Martial Arts in d20

[IrishGuy20]

just as inspiring as someone who cant read what the post is in reply to.

i said in 2 different polls, that it was not in reply to the poll as a whole, but to The_Gneech's first post.

so instead of insulting someone, try reading what they say instead of making the mistake that you are trying to harp them for.

 

[takyris]

Hey, Irish,

So let me get this straight. You're in a d20 Modern Forum, you see a topic about Martial Arts in d20 Modern. You don't play d20 Modern, have no intention of playing d20 Modern, and aren't interested in d20 Modern. Nevertheless, you feel compelled to respond -- by talking about how to make a martial artist from a different roleplaying game (D&D) more powerful?

We're not harping on you for your opinion. We're harping on you because you're introducing a radical red herring into the mix, and you seem to be under the mistaken impression that this has anything to do with d20 Modern. It's like walking into the middle of a conversation comparing different kinds of cheeses -- Brie versus Gruyere, French versus Swiss -- and loudly announcing how much you like Pop Tarts.

The OA Monk is a fine class for OA D&D, and heck, if you can get your DM to let him into ordinary D&D, more power to you. But putting him into a d20 Modern campaign would be like replacing the Smart Hero with a D&D Rogue. Yeah, sure, we'd all LOVE to get better saves, evasion, and sneak attacks in a d20 Modern game while keeping the same number of skills and getting better attack progression. That doesn't make it a good idea for the game.

-Tacky

 

[jerichothebard]

But do you think people could break a gun in someone else's hand?

People? No. Heroes? Yeah. Definitely.

 

[Tellerve]

Hmmm heroes...I still don't quite agree.

It could be that they don't have Eagle Claw Strike and have moved Improved Sunder into normal Sunder. So in a campaign where you allow people to use their fist to slash through solid steel then it is really easy. I just think a bit too easy. Is there any errata on Sunder or on anything about whether or not it works with unarmed strikes?

Tellerve

 

[The_Gneech]

Well, in Big Trouble In Little China, Thunder smashed Jack Burton's gun with a powerful punch, but he had disarmed Jack first. That probably wasn't Sunder, so much as Melee Smash...

-The Gneech

 

[Pagan priest]

So in a campaign where you allow people to use their fist to slash through solid steel then it is really easy

Tellerve

But attempts to sunder a gun are NOT trying to slash through solid steel. A small deformation in a single piece can render a firearm inoperative until repaired. Even so, I don't think that just anyone could do it. Definately the stuff heroes are made of.

As far as performing a counter disarm against a bat while armed with a pistol... I could actually see it happening. Consider this: a Colt .45 model 1911 is about 8 inches long and has a raised iron sight at the end. It has a fair bit of heft to it. If I saw someone raise a bat and break their concentration on me (i.e. the reason for allowing an attack of opportunity) I could easily jam the barrel into their fingers, possibly breaking one or more in the process, certainly allowing the chance that they would drop the bat as a result.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd have to say that without actually seeing it perform in game (so my analysis is probably flawed) that sunder seems like it's a little TOO good. While in D&D smashing things is often either quite easy, or pointless (ie - smashing magical weapons is not a good idea, and the average door in D&D is wood, or at best stone, along with being pickable), smashing things in d20 modern is a great tactic (cars, vault doors, weapons, tanks etc).

I'd be seriously tempted to split up sunder into sunder and improved sunder (with improved sunder giving the x2 damage vs objects). Of course I'll see how it plays before I even consider it.

 

[takyris]

Saeviomagy:

In this case, I share your concern. After thinking about it, I came up with a few mitigating factors, however. I do think that Sunder was made a bunch more powerful (likely since no PC in their right mind ever took it in D&D), but I think that there are still some factors that make it less powerful than one might worry.

1) Sunder is less available than it looks. No class in the book gets Sunder as a bonus feat. As someone who's currently building 6 PCs while getting ready to DM a one-shot, I can tell you that those "pick anything" feat slots get filled up quick with goodies. Only someone who's really into the Sundering concept is gonna bother getting this feat instead of, say, Heroic Surge. Or adding in another gun feat. Or taking Elusive Target or Unbalance Opponent as early as possible.

2) Sunder is necessary for most melee weapons to damage equipment. A baseball bat wielded by a person with average strength has only a 1 in 6 chance of doing any damage to a gun. (Bat, as a club, does 1d6 -- gun has hardness 5).

3) For the high-damage melee folks, like the high-level martial artist or the Strong Hero/Soldier who takes the Chainsaw as his specialty weapon, bear in mind that they get VERY LITTLE ELSE.

3a) This speaks to a difference between D&D and d20 for me. In D&D, I always thought that the assumption was that multiclassing was good for flavor purposes, but if you really wanted to be powerful, you went straight up in something. With d20, I think that the designers intended for folks to have at LEAST three classes. A tenth-level Strong Hero with no other classes is a physical powerhouse who can do almost nothing except hit things real well. In a balanced campaign, he's got one or two shining moments a session, when the party gets into a fight and the bad guys are in a melee-able location. With guns as the weapons of choice in a d20 Modern campaign, that's by no means a certainty.

3b) This, I think, is the answer to the dual complaints of "My Fast/Tough/Infiltrator is nowhere near as good at combat as my Rogue was!" and "My Strong/Martial Artist isn't good at anything but combat!" The first complaint overlooks the fact that d20 makes heroes a lot more vulnerable, and consequently makes combat characters a lot tougher to create. The second complaint overlooks the fact that the player building that Strong/MA character obviously did it on purpose, and they should be satisfied with what they created: A narrow-purpose, extremely focused character.

Anyway, that's how I feel after thinking about it a bit, but I'll see how it goes after a few sessions with Tank McGinty, Sundering Guy.

-Tacky

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yeah, like I said, I'll see how it pans out before I even think about changing anything. I also see your point about those 'general purpose' feat slots - one of my players is already almost at the stage where they already have every feat they want from their class list, and are now wishing they'd taken more general purpose feats at first level.

 

[Vigilance]

Hey guys

Chuck here from RPGOBjects.

I just wanted you all to know I have been watching this thread with a great deal of interest for some time now, for a very special reason.

I have been at work on a d20 modern martial arts sourcebook, and your feelings on the issue have been a big help to me.

Now that I can announce it (it's coming out in PDF form next month, in print down the road), I'd like to let you know that it will contain over 40 martial arts styles from the real world, from Aikido to Wing Chun (not quite A-Z but hey), and over 80 maneuver feats, and will be 100% d20 Modern compatible.