What needs to be fixed/improved in d20 Modern?

[The Black Kestrel]

This was my experience as well. Plus, because of the limited availability of some class skills, you sometimes have to juggle odd combinations of classes and/or backgrounds in order to meet the prerequisites for an AdvC.

Using occupations didn't solve this problem? I always thought that was one the design points behind occupations

I started my first d20M game at 3d Level but quickly realized that the PCs needed to start at 5th Level in order to be as effective and heroic as we wanted.

I think this partially a result of poor rule design and part preference. I fully agree that starting characters do not get enough starting feats to really allow them create effective starting PC's. Should my character be a badass starting out? No. He should be able to at least fill the role I envision him in effectively at first level though. Perhaps beefing up occupations with addition feats could fix this problem.

Then there is the +0 BAB problem. You can easily come up with a character concept that involves two base classes and an AdvC all with +0 BAB, making the character utterly ineffective in combat and unfun to play. This could be solved by implementing the fractional BAB rules from Unearthed Arcana (with some mathematical translation), but it's still awkward.

This an excellent point and one I'd forgotten about. You're right that fractional BAB helps, but requires some additional tracking.

The final problem that I've had is with the Feat/Skill breakdown. Some Feats are used in place of skills (i.e. Surface Vehicle Operation; Aircraft Operation, etc.), which can mean that a character has to wait up to three levels before they can take a feat and learn to fly jets. I homeruled this with a vehicle skill system modeled on the specific sub-skills used for Perform and Craft.

All the feat does is allow you to use the vehicle without a -4 penalty. I don't see that as too onerous. Going the subskill route would probably require increasing skill points for many classes which I don't agree with.

Generally, I like SW Saga, and I would like to see it adopted as a base for d20M 2d.

I'm grooving on SWSE as well, though I don't like everything in it quite a bit screams "use me!"

 

[Armadillo]

This was my experience as well. Plus, because of the limited availability of some class skills, you sometimes have to juggle odd combinations of classes and/or backgrounds in order to meet the prerequisites for an AdvC.

Using occupations didn't solve this problem? I always thought that one the design points behind occupations

Occupations help, but they don't solve this problem in all cases. Regardless, players are required to do too much planning and character design levels in advance, resulting in too much delayed gratification.

The final problem that I've had is with the Feat/Skill breakdown. Some Feats are used in place of skills (i.e. Surface Vehicle Operation; Aircraft Operation, etc.), which can mean that a character has to wait up to three levels before they can take a feat and learn to fly jets. I homeruled this with a vehicle skill system modeled on the specific sub-skills used for Perform and Craft.

All the feat does is allow you to use the vehicle without a -4 penalty. I don't see that as too onerous. Going the subskill route would probably require increasing skill points for many classes which I don't agree with.

There is no need to increase the skill points if you consolidate skills like Spot and Listen into Perception, Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, and Balance, Climb, and Jump into Acrobatics, as is done in SW Saga.

 

[The Black Kestrel]

Vehicles: they do not mesh will with either grid based combat or chase scene style frame of reference. Vehicles are also too fragile. An M1A1 main battle tank, with over a foot of advance chobham composite armor, has 64 HP. Thats less than a dire bear of the same size.

I've never really had an issue with the grid, but then again I play some miniature games that use hexes so maybe its just very familiar to me. I'm iffy on saying that tanks don't have enough hit points. Sure a dire bear may have more HP, but it doesn't have 20 Hardness which makes a world of difference in survivability. A machinegun will tear a dire bear, but will only tickle a tank unless you get a critical or start applying feats and gadgets. Even then the damage isn't that significant. One HE round later (or even a long burst from the co-ax or commander's .50 cal) and that machinegun team is toast.

 

[Krensky]

For myself:
1) Fx rules: Fixed by replacing them with Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin)and Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth (EN World)
2) Martial Arts: Fixed by Blood & Fists (RPGObjects) by Vigilance himself
3) Automatic Weapon Fire
4) NPC creation: fixed by Foe Factory (Adamant) by HeapThaumaturgist
5) Chase Rules: fixed by Hot Pursuit and Hot Pursuit: On Foot (Adamant)
6) The need for some kind of condition track for HP loss. Then, add a second wind mechanic. Maybe characters get fatigued at 50% hp loss, Exhausted at 25% HP loss. Second Wind then gives 25% of max hp back.
7) Negative HP: I'd like to see these removed and replaced with something along the lines of the Death and Dying Rules from Unearthed Arcana.
8) Sucky WOTC advanced and prestige classes. They should look at Advanced classes from RPGObjects
9) Mediocre to poor support products. They need to look at products from companies like RPGObjects, Adamant, and the GR and EN Publising producs mentioned above to see what quality products look like.
10) Charles "Vigilance" Rice is not writing their supplements

Edit: 11) I'd like to see occupations give a rank in the class skills granted.
12) The save throw bonuses. I really dislike the +2 save bonuses from certain advanced classes

So, you want Spycraft 2.0 with Back to Basics?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I suppose we won't see eye to eye, Mustrum_Ridcully. I think in fact we're as diametrically opposed on our views of 4e as can be. But that's cool. We're talkin' bout D20 Modern.

Nah, I suggest a fight to the death...


Though, on second thought - you're basically a grognard, right? This means you're an old guard wargamer! I probably stand no chance... Dang! It was a short, but eventless life...

I don't have a solution to the wealth system question. I know I just don't like it. I don't think I'd like counting dollars and sense....although I am a notorious book/record keeper so who knows, I may not mind it

One approach could be to create a "Life-Style" value that works a little like the current wealth system if you buy stuff below your wealth level.
The rest could be done with cash and maybe another metagame mechanic (possibly something to cover "Assets" like vehicles, houses, but maybe also contacts and stuff).

I think there should be tradeoffs. If you're good at one thing, you should be less good at others. If you're good at combat, then out of combat you should be a little weaker. If your strengths lie in skill use, then maybe social things and combat things should be your weaknesses.
I don't want PCs (either DMing for or playing as one) that are all strengths and no weaknesses. They don't strike me as realistic at all and don't make for an interesting game.

I prefer the strengths and weaknesses lying inside each individual "component". Character A is good at ranged combat, but weak in melee and can't take much damage. He is also good at driving cars or flying helicopters, but knows nothing about computer or research, and he knows how to keep a straigt face when lying. Character B is a dedicated martial artist which must get close to his enemies to be effectice. He is good at using computers and and well-learned, and competent at intimidating people, but he knows next to nothing about vehicles and is bad at negotiations.

If you allow alternating between non-combat and combat, you also run into the problem that you end a Jack of all Trades, Master of nothing. Which is bad once you face "level appropriate" challenges. Maybe having level-dependent modifiers combined with special abilities that are dependent on how you chose your focus works better for that. (So, a Strong4/Smart4 would have the same BAB a a Strong8, but the Strong would have more useful abilities - be it 4E style powers or 3E like tactical feats or anything along those lines.)

I just thought of one of my biggest peeves: I don't think anything should have a static DC.
The two biggest that come to mind are:
The Reflex DC for autofire
The Fort DC for massive damage saves

Characters' abilities increase over time, having these DCs not scale makes them meaningless. I don't mean the the DCs should scale with the PCs' power, more with the situation that causes the save.
Examples: The DC to save against massive damage should scale based on how much damage was done. The DC for autofire ought to based on some kind of attack roll combined with some reflection of the shooter's skill in using that firearm.
I'm sure other folks, such as Vigilance, could come up with something better.

One of my ideas was to have multiple levels of Massive Damage.
15 damage => Fort DC 15. (Failure: You drop to -1 hp)
25 damage => Fort DC 20. (Failure: You are exhausted)
35 damage => Fort DC 25. (Failure: You are fatigued)
If you take 35 points of damage, you must make a single save, but compare to all 3 DCs. You take the penalty for each save you fail. (You could of course just use the highest DC to check if you drop to -1).
The trick is making the balance work out.
The PCs should expect 25 points of damage at the same point where they can beat a Fort DC 20 as easy as they could beat a Fort DC 15 when they had to expect 15 points of damage. (Maybe something like a 10 % chance to take that damage and a 50 % chance to fail the save - adjust for preferred lethality)

The number of skills is just about right. I like separate skills for moving silent vs moving unseen. Seeing and listening are not the same, why dump them into some kind of perception hackjob?

I think the number of skill points could be higher. But I am generally not a big fan of the unpredictable nature of skill modifiers in 3E/d20 Modern. It doesn't fit

 

[Greg K]

So, you want Spycraft 2.0 with Back to Basics?

I haven't seen Back to Basics. I passed on Spycraft 1e, because I did not like the classes or the treatment of martial arts. I felt the same way about Spycraft 2e classes and martial arts, but I would have checked out both Sycraft 2e and Back to Basics (after BtB's release) if I didn't already have EOM: Mythic Earth, Psychic's Handbook, and Blood and Fist along with the great support from RPGObjects and Adamant.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

Nah, I suggest a fight to the death...


Though, on second thought - you're basically a grognard, right? This means you're an old guard wargamer! I probably stand no chance... Dang! It was a short, but eventless life...

Hmm. Do I qualify as a grognard? I'm 31. I started playing RPGs in junoir high school when I was 12 or 13..1989-1990. Played Boxed Sets/1e/some Palladium stuff. Got out of the hobby when I went to college in 95..didn't start up again until 2000 with 3rd edition. I guess I'm a grognard, but I never war-gamed. I tend to prefer to talk things out these days. Fights to the death cause a lot of paperwork...

One approach could be to create a "Life-Style" value that works a little like the current wealth system if you buy stuff below your wealth level.
The rest could be done with cash and maybe another metagame mechanic (possibly something to cover "Assets" like vehicles, houses, but maybe also contacts and stuff).

This isn't bad. Now, the D20 Modern games I've run haven't involved PCs who had normal lives.....houses, spouses, etc. They've been folks living on the edge of society. They don't pay taxes and have no retirement or credit. So tracking cash in this circumstances is fine.
But I did run a short lived supers game and the PCs used the wealth system. It didn't come up that often.
I wouldn't mind some combination system you suggest. Some cash, some wealth-like system running alongside it.

One of my ideas was to have multiple levels of Massive Damage.
15 damage => Fort DC 15. (Failure: You drop to -1 hp)
25 damage => Fort DC 20. (Failure: You are exhausted)
35 damage => Fort DC 25. (Failure: You are fatigued)
If you take 35 points of damage, you must make a single save, but compare to all 3 DCs. You take the penalty for each save you fail. (You could of course just use the highest DC to check if you drop to -1).
The trick is making the balance work out.
The PCs should expect 25 points of damage at the same point where they can beat a Fort DC 20 as easy as they could beat a Fort DC 15 when they had to expect 15 points of damage. (Maybe something like a 10 % chance to take that damage and a 50 % chance to fail the save - adjust for preferred lethality)

Actually, I'd prefer something more simple. Massive Damage Save DC = 10+half damage dealt. Maybe something like that.
Something along those lines.

I think the number of skill points could be higher. But I am generally not a big fan of the unpredictable nature of skill modifiers in 3E/d20 Modern. It doesn't fit

I like D20 Modern because there's very little modifiers to skills or much of anything outside how your own abilities influence it, call them external bonuses (by external I mean spells, magic items, magic affects, etc).
In D20 Modern, your PC might have an equipment bonus to his Defense.
He might have a skill synergy bonus to a skill. He might have an equipment bonus to a skill or two.
But that's about it. I like it. It's clean, and the PCs rely on their abilities, NOT their items or magic.

 

[Nadaka]

I've never really had an issue with the grid, but then again I play some miniature games that use hexes so maybe its just very familiar to me. I'm iffy on saying that tanks don't have enough hit points. Sure a dire bear may have more HP, but it doesn't have 20 Hardness which makes a world of difference in survivability. A machinegun will tear a dire bear, but will only tickle a tank unless you get a critical or start applying feats and gadgets. Even then the damage isn't that significant. One HE round later (or even a long burst from the co-ax or commander's .50 cal) and that machinegun team is toast.

A few more issues I have with the toughness of vehicles.
1: A sufficiently high level martial artist can destroy an M1A1 main battle tank in less than one round with his bare hands.
2: mecha have several times the HP and equal or better hardness compared to tanks of the same size. For any given weight class of mecha, the mecha will have a tiny fraction of the armor of a tank of the same weight class.

 

[The Black Kestrel]

A few more issues I have with the toughness of vehicles.
1: A sufficiently high level martial artist can destroy an M1A1 main battle tank in less than one round with his bare hands.

Huh? With 20th level character with 10 levels of Martial Artist is dealing 1d10+3d6+strength bonus using an action point to activate Iron Fist. Assuming a +5 strength bonus, +3 damage from Melee Smash and a 3 point reduction in Hardness from Ignore Hardness and three successful attacks we're looking at 21 points of damage inflicted. Silly, yes. Destroying the tank in one round, no.

2: mecha have several times the HP and equal or better hardness compared to tanks of the same size. For any given weight class of mecha, the mecha will have a tiny fraction of the armor of a tank of the same weight class.

I have all sorts of screaming fits about the mecha and starships RAW. I think the hit points for both are rather ridiculous. The bigger problem is that WotC did not a developed a unified mechanical design system for d20 Modern. I personally use d20 Mecha for the construction of all my vehicles, mecha and starships.

 

[Vigilance]

I LIKED the classes. A lot. And I wouldn't want to lose what they brought to the table, which was infinite flexibility. I always loved to see people make a concept come alive with different selections from the classes. You might have somebody do a Strong/Fast gunfighter or a Strong/Fast swordfighter etc, and have them look very different on paper and very different in play.

The classes do offer this, and I was a fan of that aspect of the system. However, I think you can get the same flexibility by having easy, free-form optional multi-classing (not required, used to make a specific character), combined with occupations you can change over time.

Having run Modern20 for over a year now, there's no character my players could make in d20M they can't make now, and they have 6 classes to become familiar with, not 60.

As a matter of fact, it was frequently HARDER to get a concept together after 1st level in d20 Modern, because a lot of AdC prerequisites were so wonky.

You had to plan a concept from 1st level frequently.