[d20 Modern] Let the gnashing of teeth begin!

[Moon_Goddess]

I'm sure they'll put VP/WP in as a "Varient" like in the DMG. Of course it will be useless becuase all the damage values and critical threat ranges on the weapons will be geared to Hit Points. Grrrr!

I'm sure there only doing this for one reason. Look at all the publishers clammering to get their hands on VP/WP, if they make it just a varient they don't have to OGL it and then can charge lisence fees for it! @$#$!@!!#$!

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't know if it's the bean counter that is telling the game designers to use HP instead of VP/WP. I mean one former employee of Wizards, DMG author Monte Cook, has spoken in favor of HP.

I wonder if any of the 30 or so third-party publishers that will support d20 Modern have spoken in favor of VP/WP.

 

[Lizard]

I don't know if it's the bean counter that is telling the game designers to use HP instead of VP/WP. I mean one former employee of Wizards, DMG author Monte Cook, has spoken in favor of HP.

I wonder if any of the 30 or so third-party publishers that will support d20 Modern have spoken in favor of VP/WP.

I suspect a lot of them have, because going to HP maximizes the utility of their existing product line. It means they can easily put D20 Modern stuff into mostly-fantasy based supplements.

 

[nsruf]

I don't mind a variable threshold so much, but basing both the threshold and the roll to survive on the same stat might not be such a good idea. Con will become even more important than it already is and none would play a PC with Con below 10 or even 12.

OTOH, I like that you are only disabled and not dead if you fail the safe. I basically use the same rule in my game (death from massive damage threshold = 20, drop to -1 hp any dying if you fail). That makes jumping off a cliff or getting shot in the head dangerous without increasing PC body count by too much.

 

[Ranger REG]

I suspect a lot of them have, because going to HP maximizes the utility of their existing product line. It means they can easily put D20 Modern stuff into mostly-fantasy based supplements.

But isn't d20 Modern supposed to be a generic ruleset for ... and I'm going out on a limb here ... non-fantasy genres?

 

[JPL]

Lots of fantasy d20 stuff can be ported into other genres. Better, I think, to keep the portability factor.

Shadow Chasers could make use of the whole Monster Manual.

Urban Arcana will obviously be drawing from the same well as the standard D&D.

I would like to see Vitality Points as an option. We'll have to wait and see, I guess...

When I play D&D, my rule of thumb for describing hit point loss is that you are only "really" hit when your HPs are lower than your Constitution. No differences to the game mechanics, granted, but an extra level of realism in terms of "feel".

I really doubt that this decision is part of a greedy scheme to make outside companies pay for the use of an alternate damage system...especially said system is going OGL afore long.

 

[hong]

But isn't d20 Modern supposed to be a generic ruleset for ... and I'm going out on a limb here ... non-fantasy genres?

Well, if d20 Modern is sufficiently similar to regular D&D, you can have...

d20 Technomancer!

Now that would be an interesting exercise indeed.

 

[Psion]

First off, yes d20 modern doesn't automatically kill you when you fail a save. That makes it an improvement over the CoC HP mechanic.

The D&D HP mechanic has 4 essential problems that I see that VP/WP addresses fairly:


1) The invincible high level PC issue. Yeah, yeah, not important to you. It is to me.
2) The wonky healing issue.
3) The "fine or dead" dichotomy issue.
4) The "skill is married to heroism and script immunity" issue.

Okay, pretty much the point of adding the fort save in is to address #1. It does do this. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with this because while it helps remove level as an absolute barrier, it sort of puts CON in its place. Now, that should be the purpose of CON, but doubling its importance bothers me, as does the relative scale of weapon damage to ability scores. The go/no go nature of the determination of making the roll makes a high con VERY useful in avoiding the possibility of death if weapon damages compare to those in CoC or other d20 system games.

Number 3 is not really addressed, either, though taking the instant death aspect out is a definite improvement. There still appeard to be no "injured but still up" state.

At this point, I fail to see how (2) or (4) are addressed at all by the D20 modern HP system.

 

[Ron]

Interesting Psion,

Although I agree with your criticisms of the D&D's hit point rule, I don't think that VP/WP have addressed those problems satisfactorily. The way it is implemented, high level PCs are still invincible guys, at least as normal people go. You appear to be bothered of the lack of common sense in HP's healing rules. You're right, but VP isn't better in terms of realism. I think it's a draw.

Although I have not played that way, I was considering doing exactly what you described initially, although I would made modifiers to take care of beings with non-medium sized critters. If I ever test it, I'll tell how it fares, but to someone found of gritty rules, it definitely looks a good way to go.

I am not sure about what you're trying to say in your point number 4 so I wait for a clarification before commenting it.

 

[coyote6]

1) The invincible high level PC issue. Yeah, yeah, not important to you. It is to me.

Go down two articles, to the Mike Mearls piece, "Hey Man, Nice Shot". That might work for ya.

As for your other concerns -- hey, bring 'em up in the d20 forums, and maybe the editor will ask one of the d20 creators about 'em. Maybe they changed or tweaked the healing rules or something.