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

[Frostmarrow]

The more I think about it, the more that I think that the defender/striker/leader/controller role set for fantasy games doesn't really work for modern games.

I've not decided what I think -does- make a good set of roles yet; I'm actually leaning towards the d20modern archetypes of strong/fast/tough/smart/dedicated/charismatic as being as good a basis as any for "roles";

Another alternative is to look at True20 and take the three roles they've identified there:

Warrior (defender-striker powers)
Expert (striker - leader powers)
Adept (magi-psychic-weird (arcane/divine) powers)

Cheers

It would be quite easy to make power trees for the strong/fast/tough/smart/dedicated/charismatic archetypes. You know the at will, per encounter, and per day schticks.

 

[Just Another User]

No, I'm not looking forward to it, I love D20 modern and if Wotc do it the 4e treatment will almost certainly ruin it for me.

 

[DarkKestral]

It would be quite easy to make power trees for the strong/fast/tough/smart/dedicated/charismatic archetypes. You know the at will, per encounter, and per day schticks.

Depends. I don't think per day powers are a good fit for Modern; d20 Modern never relied on them the way D&D did, as most technology was either unlimited use or was a per-charge thing.

Action point usages most closely approximate the "per day" bit, but are even rarer than that. I'd probably give them out more liberally, but I wouldn't say a lot of the powers were worth spending a "per day" resource on. I'd go more for at will and per-encounter with a chance to recharge. (maybe a action like second wind recharges one of your per-encounter abilities when used)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My problem with the d20 Modern original classes is that some are not balanced in combat. Maybe this isn't such a big problem for modern games, but my experience with Shadowrun for example suggests it is.

So, there should be ways to make Smart and Dedicated work even in combats. (Charismatic seems easy enough, just make him a leader). On the other hand, it should be ensured that Strong and Tough Heroes are still good outside of combat situations.

Strong: Striker
Fast: Striker
Tough: Defender
Smart: Leader or Controller (but how, without magic or heavy weapons?)
Dedicated: Leader? Defender?
Charismatic: Leader

How do you "defend" against enemies relying mostly on ranged weapons? (Do you need to?)

 

[Frostmarrow]

No, I'm not looking forward to it, I love D20 modern and if Wotc do it the 4e treatment will almost certainly ruin it for me.

Then you are going to hate my next suggestion. What if every character is a martial-artist in his own right? You have all seen the discussions about the monk becoming a controller, haven't you. So what if the roles are kept in place and made into styles of martial arts. The Defender is karate, striker is tae-kwon-do, and the controller is judo.

What kind of crazy suggestion is that?!

Hear me out. In most media these days every character turns out to have just the moves the plot or the character's honor requres. It doesn't matter what their appearance says about combat prowess. If a heroic character need to kick a villain out the window in the final battle he will.

Still wierd? Yes, but this is a role-playing game and combat is fun. So all characters should know how to fight. Most conflict in a modern setting is in a confined space (hotel room, bridge of a cruise ship, aeroplane cabin) anyway so guns won't be the be all and end all of all combat.

Sure, we wouldn't call it tae-kwon-do but the powers should emulate powerful kicking for a striker.

So you can be an ambulance driver (who just happens to be a black belt in judo) on a supernatural goose-chase if you want to.

And you won't have to cringe when you pick combat feats for your professor type (as I always do).

There, at least I tried.

 

[dm4hire]

The d20 Call of Cthulhu RPG that WotC did had a great concept for character creation that works best with modern settings. You basically decided on whether you were offensive or defensive in nature (setting your to hit and saves), picked 12 skills as your class skills, and went from there. Modern settings really don't need a broad category of classes like D&D does; mainly because in modern settings people are more diversified than an archaic society allowed. Two classes would be the minimum and four, maybe six, would be the max I would go with; then use paragon to become more specific in character development. Epic might still be usable, but really don't see a reason to go beyond 20 in modern settings unless it would be modern fantasy.

Another suggestion for a horror/supernatural setting would be Torchwood, which I didn't see listed by anyone but might have missed it.

 

[katahn]

I really do think the existing combat roles in 4e could be applied to a modern or non-fantasy setting. They don't describe how one does a thing, just what sort of things one can do.

Controller: Tech- and expert-types here. Little personal combat experience translates well into the "poor personal defenses" and their wide range of skills/gadgets/etc. can all be applied to doing damage (directed or area) or affecting how enemies can move or act (ex: tear gas or web grenades). Sure anyone can use the same technology a modern controller could, but they'd always be better and more effective at it.

Leader: Your face-types go here. Capable of inspiring their allies (similar to a warlord or maybe a bard) and making use of clever tactics (fluff to explain buffing combat stats or even debuffing enemies' a bit) all fit. In a cyberpunk-type game this could be your med-techie using superscience first aid to heal wounds or your rocker capable of inspiring their team to "stand up to the Man!"

Striker: This one's easy. Any character based around high mobility and doing damage lands here.

Defender: A little more challenging, and in some respects is a bit of a crossbreed between controller and striker. Strong melee characters who are focused in protecting their allies could range from being certain kinds of military personnel all the way through the club bouncer to the bodyguard.

Selecting a modern profession always seemed kind of strange to me, basically they are just feats that are only available at character creation and every character is required to take. Characters could be identified as strong, smart, dedicated, etc., and the quality chosen then gives them access to a particular set of talents they can choose from alternative to general or class-based ones.

Wealth as presented in d20 Modern was interesting, but I much prefer the concept of wealth as a background quality or represented with purchased lifestyle-levels ala Shadowrun. The latter are a lot easier for me to wrap my head around as to how a $100,000 payout for doing whatever affects the characters.

 

[Just Another User]

Daniel is a linguist isn't he? So in the beginning he is a techie (egyptologist) who later evolves into a people person. Samantha is likeable. I think she is in the show so that people who are not themselves leaders, techies, or big guys have someone to relate to. People Persons are 'normal'. I'm a techie; I relate to Daniel.

A thing to consider is that one could be (to use the actual D20 modern classes) a Smart hero with an high Charisma OR a charismatic hero with an high intelligence (and related skills, unless you go into details it would be hard to see the difference. That flexibitiy is one of the thing I loved about the system

 

[Plane Sailing]

My problem with the d20 Modern original classes is that some are not balanced in combat. Maybe this isn't such a big problem for modern games, but my experience with Shadowrun for example suggests it is.

I always felt that d20modern actually did a better job at making the 'mental' characters balanced in combat than others - things like 'smart weapon' and 'smart defence' which allowed smart characters to use their INT for attack and defence, and the CHA talents which could affect people in combat were great ideas.

Admittedly we never did any long term campaigns, and maybe over the long run they didn't match up well?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I always felt that d20modern actually did a better job at making the 'mental' characters balanced in combat than others - things like 'smart weapon' and 'smart defence' which allowed smart characters to use their INT for attack and defence, and the CHA talents which could affect people in combat were great ideas.

Admittedly we never did any long term campaigns, and maybe over the long run they didn't match up well?

We never played d20 modern into the high levels either.
I definitely agree that such abilities (at least for the Smart Hero) helped a lot to make non-combat characters viable at lower levels, but eventually the BAB difference would show.
I remember playing a Strong/Smart, and he was effective both in and outside of combat, but I saw how I was begin to be overshadowed by a more specialised character. But we never got so far to make it bad.