D20 Modern Heroic

[Essex]

My experience with my players was that they seriously disliked the basic classes, thought they were lame, and wanted more normal d20... until they actually used them.

Now they love them.

Starting st 4th level, letting players make a character and see how the basic classes work, usually solves these problems in my experience.

Essex, if you players keep hopping to classes with +0 BAB and then can't get into the advanced classes, that's them making a character choice, it's not a problem with the game.

My .02

Chuck

We played an entire campaign and a half under the D20 rules and even at high levels it just didn't work out well for us. Two players only took two base classes, and on prestige class, and the complaints were still universal. I'm not saying there was anything wrong with the system, it just wasn't well-suited to the campaign.

In all honesty, I wanted to run the last campaign under Spycraft as that would have worked much better, but I was having trouble converting a few key things from DnD/D20 Modern to the Spycraft system. Eventually I decided it was easier to just do a quick addendum to the classes, add a few character class/template bits and let my players take the document home to build new characters.

No one else had a problem with it, so its just a local phenomenon. Thanks for the input. Ciao.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

One thing I find useful is to port over "partial BAB/saves" from how some people do it in D&D. For instance, if you take two levels of two low BAB classes, you get +1 total. If you take one level each of a low BAB class, you end up with +0. So I look at the progression and let classes with the same progression "stack", meaning both characters above would add 1 to their BAB. This can allow some people to get into prestige classes a little sooner than otherwise.

Having said that, I've been running a campaign where the players started at 3rd level as competent trained personnel, and it's worked fine. They don't have prestige classes yet, but they have solid skill rolls and have been effective in combat against Ordinaries a few levels higher than them.

 

[takyris]

Sweeny,

Was thinking of doing this, but looking at it, most of the basic classes (sans Strong) were designed with the idea of "Make it hurt a bit to take just one level". If you get the same benefit from taking one level of Tough (hit points and remain conscious) and one level of Fast (Defense and Evasion) that you do from taking two levels of Fast in the ordinary system (ie, the +1 BAB), you're getting a bit more.

Try this system and then tell me how many people skim 1 or 2 levels of just about everything to get the cool stuff. Everybody already wants to be a Fast hero -- it seems like the biggest d20 modern archetype out there is "guy who takes one level of Fast and Tough and then complains that his BAB is too low because he wanted to be a powerful melee combatant".

 

[Bagpuss]

It seems like the biggest d20 modern archetype out there is "guy who takes one level of Fast and Tough and then complains that his BAB is too low because he wanted to be a powerful melee combatant".

Well duh he should have taken his levels in Strong Hero, that's the melee focused class. BAB isn't such a major issue since nearly everyone will have a lower BAB than in D&D as multiclassing is a requirement not an option, so most characters will have to suffer the +0 BAB once or twice.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree with your whole premise -- anyone who thinks the base classes are underpowered and you need to be 10th level to represent an even basic adult has obviously never used the system, IMO. I think a d20 Modern character would be finely balanced, and more useful across a broader range of circumstances, than a comparable D&D character.

Also, the high-powered game you clearly prefer isn't really my cuppa, either -- but I certainly disagree that d20 Modern is a lower-powered game than D&D.

 

[takyris]

Bagpuss: See, I agree with you. But the archetype, stereotype, whatever, seems to have this awful aversion to taking a level of Strong Hero. It just gnaws at them, having to take that level of Strong Hero. I'm always confused. I once made the party's medic a 2nd-level Strong Hero (they were 2nd-level at the time) with the Medical Occupation and the Medical-boosting feat. When they saw that I could outfight them AND be useful in other areas, they began to accept that even a Strong Hero could be interesting.

JD: Well, if they want to do Special Forces stuff, then they need to be decently high level (or at least, if they want to do heroic special forces stuff where they aren't in danger of dying when they meet 6 2nd-level ordinaries with handguns). The thing I love most about d20 Modern is that it does level the playing field somewhat. With only one basic class receiving fighter-BAB progression, it's easily possible to have a high-level character with a lousy BAB. And with the massive damage saves, it's easily possible to get taken out by a mook who rolls well. It breeds caution, and I tend to think that healthy caution is a good thing.

I completely agree with you that d20 Modern characters are generally useful in more situations than their D&D counterparts. The Strong/Tough Hero certainly has more options than the Fighter.

 

[Desdichado]

I dunno; I've played a handful of games with low to mid-level d20 Modern characters and found them all reasonably effective. I think a good level for effective "special forces" or spies or agents, or what-have-you heroics is about 4-7 -- able to start on advanced careers if you want them, yet not mired in tons of special abilities like truly high level heroes have.

Then again, that's my favorite spot for characters anyway, in D&D too.