entertainment or social event (such as a play, a baseball game, or a formal dinner). The tickets do not include any special benefits (such as backstage passes) not available to other guests.

Deep Background (10 minutes; weekly) • Contact, Information
You gain a contact within an organization. Typically, the contact is a new NPC whom you are considered to have met 'off screen; However, the GM may instead choose to grant contact status to a previously encountered NPC. The contact is not a mindless flunky, but nor is he a member of the inner circle.

The contact's attitude becomes one step friendlier to you that that of the organization, and the contact will provide information based that new attitude. The contact retains this improved attitude until you use this power against a different attitude, at which time the contact reverts to his previous attitude. The former contact does not, however, alert his organization or act against you based in information shared while on better terms.

Occult Opinion (2 hours; weekly) • Contact, Skill
You know an expert of the occult who is able to identify supernatural creatures and phenomena. If provided with a physical sample or a detailed description, the occultist can attempt to identify the creature or phenomenon via an Arcana check. The occultist is considered trained in the skill, and has an intelligence modifier equal to your wisdom modifier.
You're correct. It was a thing we noticed in a Torg session. Torg's Drama Deck included a card called "Connection", which a player could play in game to find a connection that could help them out. One of the players commented it would be cool if there was some way to get this "Card" as a special ability. And he was absolutely right - this fits well. Your approach would be going a little bit further.


---

Let's assume we strip our list down to this:
- Face (with powers like "Occult Contact, Seduction)
- Guide (powers like Free Ride, Shortcut...)
- Sage (powers like Instant Research, Tales from the Past)
My idea would be to create classes (or just characters?) by mixing combat role with non-combat role.
Detective: Face/Defender
Martial Artist: Guide/Striker
Scientist: Sage/Leader
Heavy Weapon Specialist: Guide/Controller
Con Artist: Face/Striker
 

arscott

First Post
Okay, I'm definitely liking that list.

Now do you expect every instance of a role to have the same power? Or a different but similar set?

That is, are the Martial Artist's Powers going to be the same as the Heavy Weapon Specialists? or merely similar?
 

arscott said:
Okay, I'm definitely liking that list.

Now do you expect every instance of a role to have the same power? Or a different but similar set?

That is, are the Martial Artist's Powers going to be the same as the Heavy Weapon Specialists? or merely similar?
I have no idea at this point. It might depend on how you design classes from this.

Is a class defined by combat and out-of combat role? If yes, different powers for different classes might be warranted. The bigger question might be how easy it will be to do so.

But if you are going to use a "mix & match" approach - choose one combat role, and choose one non-combat role, power lists common to each individual role would make a lot of sense.

I think the latter approach might fit the original d20 Modern approach of the ability-based classes best. The classes didn't really define an archetype (which was probably, conceptually, one of the bigger problems of d20 Modern for players coming from D&D). You selected your multi class combination and the right powers to fit the archetype/character concept you desired.
I often thought that D20 Modern would be perfectly suited for a "Gestalt" game - mix one physical class with one mental class.

Maybe "Modern 2.0" should work similar...
 

Remove ads

Top