D20 modern worth it?

[Hollywood]

Don't try to labor through the d20M SRD.

I say do go read the SRD. I'm glad I did and since I did, and laughed a lot, I voted with my money and didn't give WotC anything. I'm sorry, but their generic class concept is total bunk and makes absolutely zero sense.

I mean come on, what makes a Strong hero better at combat? His Strength? Great, thats taken care of by the Strength modifier. Does that mean a Smart hero is less effective at combat? Not at all... especially in a modern or sci-fi world full of wonderful things to blow other people up with. And I mean come on, one of a Strong hero's class skills is Handle Animals? It just might be, depending on the character, but not every Strong hero has an innate sense of how to handle animals (and thats what Class Skills are saying)... those are just examples of the very tip of the iceberg IMO.

That will kill the feel of this game (imagine if all you ever saw of D&D was the SRD!).

I already knew what D&D was about, so having had the SRD to read, I might not have bought 3rd Edition.

It isn't the same.

No, its not exactly the same. But yes, it is the same... a lot of the same core concepts are there, although explained better perhaps. And there are some new concepts too, some done better than others again.

Read the reviews, read the positive and negative opinions, read the SRD... then spend your money.

 

[Shapermc]

For me, at least, I'm a bit bummed that it's fantasy-oriented, but I've always considered SF and Fantasy to be so closely related that in a lot of cases you can squint and be good to go either way.

This SOOOOO reminded me of a quote and I am trying not to get off topic here, for I think that this is very relivent.

Science Fiction vs. Fantasy...
Asked by Jargurorf Murodo
When I was at a book signing, Episode 2 the novel was being promoted and the question arose if “R.A Salvatore would be writing any more science fiction novels,” and the reply was "I have never written any Science Fiction." So the question is what do you mean, "Haven't written any Science Fiction," I was thinking Star Wars is obviously Science Fiction. So I thought one of two things, you haven't originally written any science fiction on your own, as in developed the story and characters, or Star Wars would be considered fantasy because it is kind of a mystical struggle between good and evil.

Answered by R.A. Salvatore on Nov-17-2002
Well to me Star Wars is NOT science fiction. I know that George Lucas shares this view, as well. Star Wars is classic fantasy: good vs. evil, swordfights, magic (the Force), etc. I didn't find the galaxy far, far away much of a departure from the Forgotten Realms, to tell the truth!
I'm not a science-fiction writer, at least not in the sense of that community at this time. I haven't studied physics or computer science in years and years and years and to write science-fiction, you have to be in tune with the things going on in current science. I dabble, but don't study.

That said, there is this one idea....

RASalvatore

I hope that I am not the only person that agrees with this. Darwin's World RPG modifyed magic to the fact of "mutations" giving the recipient of these mutations "abilities" that act like magic. The part "Star Wars is classic fantasy: good vs. evil, swordfights, magic (the Force), etc. " I think sums it up best.

 

[Crothian]

I mean come on, what makes a Strong hero better at combat? His Strength? Great, thats taken care of by the Strength modifier. Does that mean a Smart hero is less effective at combat? Not at all... especially in a modern or sci-fi world full of wonderful things to blow other people up with. And I mean come on, one of a Strong hero's class skills is Handle Animals? It just might be, depending on the character, but not every Strong hero has an innate sense of how to handle animals (and thats what Class Skills are saying)... those are just examples of the very tip of the iceberg IMO.

The same can be said in D&D and any other class system. That's why in the DMG is has advice on altering the core classes. In any class system you are going to get parts that don't fit everything.

 

[Bagpuss]

Let me take the second group first. the "not many rules have changed". If you think not that many rules have changed, I strongly suspect you skimmed the book, rather than reading all the words. Most rules have the same, or similar, titles to those in the Player's Handbook for D&D. But the text of those rules have, for the most part, changed. All the FAQ's, the errata, much of the sage advice, new playtesting, and alterations to make the rule more "modern", went in to the d20M rules. They are all streamlined, and many have major (though subtle) mechanics changes in them. You really have to read d20M closely to figure out what has changed.

Which kind of defeats the one of the selling points of D20 being easier to move between settings and genres without having to learn a whole new ruleset. At least with switching to Cyberpunk my brain is no longer in D&D mode, switching to D20 Modern from D&D I will be probably end up doing all sorts of things wrong as I assume knowledge of the system which I in fact have wrong, sometimes the complete opposite.

IE: getting up from prone DOES provoke a attack of opportunity, Two Weapon Fighting DOESN'T reduce both penalties by 2 (even though it says it does in the feats section) and it DOES apply to both melee and ranged weapons.

These are all 180 degree turn rounds from D&D, how many more am I missing? When I go back to D&D I'll have to unlearn all the D20 Modern rules, again!

 

[Visceris]

I will never go back to DnD once I get my d20 Modern game going. Hell, if I do a medieval (msp) campaign I will still use the rules in d20 Modern, I would just set the Cultural Technology Level back a few notches.

 

[Mistwell]

Which kind of defeats the one of the selling points of D20 being easier to move between settings and genres without having to learn a whole new ruleset. At least with switching to Cyberpunk my brain is no longer in D&D mode, switching to D20 Modern from D&D I will be probably end up doing all sorts of things wrong as I assume knowledge of the system which I in fact have wrong, sometimes the complete opposite.

IE: getting up from prone DOES provoke a attack of opportunity, Two Weapon Fighting DOESN'T reduce both penalties by 2 (even though it says it does in the feats section) and it DOES apply to both melee and ranged weapons.

These are all 180 degree turn rounds from D&D, how many more am I missing? When I go back to D&D I'll have to unlearn all the D20 Modern rules, again!

Learning d20M is like learning Spanish to an English speaker. Learning Cyberpunk is like learning Chinese to an English speaker. d20M is familiar, in that the flow of the rules, and the template for those rules, are familiar. It doesn't take any mind twisting to really understand how the new rules function, if you know the D&D rules. Cyberpunk, however, has an entirely different approach, requiring a totally different way of thinking about the rules.

Bagpuss, for all your bitching, have you played a single game of d20M yet? Are you really that sure it will be that difficult to learn the differences in the rules?

 

[JDeMobray]

Building the better Smart Hero.

I mean come on, what makes a Strong hero better at combat? His Strength? Great, thats taken care of by the Strength modifier. Does that mean a Smart hero is less effective at combat?

This is actually one of the things I personally love about d20 Modern is that a strong (high STR stat) Smart hero is likely to be better at melee combat than an average Strong Hero at low-levels. Young Indy vs. Graverobbers from Last Crusade all over the place. Nowhere in the book does it say that you must take the basic class that corresponds to your highest attribute.

 

[Hollywood]

The same can be said in D&D and any other class system. That's why in the DMG is has advice on altering the core classes. In any class system you are going to get parts that don't fit everything.

Aye, but its tolerable in D&D because its been that way for eons. Anything else, its not acceptable even in a class system.

This is actually one of the things I personally love about d20 Modern is that a strong (high STR stat) Smart hero is likely to be better at melee combat than an average Strong Hero at low-levels. Young Indy vs. Graverobbers from Last Crusade all over the place. Nowhere in the book does it say that you must take the basic class that corresponds to your highest attribute.

No you are right, it doesn't. However, its obviously been designed that way. If it wasn't, it even makes less sense for both the naming the conventions. After all, if you are playing a Strong hero and put a low stat in Strength, then its like playing a Wizard in D&D with a Int of 9.

Nor do a lot of the class skills make sense.. after all why does a Tough hero get Drive but not a Strong hero? And so forth. The BAB/DB being based as they are makes as little sense too.

However, I do like the Talent trees as far as they go... but they really could have made ONE basic character class that allowed people to choose what abilities they wanted their character to have and use prestige classes as a tool for specialization [as they are now]. In fact, somewhere in the boards someone did just that and it wasn't that hard to do.

 

[Mistwell]

Aye, but its tolerable in D&D because its been that way for eons. Anything else, its not acceptable even in a class system.



No you are right, it doesn't. However, its obviously been designed that way. If it wasn't, it even makes less sense for both the naming the conventions. After all, if you are playing a Strong hero and put a low stat in Strength, then its like playing a Wizard in D&D with a Int of 9.

Nor do a lot of the class skills make sense.. after all why does a Tough hero get Drive but not a Strong hero? And so forth. The BAB/DB being based as they are makes as little sense too.

However, I do like the Talent trees as far as they go... but they really could have made ONE basic character class that allowed people to choose what abilities they wanted their character to have and use prestige classes as a tool for specialization [as they are now]. In fact, somewhere in the boards someone did just that and it wasn't that hard to do.

Nothing is stopping you from making d20M a one class game. It wouldn't be that hard to do.

 

[Synicism]

Originally posted by Mistwell Let me take the second group first. the "not many rules have changed". If you think not that many rules have changed, I strongly suspect you skimmed the book, rather than reading all the words. Most rules have the same, or similar, titles to those in the Player's Handbook for D&D. But the text of those rules have, for the most part, changed. All the FAQ's, the errata, much of the sage advice, new playtesting, and alterations to make the rule more "modern", went in to the d20M rules. They are all streamlined, and many have major (though subtle) mechanics changes in them. You really have to read d20M closely to figure out what has changed.

In other words, d20 Modern is a huge book that essentially reprints all the rules changes we've been downloading, implementing, and reading about for years, plus a couple neat innovations from CoC, SW, and a couple other things.

I don't need to pay as much as WotC charges for the book just to have my list of updates and errata organized for me.