d20 Past contents posted...

[The_Universe]

Does anybody here know the actual street date of this thing? April 15? Something like that?

 

[The Shaman]

Does anybody here know the actual street date of this thing? April 15? Something like that?

Mid-March I believe - I think I saw March 18 on the WotC site.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Loads of adventures! Cool. Nothing sets the mood as adventures. And you can still pick the raisins (maps and stats) out of them if you don't fancy the bread (setup). I like it.

 

[takyris]

Hey Shaman,

Lots of interesting thoughts. Good analysis, and thanks for posting it.

There are no additional talents, which is consistent with both Urban Arcana and d20 Future, so while not a surprise it is a disappointment – given the paucity of advanced classes (more on that in a moment), it seems that paying more attention to the base classes to aid gamers in developing the mechanics for a character concept would be a big plus. Sadly, this road is once again not traveled. D20 Modern is not D&D – the classes work differently, and it would be a real benefit if the designers spent more time reflecting on how those differences impact the game. Talents are huge in d20 Modern, potentially more significant than bonus feats both mechanically and from a role-playing perspective – adding more skills and feats but no additional talents makes base class levels inferior to advanced class levels by offering fewer options and luring players into the narrower confines of the AdCs.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. I think I'd be better able to form an opinion if I knew what kind of talents you'd like to see. The Charismatic Hero's talents, as far as I can tell, work equally well in just about any setting. The Smart Hero initially bugged me in d20 Modern because I wanted to see a Hacking talent tree, but by keeping the Smart Hero's talents time-period indistinct, they've made the talents equally useful in any time period. Same with Tough and Dedicated and, well, all of 'em, near as I can tell. The Talents seem specifically designed to be completely generic -- in a good way.

Right now, if I pick up a book with a new time period, I'll have to ask my GM whether feats relating to sailing or spaceship operations or knot tying or cybernetics are allowable, but I'll never have to ask about talents (at least from the core books -- I know that there are additional Talent Trees out on the market). While it's possible to disagree with any design choice (and I'm assuming that we're in agreement that their refusal to make new Talent Trees implies that they think that the existing trees are usable in any time period), I'm not sure why you believe that "make new feats, not new skills or talent trees" makes Basic Classes weaker. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just don't know why you believe that, and I'd like to hear your reasoning.

The number of AdCs/PrCs suggested by the art gallery is correct, according to the TOC: seven AdCs and three PrCs, with at least four (possibly five) of the AdCs FX-driven. There’s no expansion of the talent trees for base classes leaving gamers who eschew FX a total of two guaranteed AdCs to cover a period of five centuries. I’m beside myself over this one. Advanced classes in d20 Modern are supposed to differ from base classes by being more specialized – according to the designers, there is so little that separates 1492 from 1620 from 1815 from 1912 that there is little need for any specialized classes, that the Modern AdCs cover that period as well as they do the early 21st century. Some might say that it’s not possible to design AdCs that effectively cover this timeframe – I disagree.

Not sure where to go on this one. On one hand, I don't agree with you, but in all honesty, that's probably because I modify AdC's for my campaigns, and I'm effectively making new ones myself, so it's hypocritical disagreement at best. I would take away the Personal Firearms Proficiency from the Solider AdC, pop in Archaic Weapons Proficiency, change a couple of the bonus feats, and say "Ta-dah! Your Master Swordsman is complete!"

Honestly, my request for WotC is far more specialized, so specialized that I'm really fine with doing it myself. I like non-FX or light-FX campaigns, and I like to have special abilities that are essentially expanded uses of skills. Getting "Charm Animal" from a druid-like advanced class wouldn't impress me, but getting an ability that let me use my Handle Animals skill as Diplomacy to modify the mood of wild animals is a nice light-FX ability that I'd love to have in a campaign. (I believe this exists, possibly in Urban Arcana? No books with me right now.) Rather than getting the ability to turn invisible, I'd like the ability to hide in plain sight in a specific type of terrain (woodland, desert, etc) for a ranger-like scouting AdC. That expands the use of my skills, rather than tacking on an entire new ability -- and since I believe that skills are the core power of d20 Modern (with most talents and feats giving bonuses to their use), that makes me happy.

Sorry, thread-drift over.

Let me share with you two glaring omissions that resulted from this way of thinking: no nautical AdC and no animal-riding AdC.

No issues with your historical veracity. I guess my question is what your "swashbuckling privateer" AdC would get that makes it different from, for example, a Fast/Tough/Daredevil? Fast gives you Tumble and Pilot, Tough gives you Climb (and Concentration for Daredevil), and Daredevil gives you the swashbucklery you need to leap from one ship to another.

If you can make a Captain (Smart with Savant:Navigate and Plan to help organize attacks on other ships), a ship-builder and repairman (Strong with Repair and Craft(Structural)), a surefooted man in the crow's nest (Tough with Climb and Spot), a world-class helmsman and catapult-manner (Fast with Pilot and Craft(Mechanical), a grizzled ship's doctor who can sense trouble in the air (Dedicated with Treat Injury and Intuition from the Empathy tree), or a bellowing sergeant who gets the lads to their tasks through thick or thin (Charismatic with the Coordinate Talent)... what's missing? I'm not saying that there's no room for an Advanced Class -- heck, there's always room for something in a specific campaign, and if they'd had more than 96 pages, I'd certainly not mind seeing a Sailor advanced class, if only to give me an idea of what a good profession-specific class might look like -- but I think that you can do it without those classes and still have a good time. I didn't even go into Occupations with those examples above, and I didn't multiclass, which I'd almost certainly do.

Could one make a pirate or a frigate captain without an AdC? Yes, but that’s true already of the existing base classes as well, so that’s not a good argument, IMHO, against looking for AdCs applicable to the broad spectrum of time that d20 Past is supposed to cover.

Or possibly you've already answered my point.

Since I wasn't behind any closed doors, my guess would be that the conversation probably went something like "Well, we looked at a bunch of groups, looked at a lot of gamers and their interests, and we realized that the average gamer is just fine with having lots of non-combat skills, but is unlikely to take an entire Advanced Class that doesn't help him in combat or at least in confrontations. To that end, we're making most of our AdC options combat-useful. Can you come up with a Sailor-type AdC that is good enough that somebody would take it instead of taking any three of Strong, Tough, Fast, and Soldier to get someone with all the same skills and more combat power? No? Well, we're gonna go with the musketeer, then."

I'm not saying that campaigns don't exist where an AdC involving bonuses on Repair or Craft checks, bonuses to Balance checks to stay upright in stormy weather, and (at high level) the ability to predict the weather or steer a ship through treacherous reefs while blinded by lightning would be cool and useful. I just suspect that, as Vigilance said about their non-FX classes, WotC considers that a niche market. Right now, they figure that anyone in an ordinary campaign who wants those abilities will take a good occupation and then put ranks in Repair, Craft, Balance, Pilot, and Navigate, along with something like Faith or Intuition for those "Got a feelin' deep in me bones about the water off to starboard..." situations.

Instead, of the sprinkling of AdCs the supplement offers, we get one (Explorer) that may be applicable across the board and one (Gangster) that I’m betting will be a big stretch to make applicable to say colonial America or the Old West or Victorian imperialism, comparable to the stretch of making an AdC like Techie or Gunslinger fit the Renaissance without significant modification. The PrCs will be even less likely to fit anything other than the period campaign module.

No clue, but I share your wish that the AdCs they make ARE ones that can apply across a wide range. Or at least, ones that can be modified to fit my campaign.

Consider also d20 Future, which offers something like seventeen or eighteen new AdCs (and PrCs? I don’t remember, and I don’t have the book handy) – if the same logic of using existing AdCs to represent Past characters holds true, then why so many AdCs for d20 Future?

Excellent point, too. Did anybody see a poll at Wizards asking about AdC use? Maybe after d20 Future they did some market research and saw that most of their AdCs weren't being used. Or maybe they figured that they'd be able to sneak more AdCs in through web enhancements. Or maybe they ran out of space and got frustrated with their bosses, who were forcing them to stick to 96 pages, and stayed up late trying to figure out what they could cut in order to get down to the right size and ended up grudgingly settling for some of the AdCs. Could be any or all of the above. But you are right, regardless, that it's a bummer that more weren't included.

Finally, the fact that there at least four (possibly five, depending on the Scientist’s class abilities) FX AdCs out of a total of ten astounds me. That’s almost the same number as appears in the nearly 400-page core rule book. Apparently the design decision was made that the existing non-FX AdCs were sufficient to cover five centuries of history but that gamers needed four or five new magic and psionic character classes as well. D20 Future did a decent job of stepping away from the D&D mindset – d20 Past dives in over its head and wallows around in it. These classes should’ve been a web expansion, not part of the supplement, if they were truly needed at all.

Well, while I share your pain, I do have to admit that FX AdCs are easier to make shiny and spiffy. That's the state of the industry -- at least as far as WotC's research is concerned. It ain't my game, but my game ain't common -- and most of us on ENWorld can probably say the same.

 

[JPL]

Adaptabilty of advanced classes...interesting topic.

I would guess that Gangster, if similar to the advanced class in Polyhedron's Pulp Heroes d20 Modern remix, would work for organized crime types of any era, with minimal adjustment. Professor Moriarty's operatives, or early Mafioso, or even earlier proto-mobsters.

Without knowing much about the FX-using classes...why can't these be used in different periods? I mean, aren't many modern-day FX users going to be practicioners of lost arts? What's wrong with a shaman on a spaceship, for that matter?

 

[The Shaman]

While it's possible to disagree with any design choice (and I'm assuming that we're in agreement that their refusal to make new Talent Trees implies that they think that the existing trees are usable in any time period), I'm not sure why you believe that "make new feats, not new skills or talent trees" makes Basic Classes weaker. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just don't know why you believe that, and I'd like to hear your reasoning.

My comment regarding talents wasn't specific to d20 Past, but rather the Modern class system generally. I agree that for the most part the existing talent trees are "genre generic," which is a tribute to good design on the part of the original authors. However, expanding the talent base offers more options for players who want more mechanical options allowing them to stay with the base classes rather than enter the more narrowly construed and constructed advanced classes. Talents are one of the great strengths of the Modern SRD compared to 3.x, and in this case playing to the system strengths would be A Good Thing, IMHO.

To some extent this has been covered by 3rd-party supplements such as 22 Talent Trees and Another 22 Talent Trees or in books based on the Modern SRD like Grim Tales and OGL Wild West but I'd like to see this line of thinking applied to the 800-lb. gorilla of gaming market-share's products as well.

Not sure where to go on this one. On one hand, I don't agree with you, but in all honesty, that's probably because I modify AdC's for my campaigns, and I'm effectively making new ones myself, so it's hypocritical disagreement at best. I would take away the Personal Firearms Proficiency from the Solider AdC, pop in Archaic Weapons Proficiency, change a couple of the bonus feats, and say "Ta-dah! Your Master Swordsman is complete!"

I agree and that's exactly what I'm doing for my own d20 Past homebrew historical campaign - it would be nice if that same huge hairy primate would carry more of the water for me, at least if they want me to buy their products, that is.

A tool box book is one which, IMHO, makes a GM's job easier.

Honestly, my request for WotC is far more specialized, so specialized that I'm really fine with doing it myself. I like non-FX or light-FX campaigns, and I like to have special abilities that are essentially expanded uses of skills....

Agreed on all counts - that's how I approach my homebrew AdCs as well, since I too value a no-FX or light-FX game (and if I want heavy FX, then I'll use Mutants and Masterminds instead anyway).

No issues with your historical veracity. I guess my question is what your "swashbuckling privateer" AdC would get that makes it different from, for example, a Fast/Tough/Daredevil?...If you can make a Captain (Smart with Savant:Navigate and Plan to help organize attacks on other ships), a ship-builder and repairman (Strong with Repair and Craft(Structural)), a surefooted man in the crow's nest (Tough with Climb and Spot), a world-class helmsman and catapult-manner (Fast with Pilot and Craft(Mechanical), a grizzled ship's doctor who can sense trouble in the air (Dedicated with Treat Injury and Intuition from the Empathy tree), or a bellowing sergeant who gets the lads to their tasks through thick or thin (Charismatic with the Coordinate Talent)... what's missing?...Or possibly you've already answered my point.

I think there are very few concepts a player can't create using just the base classes withou AdCs or PrCs - of course, then you can buy Grim Tales instead of d20 Modern.

I like the approach taken by Dog House Rules in Sidewinder: Recoiled with respect to AdCs - I think they "get it" when it comes to making AdCs that are good representations of related skill groups while avoiding stepping on the strengths of the base classes.

Since I wasn't behind any closed doors, my guess would be that the conversation probably went something like "Well, we looked at a bunch of groups, looked at a lot of gamers and their interests, and we realized that the average gamer is just fine with having lots of non-combat skills, but is unlikely to take an entire Advanced Class that doesn't help him in combat or at least in confrontations. To that end, we're making most of our AdC options combat-useful. Can you come up with a Sailor-type AdC that is good enough that somebody would take it instead of taking any three of Strong, Tough, Fast, and Soldier to get someone with all the same skills and more combat power? No? Well, we're gonna go with the musketeer, then."

Wow, you have a lot more faith in the WotC designers than I do - I think it was more like, "What's going to sell the most books? Pirates, horror, and pulp!"

If I want to sell a product, I can appeal to the lowest common denominator and give people what they want - that's pretty much a guaranteed business model, no questions asked. There is another approach however that says "I'm going to tap an untapped need," or "I'm going to make people want something they didn't know they wanted until my marketing machine began ticking over." That's entrepreneurship.

I don't expect that model of thinking from WotC, a relatively small product line in a very large company (while simultaneously being the largest company in the RPG business, an interesting dichotomy), but wouldn't it be nice if that 800-lb. gorilla was nimble and capable of feats of finesse rather than just throwing its weight around?

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

... I do have to admit that FX AdCs are easier to make shiny and spiffy. That's the state of the industry -- at least as far as WotC's research is concerned. It ain't my game, but my game ain't common -- and most of us on ENWorld can probably say the same.

Indeed.

 

[JPL]

Wow, you have a lot more faith in the WotC designers than I do - I think it was more like, "What's going to sell the most books? Pirates, horror, and pulp!"

If I want to sell a product, I can appeal to the lowest common denominator and give people what they want - that's pretty much a guaranteed business model, no questions asked. There is another approach however that says "I'm going to tap an untapped need," or "I'm going to make people want something they didn't know they wanted until my marketing machine began ticking over." That's entrepreneurship.

So WotC --- lacking a pulp game, a pirate game, a Victorian game, or an Old West game --- should've skipped all of these popular RPG millieus, and gone straight to...what...Napoleonic warfare? The Thirty Years War? The Jacobite Rebellion?

All of those could be great settings, yes, and I hope someone with the OGL and a vision does something with each. But WotC's business model is to provide the gamer with core resources --- an ever-expanding core, to be certain --- and let someone else tap the untapped needs. Monster trucks are nice, but most of us find a Ford F150 meets our needs a bit better.

And to some extent, even the campaigns presented in d20 Past are uncommon as RPG settings, at least compared to White Wolf-style modern dark fantasy or D&D-style fantasy. There's one popular d20 pirate game, one popular d20 Western game...and I'm not sure if any d20 pulp game has ever really caught on. These are already pretty small niches we're talking about.

What I think d20 Past will do, once added to the SRD, is give those independent visionaries some common ground to start with [although they are free to ignore it, of course].

This makes a lot more sense than ignoring popular genres and saying, "No! Australian Aboriginal RPGs are where it's at, kids! You THOUGHT you wanted to play 'Pirates of the Caribbean,' or 'Sky Captain,' or 'Tombstone' but only because you haven't seen Crimean War d20!"

Also...if this sells well enough to indicate a big market for historical d20 Modern supplements, we will surely see "d20 Past II: d20 Paster" at some point, featuring numbers 4, 5, and 6 on the historical RPG popularity list.

 

[Sketchpad]

Personally, I feel some of the adv. classes really dropped the ball. I was looking foward to a bit more adventurous classes like a pirate, privateer or even something like a Victorian investigator. I agree with Shaman's comments in comparison with d20 Future ... sure d20 Past is a bit shorter, but, with WotC's apparent skimming of history, you'd think there'd be a few more adv. classes in it. I think I'd rather see B&W 96 pg books on eras rather than a Past book. Give me a book akin to Hero Games' Pulp Hero that's coming this summer ... I'm sure it'll be over 200 pages of Pulpy goodness and will be supported by many other books. When thinking about it ... I really miss TSR. At least they'd support prroducts ...

 

[Ranger REG]

I really miss TSR. At least they'd support prroducts ...

With what? Money? As Arnold of Happy Days would say...

BAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[The Shaman]

So WotC --- lacking a pulp game, a pirate game, a Victorian game, or an Old West game --- ...

Stop there for just a moment - why does WotC need a pulp game, a pirate game, a Victorian game, or an Old West game? Why does WotC have to dip its pinky toe into all of these genres at all?

...should've skipped all of these popular RPG millieus, and gone straight to...what...Napoleonic warfare? The Thirty Years War? The Jacobite Rebellion?

Not all of them, but maybe pick two and then try something original with the third? Look for the niche that hasn't been filled and wade around a bit? Flex those creative muscles instead of offering a smidgen of material done more thoroughly by other companies?

One of the luxuries of being the 800-lb. gorilla of market-share is having the resources - staff, material, marketing - to innovate a bit. So offer the pirate game and the pulp game and then try a campaign setting based on the opening of Japan. (Tell me the Japan-o-fan-bois wouldn't be drooling all overthemselves at the thought of matching up a samurai against a Maxim gun a la The Last Samurai...)

But WotC's business model is to provide the gamer with core resources --- an ever-expanding core, to be certain --- and let someone else tap the untapped needs.

Personally I think that would argue quite strongly against including seven adventures (!?!) in what should be a "core resource" book. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no adventures in the much longer (and arguably much better) d20 Future.

What I think d20 Past will do, once added to the SRD, is give those independent visionaries some common ground to start with [although they are free to ignore it, of course].

This will be its seminal contribution - but that also makes me far less likely to drop the drachmas for d20 Past and instead wait for the MSRD update and homebrew my own stuff or look for a developer who will do it for me. That's not much of a business model, IMHO.