Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2070373" data-attributes="member: 26473">After my initial disappointment with what was revealed through the art gallery, I resolved to reserve judgment on d20 Past until I see the final product. Then I read the TOC.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Some observations…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.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.Let me share with you two glaring omissions that resulted from this way of thinking: no nautical AdC and no animal-riding AdC. For most of the 500 years this supplement claims to cover, boats and animals were the primary form of transportation for the vast bulk of humanity. A nautical AdC would work with a pirates of the Caribbean campaign in 1624, a “wooden ships and iron men” Napoleonic campaign in 1809, and a pulp heroes campaign on the rivers of China in 1925 – an animal-riding AdC shares similar cross-period and cross-culture benefits, covering everything from a high plains cavalryman to a camel-riding Bedouin in the Sahara to an Indian sepoy on an elephant. Each of these AdCs adheres to the main thrust of classes in d20 Modern: advanced classes take certain concepts and make specialized mechanical groupings out of them. 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.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.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?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.The same is true of adventures: according to the TOC, Past has seven adventures in its 96 pages – that’s the same number as Urban Arcana, which offers nearly three times the total page count. Again, this is something that should’ve been offered as supplemental material, especially when you consider that d20 Future contains no adventures, emphasizing its utility as a tool box for gamers – apparently a different path was taken for d20 Past.I will look at d20 Past when it comes out, but I won’t be calling my FLGS asking if it’s arrived yet – like 90% of what’s published by WotC I will check it out when I drift into the store and decide if I want to spend the money or not, instead of going out of my way to be among the first to add it to my gaming library before ever opening the cover as I have other books.</blockquote>

Verification