Opinions on 'd20 Past'

[Ranger REG]

Despite the many criticisms, I still bought d20 Past.

I do agree that they crammed three time period settings into a 96-page book.

I also agree that despite many good third-party products out there, there are fans that prefer WotC labeled products.

As for the .... ahem ... suggestion about contracting competent authors, note that ultimately it's the d20 Modern editor that supposed to read over the submitted draft and make necessary change to mesh with the existing ruleset. Which goes back to my standing comment that WotC's editing performance have not improved.

Oh, and I can forgive the nonlethal damage rule being inconsistent with d20 Modern and actually derived from D&D. Not many of us are keen on d20 Modern nonlethal damage rule and have ported over D&D/d20 version.

YMMV. If you want something better and focused on one genre, then you may have to spend more than $20 (unless you're a credit card buyer, then get PDF) for more than 96 pages.

 

[Katowice]

d20 Past, in my opinion, should have been a larger book like d20 Future.

 

[Ranger REG]

d20 Past, in my opinion, should have been a larger book like d20 Future.

Even that larger book contains crammed material. If it wasn't crammed, we wouldn't need d20 Apocalypse, d20 Cyberscape, and upcoming d20 Future Tech (dubbed "d20 Future, Volume 2").

 

[The_Universe]

I liked the book, but agree that it should have been lengthier. While I didn't get everything I ever wanted, I did get a number of things I frequently use - it's well worth what I paid for it, particularly when fleshed out with 3rd party additions, like Sidewinder: Recoiled and Thrilling Tales: Thugee. You can certainly complain about what the book is not. What it is, however, is quite good.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It was the biggest disappointment that I have had with a gaming supplement in a long time. Not worth buying at all, at all.

The Auld Grump

 

[Flynn]

Personally, I found D20 Past interesting, as it helps provide enough info to use D20 Modern in a fantasy setting with PHB core classes as advanced classes for the game. (This was before I discovered Grim Tales, of course.) However, I echo the comments voiced above in that I wish the book had been much larger, similar to D20 Future. I got it as a gift, but I probably wouldn't pay full price for it. Check out eBay or an online gaming store such as FRPGames, if you are going to get it for yourself.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[PosterBoy]

d20 past is ok but as most people point out is very brief. It's a starting point not a complete resource.

It would be alot better if it was added to the SRD.

 

[Felon]

Another problem is that the AdCs offered are overpowered compared to those offered in the core rules. Compare the d20 Past Gangster to the Dead Shot in The Game Mechanics' Modern Player's Companion which requires expending an Action Point to gain an extra +1d6 damage at 5th level, or the Gunslinger in Dog House Rules' Sidewinder: Recoiled which can expend an AP to gain +3d6 damage at 10th level.

The Gangster is just a half-assed AdC from start to finish. With the Massive Damage Threshhold rules in place, the gross damage bonus provided by sneak attack is entirely inappropriate, especially if it's handed out at 1st level. That should be manifestly obvious. And besides, gangsters aren't ninja assassins; the sneak attack, opportunist, and crippling strike abilities just don't belong either. The quintessential tommy-gun-toting mobster is a brute-force types. If anything, I'd think they should get the Improved Autofire ability given to the Flying Ace.

In the Pulp Heroes minigame, David Noonan (the author) wrote, "Characters in a Pulp Heroes game tend to make more saving throws than in many other d20 Modern campaigns, however. Accordingly, the advanced classes presented below provide above-average saving throw bonuses"

Not only is Noonan's statement a broad, baseless, unsupportable generalization--how does he know that characters will have to make more saving throws in my pulp campaign than in my Shadow Chasers or Urban Arcana campaign? I doubt it, seriously--but even if it's true, this is still a lousy way to handle the issue. So, what he's saying here is that a Gunslinger or Soldier should just have to resign themselves to getting the short end of the stick on saving throws? If you want tougher characters, then offer a unisversal boost: better ability scores, and/or more action points. Just pumping up the campaign-specific AdC's is rather bush league.

 

[arscott]

With the Massive Damage Threshhold rules in place, the gross damage bonus provided by sneak attack is entirely inappropriate.

I've heard that said quite a bit, but I tend to disagree. Modern tends to emphasize ranged combat at the expense of melee, but sneak attacks are pretty damned hard to pull off in ranged combat. Basically, you need to a) win initiative, and b) start out within 60 feet of your opponent, giving you only one sneak attack. You might be able to get two or occasionally three if you also have surprise and iterative attacks.

If you instead go melee, you'll still have some problems. Flanking's tough to do because fewer melee combatants means less opportunities for flanking, and tumble as a cross-class skill makes taking advantage of those opportunities more dangerous. You could go the improved feint route, but you'd be better off as a strong hero, taking advantage of the entire brawl/knockout punch/streetfighting tree.

At lower levels, your sneak attack damage isn't as good as a soldier with the burst fire feat, and at high levels, you pale in comparison to a scientist with a device that emulates fireball or lightning bolt.

I'm not denying that the gangster is a pretty powerful class. But those who automatically assume that sneak attack + massive damage rules = broken need to recheck their math.

 

[Felon]

I'm not denying that the gangster is a pretty powerful class. But those who automatically assume that sneak attack + massive damage rules = broken need to recheck their math.

Checked it, and it's fine. D&D's sneak attack ability has little place in D20Modern.

It isn't just the Massive Damage Threshhold rules that make it broken, although that's a big part of it. It's also the fact that the damage bonus is given at a time when the defender is already at a defensive disadvantage. That's a lot different than a damage bonus like Power Attack or Burst Fire, that impose penalties for the extra damage. D&D characters have the resources to deal with having their guts nearly ripped out in a single round--indeed, that's the moment the cleric is often for waiting for to prove his worth.

OTOH, D20M characters are much more reliant on damage avoidance than damage mitigation.