d20 Modern vs. controversial D&D rules

[Plane Sailing]

Re: Regarding Haste

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 have a thread in the house rules forum which details an alternative to haste which I'm trying out.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29151

Cheers

 

[Happy Monkey]

Getting OT, I for one am pleased to see haste stripped of its "must have" status. Far too many boots, wands and potions of the stuff.

Looks like star wars, COC and d20 modern are setting the stage for the eventual 3rd ed. revision.

 

[kreynolds]

I thought that d20 Modern was going to use the WP/VP system, or something snazzy like that. Wasn't there supposed to be a variant hit point system in addition to the one that's in the book and in the SRD? I was kinda lookin' forward to something different.

 

[buzz]

(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.

You should be aware that this is not entirely a revision, but a correction:

"WotC's Sean Reynolds reveals changes to the wizard/sorcerer spell, shield. Errata: the shield spell provides a cover _bonus_, but does not actually provide cover. It's too powerful at 1st level if it actually provides cover. Sage Advice in Dragon #282 elaborates: The [shield] spell grants you a +7 cover bonus to Armor Class, not 75% cover as the spell description in the PH says.... A shield spell does not negate attacks of opportunity against the user."

http://66.34.111.89/Eric/errata.htm#phberrata
(BTW, I had a hard time finding this; is there no link to the Black Pages from the main ENWorld site anymore?)

Thie errata has been around for a while; unfortunately, the correction to shield didn't make the 2nd printing of the PHB.

Ergo, all that happened was that they reduced the defense bonus, probably to offset the defense bonus d20 Modern PCs get as part of their classes.

 

[dcollins]

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

You should be aware that this is not entirely a revision, but a correction:

Yes, I'm, aware of that, which is precisely what I mean by "controversial D&D rules". The shield spell has the unique status of having about 3 claims to corrections being made to it, none of which made it into the 2nd printing or the official errata documents -- it currently sits oddly in the FAQ as a "correction". Hence d20 Modern seems to finally formalize the correction and even further reduce the armor bonus.

 

[buzz]

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

...it currently sits oddly in the FAQ as a "correction". Hence d20 Modern seems to finally formalize the correction and even further reduce the armor bonus.

The word of the Sage and the Official D&D FAQ aren't official enough for you?

I'm just saying, you're citing the un-errata'ed version of the spell and then claiming that a huge change has been made. In actuality, the change is pretty negligible when compared to the correct version of the spell. That's all I was trying to point out.

And keep in mind, d20 Modern is a *different* game than D&D. Thus, it's allowed to be... well, different.

 

[Caliban]

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."

Since there is no facing in 3e, that text is meaningless. "In front of the caster" can be any direction that an attack is coming from.

The version of the shield spell in the D20 modern book does not have the "protects against one side of the battlefield" languate that is in the PHB version of the spell.

The D20 version greatly simplifies the spell (it protects from any direction, just like a normal shield), but reduces the AC bonus in return.

 

[dcollins]

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

I'm just saying, you're citing the un-errata'ed version of the spell and then claiming that a huge change has been made.

Careful! The spell has never been errata'd... it's been "corrected" in the FAQ, which although official, is not the same thing.

 

[Leopold]

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

Careful! The spell has never been errata'd... it's been "corrected" in the FAQ, which although official, is not the same thing.

shield is one facing and +7 AC. Nothing more, nothing less..you want 360 protection go grab a scroll of Wall of force and make a pretty bubble..

 

[Ranger REG]

I thought that d20 Modern was going to use the WP/VP system, or something snazzy like that. Wasn't there supposed to be a variant hit point system in addition to the one that's in the book and in the SRD? I was kinda lookin' forward to something different.

Charles Ryan overheard that VP/WP system will be added to the SRD (which one, I do not know) so publishers will have an option.

Personally, I prefer this a high priority over the remaining D&D core rules OGC that have yet to be formally released.