Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 3818132" data-attributes="member: 26473">Well, I'm rather late to the party, but this thread was an interesting read nonetheless.A couple of thoughts -1. Depending to some degree on the referee, d20 Modern already handles the issue of "too many" rolls with taking 10 or 20, which in turn also requires differing degrees of time investment. The Research, Knowledge, and Craft checks cited in the example of the bank vault can all be resolved by taking 10 on the roll, and if the character is struggling with the first two, then s/he can take 20, increasing the time required to find the answer - I would also argue that, if materials are not an issue, such as working in a well-stocked laboratory, a referee could allow the Crafting character to take 20 as well.2. One of the ways I referee Knowledge and Research checks is to create a series of answers, each with its own DC, so one roll can reveal a little or a lot of information, depending on the degree of success. The "president of Wakanda" is a DC 10 Knowledge (current events) skill check (in other words, one for which a character with at least one skill rank will nail automatically by taking 10), or a DC 2 Research check (and I'd waive the time required if the character has Internet access, if that indeed is the only question being asked) - a successful skill check for either could also reveal a lot more information as well, depending on the roll.In both of these cases, I don't have a problem playing more-or-less by the RAW, with a couple of minor tweaks based on my read as referee of what's actually happening in the game at the time the checks come up. I don't see these as barriers to "getting to the adventure."And on that note . . .3. I disagree that skill checks in prep are in fact a barrier to getting to the 'real action' - for many of the games I've run using d20 Modern, preparations are very much an active part of the adventure, not something to be 'got through' to get to the action. Mysteries, horror, espionage - all may require a good deal of in-game legwork, and for me that time spent on Research or Gather Information or Knowledge or Craft checks is very much genre appropriate and a part of the action, not apart from it.4. I ran a Charismatic soldier in a military game - it's not always about the physical classes.5. I resolved the "four checks" by allowing players to take the average of their characters' Hide/Move Silently bonuses and Spot/Listen bonuses, calling the combined skill bonus SNEAK and WATCH respectively - one roll for each, cut down on some of the randomness.(I like the suggestion of reducing this to one roll, using DC = (skill) + 10, but hey, rolling against the players is fun, too!)6. An alternative to combining skills is to grant more skill points instead - one idea I've toyed with but not tried yet is allowing a character additional skill points that may only be applied to class skills. For example, a Tough hero with 12 INT gets 4 skill points per level - my idea was to give the character two additional skill points (1/2 the skill points earned for the level, rounded down) that could only be applied to Tough class skills.I'm not wild about some of the combined skills - too broad, to me - and I like the idea that certain base classes are better at some types of skills than others. I think that allowing a Tough hero to invest skill points in Intimidate as a class skill, but not Diplomacy or Bluff, makes sense and reinforces the archetype - lumping those together as 'Influence' definitely takes away from that in my opinion, even with the Perks rule (at least as I understood it - perhaps I missed something?).And in the pet peeve department . . .7. The class names are too precious by half. Some people find that 'flavorful' - I find it cloying. (This is one of the many reasons I dislike Spycraft as well - way too cutesy for my tastes.)Clearly I'm not who this game is aimed at - my own two-pages of house rules for d20 Modern are more than adequate for my needs. Best of luck with your project, though.</blockquote>

Verification