Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ddougan" data-source="post: 1412625" data-attributes="member: 11480">In terms of weapons specifications, I think it lacks detail... there is very little differentiation between weapons.I'd prefer to see a lot more modelled in the weapons:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">recoil (affecting multiple shots and area fire)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">penetration as a separate value from damage (allowing shotguns to do big damage to unarmoured targets, but probably little more than stun/knockdown to armoured targets)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">bulk (eg easier to train a pistol on different targets than a rifle - especially in close quarters situations)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">more granular damage (instead of lots and lots of 2DX, even for different calibers, I'd like to see 2DY+1, 2DY+2, 2DX etc)</li>
</ul>In terms of rules, I'd like to see automatic fire rules given better handling. Someone has already posted Twilight 2000s approach to this (which I also think is great - but prefered the v2.2 edition, whereby you rolled a D20 as a task for each round - which gave highly trained shooters a bit of an edge, whilst still leaving rock-n-roll as more luck than skill).I also think that vehicle combat rules are somewhat lacking - especially in terms of difficulty to hit (taking out tyres is *really* easy) - and increases in the maximum +AC for speed.Thats not to say I don't like D20 Modern, its just that I use a modified Spycraft system in my modern games <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's nothing fatally flawed in D20 Modern (and I think the D20 system is fully capable of handling modern games), but for my campaign styles, it does need much more house-rules than say DnD does &quot;out-of-the-box&quot;. But I guess they are more military oriented than the &quot;Modern day DnD&quot; flavour of Urban Arcana (which I bought anyway, and is a rather good read)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ddougan, post: 1412625, member: 11480"] In terms of weapons specifications, I think it lacks detail... there is very little differentiation between weapons. I'd prefer to see a lot more modelled in the weapons: [list]recoil (affecting multiple shots and area fire)[/list] [list]penetration as a separate value from damage (allowing shotguns to do big damage to unarmoured targets, but probably little more than stun/knockdown to armoured targets)[/list] [list]bulk (eg easier to train a pistol on different targets than a rifle - especially in close quarters situations)[/list] [list]more granular damage (instead of lots and lots of 2DX, even for different calibers, I'd like to see 2DY+1, 2DY+2, 2DX etc)[/list] In terms of rules, I'd like to see automatic fire rules given better handling. Someone has already posted Twilight 2000s approach to this (which I also think is great - but prefered the v2.2 edition, whereby you rolled a D20 as a task for each round - which gave highly trained shooters a bit of an edge, whilst still leaving rock-n-roll as more luck than skill). I also think that vehicle combat rules are somewhat lacking - especially in terms of difficulty to hit (taking out tyres is *really* easy) - and increases in the maximum +AC for speed. Thats not to say I don't like D20 Modern, its just that I use a modified Spycraft system in my modern games :) There's nothing fatally flawed in D20 Modern (and I think the D20 system is fully capable of handling modern games), but for my campaign styles, it does need much more house-rules than say DnD does "out-of-the-box". But I guess they are more military oriented than the "Modern day DnD" flavour of Urban Arcana (which I bought anyway, and is a rather good read) [/QUOTE]

Verification