[Rev] Spells Slated to be Revised

[2WS-Steve]

i don't want to start an arguement, but i really don't like that Shield doesn't give a cover bonus -- in game with modern weapons where you really, really need it!

It's even better than a cover bonus, it's an unnamed bonus! If it were a cover bonus then shield wouldn't give you any benefit when you fired through a window.

 

[Knight Otu]

I'm wondering if we'll see the Conjuration (Teleportation) subschool.

 

[Mr Fidgit]

It's even better than a cover bonus, it's an unnamed bonus! If it were a cover bonus then shield wouldn't give you any benefit when you fired through a window.

too true. i guess i'm just stuck on the +7 AC/+3 Ref save, and was sorry to see it go

cover bonus, we barely knew ye...

 

[buzz]

i don't want to start an arguement, but i really don't like that Shield doesn't give a cover bonus -- in game with modern weapons where you really, really need it!

The cover bonus for shield was erratta'd by the Sage within a few months of 3e's initial release. You can find his ruling in the old ENWorld "black pages".

WotC's Sean Reynolds reveals changes to the wizard/sorcerer spell, shield. Errata: the shield spell provides a cover _bonus_, but does not actually provide cover. It's too powerful at 1st level if it actually provides cover. Sage Advice in Dragon #282 elaborates: The [shield] spell grants you a +7 cover bonus to Armor Class, not 75% cover as the spell description in the PH says.... A shield spell does not negate attacks of opportunity against the user.

IMHO, the version of shield d20M is a definite improvement.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Ummm, d20 Modern also has different rules, which could account for the changes. For instance, shield provides a bonus to defense in d20M, not AC, because AC doesn't exist.

Haste? Well, actions are different in d20M than in d20, so it too had to be changed.

I would be very surprised if this was a testing ground...it just looks like a different game to me.

 

[Felon]

Ummm, d20 Modern also has different rules, which could account for the changes. For instance, shield provides a bonus to defense in d20M, not AC, because AC doesn't exist.

AC does exists...as Defense. Defense depends on bonuses from class and level as well as dexterity and armor, but they function in the same manner.

Haste? Well, actions are different in d20M than in d20, so it too had to be changed.

How are actions different? A "standard" actiion was renamed "attack" action, but again we're talking about superficial differences. There's no substantial difference in how actions work between D&D and D2M.

I would be very surprised if this was a testing ground...it just looks like a different game to me.

As D2M is not really a game but rather a system, and that system happens to be the one that D&D is largely based off of, I'd be very surprised that they'd *not* try to achieve compatability between the spells of the same name presented in both sets of rulebooks.

 

[Felon]

IMHO, the version of shield d20M is a definite improvement.

I agree, except insofar as it needs to be made absolutely clear whether or not the line about the shield hovering "in front of the caster" implies that facing is an issue (as it is with the original shield). Otherwise, we're looking a piece of 3.1 errata/FAQ material in the making.

 

[d20Dwarf]

AC does exists...as Defense. Defense depends on bonuses from class and level as well as dexterity and armor, but they function in the same manner.

They both function as the DC to hit the character, but they are derived differently, which makes all the difference. It's quite possible that the class and level defense bonuses of characters in d20M necessitated either changing shield's bonus or increasing its level.

Then again, they could be public playtesting, but I doubt it. I'm not privy to their design meetings.

How are actions different? A "standard" actiion was renamed "attack" action, but again we're talking about superficial differences. There's no substantial difference in how actions work between D&D and D2M.

There are no partial actions in d20M, which necessitated rewriting haste (and is a pretty substantial difference, by my account).

(Notice also the change in bonus to defense, lower just like shield.)

As D2M is not really a game but rather a system, and that system happens to be the one that D&D is largely based off of, I'd be very surprised that they'd *not* try to achieve compatability between the spells of the same name presented in both sets of rulebooks.

Well, my book says "d20 Modern Roleplaying Game," not "d20 Modern System." Still, you're conjecture that it isn't a game could be correct.

You are correct, however, that there are 2 separate systems. Thus, why would they try to make them the same system, or compatible, after the fact?

To answer your original question, I'll give you 20:1. But, you could be right, after all, they are revising the core books.

 

[Saeviomagy]

No, actually there are no 'standard' actions.

You get a move and an attack action in your go. A move action is the same as a move or move-equivalent action in D&D. An attack action is identical to a partial action in D&D. A full-round action is the same as in D&D.

It's just that the stupid "standard action" has been removed, and move/attack actions are used as the metric now.

Haste could have been written to award an extra attack action, but it wasn't. I can't see how that could have possibly been an accident (especially since it specifically and deliberately rules against casting extra spells or taking any other kind of attack action).

I daresay that the fact that the haste rewrite addresses most of the problems people have had with the spell (ie - they don't like 2 spells per round, and it's unclear how movement works) is an indication that it wasn't a decision based purely on the mechanics of d20 modern.

Defense and AC are not derived differently. The names of the contributing bonuses change, and an additional bonus based on character level is added. It's still 10 + dex bonus + miscellaneous bonuses.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Seems they didn't change HARM in D2M.

After all, why mess with perfection?