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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nsruf" data-source="post: 1059478" data-attributes="member: 872">Of the three examples you give, only changing the "dying save" seems pointless to me (and I prefer the Fort save - fixed percentile chances which do not depend on character ability are sort of a "dark legacy" of earlier editions, IMO).As for the threshold, it is supposed to make combat - especially with firearms - more deadly. CoC does the same with a massive damage save for 10+ hp with a single blow. While d20 Modern is still a cinematic game that allows some over-the-top action, its heroes are definitely less powerful than for standard D&D, and this is reflected in the threshold. I admit that it would be more consequential to include an optional "lethality level" rule in the SRD that allows you to choose the massive damage threshold as appropriate for your genre/campaign.So yes, the changes could be presented in a more unified manner, but they don't seem unnecessary to me as such.And for skills and feats, I don't mind if a stand-alone game like d20 Modern has a different take on some to emphasize different aspects of each genre (e.g. use Double Tap or Burst Fire to replace Rapid Shot because firearms work different than bows). While a single unified system could in theory cover all this with consistent mechanics, I don't think we can really expect the designers to come up with such an approach.Ok, maybe 4th edition D&D can do that for d20, provided it is designed with more than just a classical fantasy background in mind.I share your concerns regarding new players (heck, I've felt the same getting to grips with 3.5 - although I tend to enjoy dealing with the "finer points" of rules), but I wonder whether it is possible to integrate all the games without losing too much flavor. Or whether anybody, WotC or another publisher, is up to the task.Hardly. I prefer having a single rulebook for reference. I started my first Umbragia campaign with a lot of houserules, mostly because I felt uncomfortable with some of the D&D/d20 mechanics after playing GURPS for so long, and gradually removed them. This was mainly due to the realization that it just wasn't worth it. And this is even more true for the different incarnations of d20, i.e. I'd rather "relearn" some minor rules than bring a list of houserules and my PHB to a d20 Modern game.Now I have to wonder whether we, that is Jagged Edge Games, are innocent of such behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I think that the variant magic system we are developing for Umbragia is a welcome change from "Vancian" magic (I put it in quotation marks, since I never read a book by Vance) of standard D&D. But is it strictly necessary? Some people, especially new players trying to master at least one set of the rules, might disagree.Finally, I believe that variations are a good thing in case the "standard rule" is not good enough. They can eventually make it into a revision of the game and become "official" for all genres. Again, I think that a 4th edition can benefit from that, if they design it as d20 first and D&D second.</blockquote>

Verification