d20 Modern vs. controversial D&D rules

[0-hr]

I was in a campaign where EVERY character had Boots of Speed (in whatever form). And EVERY character started EVERY combat with "I'll activate Haste and...".

For that reason, when I started my own campaign, I nerfed Haste down to a move equivalent. I haven't seen haste used yet, by either good guys or bad guys and that is perfectly ok with me. This is a low-magic campaign though, and we're just hitting 5th level now so there hasn't been much opportunity either.

My goal is to have players take short, frequent turns rather than longer, but less frequent, turns. Whether everyone (including bad guys) has haste, or no-one has haste, it is still balanced. I just prefer the latter case.

Anything that is a no-brainer for every PC and NPC with an INT over 5 to do, is probably not balanced. I removed Shield potions for the same reason.

 

[Petrosian]

my guys are at 12th now.

the sorcerer with his extend feat has posted for me his nightly ritual which involves casts some extended mage armos on about three of the characters, some extended greater magic weapons, and some extended endurances. on a full night, these eat up maybe 1/3 of his spells, which he ragins 9 hours later. Obviously, if the day has been hard and he has fewer slots, there will be less buffing.

Now, am i to understand that since these epslls are not just cast EVERY FIGHT but daily every night he can that these are more imbalanced than haste?

In almost every fight before this, mage armor was in play on 1-2 people. Should it be reduced significantly?

Use does not imply imbalance. Spells are a limited resource, paid for by class limits, and in spite of GMs wishes, they are meant to be useful. if something is USEFUL then it will be USED.

***************

I have not seen haste as too powerful. i have seen it as too frequently used.

As such, in my next campaign, i intend to tackle that frequency issue head on, and not INDIRECTLY by hitting its power.

The main change will be a gold piece cost. 250 per use, maybe 500. This will make the casters think twice before using it for the little fights. its kind of like stoneskin, you wont use it all the time on everybody because it costs.

I am strongly considering raising it to fourth or lowering potions to 2nd max to remove haste potions as an option.

**************

the only 20 caster levels so fireball is weakened argument ignore the 10 dice limit on fireballs. so it doesn't look much like they have been weakened.

 

[Mercule]

Re: Regarding Haste

In my opinion, any spell that PCs cast in ever major fight is clearly TOO useful. I fail to see how weakening such an overused spell is the same as giving everyone an actifact. That makes little to no sense to me.?

I disagree. My wife and I are both playing rogues. _Every_ combat, we try to flank so we get our sneak attacks. Obviously it's too powerful.

Also, _all_ the PCs in the group want Darkvision and would use it constantly if the option was available. Actually, given the choice of Darkvision or Haste, I'd rather have Darkvision. Obviously too powerful. Forget the fact that we're all geared for stealth and get sick of the light giving us away.

In one game we played in 3E for a year and a half (a year before that in 2E), We all had access to Haste effects. I was cast _once_ in that time. It just wasn't considered a worthy 3rd level spell compared to the others the wizard had. It also wasn't worth the effort of retrieving the wand/potion/whatever and using it for the rest of us.

As far as the artifact quip, the point was that it was equal cheese.

A lot of people think that Haste needs tweaking (many of 3E's designers included). The designers of d20 modern have made it weaker, but you guys think its too weak. What would you have Haste do?

I like Haste the way it is. Seems about right compared to fireball or dispel magic. If you disagree, I think bumping it up to 4th is a fine idea, too -- I've considered doing that with Fly, which is my own pet peeve at the moment.

I don't agree with what the designers of d20M did or anything else I've heard so far in this discussion. It's too far. The d20M Haste certainly isn't worthy of a 3rd level DnD spell. Overall, I think the shift makes the spell lame at any level.

 

[Ranger REG]

Perusing the new d20 Modern SRD (here: http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=msrd ), particularly the "Combat" document, I noticed that the d20 Modern authors have made a few tweaks to D&D core rules which have spawned arguments in the past:

(1) "Partial Actions" have been deleted, leaving only the following action types: "Attack" (i.e., Standard) , "Move" (MEA), and "Full-Round". A surprise round gives you only an Attack action. A Charge is now definitely a Full-Round Action (as the D&D SRD, not PHB), but again you are allowed a special single-move Charge in a surprise round (as a D&D "partial charge").

Anyone who has owned Star Wars Core Rulebook (original and revised) will not find this strange, but if they have not seen D&D 3e then they may find "partial action" unfamiliar.

(2) The d20 Modern haste spell no longer gives an extra action! It gives one extra attack with a full-round attack, or an extra 30 feet speed on a move. Casting an extra spell with it is specifically prohibited. (I notice that this then looks a lot like the speed weapon enhancement, except it's counter to the Sage's ruling that you can use speed without a full attack action.)

At least in both cases, you still gain the +2 to Defense.

If you think that d20 Modern should be on scale with D&D, then you might as well just play with the D&D rules in a modern-day setting. d20 Modern tone down magic to emphasize the real-world feel and technology.

(3) The shield spell has been reduced to just give a +4 bonus to defense (AC) -- no +7 bonus, no apparent true cover, no bonus to saving throws.

But in D&D, there is no such thing as Class Defense Bonus. But if you use Star Wars original version where armor bonus do not stack but replace CDB then shield spell may not be as good as it is.

But if using d20 Modern version where armor provide equipment bonus and stack with CDB, then shield spell from D&D rules would be overpowering.

So I'm wondering:
- Do other D&D players think these are quality changes?

I don't know. If D&D gamers think that D&D rules are good enough for use in a modern-day setting, then they won't change.

But if D&D rules are lacking some crucial details for modern-day setting, or if D&D gamers are also d20 gamers, they might give this book a chance.

- Do you think you'll change your D&D games to use these revised rulings?

AFAIC, these are not revised D&D.

If Wizards puts out a revised D&D core rules and incorporate the most useful d20 Modern mechanics, then it's a revised D&D.

But for me, personally, whatever rules mechanics that looks good for use in my D&D game, I will try to incorporate it as a house rule. It has to be playtested by my group before it becomes permanent.

- What will you do when interfacing D&D characters with d20 Modern characters, with some identically-named spells having different effects?

Well, I have three options:

1. Play them as is but decide which combat and health rules I will use. D&D characters will have a better advantage especially for high-level spellcasters that have spells of 6th level and higher. The drawback is the access of modern-day skills (e.g., Computer Use)

2. Play them under d20 Modern. The drawback is that D&D spellcaster can no longer access spells of 6th level of higher. Such spellcaster may be at a disadvantage when compared to modern-day mages with better HD (multiclass from Basic to Advanced to Urban Arcana Adept prestige class).

3. Play them under D&D rules. The drawback is the absence of modern-day firearm's lethal nature when using D&D HP system (massive damage threshold is 50 points for Medium-sized creatures).

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: d20 Modern vs. controversial D&D rules

Overall, reasonable points being brought forth. I'll just briefly point out:

At least in both cases, you still gain the +2 to Defense.

In D&D, haste give a +4 AC bonus.


With regard to the multiply-mentioned argument that "spells in d20 Modern are meant to be lower-powered", I am frankly unable to see evidence for that in the d20 Modern spell list. 95% of the spell descriptions appear to be just copy-and-pasted directly from the D&D SRD, except for notable exceptions like shield and haste. And, polymorph spells do not appear.

True, no spells exist in d20 Modern over 5th level. But if one believes that the spells themselves have been generally toned down, perhaps presenting some other examples (maybe at least a half-dozen or so?) of that would be helpful -- I personally don't see an overall trend in that regard.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And you probably won't ever see Haste used again. An extra move equivalent and 4 points of dodge bonus to AC is pretty weak for a 3rd level spell. The fighter/wizard types will do far better with Blink. The fighter types will do far better getting an extra attack in on the first round of combat. And the wizards will do more good lighting the bad guy up with a magic missile or fireball instead.

It sounds like Boots of speed rather than haste were the problem in this event. If they had to rely on the wizard for mass haste or the 3rd level version, they'd be a lot less free with it. Same with the Shield spell. Potions of shield are a bad idea but it's generally not too broken in a wizard's hands.

I was in a campaign where EVERY character had Boots of Speed (in whatever form). And EVERY character started EVERY combat with "I'll activate Haste and...".

For that reason, when I started my own campaign, I nerfed Haste down to a move equivalent. I haven't seen haste used yet, by either good guys or bad guys and that is perfectly ok with me. This is a low-magic campaign though, and we're just hitting 5th level now so there hasn't been much opportunity either.

My goal is to have players take short, frequent turns rather than longer, but less frequent, turns. Whether everyone (including bad guys) has haste, or no-one has haste, it is still balanced. I just prefer the latter case.

Anything that is a no-brainer for every PC and NPC with an INT over 5 to do, is probably not balanced. I removed Shield potions for the same reason.

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Re: Re: d20 Modern vs. controversial D&D rules

In D&D, haste give a +4 AC bonus.

But D&D do not have Class Defense Bonus. To advance in level without this value, makes D&D version of the haste spell very indispensable for D&D character classes.

 

[Vaxalon]

The D20 version of Shield doesn't have a facing. It protects 360 degrees.

 

[dcollins]

The D20 version of Shield doesn't have a facing. It protects 360 degrees.

Are you sure? It still says (just like the D&D spell) "Shield creates an invisible, mobile disk of force that hovers in front of the caster."

 

[Ranger REG]

I did recall a diagram in a back issue of Dragon magazine, that shows how the tower shield is employed, as well as the shield spell.