Needless Variation

[KDLadage]

(cross posting to the Rules Forum, d20 Modern forum and House Rules forum)

Something that has been bothering me: the d20 system is supposed to be a rules set that can be tailored to various genres in such a way that it can server as a solid foundation, thus keeping you from having to learn a new system all the time, as you play things like d20 Star Wars, d20 Dungeons and Dragons and d20 Modern. (1)

For the most part, the theory holds true. However, in playing the d20 system in various genres, I a noticing some needless variation. By this, I mean that sometimes the rules are changed from one area to another with no good reason. For example:

• Dying Characters: Quick! In the d20 system, how do you stabalize when you are a dying character (i.e.: when you have -1 to -9 hit points)? Well, in Dungeons and Dragons, you lose one point per round with a flat 10% chance to stabalize each round. Now, when you shift to Star Wars, since they use the Wounds/Vitality system, I understand that some changes needed to be made, so it uses a DC 10 Fort Check to do it. But in d20 Modern, you shift to a DC 20 Fort Check. Now, d20 Modern is supposed to be very close to the Dungeons and Dragons system -- so why this change? Is there a reason anyone can think of for the d20 and d20 Modern rules not being unified in this area? Especially with the release of 3.5? The only thing I can think of is because of the Threshold Rules, but still...
• Threshold: In Dungeons and Dragons you have Hit Points; in Star Wars you have Wounds and Vitality; in d20 Modern, they went back to Hit Points but added the Threshold to make things a bit more realistic -- i.e.: any wound could be the one that does you in. Is there any reason anyone can think of for the Thrshold rules not being used in D&D 3.5 (most likely not as a standard rule, but it could have been in the DMG as an optional rule)?
• Skills, and Feats galore!: There appear to be a multitude of skills and feats that operate differently (sometimes subtle differences, sometimes significant differences) from one version of the d20 system to the next. Can anyone explain to me why these variations exist? Again, especially after the release of 3.5, when much opf this could have been made uniform?
• And so on...

I ask this because each of these things makes for a difficult environment. A player learns (let us say...) Dungeons asnd Dragons. He then goes into an Urban Arcana game. Now, the rules are close enough that he feels comfortable to begin play, but different enough that it becomes frustrating trying to explain to the player how the rules are ever-so-slightly (but when combined, are effectively quite significantly) different now.

Just curious.

Also, have any of you modified one d20 rules set with the rules from another one? IE: has anyone used the threshold rules in D&D? Has anyone used the Wound/Vitality system in d20 Modern? And so on...

==========
(1) As well as many others... Call of Cthulu, Wheel of Time, etc and so on.

 

[Drawmack]

We use the sanity rules from d20 CoC in all our games.

 

[KDLadage]

So what sorts of situations has this lead to? It sounds like it could be fun, BTW.

 

[Arc]

We use the sanity rules from d20 CoC in all our games.

We tried that. Our DM thought that Cthulhu would be a great enemy for an epic party. Unfortunately, before we got that far, we had all developed so many psychological problems and fixations (in character), that it was ridiculous. Some things are just not meant to be, I suppose.

[Edit] Hijack: That was my 200th post. Yay.

 

[Gothmog]

Actually, I use a modified version of the threshold rules from D20 Modern, and a HP add at 1st level, based on size and Con. Here's the jist:

Hit Points
At 1st level (or hit die), all characters (not just PCs) get a number of extra hp based on Con, times a size multiplier. Fine & Dim= x0.1, Tiny=0.25, Small=x0.5, Medium=x1, Large=x2, Huge=x4, Gargantuan=x8, Colossal=x16. Undead, constructs, and creatures without Con scores are assumed to have 20 Con for determining structural hp.

So, an average kobold with a 10 Con have 1d8+5=9 hp, a 5th level gnome fighter with a 14 Con would have 5d10+10+7 hp, a Frost Giant with a 21 Con would have 14d8+70+42= around 175 hp, and an old red dragon with a 25 Con would have 28d12+196+200= 578 hp. This does make bigger critters tougher due to sheer body mass, which is something D&D doesn't account for in the core rules.


Damage Threshold
All characters have a MDT equal to Con +(BAB x Size mod from above). If the MDT is exceeded, the character must make a DC 15 Fort save or be reduced to -1 hp and start dying. This way, the MDT scales with level, but larger critters are correspondingly harder to take down with one shot. From the examples above

kobold MDT= 10+(1x.5)=10.5, rounded down to 10.
5th level gnome fighter MDT= 14+(5x.5)= 16.5 rounded down to 16.
Frost Giant MDT= 21+(10x2)= 41
Old red dragon MDT= 25+(28x8)= 249!!!

So far, these rules have worked really well for us, and no characters have died as a result of MDT (although they have been knocked out many times)

 

[Blacksad]

• Dying Characters: Quick! In the d20 system, how do you stabalize when you are a dying character (i.e.: when you have -1 to -9 hit points)? Well, in Dungeons and Dragons, you lose one point per round with a flat 10% chance to stabalize each round. Now, when you shift to Star Wars, since they use the Wounds/Vitality system, I understand that some changes needed to be made, so it uses a DC 10 Fort Check to do it. But in d20 Modern, you shift to a DC 20 Fort Check. Now, d20 Modern is supposed to be very close to the Dungeons and Dragons system -- so why this change? Is there a reason anyone can think of for the d20 and d20 Modern rules not being unified in this area? Especially with the release of 3.5? The only thing I can think of is because of the Threshold Rules, but still...

Because they tried to change the rules to fit the genre and not the other way around?
In Star Wars Hero are crippled but hardly die.
In D&D you are supposed to die unless someone focus on you.
and in Modern, high level character do not die (hero/vilain).

• Threshold: In Dungeons and Dragons you have Hit Points; in Star Wars you have Wounds and Vitality; in d20 Modern, they went back to Hit Points but added the Threshold to make things a bit more realistic -- i.e.: any wound could be the one that does you in. Is there any reason anyone can think of for the Thrshold rules not being used in D&D 3.5 (most likely not as a standard rule, but it could have been in the DMG as an optional rule)?

same answer as above, on why they didn't included it as an option in the DMG is because their is already a critical effect rule inside, and WotC (so far) did not want to confuse DM and players on option (the paladin as a prestige class was not put in Defender of the Faith for this).

• Skills, and Feats galore!: There appear to be a multitude of skills and feats that operate differently (sometimes subtle differences, sometimes significant differences) from one version of the d20 system to the next. Can anyone explain to me why these variations exist? Again, especially after the release of 3.5, when much opf this could have been made uniform?
• And so on...

In SW d20 v1, the difference were here due to the lack of AoO
It seems normal that craft hasn't the same utility in modern or medieval setting.

I ask this because each of these things makes for a difficult environment. A player learns (let us say...) Dungeons asnd Dragons. He then goes into an Urban Arcana game. Now, the rules are close enough that he feels comfortable to begin play, but different enough that it becomes frustrating trying to explain to the player how the rules are ever-so-slightly (but when combined, are effectively quite significantly) different now.

I think that you overestimate this effect: it can be a pain for the GM, or when some player are also GM (rule lawyer in disguise).
But otherwise, going from one system to another isn't a problem at all.

Seriously, going from AD&D 2nd to D&D 3.0 the only puzzling thing for the player were the AoO, the rest of the system has some logic, and when you try to do something special, you open the book where the skill/feat/spell/monster is listed and it's not a problem.

 

[KDLadage]

All comments below should be read to include IMHO, YMMV, etc...

Because they tried to change the rules to fit the genre and not the other way around?

I am beginning to feel like a broken record, but... you can make the rules fit the genre by writing the rule such that it can be "dialed into" the desired degree of realism-and/or-cinema. Now, to take your examples:

In Star Wars Hero are crippled but hardly die.

So we have a DC 10 Fort save to recover. Good.

...in Modern, high level character do not die (hero/vilain).

Why? Star Wars is a setting. d20 Modern is not a setting, it is a genre-RPG kit, and as such should be able to be tailored to the feel that the DM wishes to use. Besides, if this is the case, why is the DC save HARDER here than in Star Wars?

In D&D you are supposed to die unless someone focus on you.

And here we have a flat chance? If you feel that recovery should be easier to come by, lower the DC of the save; if, on the other hand, you feel that recovery should be harder to come by, raise the DC of the save. But having a mechanic that differs completely -- especially in light of the fact that you do have a saving throw mechanic, seems needless.

Now, when you had d20 (SRD v3.0), and no other games, this was an oversight that made sense. Once d20 Modern shifted -- which it was shifted in light of the knowledge gained since SRD v3.0 was released -- then a new edition of the D&D rules should have incorporated it. As an option, if nothing else.

same answer as above, on why they didn't included it as an option in the DMG is because their is already a critical effect rule inside, and WotC (so far) did not want to confuse DM and players on option (the paladin as a prestige class was not put in Defender of the Faith for this).

Now this just seems silly (not you, the idea that it would be left out so as to not confuse people). Consider that if you list a set of rules as optional, people see them and can chose. If you list a bunch of rules as the standard, but they are not the same standard as the standard you were using in the other book that supposedly uses these same rules, then this is more confusing than if you had just listed the options.

And when it comes to D&D3.5, all they had to do was say that the Massive damage Rule was a "Threshold" and can be set by the Game Master to reflect the relative level of deadliness s/he wants in the game and this issue would disappear... but no...

I think that you overestimate this effect: it can be a pain for the GM, or when some player are also GM (rule lawyer in disguise).
But otherwise, going from one system to another isn't a problem at all.

I do not estimate the effect at all, and thus cannot estimate it. I base these observations on recent games I have had with players of varying levels of exposure to the d20 system.