Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 1536770" data-attributes="member: 14159">Things I don't want to see in d20M 2.0 (er 3.5), uh Revised, uh whatever. . .1. More detail for guns.  Sorry, I'm bored to tears by all the gun experts who love to debate the petty details of firearms and want ultra-realistic rules for guns with exacting stats for every weapon ever made.  d20 is somewhat abstract.  In D&D a wakizashi and a gladius are both a "short sword", a zwiehander and a claymore are both "Two-Handed Swords", and Katana are just Masterwork Bastard Swords.  Weapon entries in d20 are supposed to be somewhat abstracted.  I would personally rather see weapon entries like "9mm Auto Pistol" or ".38 Special Revolver" than a specific entry for everything ever stamped out  (I know I'm probably outnumbered in this opinion though)2. Re-inventing the wheel.  I'm happy with the base-classes as-is, and the general system of Base, Advanced and Prestige class.  I like the modularity of Talents, I like the encouragement of multiclassing.  I love Occupations.3. Yet more D&Disms.  I don't like my d20 Modern being "D&D in the modern day".  I don't want the basic model of the game to be presumed "It's the real world, only with magic, and orcs, and monsters, but nobody notices all the magic stuff", like with Shadow Chasers and UA.  Things I want to see in d20M21. More modern monsters.  Sasquatch, Grey Aliens, and other creatures of modern mythology and urban legend were relegated to the Menace Manual, while Illithid and Displacer Beasts (both signature D&D creatures, even to the point of being PI) were in the d20M core book.  Ditch the D&D PI creatures are inherenly tied to D&D, and add monsters everybody will know on sight.2. Balancing the FX classes.  They gave us 6 FX classes in the core, technically designed for three different settings (but from most of what I've seen, if people use one, they use most all of them).  The problem is, that they made the classes imbalanced with each other.   Occultist especially.  Revise occultist.3. More feats, like some from UA (Jack of All Trades).  4. The equipment chapter from UA.  That should have been in the core rules anyway.5. The non-FX AdC's from UA (Archaic Weaponmaster, Thrasher), Non-FX versions of the AdC's that didn't need FX (Arcane Arranger, Shadowjack, Shadow Hunter), like the versions in the MPC.6. More implied flexibility.  d20M seems as-written to support modern high-fantasy gaming, but the rules are so flexible they can be used for almost anything.  7.  Prestige Classes in the core rules.  I've met a lot of people who think d20M doesnt' have PrC's, or isn't supposed to, because they aren't in the core book, they are in UA.I'll agree that I'd like most of the D&D aspects moved to a UA style book.  Yes, people play Modern without playing D&D, but who plays a game with hunting Orcs & Illithid through an office building with +1 Pistols and hasn't played D&D?  Make the d20M book more versatile, and more non-FX, and have a separate book made for FX-heavy games (like UACS).  I wish they would also make single-book sourcebooks for other settings, like a d20M Dark Matter books (well, the MM was almost that already, since it had most of the creatures and a lot of the organizations).In general I'm happy with d20M and don't see an overwhelming need for a new version (unlike OCR Star Wars, which desperately needed the revision).  A reorganization and expansion could be very nice, but I hope to not be forced to the wall with a "3.5" situation for d20M for quite some time.Honestly, I once met somebody at my FLGS who thought that Urban Arcana was d20M 2nd Edition, because it looked like it had a lot of the same stuff (Equipment, Advanced Classes, Spells, ect), Urban Arcana was already in the d20M core rules, and the books looked similar.  He was ranting about how WotC produced a 2nd version of d20 Modern less than a year after the original version, and he seemed somewhat confused when I corrected him.</blockquote>

Verification