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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6202228" data-attributes="member: 1165">This is interesting, but problematic. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />If you're removing magic entirely, that's a big change right off the bat. Obviously any DM doing this is going to be sensitive to the changes, but if you're making a product out of this, you're going to have to do a lot of work outlining all the changes that need to be made.And then a big problem: HEALING. In d20 Modern, the Surgery feat (in fact, you don't have to have the feat) can get PCs back on their feet pretty quickly. In my very first Modern campaign, neither the GM or any players knew of this, so we frequently would have to hole up for days to heal, and even then for plot reasons were probably starting fights while "bloodied". Realistic, perhaps, but not in the least bit fun. Not only does this campaign not have easy healing, but there's no Wands of Cure Light Wounds either for between-combat touch-ups. Also note that if you have a substitute, you need to ensure players and GMs know.Magic items are another issue. In d20 Modern, PCs get Defense bonuses based on level, in flavor terms to represent learning how to parry and dodge, but in meta terms it was to replace the loss of magic item bonuses. In Pathfinder, PCs gain attack bonuses based on experience, but not defensive bonuses. Inherent bonuses are complicated too, as they run into issues with shields, monks, swashbucklers... That needs a general fix, and a specific one for monks and swashbucklers.Even missing out on Cloaks of Resistance means a monster like a poisonous snake is much more dangerous than they were, unless you have an inherent bonus-style fix for that. (And you don't have Restoration to remove that Con damage without days of rest.)Rangers aren't really a hybrid class. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Bards have a variety of sound manipulation, mind control and healing/buffing spells. How would you replicate all of these in a non-FX manner?There's no full casting classes. Are you intending to have full manifesting classes? Or will they be the equivalent of 6th/7th-level spell casting classes?I hope one of those archetypes is not psionically flavored. Plain-ol'-Fashioned Fisticuffs never go out of style. The guy who instructs soldiers in martial arts is probably not psychic, he just knows how to break kneecaps and do joint locks.At present, the alchemist seems more like a self-mutator than an alchemist, more like a short-term unstable mutant. Which is great flavor, but at this point it shouldn't be called alchemist.I'm not all that familiar with alchemical items, actually, and many of them could easily be replicated by modern-day science. Alchemist's Fire, for instance, is basically a white phosphorus grenade. There's no mystery in that.I'm a big fan of technomages. I've read one of the two trilogies featuring them (and seen every episode of Babylon 5 too). They were balanced kind of like Gandalf was, which is to say they worked well in fiction but not in a game. In the first trilogy, technomages had a bunch of "rituals" but in combat were generally limited to creating illusions. Handy, but ... why not just have a bard? Bards can stab things too with their 3/4 BAB.But I suspect you're thinking of using them for flavor terms. In which case, a class that's kind of similar to the alchemist (in terms of casting limits) should work, but a lot of the flavor doesn't really suit a "technomage".Yes, yes, yes... NO! I was really hopeful for d20 Future before it came out, and was very disappointed when it finally did. My group did one session of it, and it was ... broken. The GM allowed everything in the book, which was part of the problem.We had mutants, aliens, giant robots, mecha, spaceships (the last two do not belong in the same setting at all!), and of course, horribly overpowered gadgets. Unlike d20 Modern, Wealth is a balance tool in d20 Future. These gadgets are basically magic items, but with fewer balancing tools. You are literally better off designing new ones from scratch. One type of mutations (the ones that aren't bought with feats) were "balanced" by making lots of Constitution skill checks. Not only is this not balanced, but no DM is going to roll 20 Fortitude saves for an NPC before building them. Many (such as the one that gives you Fast Healing 3) were just plain broken for PC or long-term allied NPC use.I don't have the time to go through everything that was wrong with d20 Future equipment. I can only suggest starting from scratch, or, at the very least, saying these three items are fine.On that note... guns. What will you do with them? Will you be supporting the gunslinger class? What about bullet-resistant armor? Or will guns generally be used (as main weapons) by fighters and rangers instead?All of these are cool ideas, but note that some monsters are just not going to be balanced in this new system. In effect, you need a list of what's acceptable, as well as what needs to be changed for "magical" monsters. Obviously damage reduction, insubstantial, petrification...I can't imagine anyone would, unless they've got some really neat skill bonuses. And even then, it might not be a good idea to let PCs use such inadequate classes.Pathfinder and other D&D-like games have the three pillars: combat, exploration, and interaction. I don't think it's a good idea to let a PC play a class that doesn't support all three pillars. A White Collar 3 computer hacker is the kind of PC that supports one or maybe two pillars. They can't take part in combat at all, at least not unless the GM is nice enough to have programmable turrets in every battle.As NPC classes, those are fine. I don't think they should ever be available for PC use. Players can make mistakes if you give them poor options like that.This is a ton of work. In fact, it's so much work it shouldn't be called Pathfinder Future (or something like that). I would say it's probably easier to use d20 Star Wars as a base, just dropping the Jedi stuff, but I don't think that's legal <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> Anyone familiar with Pathfinder could learn such a system quickly. D20 Modern/Future has its own issues with players not wanting to pick them up.Since d20 Star Wars is probably off the table, I would really recommend starting from scratch. Use the PSRD, but make new classes that suit this setting, and new monsters for the setting, plus items (tech and alchemical) just for the setting.</blockquote>

Verification