How much more powerful are Spycraft's base classes than D20 Modern's?

[teitan]

Comparing DnD classes to D20 Modern is like comparing apples to oranges, they are both fruits but different types of fruits. IOW, both are D20 but different flavours of D20. I wouldn't want to mix the two for comparison. Sure I can say I like Oranges but I don't like apples because of the flavours. I could also like both, but they are not the same thing just because they are fruit.

Spycraft is just good, but I prefer D20 Modern because it is more of a toolkit I can use to create any game I want whereas Spycraft is pretty much a spy game where if I wanted to run a different sort of game would require huge tweaking on my part, but D20M is as close to classless as you are going to get...

The classes are different in that SPycraft is GEARED towards its setting, allowing for more iconic characters at first level ala DnD. The classes are archetypes. D20 Modern is geared towards multiple styles of settings from techno thriller to modern fantasy to dark fantasy horror ala Buffy, but with a more "real" bent whereas SPycraft is more of a James Bond game.

Jason

 

[jaults]

I actually have a temp paper kicking around on my laptop for this, I'll see if I can hunt it up this weekend.

I'd love to see that, too. I am in the early planning stages for a d20 Modern/Dark*Matter game, and am mulling over the options for the Spycraft mechanics (which make me very happy).

What are people's opinions on the various gun rules that come with either d20 Modern or Spycraft?

Thanks,
Jason

 

[The_Universe]

As would I, of course. Post it to this thread, or just e-mail it out. Whatever works.

 

[King of Old School]

What are people's opinions on the various gun rules that come with either d20 Modern or Spycraft?

They have different objectives. PCs in Spycraft are assumed to be combat-trained by default and thus can do a lot of things that D20M characters have to select feats to even try (burst fire, suppressive fire, etc.) because D20M is more generic and includes untrained characters as the default. Depends what you want to do, I'd prefer Spycraft for a game where everyone is assumed to be handy with a gun and it plays well, but it's inappropriate for many other campaign models.

KoOS

 

[AscentStudios]

It's always a little disappointing to me to see that people say that Spycraft is 'just for espionage.' I think the game can do a number of high-adventure or cinematic gaming quite well, even if it doesn't involve spies - frex, many of the Shadowforce Archer classes, such as the Martial Artist, Sleuth and Explorer are quite un-spylike. Stargate SG-1 is just the tip of the iceberg on what you can do with alternate campaign types using the system, and I think Dark Inheritance's move to Spycraft will further exhibit the flexibility as a base modern system. Though the BP/GP model (used for buying gear and weapons) does textually indicate support from an organization, you can just as easily say this is the character's personal store of arms and equipment without breaking a sweat. Try it, I think you'll like it

 

[Von Ether]

a similar analysis could be done between a Wizard 10 and a Smart 3 / Mage 7 or whatever.

No need. I took at peek at the Arcana Prestige classes, and saw that AdC10/PrC 5 mix caps you out at 5th level spells. All the prestige class does is increase your total number of spells and allow you to count all of your levels for spellcasting purposes.

So a Wizard 15 has 30 spells that range from 0-8 (4 slots each until 6th level), and a Wizard 20 has 40 spells from 0-9 (4 slots each across the board.) Meanwhile the Sorcerer can cast 54 spells ranging from 0 to 9th (6 slots across the board.)

And so a Smart 3/ Mage 10/Archmage 5 has 40 spells that range from 0-5 (8-0s, 8-1st, 8-2nd, 6-3rd, 6-4th, and 4-5th) and ... that's it -- go pick three levels in something else to catch up.

If you include the fact that one can trade out higher slots to fuel lower level spells, then I'd have to say that the d20 Modern mage is a trade off at best for a wizard, never mind the Sorcerer.

 

[Psion]

D&D, d20 Modern and Spycraft are not to be mixed together. They use the same game engine, but they are not the same game; they are wholly separate games, so treat them as such.

Oh no! Panic! Panic!

I'll have to tell my players that we have to stop the Second World game (which blends D&D and d20 modern) that we play every weekend, because it's just wrong wrong wrong! I'll have to tell the smart hero and the robot that their characters have just GOT TO GO!

To be fair, the
Second World Sourcebook does go to some pains to make the systems work with each other, and does a good job of it. But considering my players strongly preferred this to a standard D&D game, I think there are some advantages to thinking outside the box.

 

[King of Old School]

It's always a little disappointing to me to see that people say that Spycraft is 'just for espionage.' I think the game can do a number of high-adventure or cinematic gaming quite well, even if it doesn't involve spies - frex, many of the Shadowforce Archer classes, such as the Martial Artist, Sleuth and Explorer are quite un-spylike. Stargate SG-1 is just the tip of the iceberg on what you can do with alternate campaign types using the system, and I think Dark Inheritance's move to Spycraft will further exhibit the flexibility as a base modern system. Though the BP/GP model (used for buying gear and weapons) does textually indicate support from an organization, you can just as easily say this is the character's personal store of arms and equipment without breaking a sweat. Try it, I think you'll like it

I don't want to turn this thread into a screed of why I dislike SFA but suffice it to say, I'd view Spycraft more favourably if some of the non-espionage elements (which do look fantastic IMO) weren't bundled in umpteen supplements for a setting I really don't want. I think the Spycraft core is nifty but it does assume that all PCs are agent types versed in small-unit tactics and weapons -- I don't think too many CoC-type scholarly investigators know as a default how to lay down effective cover or suppressive fire with an assault rifle, frex. That's cool for a bunch of genres beyond espionage, but not everything. I do think Spycraft is a useful tool in my kit though, and I heartily agree that DI will hopefully expand the applicability of the game.

KoOS

 

[AscentStudios]

I don't want to turn this thread into a screed of why I dislike SFA but suffice it to say, I'd view Spycraft more favourably if some of the non-espionage elements (which do look fantastic IMO) weren't bundled in umpteen supplements for a setting I really don't want.

That's fair. There were a lot of people out there who must've not liked SFA - with the death of that line, you don't have to worry about those books getting all the aforementioned goodies

I think the Spycraft core is nifty but it does assume that all PCs are agent types versed in small-unit tactics and weapons -- I don't think too many CoC-type scholarly investigators know as a default how to lay down effective cover or suppressive fire with an assault rifle, frex.

True...the core book really was a spy game, and it's fair to judge the game on that basis. But over the last 2 years, there have been a lot of evolution of the rules - from new base classes to prestige classes to feats and rulesets and skill usages - that move the game beyond the core books scope. Now, CoC investigators with the Scientist class wouldn't be able to lay down fire with an SMG, though ones from the Sleuth class might. 15+ core classes and over 100 prestige classes gives you a lot of options...

That's cool for a bunch of genres beyond espionage, but not everything. I do think Spycraft is a useful tool in my kit though, and I heartily agree that DI will hopefully expand the applicability of the game.

KoOS

Agreed. We all have high hopes for Dark Inheritance (released this summer!) to part the curtains a little more for these new genres to start to shine. From what I've seen, folks shouldn't be disappointed

 

[jaults]

They have different objectives. PCs in Spycraft are assumed to be combat-trained by default and thus can do a lot of things that D20M characters have to select feats to even try (burst fire, suppressive fire, etc.) because D20M is more generic and includes untrained characters as the default. Depends what you want to do, I'd prefer Spycraft for a game where everyone is assumed to be handy with a gun and it plays well, but it's inappropriate for many other campaign models.

KoOS

Riiight... I guess I hadn't thought about it that way. Makes good sense.

Thanks,
Jason