There is no synergy to the bonus's it provides.
Like, you are required to have weapon focus and weapon spec in a weapon. But none of your "5 choices" are related to that weapon. In fact, the one weapon related thing, is for a weapon you rarely use.
Why not just "Weapons: The DC for ALL guns increases by 5"
Or "Weapon Master: The DC for the gun you have weapon spec in is increased by 5"
+2 to hide in darkness? Lame.
+5 to move speed is ok, but kinda lame for a 10th level ability.
The silent death thing looks really cool, except that the biggest damage a light melee weapon does is d6. Oh wow, I have a 5th level prestige ability that lets me do a conditional 3d6.
And the 3 other choices are really lame, bonus languages, bonus to treat injury, or plan? I mean, those could be usefull, except for the fact that a single level of another class would give better benifits.
Is there something sweet about this class I am not seeing, or is it as lame as I figure? What are it's redeeming qualities?
I am looking at the SpecOp class in the Urban Arcana book, and it just seems useless.
Because it is. ;)
+2 to hide in darkness? Lame.
+5 to move speed is ok, but kinda lame for a 10th level ability.
The first you can also get with a feat, the second from a Fast Hero talent. Doing it this way also provides way more benefits than wasting levels in SpecOP.
The silent death thing looks really cool, except that the biggest damage a light melee weapon does is d6. Oh wow, I have a 5th level prestige ability that lets me do a conditional 3d6.
Its good for forcing Massive Damage saves, unfortunately WotC is unaware massive damage is a completely moot point after level 1.
And the 3 other choices are really lame, bonus languages, bonus to treat injury, or plan? I mean, those could be usefull, except for the fact that a single level of another class would give better benifits.
Yup.
Is there something sweet about this class I am not seeing, or is it as lame as I figure? What are it's redeeming qualities?
hm.... you get to write SpecOp in your character sheet?
Like, you are required to have weapon focus and weapon spec in a weapon. But none of your "5 choices" are related to that weapon. In fact, the one weapon related thing, is for a weapon you rarely use.
Why not just "Weapons: The DC for ALL guns increases by 5"
Or "Weapon Master: The DC for the gun you have weapon spec in is increased by 5"
It’s still useless for single-shot non-exotic firearm since they don’t have any DC’s to increase. Mind you the “Weapon” category for the SpecOps also grants you a free Exotic Firearm Proficiency so for many that can be a bonus enough since you gain essentially two bonuses at once. And just because you are yours don’t uses those type of weapons often doesn’t mean others don’t.
+2 to hide in darkness? Lame.
This actually is a synergy of a short; it applies though to environment and equipment bonuses and not necessarily class abilities. Plus it also applies when you’re in 1/4 concealment, so it does get used in daytime, you just got to be sneaky and not go guns-blazing.
+5 to move speed is ok, but kinda lame for a 10th level ability.
I’m assuming you mean ‘earliest acquired’ since the class is only 5 levels.
And while it does sound lame you ARE forgetting that you also get a +4 Initiative which stacks with the feat Improved Initiative, and any other Initiative boosting class abilities. Likewise if you got to the prestige class via the Fast Hero and took the entire “Fast Movement” and thus would have a base speed almost twice that of a normal character (and will have a monster Initiative to boot).
With the lowest common denominator a guy/gal with Dexterity 10 could have a Initiative of +8, not bad considering that a high-dexterity character can only get that with an 18 Dex and Improved Initiative (and it’s easier to get a 10 than a 18 no matter how you do it).
The silent death thing looks really cool, except that the biggest damage a light melee weapon does is d6. Oh wow, I have a 5th level prestige ability that lets me do a conditional 3d6.
While difficult to do it can be real deadly in extreme cases, like:
Strength 20 (+5)
Melee Smash, Improved Melee Smash, Advanced Melee Smash (+3)
Masterwork/Enhancement Bonus to Damage (+3)
Weapon Specialization (+2)
Power Attack (Q*)
For a total of: 3d6+39
*Changes vary, multiply by 3
So a minimal of 42 and a maximum of 57 which if it doesn’t kill outright will certainly cause a Massive Damage save. It most certainly seems like it can one-shot a number of foes,
As for the ‘other’ specialization they are there for those that took other classes besides Strong, Fast, and Tough Hero…and are actually much easier to get than the “Weapon Specialization” (which I ‘just’ realized:embarrass ).
Its good for forcing Massive Damage saves, unfortunately WotC is unaware massive damage is a completely moot point after level 1.
You know it’s not nice to lie.
Its good for forcing Massive Damage saves, unfortunately WotC is unaware massive damage is a completely moot point after level 1.
I don't understand this statement. Could you please clarify your meaning?
RavingDork: narukagami was referring to how easy it become for higher level characters to ignore massive damage saves. As the DC of the save is a fixed number, most (properly built) characters become (virtually) immune to failure within a few levels.
If that's the case then I must respectfully disagree. At higher levels most attacks made against a character are going to overcome their massive damage. Even at DC 15, a roll of a 1 still screws you over. If, on average, one out of every twenty attacks made against you can drop you, that is freaking dangerous!
If that's the case then I must respectfully disagree. At higher levels most attacks made against a character are going to overcome their massive damage. Even at DC 15, a roll of a 1 still screws you over. If, on average, one out of every twenty attacks made against you can drop you, that is freaking dangerous!
You will find that your sentiment will not be mirrored by the vast majority of the d20 Modern fanbase. Failing only on a roll of 1 out of 20 is generally thought of as a negligible chance around here. Most here tend to feel that each shot from a firearm should come with some very real risk, and that characters in a Modern game should live by the creed "get shot less." Characters in a Modern game should make every attempt to stay out of the line of fire, and avoid fights in spaces with no cover. Its just the most common play style and game preference approved by the d20 Modern community. Most of us used/use house rules that scale the DC of the massive damage save based on the damage dealt. I personally like Star Wars Saga's condition track method (though I use house rules that reduce the damage threshold of all heroic characters by -1 to -5, depending on their heroic level). In any case, agree with it or not, that is what was being referenced. I personally tend to agree. After a couple levels, nobody fails a massive damage save except on a natural roll of a 1, and in any game where characters actively try not to get shot, this ends up in them never failing such a save ever. Even in games where characters regularly jump in front of bullets, the chance that nothing serious will happen is on the character's side.
most (properly built) characters become (virtually) immune to failure within a few levels.
You know this makes me think much less of you, it sounds like you've fallen into the same pit that many of the CharOps boards memebers have in claiming that there is only one 'right' way to play the game and that you are the only one's to decide. tch.
I've built characters all the way to 15 and any that were not focused on combat would still be able to fail a MAD on a roll of 1-9 (everything from mages to skilljunkies to simply Low Con warriors).
This is no such thing a 'right' or 'wrong' way to make characters in Fatasy or Modern and idea that there are people telling others such things is why people of other role-playing gamers tend to avoid us.
Certainly there is no "one way to play." Certainly there is no "empirical right or wrong" build. However, the game rewards certain builds and penalizes others. You gain nothing of equal value for your choice to have a low Con score and a low massive damage save. Thus, the system penalizes characters for this choice. Certainly people can choose to build such a character in d20 Modern for the sake of role-playing. But if one does so, they are penalized because they have chosen to role-play. This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. It makes it feel like there is an "improper" and a "proper" way to mechanically build a character (if you desire mechanical reward). As a DM, in all my years DMing d20 Modern, I have seen one person choose to build a character that would have difficulty making massive damage saves. I find that sort of problematic. I find it problematic that there is an improper and proper way to build a character, when in fact both choices should be equally viable (from the point of view not only of role-playing, but of mechanical reward).
If my desire that all builds are equally viable, mechanically speaking, so that none of my players will ever be penalized for making a role-playing choice, makes you think less of me, so be it. I then think less of you.
So, to re-iterate my position, currently in d20 Modern a character becomes virtually immune to massive damage (failing a save only on a natural roll of 1) unless they intentionally build a low con, low fortitude save, character. Moreover, characters fail massive damage saves on the same numbers no matter what they are shot with. A character that can shrug off a 9mm round can also shrug off a tank shell. I find this problematic. Many other d20 Modern gamers on the boards do as well. The popular opinion around here is all characters should fear getting shot (or stabbed), especially with a tank shell, not just a select few characters who have chosen to make getting shot dangerous for the sake of role-playing. This was one of my major issues with the system. It's also the reason why I prefer a Saga style condition track (which is not as drastically effected by a character's class or constitution, and which puts a little more consideration on the damage of the weapon dealt in relation to the effect it has on a character).
it sounds like you've fallen into the same pit that many of the CharOps boards memebers have in claiming that there is only one 'right' way to play the game and that you are the only one's to decide. tch.
Yup. You can tell how much folks understand ROLE playing the noncombat focused chars by the classes that are in the 4e players handbook.... and how much WoC will cater to the KillKillKill dumbing down of role playing.
There is just no reason to have a Con so low that you can fail a Mass save on a
I think part of the problem is the trend of folks to consider the 3d6 bell curve spike of 10.5 as "Low". Average is somehow considered below average or even "low" now
Thing is, I see no mechanical incentive in the game to ever build a low Con character
Low Con isnt a goal, its something you have to suffer to achieve some other goal, like Int or Dex 20 or some silliness like that. It also happens when you have a character concept you want to hold to: Princess aint a fighter, no power and no staying power. You addressed this, but failed to condenm the MongoSmash roles for getting penalized with low skills/abilities (nonCombat abilities). To say the non-combat folks are penalized in combat one would have to also say the combat classes are penalized outside of combat.
You could be entertained for hours as Russell talks about both Knowledge Tactics and Jump.
If my desire that all builds are equally viable, mechanically speaking, so that none of my players will ever be penalized for making a role-playing choice, makes you think less of me, so be it. I then think less of you.
Then there should be only one class.
Fasts dont get full BAB but get all kinds of stuff Strongs dont.
Even the d6 HitDie is penalizing a guy for his choice to not play a d8 or d10 class.
It is a focusing system of trading gains for detractors.
Of course non-combat focused chars will trade away combat ability to be bettre at non-combat ability.... as well as Mongo giving up SkillPoints and gun BonusFeats to get full BAB.
I'm starting to think I'm just playing the wrong system.
and you got an hour to kill,
you can always play 3 rounds of Leading Edge Games stuff.
Hey, if you like it done right,
and you got an hour to kill,
you can always play 3 rounds of Leading Edge Games stuff.
Sometimes you really can do it so right you're doing it wrong :P
just curious, but would raising the MAS save by +5 for each doubling of the con be fair? I I.E., if you have a CON of 15, getting his for 45 damage is a DC 25 save?
-There have been many suggestions for revamping the MasDam mechanic. I have always been a fan of:
If Dam > Con Then
Make a FortSav (DC=Dam)
End If :P
-It makes the big guns scary and players less likely to 'just take it like a man' when a grenade lands near them.
-As for the "no gain for low Con" statement. I suppose there is some truth to that, but by not using points (in point-buy) on Con and not using feats for ImpMasDam you do get a boost elsewhere (you have to really).
Yup. You can tell how much folks understand ROLE playing the noncombat focused chars by the classes that are in the 4e players handbook.... and how much WoC will cater to the KillKillKill dumbing down of role playing.
Deciding that a game will work better if a character's utility abilities and combat abilities are distributed from two different pools of resources does not indicate that someone does not understand role-playing, or that they are dumbing down role-playing. It just indicates that one holds to the philosophy that all characters should be able to participate in all situations all the time. Like or don't like it, but I don't understand why you felt the need to come onto a thread that was not discussing that system or those who hold to that philosophy and then insult both. Seems a little pointless and mean spirited...
I think part of the problem is the trend of folks to consider the 3d6 bell curve spike of 10.5 as "Low". Average is somehow considered below average or even "low" now
Indeed, part of the problem is that the benefit of the Constitution score is so great, that "average" becomes low for that particular stat. I agree.
Low Con isnt a goal, its something you have to suffer to achieve some other goal, like Int or Dex 20 or some silliness like that.
No, it is not a goal. As I said above, though, there is no reason for any character to ever choose to have a low Constitution score. Mechanically, it is the most effective stat in the game. It increases a players hit points, effects a save, increases your massive damage threshold, and effects a couple skills. That is more then what any other stat grants. The only other stat in the game that is comparable in power is Dexterity (which, in all honesty, I feel is a little over the top as well).
It also happens when you have a character concept you want to hold to: Princess aint a fighter, no power and no staying power. You addressed this, but failed to condenm the MongoSmash roles for getting penalized with low skills/abilities (nonCombat abilities). To say the non-combat folks are penalized in combat one would have to also say the combat classes are penalized outside of combat.
I didn't bring up MongoSmash because he had no place in what I was talking about. I'm ok with non combat characters giving up combat capability and vice versa. While I like the "two separate pools of resources" method of 4e, I am not wholly attached to it. I like the Star Wars Saga method just as much. I am ok with a game that has combat effective and non combat effective characters.
My issue is that a) some characters can make themselves virtually immune to massive damage and that b) the reward for certain stats/1st levels of some classes are so high that even non-combat characters are best off taking high stats in those areas or a level or two of those classes.
For example, this high level smart hero. Lets say he is 10 levels smart, 5 levels something else. The characters concept is field scientist. But if the character takes 5 levels of field scientist with her 10 levels of smart hero he/she will only have a +6 to their fort save. If they choose to have a con of 8 or 10 they will only make a massive damage save on a roll of 9 or 10. On the other hand, if the character takes 2 levels something like charismatic hero and 2 levels of something like dedicated hero (because the character is not a combat oriented character) instead of 4 levels of smart the character has just upped her fort save from +6 to +9. And what has the character lost for this choice? Almost nothing. Very few skill points, and these will be distributed among a large number of skills, so only a few skills are lower, and only by -1 or -2. Meanwhile their fort save just jumped by 3 points, and saves are literally some of the most important bonuses in the game. 3 points to a save is a lot more important that 1 or 2 less of a bonus to a couple skills. Likewise, other than character concept, what is the real point to have a constitution of lower than 12 or 14 on this character? No other stat except dexterity grants as much benefit. Now, dexterity only has this much benefit for a gun wielding high defense character, a combat character. So, at least this non combat character has no real reason to take a high dex. But everyone wants to survive. Even non combat characters don't want to die the first time they get hit due to Murphy's Law or bad planning. As constitution is survivability, its something all characters will want (unless someone is really sticking to their "I am not survivable concept"). Now, its still possible to have Constitution effect survivability, but for it to do so in a manner that is not quite as drastic as in d20 Modern. In Star Wars Saga, as the massive damage score is only moderately effected by con, and primarily effected by level, getting by with a low con score is much more livable. But in Modern, I see no (mechanical) reason to ever have a con score lower than at least 12, probably 14. So, with the above non-combat build, that 12/14 con will boost the characters fort save to +10 or +11. That is already a failure on a 4 or a 5 only. Still not as high as a combat heavy character can achieve, but good enough to keep the non-combat character alive in the rare bind. A couple choice feats or talents and the character could boost that fort save another point or two dropping the failure on a natural roll of a 4/5 to a 3/4 or 2/3.
Put plain and simply, my problem is that there is no real reason for any character to choose to have a low fortitude save or constitution bonus (with constitution being so important that the definition of low, in its case, is actually average). There is no benefit which outweighs what those two mechanics grant. What is lost by attaining those benefits is not nearly as mechanically effective or important as what one gains by attaining them. All characters are best served gaming the system in order to improve their fortitude save and taking a con score of at least 12, probably as high as 14, even if they are not combat oriented. That sort of bothers me. I much prefer how both Star Wars Saga and 4e deal with that area of the mechanics. In both games, if my characters concept is a low constitution character concept I can get away with choosing to have my constitution score as my low stat. In Star Wars Saga specifically, if I choose to build a non-combat character constitution is not a must. Certainly it does grant a bonus to my massive damage threshold, but its bonus is not nearly as important or effective as a bonus to fortitude saves. It is mechanically justifiable to give up that bonus in favor of a bonus in another area of the game, a less combat oriented bonus. In d20 Modern, however, the bonus constitution and high fortitude saves grant are so drastic that no character should ever really have either be too low... unless a character is intentionally shooting themself in a foot for the sake of role-playing. And while I find that action admirable, the fact that one must shoot themself in the foot for the sake of role-playing leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth. A system that penalizes a character for a role-playing choice essentially penalizes a character for role-playing.
Additionally, I don't think any character should be able to reliably ignore a tank shell to the chest. High damage weapons should be more deadly, more likely to result in a failed massive damage check. In d20 Modern they are not.
Then there should be only one class.
Fasts dont get full BAB but get all kinds of stuff Strongs dont.
Even the d6 HitDie is penalizing a guy for his choice to not play a d8 or d10 class.
It is a focusing system of trading gains for detractors.
Of course non-combat focused chars will trade away combat ability to be bettre at non-combat ability.... as well as Mongo giving up SkillPoints and gun BonusFeats to get full BAB.
I don't want a game with only one class. I don't need a game in which all characters are combat oriented. I don't mind my players giving up combat effectiveness for non combat effectiveness. What bothers me about d20 Modern is that the benefit from a high fortitude save/a high con score is too drastic compared to any other benefits. I like the way Star Wars Saga and 4e toned down how effective constitution is, and did away with saves in favor of defenses, and made those defenses progress primarily based of level, with classes granting only minor benefits (instead of drastic benefits) to these defenses. I hope that the next iteration of Modern does something like that. I also don't like the drastic benefit one gains from taking a single level of fast hero. That defense bonus from one level of fast hero is also over the top.
So, basically, I am agreeing with what narukagami originally said. And, as he pointed out, the above situation drastically reduces the effectiveness of the spec-ops silent death... if a DM games his NPCs the way players are likely to game their characters. To be honest, I have never done so. While I have rarely seen a character with a constitution of lower than 12, and usually see characters with constitutions higher than 14, my NPCs generally have constitutions of 10. That being said, silent death is usually used against combat oriented NPCs, and those combat oriented NPCs usually do have higher con score and better fortitude saves, and thus are virtually immune to the ability.
No, it is not a goal. As I said above, though, there is no reason for any character to ever choose to have a low Constitution score. Mechanically, it is the most effective stat in the game
<..>
Even non combat characters don't want to die the first time they get hit due to Murphy's Law or bad planning.
Not for chracters that dont get into combat situations.
Role playing can still involve roles other than Kill or Be Killed.
Not for chracters that dont get into combat situations.
Role playing can still involve roles other than Kill or Be Killed.
Indeed it can. But for a character to totally avoid all combat the entire game/campaign needs to focus on zero combat situations. That is a pact that must be made between all players and the GM at the outset of the game. As soon as a single combat oriented character is introduced into the game, or the GM sets up a single encounter which can potentially lead to combat, the situation reverts back to my original statement; there is no reason for any character to ever choose to have a low Constitution score. Mechanically, it is the most effective stat in the game. Even non combat characters don't want to die the first time they get hit due to Murphy's Law or bad planning.
So in other words, in any game where combat can potentially occur, even if the game is not combat centered, constitution and fortitude saving throws become some of the most important aspects of a character. The only way to avoid this situation is to have a game that totally avoids combat in all shapes and forms. I would hazard to guess that most d20 Modern games are not such games. The system was never really designed to run games without any combat whatsoever. In fact, most of the rules in the game revolve around combat resolution. This, of course, becomes doubly true in any game where one of the characters has the SpecOp character class. And, as a character with the SpecOp character class (by nature) is likely to come into some form of combat encounter, likely against NPCs designed for combat situations, his silent death ability is fairly inadequate at actually killing anyone via a failed massive damage save. When this is coupled with the fact that all characters (by 10th level) have quite a few hit points, and all attacks (including the silent death SpecOp attack) do fairly small amounts of damage in comparison to those hit points, it just sort of makes the SpecOp silent death ability seem fairly... subpar. It also makes high level characters seem unnecessarily tough.
So basically I was agreeing with narukagami.
Yeah, if you spec out the SpecOp for that one ability, I guess you can make it pretty strong. But that is specializing in something, that a martial artist or weapon master can do better, and easier, is lame.
And the base 3d6 damage (the max a light melee weapon can do) can be easily achieved by double tap.
It seems like a lame capstone ability, for a class without any sweet other abilities. Now, if it had something like "If it causes a MAS save, the DC is 25" or something, that would be a lot better.
I originally pictured it like Solid Snake snapping some dudes neck, but it was more like Firm Serpent kicking someone in the ass.