What would you change for d20 Modern 2.0

[Vigilance]

I know that many people think they are a brilliant idea, but I do not.

Over time what I have come to like best about the basic classes is the syndrome that a fighter is a fighter is a fighter.

In d20M, a Strong 3/Soldier 3 is noticably different than a Fast 4/Soldier 2 who is different than a Tough 4/Soldier 2 and so on.

The strong/soldier will have a better BAB and be a better melee combatant, the fast hero will be more mobile and have a higher Def, and the tough hero will have more HP.

I started as a big hater of the basic classes, but over time they have won me over.

Chuck

 

[Thanee]

Over time what I have come to like best about the basic classes is the syndrome that a fighter is a fighter is a fighter.

In d20M, a Strong 3/Soldier 3 is noticably different than a Fast 4/Soldier 2 who is different than a Tough 4/Soldier 2 and so on.

The D&D fighter class can do all of those as well, depending on how you put your ability scores and what feats you take.

What I most dislike about them is how the various benefits are tied together. In order to get skills you need to pick up levels in Smart pretty much, so if you want to have a skilled combatant, those levels will hurt you big time, since Smart is very weak in combat, and so on.

My standard example is a modern elite soldier. Intelligent and well-trained in combat, both close-up and at range. So, you might multiclass between Fast and Smart to get there, but you end up with a weak combatant who gets all sort of weird talents that make no sense for the character you have in mind. Might be a bit exaggerated, just to get the idea. I don't only want the system to seem to make sense, I also want the mechanics to actually support the flexibility they are meant to provide, and I simply don't see this with the modern classes.

The general idea of the classes, which are not archetypes, but rather abstract concepts, is not so bad, but the execution is what I extremely dislike, and I really doubt they can win me over anytime soon, or rather at all.

For modern games, I vastly prefer truely flexible character creation systems, and this is not one of those.

Bye
Thanee

 

[The Shaman]

Sorry Shaman, but I agree with Ralts here, at least when talking about a module as a product someone would pay for....Its just harder to determine the "mean campaign style" for d20 Modern than it is for D&D. And anytime you see me say "tweaking required" in the examples above, you've lost a sale if its a professional module.

I agree - when I responded to Warlord Ralts above, I wasn't thinking in terms of "published module intended for all Modern gaming styles," since as you noted that's an exceptionally tall order to fill.

I do think that if you know the 'subgenre' of Modern to which you wish to write, however the specific concerns that Warlord Ralts shared aren't really as challenging to address as he seemed to imply.

 

[C. Baize]

Yup, Vig. Me, too.

I have a Smart hero in one campaign who is a techie, while I have a Smart hero in another campaign who is an anthropologist/adventurer.

Tough hero in one campaign who rides a Harley and slays vampires.
Tough hero in another campaign who is an ex Spec Ops type who drives Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicles, and uses military tactics....
The list can go on and on...
But the only differences in the pigeon holed character classes is what type of weapon/magic they use..

*shrug*

I like the flexibility. And I usually keep my characters in their basic class for as long as possible. I dig 'em.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

The thing I like most about the D20 Modern class system is that it gets away from the idea that starting level = 1st level. I really like that the Advanced classses are reserved for characters with some level of competence. The 1st level "Soldier" of most D20 games are pretty laughable.

 

[C. Baize]

The D&D fighter class can do all of those as well, depending on how you put your ability scores and what feats you take.

What I most dislike about them is how the various benefits are tied together. In order to get skills you need to pick up levels in Smart pretty much, so if you want to have a skilled combatant, those levels will hurt you big time, since Smart is very weak in combat, and so on.

My standard example is a modern elite soldier. Intelligent and well-trained in combat, both close-up and at range. So, you might multiclass between Fast and Smart to get there, but you end up with a weak combatant who gets all sort of weird talents that make no sense for the character you have in mind. Might be a bit exaggerated, just to get the idea. I don't only want the system to seem to make sense, I also want the mechanics to actually support the flexibility they are meant to provide, and I simply don't see this with the modern classes.

The general idea of the classes, which are not archetypes, but rather abstract concepts, is not so bad, but the execution is what I extremely dislike, and I really doubt they can win me over anytime soon, or rather at all.

For modern games, I vastly prefer truely flexible character creation systems, and this is not one of those.

Bye
Thanee

Sooooo.... Basically you want the rules to do something they're not intended to do?
While in the real world, a soldier can be smart, tough, fast, strong, charismatic and dedicated, in a gaming format there has to be some give and take. If you want high BAB, then you're likely giving up some skill points.

Sounds like all you really want is to eat your cake and have it, too.

 

[Thanee]

Sooooo.... Basically you want the rules to do something they're not intended to do?

No, actually I want the rules to do what they are intended to do (being flexible).

Or do you think the d20 Modern rules are not intended to be flexible?

Have you played any really flexible gaming systems (usually point-based)?
For example... HERO, Mutants & Masterminds, Shadowrun, or World of Darkness.

It sounds a bit (might be wrong, but that's my impression), that you only know class-based systems like D&D... from there d20 Modern might seem like a huge step forward, when it comes to flexibility, but compared to the above systems, it's not even close to what they have to offer while still being balanced.

...in a gaming format there has to be some give and take.

Absolutely. That's why I was saying, that I would like d20 Modern to be more akin to point-based.

If you want high BAB, then you're likely giving up some skill points.

That, or anything else.

And that's the problem with d20 Modern, it does not offer you 'anything else', it only offers an extremely limited selection of choices.

If I want to have full base attack (for whatever reason), I must be Strong and basically must be a melee fighter, that's less flexibility, than the D&D fighter class has.

Take a look at the link I have posted further above, there's my take on how to make d20 Modern classes really flexible, without dropping the class-concept altogether. Something along those lines would work a thousand times better than the original base classes IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

 

[C. Baize]

I detest point based systems.

In my experience, it leads to the absolute worst sort of min-maxing and powergaming... Two forms of gameplay I abhor.
I know some people like that sort of thing, and that's cool for them, to each their own. I'd rather not game than to game with point based systems, only.

 

[Thanee]

That's a valid opinion (not that opinions can be invalid, mind you) and did not really get through with your above posts.

Of course, the more flexibility you offer, the higher the chances are, that the system can be abused. I'm basically going with the assumption, that a point-based system would be balanced enough to prevent abusive min-maxing as much as possible.

Bye
Thanee

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I think you're missing a few of the design points though, Thanee.

EDIT: ARGH, beaten to the punch!

In D&D, 1/1 BAB is combat-oriented.

Not so in d20M. Why? Ranged weapons and MDTs. The assumption is that given the choice between guns and knives, most will choose guns. So it isn't by accident or faulty design that the 1/1 BAB class doesn't warm the heart in ranged combat, it's purposeful design.

Ranged combat classes take a hit to BAB to account for sustained gunfire against relatively fragile targets.

Which, honestly, is one reason I LIKE the class system of Modern over "flexible" (I.E. apparently to you Point Based) systems ... because in those systems there are invariably "No Duh" combinations. GURPS 4 had to even take that into account in their latest edition. Again.

With Point Buy systems you have an even bigger swing between The Munchkin and The Roleplayer. One guy takes all the best combinations for attack and defense power, making himself an unstoppable killing machine. One guy ignores his combat bonuses to make a richly detailed professor who gets killed in the first gunfight in any way tailored to the combat brute.

Now, of course, the conversation from here deteriorates into My GM Is Better Than Yours or whatever, and Bob knows how to handle those situations and playing a character fated to die is good RP, etc etc. But, in the end, point buy always means there's a "Right Way" to build a character and there's lots of "Wrong Ways" to build them.

In my experience, it's often more intuitive for players to do it the d20M way than, say, the M&M way or the GURPS way. Faster, too. So far I haven't been stumped for how to build a concept character in d20M that heeled to obvious level and competance guidelines. (I.E. no 1st level "I want to be a ninja that decapitates his targets every time with one blow REAL ULTIMATE POWER style." ... though we can get close.)

--fje