-DF
looks like the voting options work now... and I got the first vote! 100% for rules based on Saga edition! ;) :P :D
I am very curious, what changed? When playing Saga, what turned you off the system?
He responded:
In a nutshell, playing saga reminded me of many of the aspects of 3E that i really didn't like and that 4E has done away with.
First, after making a few different characters i ran into the same old situation where many classes have very little as far as tactical options in combat. Unless you are a jedi with a nice suite of force powers, usually the only optimal thing to do is repeat the same thing over and over again. At low levels it is particularly bad, and i found that many times all i could do was just fire the blaster over and over. I mean, at low levels im only getting something like a couple of choosable feats and a talent, right? They usually just give me a +1 or something instead of giving something cool to do. Half of the stuff i was taking was just to qualify for something i actually wanted later!
Second, and this is somewhat related, is that when you start optimizing builds you end up just dumping all your resources into making one action really good.
I had a soldier/scoundrel/scout/bountyhunter/XXX build that was really great at knocking people down the condition track with guns...so i basically just shot, and shot, and shot, round after round because that was all i was good at. I had all these awsome feats and talents, but they all basically just gave me better defenses and made shooting a gun more deadly. It was boring. I could spread out my talents, sure, but usually that just ment i had some small bonus to pull off a few different things and not necessarily be good at any of them.
Ultimately i found that unless you took a bunch of wild jedi stuff, most classes were pretty boring in combat. Sure i could make an unhittable juggernaut that could put anyone -5 steps down the condition track in one round, but it was pretty boring to actually play. I just had to show up at the table and "unleash" the thing i made without having to worry about movement, timing or coordinating anything with the party.
Dont get me wrong, characters are pretty fun to build with the system. There are plenty of options and a million ways to combine things. This is an aspect of both saga and 3E that i enjoy. Its the actual tactical combat, or lack thereof, that seems to fall flat for me, especially after playing a lot of 4E.
I just wonder why folks dont simply sometimes NOT optimize, and play a different character type occasionally.
d20Modern gave a free hand to multiclassing without penalty,
so you can get as broad a char as you want... or optimize focus on one thing at the expense of breadth. DD3x Fighters didnt mean MeleeOnly, a fighter could do really great with a bow without having to go Ranger.
My biggest beef: Modern must be able to be played as NO-FX.
If you wnt to be able to have an FX system thatcan be turned on or off by just allowing or not allowing certain classes & magic equip, I'm cool with that, sometimes FX modern can be fun..... but any new Modern syatem must be capable to be run without magical suspension of major parts of physics.
Also
Modern system mechanic should be scalable to Future as well.
Dont make a system that works at one PL but breaks when we get bigger faster stronger stuff in the future.
( ColossalSize, I'm looking at you.... and x[w], dont think you're not a problem too)
d20 Modern was absolutely not scaled in power to d20D&D.
You could not say a 5th level fighter was equal to a 5th level Strong, they are just different scope of power in different games.
Nothing wrong with that.
Modern v2 does not have to be parts interchangable with any other game.
Just because d20 Modern was based off d20 D&D didnt mean it was 100% interchangable, just as any Modernv2 doesnt have to be same Healing Surge or whatnot interchangable with what is is based off. DD4e classes might have 6-9 Healing Surges a day buy there is nothing wrong with Modern4 having 0-2.... different game, its not just a DD4e campaign with guns
I voted for 4e rules, but I wouldn't mind seeing perhaps the treatment of vehicles and "guns" in Saga placed into any new version of d20 Modern. I certainly would say that the variants d20 Past, Apocalypse, and Future, should be properly considered even while d20 Modern is still being developed. They do all have to mesh correctly with little alteration, after all.
As for "classes" in d20 Modern. Unless they can come up with a martial controller, there would only be three roles. So perhaps you can have each role with only the martial power source to select anyway for the basic game. You could have a class feature or two that are endemic to the role, with 2 or 3 sets of a few class features, that you can choose from to fullfill the role in your own way. The powers could be separated by role, and you could pick whatever powers you felt complimented your concept (most likely usually being those that mechanically compliment your class features in some way).
Either way I'd like to see it. People I know are tired of White Wolf and want an (potentially) urban fantasy game with a little less whiny emo and a little more fun.
I agree that optimizing all the time is boring.
I just wonder why folks dont simply sometimes NOT optimize, and play a different character type occasionally.
My experience, limited though it is, has been that there is a large portion of optimisers who think that justifying their bizarre multi-classing after the fact constitute "role-playing." It is my humble opinion that they are wrong and that their feet stink.
My biggest beef: Modern must be able to be played as NO-FX.
Agreed! I'm a big fan of modern-fantasy/SF games, but yes, it has to be able to replicate a "realistic" action movie.
Modern system mechanic should be scalable to Future as well.
I agree in theory, but it's tough in practise. However...
Modern v2 does not have to be parts interchangable with any other game.
Perhaps (and I'm still thinking 3.x here), the solution is to design classes in Modern that are the equivalent power level to D&D, and then build F/X (whether super-science or magic) as an add-on to that? So if you're playing a no-F/X game, then mundane technology is all you get, but if you play and FX game, you raise the stakes through equipment. D&D without magic items would be a very different game, but fully playable! Modern-classes with D&D power-levels would be equally playable.
The other thing that it could use is some suggestions as to how to play a no-F/X game, maybe even alternate rules (a health bar instead of HPs, for example). So that if you pick a different kind of game, you have different kinds of rules to choose from. I know that having to make actual decisions about how to implement the rules will break some gamers' brains, but, frankly, f*ck 'em if they can't think for themselves.
I agree that optimizing all the time is boring.
I just wonder why folks dont simply sometimes NOT optimize, and play a different character type occasionally.
Optimizing is a fact of life. Some people like to optimize. Others don't. The system needs to take the ability to optimize into account and ensure that no option is overpowered, or else the game creates traps which it punishes you for playing. It is not acceptable that a DM is forced to ensure balance between the various classes after the fact of production... the game should do that out of the box.
d20Modern gave a free hand to multiclassing without penalty,
so you can get as broad a char as you want... or optimize focus on one thing at the expense of breadth. DD3x Fighters didnt mean MeleeOnly, a fighter could do really great with a bow without having to go Ranger.
Its very possible to create an extremely free form multiclassing system based off the 4e rules. The multiclassing won't be done the same way as it was in 3.5, but it can still be "equally free form" (if mechanically different), and I do mean far more free form than the 4e D&D system is.
My biggest beef: Modern must be able to be played as NO-FX.
If you wnt to be able to have an FX system thatcan be turned on or off by just allowing or not allowing certain classes & magic equip, I'm cool with that, sometimes FX modern can be fun..... but any new Modern syatem must be capable to be run without magical suspension of major parts of physics.
I fully agree. A modern system should be able to be played with NO-FX. Its a good thing one can do this with a 4e system by allowing only "martial" classes and using the optional "no magic item" or "low magic item" rules from the PHB. Obviously such optional rules would become standard fair in a d20 Modern game.
Also
Modern system mechanic should be scalable to Future as well.
Dont make a system that works at one PL but breaks when we get bigger faster stronger stuff in the future.
Agreed. Though how exactly the "bigger/stronger" stuff should be done is not set in stone.
( ColossalSize, I'm looking at you.... and x[w], dont think you're not a problem too)
Uh? What? No, sorry. It has empirically been proven on these boards that the x[w] power system would work just fine in a Modern setting. And what are you talking about in regards to colossal size? You mean a colossal size must exist? I guess. I'm not opposed to it. Would help for labeling the Iowa Battleship.
d20 Modern was absolutely not scaled in power to d20D&D.
You could not say a 5th level fighter was equal to a 5th level Strong, they are just different scope of power in different games.
Nothing wrong with that.
Modern v2 does not have to be parts interchangable with any other game.
Just because d20 Modern was based off d20 D&D didnt mean it was 100% interchangable, just as any Modernv2 doesnt have to be same Healing Surge or whatnot interchangable with what is is based off. DD4e classes might have 6-9 Healing Surges a day buy there is nothing wrong with Modern4 having 0-2.... different game, its not just a DD4e campaign with guns
Agreed. That is why I voted a mix of Saga and 4e. What I am actually voting is "something like 4e, but with new and different elements." I don't need something that is 100% compatible with 4e. What I want is the elegance of 4e power system and combat resolution mechanics wrapped into a package that includes a better/more robust non-combat resolution mechanics system. I'm talking a full set of non-combat powers that do for the skill check what the 4e combat powers did for the attack roll. And, certainly the games don't have to be 100% compatible. If less healing surges works better, less healing surges should be used: but this decision should be made based on a paradigm of the new system, not because something was not done a certain way in d20 Modern v. 3e.
No, sorry. It has empirically been proven on these boards that the x[w] power system would work just fine in a Modern setting.
no, it has be said by you that if we apply a 50%Gimp to guns and a 0%nerf to melee,
it fits the fantasy application of 4e.
Modern: Strong/ & Fast have 1d8hp
Sword does 1d8,
44mag does 2d8,
Garand does 2d10 .... NonCrit 20damage vs PC with 8hp
Doubling or Trippling HP while gimping damage by 50% doesnt have the same feel
no, it has be said by you that if we apply a 50%Gimp to guns and a 0%nerf to melee,
it fits the fantasy application of 4e.
No, sorry, that is you making a statements that in no way correlates to the empirical proof because you don't like the findings. However, the empirical proof was provided. The empirical proof proves that y[x] weapon powers work just fine in a modern setting, a Modern setting in which guns would still be mechanically superior to melee weapons, and even meshes well with some potential alternative vehicle rules (which look nothing like Modern vehicle rules, but would work just as well). The fact that the way guns would be stated out would look somewhat different then the way they are stated out in d20 Modern 3e is irrelevant. Like you said, things don't need to be compatible, not across game lines, or edition lines.
Modern: Strong/ & Fast have 1d8hp
Sword does 1d8,
44mag does 2d8,
Garand does 2d10 .... NonCrit 20damage vs PC with 8hp
This has nothing to do with 4e, or the proof provided. The fact that the math is a little different across editions is irrelevant. The evidence and suggestions provided empirically proved that guns would be superior to melee weapons (as they would count as "magic items," or rather technological items, right off the bat), and could work well with 4e y[x] weapon powers.
Doubling or Trippling HP while gimping damage by 50% doesnt have the same feel
No, sorry, this is also another blatantly false stated that has empirically been proven to be false.
It is true that 4e characters have higher HP at 1st level, and continue to have higher HP until somewhere around level 5. The "50% more" HP statement is only true at level 1. Shortly after (level 2 or 3) it ceases to be true. Shortly after level 5 not only do 4e characters not have "50% more" hit points, they actually have less hit points than 3e (or d20 Modern) characters. This is the empirical truth. To state that 4e characters have blanket "50% more hp" is empirically false.
It is empirically true that weapons in 4e, even weapons that deal 1 die less damage, will STILL not be gimped by "50% damage." Ranged weapons in 4e get to add a characters dexterity modifier to damage. They could not do so in 3e d20 Modern. This already makes the 50% less damage statement empirically false. The ability to add ones ability modifier to damage in d20 Modern was what potentially made single die melee weapons better then the double die firearms. Moreover, weapon powers that cause single die weapons to deal 2d or even 3d of damage, at first level, and even more as one attains higher levels, means that firearms will be doing MORE damage, with even a single damage die, in ratio to their opponents hit points, then they ever did in d20 Modern. Guns will be more lethal, not less.
Stop making empirically false claims. You can like the 4e methods less. That is your prerogative, as taste is subjective. But the claims you are making are not, and they are not true. They are empirically false. To continue to make them is to lie.
No, sorry, this is also another blatantly false stated that has empirically been proven to be false.
It is true that 4e characters have higher HP at 1st level, and continue to have higher HP until somewhere around level 5. The "50% more" HP statement is only true at level 1. Shortly after (level 2 or 3) it ceases to be true. Shortly after level 5 not only do 4e characters not have "50% more" hit points, they actually have less hit points than 3e (or d20 Modern) characters. This is the empirical truth. To state that 4e characters have blanket "50% more hp" is empirically false.
Let me just paste in the last time I worked thus out:
sheesh,
Dave is stuck on his 4e Talking Points from other forum wars: He is doing an Apples-Oranges comparison due to the difference between the standard D&D arguments and what d20Modern has.
Moreover, as a 10d12 weapon, it would actually be more threatening to high level 4e characters then the Abrams tank cannon is to high level d20 Modern characters, because high level 4e characters have less hit points then high level d20 Modern characters. They start out with more hit points, but they don't gain nearly as many. In fact, lets look at a 20th level Fighter. 15 hit points + its Constitution score. +6 hit points per level. Lets assume a Constitution of 20 (this is a TOUGH character). So, we have 149 hit points. Meanwhile, the tough d20 Modern hero, with a Con of 20, would have 214.5 hit points on average.
He is comparing the 4e Fighter to the Modern Tough with CON20.
Why is he not comparing the 4e Barbarian to the Modern Tough
... why is he not comparing the 4e Fighter to the Modern STRONG?
Fighter --> Strong
Barbarian --> Tough
Ranger --> Fast
And I hardly ever play a non-Dwarf or non-Barbarian guy with his obvious choice of 20CON
If we look at Apple to Apples, 4e Fighter vs Modern Strong (or d8Fast)
15+con, +6 per
d8(8)+ConMod, d8(4.5)+conmod per
Dave is stuck on his 4e Talking Points from other forum wars: He is doing an Apples-Oranges comparison due to the difference between the standard D&D arguments and what d20Modern has.
I'm trying to compare apples to oranges? Why is that? Oh, right...
He is comparing the 4e Fighter to the Modern Tough with CON20.
Why is he not comparing the 4e Barbarian to the Modern Tough
... why is he not comparing the 4e Fighter to the Modern STRONG?
Fighter --> Strong
Barbarian --> Tough
Ranger --> Fast
And I hardly ever play a non-Dwarf or non-Barbarian guy with his obvious choice of 20CON
So, lets see. We are comparing the HP of 3e classes to 4e classes. No 4e variants of the d20 Modern classes yet exist. We have all agreed that not everything should not be 100% the same across the board. But we can assume that similarities of the sort that exist between the 3e D&D and d20 Modern would continue to exist between a 4e version of D&D and a 4e version of d20 Modern if one was to be released. So, in 3e a D&D d10 for hit points was the same as a d10 for hit points in d20 Modern. So, a fighter which got d10 for hit points was the same as a strong hero who got d8 hit points? No, sorry. That is apples and oranges. A class with d10 hit points in 3e d20 Modern empirically received hit points at the same rate as a d10 class in 3e D&D. Since a fighter in 3e D&D got d10 hit points, which is what the tough hero received, one can assume that the "4e tough hero class" will gain hit points like the fighter of 4e, not the barbarian. Classes in d20 Modern receive less hit points then their "thematic" equivalents. That is just the way it works. That is apples and apples.
So, lets put up a more complete set of tables.
d12 Barbarian --> d10Tough
4e Fighter doesnt go to Tough, it goes to Strong. Just because you havent seen the 4e Barbarian with even insaner HP yet, dont cry here about WoC forcing folks to buy 4e splatbooks just to get core classes. When you continue to pay them, you will eventually get all the core classes and you can then have someone to fill the XXXXX --> d10 Tough comparison
dude, its a poll, not a debate
Lighten up Francis
d10 Fighter --> d8 Strong / d8 Fast
d12 Barbarian --> d10Tough
No, sorry, that is a lie.
A d10 fighter gains hit points at the exact same rate as a d10 tough.
A d8 strong/fast gains hit points at the exact same rate as a d8 ranger.
That is an empirical fact. Thus, one can assume that it is the 4e fighter that will have the same hit points as a tough hero in 4e.
4e Fighter doesnt go to Tough, it goes to Strong.
This is a lie, and an attempt by you to twist the empirical facts. Despite the thematic similiarty of the fighter and the strong hero, you know fully well that it is the 3e fighter who received the same hit points as the tough hero in d20 Modern, not the barbarian. You understand fully well why this then suggests that it is the 4e fighter, and not the barbarian, that the tough hero would receive the same hit points as in a 4e version of d20 Modern.
Just because you havent seen the 4e Barbarian with even insaner HP yet, dont cry here about WoC forcing folks to buy 4e splatbooks just to get core classes.
Um, I have seen the Barbarian. I own all the 4e books released to date, except for two. The PHB 2 is not among those two. I have absolutely no problem with WotC forcing people to buy a second book to get the primal classes.
And here is the real kicker: once again you have made an empirical lie. The Barbarian does not have "even insaner" HP. In fact, the 4e Barbarian receives even less HP in ratio to the 3e barbarian than the 4e fighter did in ratio to the 3e fighter. The 4e barbarian receives the same hit points as a fighter (the 4e version of a "d10" per level) and not more ala 3e. Across the board, any character with a Con of 14 or higher would have received more hit points as of 12th level in 3e than they do in 4e. In the case of the barbarian, the level at which the 3e barbarian has more hit points than the 4e barbarian comes even sooner. Anyone with a higher Constitution score will have higher hit points than their 4e variant even sooner. Only characters with a Constitution score of 13 or lower will have more hit points in 4e, and they don't receive anywhere near "50% more" hit points, except at very low levels. All 4e does is make early levels of play less swingy, and lessen the reliance on a high Constitution score. It does not generally make characters more survivable. The contribution of a generally lower total hit points after the lower levels of play, and generally higher damage output across the board, ensures this.
When you continue to pay them, you will eventually get all the core classes and you can then have someone to fill the XXXXX --> d10 Tough comparison
No need. A d10 for hit points in d20 Modern equaled a d10 for hit points in 3e D&D. We can thus assume that the tough hero (in 4e d20 Modern) will receive the same hit points as a class that received a d10 for hit points in 3e D&D, like the fighter. And, if you insist on saying that "it must be the barbarian" (even though the argument it totally illogical from the ground up), the barbarian in 4e still receives the same HP as the fighter in 4e.
dude, its a poll, not a debate
Lighten up Francis
Stop lying. And my name is not Francis. That too would be another lie.
Strong does not = Ranger
did you not notice the lack of Hide MSilent Spot and a 2:6 skill/lvl disparity?
Fighter is not Fast, Ranger is
Fighter is not Tough, Barbarian is
Fighter is very much Strong
To have the HP divergence flip at 15th level
is great when you start at 20th
rather than choosing begining level like 1st would be a great place to tale your first level.
In the 20+ years and 150+chars I've been playing, I've had 4 guys make it to the point your Padded HP version of D&D meets oldschool.
dude, this is a poll, not a debate
just say "I do not agree with your opinion, which doesnt invalidate you having it"
and let it go
Way to take over the thread guys...
Wow.
Way to take over the thread guys...
they are like an old married couple;) :P
You really need to step back and accept that other folks will have opinions other than yours in a poll
This has nothing to do with opinions. You have made empirical statements. Your empirical statements are empirically false. You know this. You are lying.
Strong does not = Ranger
No, it does not. The classes are not thematically the same. However, their progression of hit point gain does equate. A strong hero does gain hit points at the same rate as a ranger. A tough hero does gain hit points at the same rate as a fighter. These statements are empirically true.
Fighter is not Fast, Ranger is
No, a "Fast Hero" is not a ranger. It does not gain the same class abilities. It is not the same. At best, one can claim that it is thematically similar. Even this statement is suspect and open to counter-interpretation. But that is a matter of opinion. However, a fighter does gain hit points at the same rate as a tough hero. That statement is empirically true.
Fighter is not Tough, Barbarian is
No, a "Tough hero" is not a Barbarian. It does not gain the same class abilities. It is not the same. At best, one can claim that it is thematically similar. Even this statement is suspect and open to counter-interpretation. But that is a matter of opinion. However, a Tough hero does not gain hit points at the same rate as a barbarian. That statement is empirically true.
Fighter is very much Strong
No, it is not. At best one can claim that it is thematically similar. Even this statement is suspect and open to counter-interpretation. But that is a matter of opinion. However, a fighter does not gain hit points at the same rate as a strong hero. That statement is empirically true.
You can claim otherwise all you like, but you are lying if and when you do so. That is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of empirical fact. What classes you think are thematically similar (or I think are thematically similar) is irrelevant. That is a matter of opinion. Fact is, a d10 hit point gain for a class in d20 Modern equals a d10 hit point gain for a class in 3e D&D. A tough hero in d20 Modern gains hit points at the same rate as a fighter in 3e D&D. Thus, when comparing hit point gain in an "apples to apples" fashion one must compare the hit point gain of the tough hero, or fighter, in 3e, to the fighter in 4e. One must do this because no actual 4e Modern classes exist as of yet. The only way to accurately compare hit points is to take a Modern class, find a D&D class that gains hit points at the same rate, and compare the hit points of that 3e D&D class to an existing 4e D&D class. Even then, one can not simply compare classes on a one to one bases. A more robust examination is required. A more robust examination will show that rogue in 4e, for example, have had their hit points boosted by one step. A more robust examination will show that wizards in 4e have, for example, had their hit points boosted by one step. A more robust examination will show that barbarians in 4e have, for example, had their hit points reduced by one step.
Moreover, as has been stated, this more robust examination shows that the Barbarian in 4e D&D gains hit points at the same rate as the 4e D&D fighter. They reduced the Barbarian's hit points in 4e. So, your argument is null and void.
To have the HP divergence flip at 15th level
is great when you start at 20th
rather than choosing begining level like 1st would be a great place to tale your first level.
In the 20+ years and 150+chars I've been playing, I've had 4 guys make it to the point your Padded HP version of D&D meets oldschool.
Once again, you are lying. In fact, you are lying in the face of the empirical evidence provided IN THIS THREAD? Is it possible for you to stop lying please? In this thread it has empirically been proven that the HP divergence flip occurs not at 15th level, but at 12th level, and 12th level IF you have a Con of only 14! If you have a Con of 18 the HP divergence flip occurs at 7th level. It is very easy to gain a Con of 18. If one really focuses on spiking con, the levels of Con attainable can cause the HP divergence flip to occur at levels as low as 3rd or 4th.
I specifically put up tables for the lower ends of the Con spectrum to prove that even with sub-par Con scores, the 3e characters will usually have a higher HP end game. Only characters with a con of 13- have higher HP (endgame) in 4e. If you are playing a character who has Constitution as his primary stat, the flip occurs very soon into the game.
Now you may feel that only the hit points at first level matter, but that IS opinion, opinion that can not be proven as empirical fact. I think all levels of play are important. I think 3e characters had too many hit points at high levels, and too few at low levels. But that IS also opinion. However, the statement that 4e characters have "50% more hp" is not opinion. Its a blanket statement. Its a blanket statement that has been proven to be empirically false. The only true statement that you can make in relation to 4e granting more hit points is that at first level 4e grants characters about 50% more hp, and this most often ceases to be true within a few levels, even in cases where the 4e version of the character continues to have more hit points by a smaller margin.
dude, this is a poll, not a debate
just say "I do not agree with your opinion, which doesnt invalidate you having it"
and let it go
This has nothing to do with me not agreeing. Your "opinion" was not an opinion, but a claim to an objective truth. Your claim was, and is, empirically false. You are welcome to any subjective opinion about 4e you care to hold. You are not welcome to make negative "objective statements" about the game if they are empirically false. Or rather, you are welcome to make those statements (as I can not stop you from doing so), but when you do simple facts do invalidate what you have to say. What you had to say is not valid.
If you want to make valid statements as to your subjective opinion of 4e, don't use objectively observable falsehoods to make those statements.
Wow.
Way to take over the thread guys...
Sorry. I'm a little sick of people claiming that statements are objective truths when they are not, and then trying to use "opinion" as their last stand when their statements are proven to be objectively false.
I could care less when people don't like 4e, or prefer another game system. You don't like 4e Waylan (at least for a Modern game). That is fine by me. You have your reasons and I understand them. They are your subjective opinion, and there is nothing wrong with that. Hell, there are even some objectively observable facts which are true, and which some people may feel make 4e bad at representing a Modern game. It is, for example, impossible to build a non-combat character using the current 4e system. The system is great at running non-combat encounters, but it also forces characters to be capable as combat characters. It does not allow someone to sacrifice large portions of their combat power in return for non-combat powers. That is objectively true. If that bothers you, you have a good reason to be bothered by the current 4e system. But trying to pass off objectively false statements as truth in order to put down a system is not ok, or cool, and I don't plan to let it slide.
they are like an old married couple
:P ;) :DYou keep throwing the word "empircal" quite a bit in your statements. Was that on your Word-A-Day calendar? :P
Dave,
You keep throwing the word "empircal" quite a bit in your statements. Was that on your Word-A-Day calendar? :P
It was. But its more like a Word-A-Week. Last weeks was disingenuous. :P
(I am lying, of course, for the record. But I did seem to use disingenuous a lot last week.)
I don't give a crap who started it, but it's time for these monster posts to stop. Takeit to PM or start a new thread. I'm not a mod. I'm not pretending to be a mod. I'm just a poster who'd like you stop now.
THATS IT YOU TWO. GO TO YOUR BEDROOMS NOW!....NO RPGing TONIGHT!
AND HAND OVER YOUR DACE BAGS!they are like an old married couple
Bam!
hmmmmm, this want nearly as monster as I anticipated
I liked Saga when I first saw it, but when 4e was released I grew disappointed in Saga. While Saga wasn't as bad in the power creep as 3.5 was, it was still there, and then 4e went and mostly crushed it to dust with powers. A powers-based system in Saga would've done wonders for making it worth playing something OTHER than a force-user.
This.
It wasnt so much an issue of power creep in saga that disappointed me but the fact that, like 3.5, you could easily spend all your resources over the course of 10 levels just making one action work well in combat. After that, the best course of action when combat started was to spam the combo you created whenever possible. Before that point though, you are usually just doing vanilla attacks over and over unless you are a jedi. After playing 3e for years i had learned to except this kind of gameplay, but when 4E came along i realized that combat could be tactical and...well...fun.
Now, there are aspects of saga that i would certainly like to see in a new modern. Dropping AC could work well and the vehicle rules might be alright. I enjoy the flexility of multiclassing in saga though it would probably need to be nixed a bit in order to make things more balanced.
The biggest thing that i would like to see included in a new modern game is a real focus on giving every character a full suite of in-combat and out of combat abilities. In saga, its not to hard to stumble into a build that can't do much in combat and gets killed off pretty quick (healing is much more sparse relative to DnD) and in 4E you can make a fighter that has hardly any cool things it can do besides swing a sword 20 ways. I want to see a genuine balance between the 2 spheres of play.
these were not unpopular shows, and yet the heros didnt do the combat thing
not all investigators wear kevlar & tote AK47s
and those are only the shows that have a dead guy every episode
There are lots of NONCOMBAT hero character types, shouldnt we have a non-combat class for them?
Columbo and John McLain shouldnt be the same class
On one hand, the idea that you can choose to focus on non combat ability applications appeals to me.
On the other hand, I don't know that its actually good game design. Having characters who range from being amazing combatants to characters that can perform no combat activities whatsoever can become very problematic.
I think I would like a new d20 Modern to keep the option to build "non combat characters," within reason. But I definitely want the combat aspect of the game to be Modeled after 4e. Other games just felt sort of boring when it came to combat. Saga is a lot better then 3e is in that area, but it still falls into some of 3e pitfalls (as GhostStepper has said).
I think what I want is Saga's "non combat character" options with 4e combat resolution mechanics.
How that would best be achieved, I am not sure. Perhaps characters should have their "encounter," "daily," and "utility" slots. However, perhaps a character should be able to trade in encounter/daily powers in favor of extra utility powers. In this way things can be kept balanced in combat at all times (nobody can choose all combat attack powers, though they can certainly choose to pick the more combat oriented utility powers), or can intentionally gimp their character in combat in favor of more utility options.
In any case, one place where I feel 4e is really lacking is in utility powers that do for the skill system what the combat powers did for the attack roll. There needs to be more utility powers that modify the way a skill check is rolled in order to produce a more interesting/usually unattainable result. Stuff like you use a utility power to make one skill check. If you succeed on that skill check, for the purpose of skill challenges the result counts as two successes. Or perhaps for leaders: you roll a Diplomacy skill check. If you succeed, all your allies gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks until the end of the encounter. Or for strikers, perhaps something along the line of: roll an Intimidate check to convince a target to surrender even if it is not bloodied. 4e certainly needs more non-combat utility powers. It has a great foundation for non-combat mechanics... but the system as a whole is just not robust enough in that area.
Columbo, Perry Mason, MsMurderSheWrote, Matlock, Hart2Hart
these were not unpopular shows, and yet the heros didnt do the combat thing
not all investigators wear kevlar & tote AK47s
and those are only the shows that have a dead guy every episode
There are lots of NONCOMBAT hero character types, shouldnt we have a non-combat class for them?
Columbo and John McLain shouldnt be the same class
If there was an RPG based off of Columbo, Perry Mason, Angela Landbury, Matlock, Hart2Hart, ect....it wouldnt include base attack bonuses, fortitude defense, reflex defense, will defense, armor class, hit points or 90% of the mechanics of d20 modern or DnD. There are much better systems out there for people who want to play Murder She Wrote since the d20 system is designed around the idea that every character is going to get shot at at some point (no Matlock character is going to have a defense rating and 3 saving throws listed on their sheet with enough hit points to be shot 5 times point blank).
d20 Modern has never been ideal to emulate any of the shows youve mentioned because of the system's ephasis on combat mechanics. If you make a 10th level Angela Landbury, she is automatically a better shot and harder to kill than a 1st level Arnold Swartzeneggar. Just look through the book and see how many pages are dedicated to running combats or weapons stats and compare that to the out-of-combat skills. Notice that other than driving, there really isnt any formal system for resolving out-of-combat scenarios like court cases or murder mysteries.
The thing is, while you could shoe-horn Angela Landsbury into a d20 modern game by ignoring most of the rules in the book (combat talents, combat classes, weapons, the combat chapter, etc...), the system was never intened to fully support fully non-combat games the way other systems do.
Im not seeing why we should go out of our way at this point to demand that the game fully supports completely non-combat characters any more than it has in the past. Moreover, i would be worried that if the developers went out of their way to design the system so that you could make completely non-combat characters that the combat system would suffer. The power system of 4E is incredibly fun, for instance, and i have a hard time imagining a system where you could balance a power-using class with one that has 0 powers.
Personally, i dont want a system where half of the table has to sit out when combat starts and then the other half sits out when there are out-of-combat situations. I dont want a system where i have to choose between being really awesome at combat and do nothing outside of combat, being awesome outside of combat and hiding during combat, or be sub-par at both. I dont want a system where i teach my friends to play RPGs for the first time and half of them die if i choose to run a combat because they accidentally chose too many non-combat features.
I mean Come On, She is even wearing the Columbo hat & coat for petesake
wow, cell phone AND camera.... Russell better watch out
how do these fit in a party?
Like this
The book seems to think you can role play more than just combat in this RPG.
If you guys have been doing such a swell job of ignoring the noncombatclasses & features of d20Modern, why dont you just ignore the noncombat classes & features we put in Modern4
You can roleplay all the out-of-combat you like while playing d20 modern but that doesnt change the fact the majority of the actual rules typed out in the book are for weapons, combat, and abilities related to these things.
The book seems to think you can role play more than just combat in this RPG.
So do i...which is exactly why i want all classes to be balanced between combat and out-of-combat.
If you guys have been doing such a swell job of ignoring the noncombatclasses & features of d20Modern, why dont you just ignore the noncombat classes & features we put in Modern4
All of the "non combat classes" in d20 Modern are still forced to be at least semi-decent in combat (compared to non-heroic mooks). This is true of the old d20 Modern. There is no reason this should not be true of the new d20 Modern.
The question is, just how much of your combat ability should you be able to sacrifice in favor of non-combat abilities. Its a tough question.
Like I said, my preference, they keep the 4e end game design of 2 at will attack powers, 4 per encounter attack powers, 4 daily powers, and 7 utility powers, but they make sure that ALL classes get a lot of great utility power that do for skill checks what combat powers do for attack rolls. Then, some of the "non combat classes" can have the option to sacrifice some of their per encounter/daily power slots for extra utility slots, with a blurb at the side of the page that clearly warns players that doing so will gimp them in combat in comparison to characters that do not make this choice.
P.S. Seems that at the current moment in time the overwhelming majority of voters want some sort of 4e Modern game. We have a total of 64% of the voters in this poll, so far, saying that they want at least SOME 4e in their new Modern game. That being said, it seems those of us who don't want an identical 4e to 4e D&D are also in the majority. Like me, it seems the majority of the voters in this 64th percentile want some amount of Saga in their new Modern too...
If you make a 10th level Angela Landbury, she is automatically a better shot and harder to kill than a 1st level Arnold Swartzeneggar
10th Smart +5BAB, -4Tohit NonProf = +1Tohit
1st Strong +1BAB, StartOcc PFP = +1Tohit
10th Strong +10BAB, PFP AFP Focus = +11Autofire
10th Smart +5BAB, -4prof -4Auto = -3Autofire
yeah, I can see getting those two mixed up
Unless you're Alice talking to the Queen of Hearts, social interactions aren't likely to cause the death of one of the individuals involved. When social interactions do lead to life threatening situations, the DM usually gives a "roll initiative" transition.
I'm all for creativity and out of combat play, but I don't know how much rules and powers need to be involved, especially for a low-FX modern world. When the rules say my character has to believe that the sky is red because an NPC's bluff check beats my sense motive check by 30, I feel that rules interfere with role playing. I could understand this type of necessity in a world with magical suggestions or Jedi mind tricks and maybe this is where people want powers, but imagination and creativity are better suited for a no-FX modern world. If a player told me he or she wanted to brainwash or torture an NPC until that NPC believed that the sky was red, then I'd role play it out and decide on the outcome based on the thoroughness of the player's description.
Example:
I ran a low magic game based on the WoW d20 OGL rules set. My players were tactical masterminds coming up with all sorts of strategies for out of combat situations that used their imaginations instead of skills or powers. Due to the nature of the d20 OGL (basically 3.5) rules, I would try to find some sort of die roll to determine the success of a situation, but I often felt that the ideas were solid enough to set the target DC at 5. This group was able to do things like use the black market to convert a 10,000 gp bank note for construction supplies into 8,500 gp's worth of magical equipment, cause an avalanche to interrupt a communications network, silently infiltrate a national capitol and frame a military captain for an assassination, and raise an army to overthrow what appeared to be an oppressive government. No one had to use special abilities or powers to do any of this and the basic skill list still covers all the proficiencies needed. In fact, the skill challenge system of 4E would have provided a nice outline for how I could have handled the situations and the experience earned a little better. I don't see how the fourth edition rules set would have limited these non-combat encounters in any way.
For the record, I don't recall where exactly I learned of this rule. I think it was in a D&D FAQ.
its a poll, not a debate
I think the greatest strength of d20 Modern was the versatility of the class/multiclass system. We ran campaigns including low-magic medieval fantasy, 1930s pulp heroes, ww2, modern detective, modern shadow chasers, modern spy, modern w/magic (but NOT Urban Arcana), zombie horror, Call of Cthulhu, a game based on the Global Frequency comic, a future hard sci-fi, and even a Star Wars conversion of the RCR.
With d20 Modern I had the sense that any type of character could be made and any campaign setting developed. Characters could learn and grow as they gained levels, taking them in directions that were not prescribed at level 1.
With SW Saga I feel I can make any type of character, even with just the core rules. Non-force users have a lot of options and I think the base classes are all actually better than the base Jedi class at level 1.
I loved the streamlining of skills and, again, the freedom of the multiclassing. While I think the Scout is the best of the classes I think they are nearly all balanced with one another.
With the new D&D it seems like you can only run D&D.
Indeed, many of the classic character types of traditional fantasy can't be made with the current rules, or at least they will be sub-optimized. What of the Gray Mouser becoming a swordsman after thief and wizard? Conan takes a similar path as a young barbarian, then rogue and pirate, then warrior, and warlord. How do you make a Rand al' Thor? Fighter multiclassed with Sorcerer?
With D&D4 you can take the multiclass feats but you are not going to fill the other roles. It seems that that is the design of the new system. Rather than multiclassing fighter/wizard you need to wait for the new splatbook to get the Swordmage.
With a new Modern I want the ability to multiclass freely. I want to be able to make characters that can develop over time. I want to be able to make Smart heroes that become great martial artists or Strong heroes that become officers.
I want a system that is not all about combat. When all of your character resources are put into combat you are telling the players that that is what the game is about. With D&D4 I still find that characters use the same options over and over. Many of the high level powers are simply improved versions of the low level powers, right?
If anything is taken from D&D4 I would pick the ability to learn any skill with a feat and at-will powers for base classes but with the ability to swap them for any of your multiclasses.
Also, I need a game that doesn't rely on FX. I can run a Star Wars game without the Force and I want a Modern game that doesn't assume there are trolls under the bridges and elves hidden in the forests.
With D&D4 I still find that characters use the same options over and over. Many of the high level powers are simply improved versions of the low level powers, right?
Not really, no. There are occasional powers that look like upgraded versions of lower level powers, but this is not generally the rule, and there is no real reason for a character to choose two powers that pretty much do the same thing. Your statement a greatly simplified and disingenuous observation.
Characters in 4e do not use the same powers over and over again. End game, they have a total of 10 powers to use during any fight. Only 2 of them can be used "over and over again." The other 8 must be carefully chosen based on situation. For most characters, each of those 8 powers do something very different. Even if you do choose a couple powers that do something similar, its fairly hard to end up with more than 2 powers with a similar effect. The power system one of the best innovations to the d20 system. It makes combat a lot more enjoyable to play.
As for the multiclassing bit, I absolutely agree. A new d20 Modern does need to feel a lot more multiclass free-form then D&D 4e currently does. There are, however, a number of ways this can be achieved in a 4e based system.
The other 8 must be carefully chosen based on situation.
and the Situation is an Encounter,
which leads to the mind numbing repitition of Encounter & Atwill powers each encounter
Q: Which encounter will I use my Encounter 2[w] power?
A: every encounter
Not really, no. There are occasional powers that look like upgraded versions of lower level powers, but this is not generally the rule, and there is no real reason for a character to choose two powers that pretty much do the same thing. Your statement a greatly simplified and disingenuous observation.
Disingenuous implies that I'm being decietful. I have been in a lot of games where the same types of powers are chosen and used repeatedly. It is as easy to make character that lacks versatility in D&D4 as in any other system, particularly since your role determines what type of attack you use each round. I have seen a lot of Fighters that don't even carry a ranged weapon, heavy thrown or otherwise.
Disingenuous implies that I'm being decietful. I have been in a lot of games where the same types of powers are chosen and used repeatedly. It is as easy to make character that lacks versatility in D&D4 as in any other system, particularly since your role determines what type of attack you use each round. I have seen a lot of Fighters that don't even carry a ranged weapon, heavy thrown or otherwise.
If you claim that everyone "picks the same power" or even "picks the same type of power" your argument is being deceitful even it it was not your attempt to intentionally deceive others. There are simply not enough powers that are actually, essentially, the same in any given single class for a character to pick most of the same type of powers. At best, a character will be able to pick 2 or 3 powers which do the same thing. Three is pushing it. I can only really think of "2 of the same type of power" combinations (and many classes don't even get this amount of similar capabilities), but I suppose a "3 of the same type of power" combinations might exist. Maybe a barbarian with storm of blades, hurricane of blades, and multiclass ranger for cascade of blades. Thats a "3 of the same type of power" combination... though I can not think of another such combination. And even then, while those three powers are very similar, they are still not identical. Even if you manage to find a lot of powers within a class/multiclass build that have one common effect, there will still be differences from power to power. For example, I wanted to build a Druid who end game would have as many "prone" type powers as possible. I managed to fit 4 prone type powers into my build. I could have picked a 5th if I really wanted to. However, those five powers shared only one common quality, they all knocked a target prone. All their other features, and thus tactical capability, are different. Out of 10 total powers, that means that any given character (even the barbarian-ranger example I gave, who has the largest number of similar/almost identical powers that I can think of) will still have plenty of different types of actions to perform during any given encounter. Unlike 3e, or even most Saga characters, people will not have only one or two actions which they can actually perform.
And, while a character can attempt to pick all powers that deal the same effects (it is still impossible to completely achieve this goal, though a person can manage to gain a few similar powers), the difference between 3e/Saga and 4e is that in 3e/Saga you need to specifically attempt to gain different powers to do so, and this usually means that you have made an sub-par character (since superior effects could have been achieved via an attempt to stack all your abilities and benefits into one single "super action" which can be repeated over and over). In fourth edition you need to specifically attempt to gain multiple powers that deal the same/similar effects, and doing so does not grant you any real benefit in power.
Likewise, the claim that most fighters don't even carry a ranged weapon, and thus all fighters do the same thing over and over, is a disingenuous claim. It is a deceitful claim (even if you are not intentionally trying to deceive anyone). Certainly many fighters might not carry a ranged weapon. But this is irrelevant. It in no way actually indicates that most fighters perform the same action over and over again. For the first time ever, fighters will have 10 different actions that they can perform with a melee weapon.
So yes, I am calling your claim deceitful. That is correct. Even if you are not trying to be, the claim you are making is...
and the Situation is an Encounter,
which leads to the mind numbing repitition of Encounter & Atwill powers each encounter
Q: Which encounter will I use my Encounter 2[w] power?
A: every encounter
Oooh, look, another disingenuous claim.
1) 4/10th of a characters powers will only be usable once per day. A character will have to choose when to use such powers.
2) Even those powers that can be used per/encounter, the question is not "which encounter you will use such an ability in," but when in an encounter the ability would be most beneficial to be used.
3) The y[x] damage component of (most) powers is their least important aspect. Powers are a total package. They are not just damage. There is also the question of how many people the power can target at once and what additional effects the power grants (be it buffs to your own character, or penalties to your opponent). All of these elements combine to make the use of the power situational. You need to decide when a powers total package would be most beneficial during an encounter. And, if a power can do nothing but damage, then it is going to be a high damage power. Using such a power at the wrong time, such as against a minion, or a soldier/elite/solo target with high defense and no debuffs placed upon it to ensure that the power lands, will once again cause you to waste one of your beneficial capabilities.
Your attempt to claim that there are no tactics to when powers aught to best be used, that all powers are simply used "per encounter" (with no thought put into when during an encounter such an ability would best be used) is a fraudulent lie. Or rather, a player certainly CAN play this way, but they will be doing their group no favor if they do so.
Needing to actually think about which of your 10 different abilities you will use, and when, is a lot less mind numbing then unleashing your one single at-will ability every round (ala 3e and, often, though not always, Saga).
If a new Modern game was to be released which had a combat system as mind number as 3e was (for anyone but a spell caster), and Saga is (for most, though not all, characters), I will have no interest in buying it. I don't want a 4e D&D clone, but a do want a combat system that plays like the 4e D&D combat system. The power system is the best thing that ever happened to d20 RPG combat resolution.
10th Smart +5BAB, -4Tohit NonProf = +1Tohit
1st Strong +1BAB, StartOcc PFP = +1Tohit
yeah, I can see getting those two mixed up
So with a pistol they are identical? Yeah, no mix up there. ;) (actually i assumed she had more levels of dedicated hero than smart since around half of the core smart hero's talents are more combat-oriented, but oh well)
And i notice you dont take issue with Angela being tougher, being able to fall from a roof or being shot multple times. ;)
Why focus on combat?
....
I'm all for creativity and out of combat play, but I don't know how much rules and powers need to be involved, especially for a low-FX modern world. When the rules say my character has to believe that the sky is red because an NPC's bluff check beats my sense motive check by 30, I feel that rules interfere with role playing.
Im not totally sure what you are driving at since you question the focus on combat and then turn around and say you dont want rules for out-of-combat? What rules are we supposed to have then? Should we eliminate skills altogether because of cheesy uses or people "rollplaying" instead of roleplaying?
I want a system that is not all about combat. When all of your character resources are put into combat you are telling the players that that is what the game is about.
I dont think ive read anyone in this thread arguing for a system that is all combat. I know that in my first post i noted that i didnt like how a DnD 4E fighter couldnt do much more than swing his sword 20 ways.
With D&D4 I still find that characters use the same options over and over. Many of the high level powers are simply improved versions of the low level powers, right?
For everyone but the casters, there is broader range of in-combat options in 4E than d20 Modern or 3.5 though. In 3.5, all my fighter could do was just swing away with generic attack rolls, round after round, deciding only how much i wanted to power attack. Sure i could trip, after investing a bunch of resource into it, but after mid-levels it was often a wasted action or an impossible one. In saga, much of the time all i could do was shoot my blaster over and over again (applying the same old stack of feats every round, ad infinitum). In modern, my viable choices in combat are probably the most limited. Now, when i play 4e i actually have to figure out when to use what special ability, who to use it on and carefully considering my positioning/allies.
One huge issue i have 3.5, saga and Modern is that in those system i literally do have to just repeat the same basic attack over and over because that is my only option or clearly optimal option, but with 4E i dont have to.
I have lost all respect for you.
If you think that someone relating their observations are lies, then there's no discussing anything with you.
You have become a 4E Fundamentalist. Crying "Blasphemy!" at any who disagree with your point of view.
My experince with gaming in general and with 4E in particular is VERY similar to James Cosper's... Am I a disingenuous liar too?
You need to learn to add three little words to your posts... "In My Opinion".
You've been throwing around the word "empirical" like the word "the"... all you have proven empirically is that you don't respect anyone who disagrees with you and that you cannot see the level to which you have sunk.
its really sad.
But that's just my personal observation... which of course, by your logic, means I am lying.
...
For everyone but the casters, there is broader range of in-combat options in 4E than d20 Modern or 3.5 though. In 3.5, all my fighter could do was just swing away with generic attack rolls, round after round, deciding only how much i wanted to power attack. Sure i could trip, after investing a bunch of resource into it, but after mid-levels it was often a wasted action or an impossible one. In saga, much of the time all i could do was shoot my blaster over and over again (applying the same old stack of feats every round, ad infinitum). In modern, my viable choices in combat are probably the most limited. Now, when i play 4e i actually have to figure out when to use what special ability, who to use it on and carefully considering my positioning/allies.
One huge issue i have 3.5, saga and Modern is that in those system i literally do have to just repeat the same basic attack over and over because that is my only option or clearly optimal option, but with 4E i dont have to.
I'll grant you that 4E offers alot more tactical options to no-magic-users than any other system, but its class structure is what makes it so unsuitable for a modern setting. I think perhaps adding some of those tactical options to the Saga rules (throut a feat like Force Training or Starship Tactics... call it "Tactical Training") would make a Saga based Modern game perfect...
In my humble opinion.
...stuff...
Sorry, but to claim that all the powers in 4e do the same thing (probably because they use a similar system of notation) is a lie. That is an observable fact. When comparing powers, it quickly becomes fairly obvious that they do not have the same target lines, radius of effects, damage types, or secondary effects.
Sorry, but to claim that because no fighter really gains ranged powers that they all use the same action round after round is a lie. Fighters might not gain any ranged weapon powers, but they gain plenty of different melee range powers. That is observable fact.
To make either of those arguments is to make a disingenuous argument. That is the argument, to my understanding, that James Cosper made. If that means you have lost respect for me, so be it, I can live with that. I don't have any respect for someone who makes untrue claims, or defends them.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike 4e. The above two reasons are not one of them. That is not my opinion, that's just fact.
Stuff
Only the mighty Cyberdave knows the truth... only His experiences are Gospel... so sad...
Please, if you are claiming that I am wrong, prove that the fighter gains only a single action that he can use round after round due to a lack of ranged weapon powers.
Back up your words with evidence. Otherwise, the only thing that is sad is your statement that objective observation is akin to opinion.
Please, if you are claiming I am wrong, prove that you can find more than 3 powers within a single class which do the exact same thing.
Please, if you are claiming that I am wrong, prove that the fighter gains only a single action that he can use round after round due to a lack of ranged weapon powers.
Back up your words with evidence. Otherwise, the only thing that is sad is your statement that objective observation is akin to opinion.
No.
No.
Then you have no argument. The only one preaching Gospel would be you. You are preaching that the ability to make a statement, despite being unable to back it up, indicates that the statement has validity, despite objective evidence to the contrary. That is exactly what Gospel is... the claim to truth, without supporting evidence, in the face of oppositional evidence.
Then you have no argument. The only one preaching Gospel would be you. You are preaching that the ability to make a statement, despite being unable to back it up, indicates that the statement has validity. That is exactly what Gospel is... the claim to truth without supporting evidence.
yep. you got me.
Or MAYBE... you are so worked up right now that there's no sense in me wasting my time trying to discuss this logically with you.
You are calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar.
From that position, there's no way to have an intelligent discussion.
I'm going to log off now... I'll be back later... why don't you unplug for a while too and maybe when you are more calm, we can have a rational discussion.
good night.
yep. you got me.
Or MAYBE... you are so worked up right now that there's no sense in me wasting my time trying to discuss this logically with you.
You are calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar.
From that position, there's no way to have an intelligent discussion.
I'm going to log off now... I'll be back later... why don't you unplug for a while too and maybe when you are more calm, we can have a rational discussion.
good night.
My responses were rational. Once again, if you claim that they are not, please indicate what about them was irrational or untrue with supporting evidence. I am more than willing to listen, and will even admit to being wrong if I agree with what you have to say.
And no, not everyone who disagrees with me is a liar. Many people here dislike 4e. They are not liars. Until you defended that all powers in 4e do the same thing, or that fighters can perform only a single action due to a lack of ranged weapon powers, I have never claimed that you made an untrue statement despite the fact that I disagree with your opinions. I don't agree with a single one of RealOrion's statements, but he is not a liar. In fact, his statement that one cannot build a non-combat character using the existing 4e system is objectively true. It doesn't bother me, and so I like 4e anyway. But his statement is true. What we cannot agree on is whether this is a big problem or not, and whether a modified 4e system can be used to make non-combat characters or not. Our disagreement does not make him a liar. I don't agree that the 4e powers are any less realistic than the 3e/Saga way of granting abilities. However, those who feel that they are less realistic are not liars.
But to claim that powers in 4e do the same thing, or that fighters can only perform a single action due to a lack of ranged weapon powers, is to make an objectively false claim. I can provide supporting evidence to prove that. Making an objectively false claim via a statement that is logical on its surface is the way in which people make disingenuous claims. Saying that all fighters perform the same action because all are forced to swing a melee weapon seems logical. But the fact is, fighters have a vast number of different actions that they can perform with that melee weapon in the 4e rules. This can be objectively proven. The claim that fighters perform only one action due to a lack of ranged weapon powers is thus disingenuous. The claim that all powers are the same due to the fact that the same notation is used to represent them all might seem logical. However, objective evidence can prove that powers do not do the same thing. They have different targets, do different damage, do different types of damage, sometimes don't do damage at all, and have different secondary effects, and sometimes only a primary effect. Thus, to make the claim that all powers are the same due to similar notation is to make a disingenuous claim. To claim that a character still performs the same actions because all of his powers have one common effect or feature may seem logical on the surface. But, it can be objectively proven that different powers, even if they share one common feature, contain a number of differences. Thus, to claim that characters in 4e still perform a single action, despite having a total of 17 different powers that can be used in combat, is a disingenuous claim. All these claims seem logical, but serve no purpose but to convince people of something which is objectively false. What about what I have just said is not true?
Though, I must admit, I don't know if his intent was to be deceitful. Still, one of the claims he made, and two of the semantic particulars of that claim, are objectively false, despite seeming logical on their surface. Those claims are thus deceitful (even if he is not intentionally attempting to be deceitful). The impression they leave a reader with is not honest. As for the rest of what he wrote, as I said, I largely agreed with it, or else disagreed with his opinion, but that means absolutely nothing. The fact that I disagree with an opinion means only that I don't agree with an opinion.
I'll grant you that 4E offers alot more tactical options to no-magic-users than any other system, but its class structure is what makes it so unsuitable for a modern setting. I think perhaps adding some of those tactical options to the Saga rules (throut a feat like Force Training or Starship Tactics... call it "Tactical Training") would make a Saga based Modern game perfect...
In my humble opinion.
My experience has been that 4E is more fun to play and Saga is more fun to build characters for, so i would like to see a combination of both. The power system of 4E is incredibly fun because it makes tactical desicions, teamwork and positioning from round to round much more important. The Saga class system is fun because you can combine things left and right to make just what you want.
The multiclassing system of 4E is somewhat restrictive compared to previous d20 incarnations though and while i highly appreciate the greater level of balance this restriction brings, it necessarily means that you have less crazy combinations of powers, feats, features, etc.... The multiclassing system of Saga is very open on the other hand, but the very nature of the talent/feat system there means that a lot of time you are spending all of your resources adding up minor bonuses, proficiencies, and prerequisites so that you eventually end up with a decent product. This often leads to characters who can't really do what you want them to do until level 8+ and that at that point you end up repeating the same tactic in combat simply because thats what you've sunk all your resources into making work well. Force users get more options here, but even then a lot of your resources go into buffing a limited amount of options instead of giving you more cool things to do.
Ultimately id like to see the following included:
- Power system from 4E so everyone has tactical options when combat comes up
- Combat powers that don't rely on damage or weapons for "non-violent" character types
- Multiclassing that is more open than 4E but not as vulnerable super-combos as Saga or 3E
- Generic classes with a broad swath of options that allow for many archetypes, ala Modern, without pigeonholing the classes
- Every classes get a pool of good combat and out-of-combat options so that no one has to sit out of any given encounter
One thing that i like about Saga and Modern is that there are options that allow characters to contribute to combat without making them weapon-using killers. A Smart hero can buff allies without resorting to violence and a Noble can make people surrender without firing a shot.
In theory, you should be able to make an Angela Landsbury character that has a decent balance of combat and out-of-combat abilities, but not have her resort to using weapons or actual violence per se. You should be able to make such a character with morale buffing powers, tactical buffing powers, healing powers, ect, that make such a character valuable if combat comes up but doesnt sacrifice the flavor of a "nonviolent" character. The characer would also have a full suite of entirely out-of-combat abilities, of course, as would any class.
If I may, the Modern area is basically for people who are playing a 3e game. I mean, rudeness aside (and I'm not in on these conversations, so I don't know how they go), you're just not going to find hoards and hoards of people who love 4e around here. It's like going to a Superman convention and being really miffed that no one stands up for Spider-man.
Here is the thing, these forums are not the 3e general forums, or the 3e D&D forums. These forums are the d20 Modern forums. For those that want to play or create a 4e version of the d20 Modern game, these are still the most pertinent forums to visit.
But, those who try and do so are regularly met with people who have nothing positive to contribute. Backstabbist, for example, has regularly dropped by any thread started by someone who is actively and explicitly pro the idea of a 4e d20 Modern to do nothing more than add his negative commentary. Never any constructive criticism or positive feedback, just negative commentary. But the vocal minority (who are the majority of this particular forums regulars) here doesn't complain about that. Hell, often they seem to back these statements up publicly (while pleasantly telling you in a PM that they agree that the other poster is unnecessarily stirring the pot).
These boards are filled with objectively false statements, cloaked under the guise of either objective truth, or subjective opinion once the objective quality of their truth is attacked and debunked. The vocal minority (who are the majority of this particular forums regulars) here doesn't complain about that. But you attack those false statements, and they get nice and riled up. Thing is, that makes this forum hostile to anyone who likes 4e, and pisses off those of us who do.
You see, when someone says "fighters in 4e can only perform a single action, because they can't use ranged weapons, so I think 4e sucks," those of us who really like 4e because the fighter can perform a wide variety of actions, instead of just one single action, get frustrated. Our tastes just got attacked with a statement that is objectively false. What is the purpose of doing so?
Its fine if you don't have the same tastes. Some people don't and with good reasons. Some people want to be able to play "non-combat characters." Some people are bothered by how focused on combat the majority of the 4e rules are. Some people feel that powers don't feel realistic. Some people hate how rigid (in the multiclassing sense) the current 4e class system is. Some people don't like the way certain classes are stuck within one particular role, or one particular flavor of powers (such as fighters only really gaining melee flavored powers). These are all legitimate reasons to prefer a different system. Depending on your subjective opinion, these may be problems. Depending on your subjective opinion, if these are problems for d20 Modern, they may be problems that are easy to fix, or not. These are objective observations about which one can form a subjective opinion.
But when people start using any reason they can think of to say that the 4e system is poor, even reasons that are objectively false, it just gets insulting to those of us who prefer that system. Some statements are simply, and objectively, false. It is not true that characters in 4e perform the same action over and over again. Characters in 4e gain 17 different powers from which to use in combat endgame. To say that all these 17 powers, despite their objective differences, are the same is ridiculous. There is no purpose to this. It simply makes these forums seem to be filled with anti-4e diatribe, which then makes these forums hostile to anyone who does not prefer 3e.
Thing is, this forum is not just for 3e players, its for d20 Modern players, the majority of whom happen to really like 4e, and think that elements of 4e would work great in d20 Modern (as evidenced by this poll). This forum should be a place that is civil to all of d20 Moderns fans, regardless of what edition of d20 those fans prefer.
That being said, I may have been a little unnecessarily hostile to James Cosper. I do believe that one of his statements, and two of the semantics of that statement, are objectively false. I do feel that the logic behind that statement seems very wonky, in the sense that it seems to be logical on the surface despite making a statement that is blatantly false based on objective observation, or in other words specifically ignores (intentionally or unintentionally) objectively observable counterpoints in order to build a seemingly logical construct. But in retrospect, I guess I sort of did imply that he was being intentionally deceitful, and implying that he was being intentionally deceitful was unnecessarily hotheaded of me. Sorry James.
If I may, the Modern area is basically for people who are playing a 3e game. I mean, rudeness aside (and I'm not in on these conversations, so I don't know how they go), you're just not going to find hoards and hoards of people who love 4e around here. It's like going to a Superman convention and being really miffed that no one stands up for Spider-man.
I can certainly see your point there, Orion. And that is delightfully polite compared to others. Thank you for the non-hostile tone.
The only counterpoint I have is that this is the forum for the d20 modern game and not for the 3.0 or 3.5 system. If we want to discuss Modern, this is the place we are supposed to do it. It is obvious from your good-natured post that you are not accosting people based on system; but the difference in system preference does not diminish our love for the game.
Using your comparison, I would liken it to 2 groups of superman fans, one who prefers to enjoy superman through comics; where the other prefers movies/television. The choice of how to enjoy their hero in no way makes their love for that hero a lesser feeling.
I do not get the impression you are being judgmental like this; but many people here are. And they are frequently disruptive to legitimate discussion about how to enjoy the game under a different system.
We've had one thread that was moving long with the locals contemplating Modern Roles for classes and Modern multiclassing feasibility.
We've had one thread where we were discussing AnimeModern4,
with locals trying to develop archtype Anime stuff like giant robots and teen angst within the 4e mechanic.
There has been lots of oldschool d20Modern contribution to guys that want a Modern use of 4e.
And there has been plenty of locals put off by D&D4e Fantasy With Guns attempts that by design will exclude the Modern feel and features. Nerfing guns, eliminating noncombat classes, gimping multiclassing, requiring FX/Fantasy, Frontloading HP, Unimproving ProgressLevels... why call it Modern after all that. And all of it justified by trying to shoehorn Modern into the D&D use of 4e mechanics
We dont have to give up features to have it fit existing D&D4e setups,
we are not D&D and dont have to do everything the same way they did.
I can certainly see your point there, Orion. And that is delightfully polite compared to others. Thank you for the non-hostile tone.
yeah, I hear that.
Some guys are actually calling other posters liars with the actual "lie" word
or disparaging guys as decievers that show up with a different opinion.
Looking back, we didnt have too much of that happening here before 4e.
Can anyone tell me why Frontloading HP, and reducing the ability to min/max HP (resulting in lower HP totals endgame for anyone with a Con of 14+) is a bad thing in a Modern game?
Can anyone tell me why classes that can perform no functions in combat is a good thing?
CyberDave: I don't think it's helpful to keep invoking objectivity and lies. Whether you're right or not (and I really don't know, you know?) it sets a bad tone. We're all here talking about ways to make our games more fun. So let's de-emphasise objectivity and focus on the fun, which is subjective. I'm a big fan of subjectivity and I think if we talked more in "I" statements, "I like X because..." we could emphasise personal enjoyment. And we could stand to down-play the negative statements, "Y sucks because..."
Backstabbist, you and I both know your posts can be a bit dense and your sentences hard to follow, not to mention that on the subject of guns, you could--and often do--fill a thread. Try making yourself clearer by being concise. Short posts often end up being less contentious. I'm long-winded myself, so I know how counter-intuitive that can be, but give it a try.
The rest of you... ah jeeze, I don't know. I suck at the whole "let's give advice to everyone" stuff, but here's the thing. We are extremely like-minded people, for the most part. Generally speaking, we agree that we like playing a Modern game, that RPGs are fun as hell, etc. We merely disagree on how we, in the real world at our real-world kitchen tables, like to play those games. It's like we're arguing whether the lapels on our uniforms should be mauve or torquoise.
There's a great rule I learned on another board: always assume that people are speaking in good faith. Nobody's deliberately lying. Nobody's out to get anyone. I don't think anybody thinks less of you if you prefer a different style of play or a different game system. If you do actually feel that way, do us all a favour and keep it to yourself. I mean, seriously, it's the internets. It's not like there isn't room for all of us on here.
So instead of arguing about what's better, as if that could be objective, let's discuss what we like and how we can enhance each other's fun. It's not about winning the debate, right, it's about geeks helping each other out.
That's all I've got. I hope it's helpful. Last thing I want to do is start another fight.
So instead of arguing about what's better, as if that could be objective, let's discuss what we like and how we can enhance each other's fun. It's not about winning the debate, right, it's about geeks helping each other out.
I'll lend a hand if you're workin on somethin
I'll even stop posting to a thread that is just too far gone with creative differences.
I'll even slap Ingnore User on a guy if he's gone plaid.
But I dont call folks liars when what they posted is a number the DoDMarines confirms.
And I dont pad a poll with ringers from other forum
I'll come in and nay say (using total falsehood and bologna to boot) to the point where you want to punch me in face if you're working on something related to 4e.
I'll even stop posting to a thread after two or three pages of people saying "either be constructive of leave," once I have gotten everyone who likes 4e nice and ****** off, and caused a couple of pro 4e people to leave this forum and never come back.
I'll even slap Ingnore User on a guy if he's proven me wrong every time I type out a message.
But I don't call folks liars when what they posted is false, if I want to believe what they have said.
And I don't let people from a relevant forum on these boards know that there is a poll going on that they would be interested in, but would otherwise never see, especially if doing so would produce a more accurate result as to what sort of d20 Modern game WotC's consumers would like (as opposed to WotCs vocal minority, who are the majority in the d20 Modern forum, because posters like me have ensured that people who like both 4e and d20 Modern have no real vocal representation here).
And I couldn't type out a sentence that even resembles proper English to save my life.
Fixed that for you.
"Has anyone actually suggested nerfing guns?"
This is a perfect example... I could go find the exact post in the exact thread where not only was it suggested, but it was discussed by several posters, (including me) HOW to do it... but its not worth the trouble. Its easier to let someone call me a liar.
"It is not true that characters in 4e perform the same action over and over again. Characters in 4e gain 17 different powers from which to use in combat endgame."
Again, that's not what was said... but CD's defensive-ness doesn't allow him to read what was ACTUALLY written...
"With D&D4 I still find that characters use the same options over and over. Many of the high level powers are simply improved versions of the low level powers, right?"
This is a subjective statement of personal experience ("I find") followed by a question... which if answered honestly would be "Yes, Many, BUT NOT ALL, of the higher level powers are just improved versions of lower level powers."
Again I could go through the players handbook and cite powers and pages to back my statement up, but its too much work... I have the book, I've read the powers and anyone who bothers to look can see that as you go up in levels, the game is DESIGNED so that you get rid of lower level powers and REPLACE them with improved versions of those powers. But its easier to let someone call me a liar.
In the end I just don't care enough about this subject. I've already spent more time on this post than I wanted to.
The big thing we can do to avoid all this stuff--which isn't pleasant, which does take up our time in ways I'm sure we'd prefer it didn't--is just to agree to disagree. If people in a thread are talking about something you think is stupid, just let 'em. It's not skin of your nose. It's a big internet out there. There's lots of room for everyone. Just take part in those threads that you are interested in and if you find out that your opinion in a given thread isn't getting any traction, just move on. Again, what does it matter to you if some random people on the internet don't like your idea? I know it feels like it should (I really feels like it sometimes), but resist the urge. Just move on. Like I said before, if we concentrate on helping each other out and don't sweat it when people disagree, I think we'll have a much more friendly forum to come to.
Is this helping at all?
I've had time to cool off and I've decided that I can live with being called a liar by some stranger on the internet... because its not worth MY time to pick through dozens of posts to point out where HE is objectively wrong, or where he misrepresents what was said by another poster, or explain or clarify a point made by yet another stranger on the internet who has a hard time expressing himself in a calm and rational manner...
You do know that I have apologized for inferring or stating that James was intentionally being deceitful, correct? What is your goal?
Perhaps you should take another day to cool off.
"Has anyone actually suggested nerfing guns?"
This is a perfect example... I could go find the exact post in the exact thread where not only was it suggested, but it was discussed by several posters, (including me) HOW to do it... but its not worth the trouble. Its easier to let someone call me a liar.
The paraphrased argument is: Guns in a 4e version of modern should do 1 die less damage, but one die type higher damage, as 4e inherently buffs all ranged weapons (making them add their dexterity modifier to damage and making them usable with multiplication weapon powers). Additionally, the idea was proposed that all guns automatically count as a "magical" (or technological) item.
So tell me, what is more powerful, 2d6 damage, or 1d8+Dex Modifier+(1-6, depending on the PL of the gun) to 9d8+Dex Modifier+(1-6, depending on the PL of the gun) (depending on the power used) damage with an additional +1 to +6 to hit and potential beneficial secondary effects (from technological enhancements, not powers)?
Here, let me break it down for you a little more, what is better, 2-12 or 2-86 with an additional +1 to +6 to hit and potential beneficial secondary effects (from technological enhancements, not powers)?
What am I supposed to say you are doing when you say 2-86 damage with added secondary bonuses, as opposed to 2-12 damage, is a nerf? Please tell me, what is this statement? Is it true that 2-86 damage is inferior to 2-12 damage? How can one possibly claim that the same minimum damage, and 74 points more maximum damage, coupled with additional secondary effects, is a step down from the 2-12 option? When one does claim this, what logical conclusion should someone come to about this claim? Hell, even if you feel its unfair to make this comparison without including the potential max damage of a burst fire, as powers are included in the max damage potential of the 4e variant, you are still talking about a comparison of 2-24 damage with the 3e variant against 2-86 damage with the 4e variant. Where is the call for a firearm nerf again? You can't even claim that the nerf is in ratio of weapon damage:character hit points. I have thoroughly proven that in 4e characters have less hit points, end game, then in 3e (unless your character has a Con of 13-). So, the maximum potential damage of the 4e variant of the firearm in ratio to the end game hit points of the majority of (at least combat oriented) characters paints the firearm as far more potent (as it is capable of dealing a larger percentage of the characters hit points in damage with a single hit). Again, where is the call for a nerf? I'm not seeing it...
"It is not true that characters in 4e perform the same action over and over again. Characters in 4e gain 17 different powers from which to use in combat endgame."
Again, that's not what was said... but CD's defensive-ness doesn't allow him to read what was ACTUALLY written...
"With D&D4 I still find that characters use the same options over and over. Many of the high level powers are simply improved versions of the low level powers, right?"
This is a subjective statement of personal experience ("I find") followed by a question... which if answered honestly would be "Yes, Many, BUT NOT ALL, of the higher level powers are just improved versions of lower level powers."
No, the honest answer is that most are not powered up versions of prior abilities, BUT A FEW ARE. The majority, as can be objectively proven, are not.
And lets look at what I said to him:
Not really, no. There are occasional powers that look like upgraded versions of lower level powers, but this is not generally the rule, and there is no real reason for a character to choose two powers that pretty much do the same thing. Your statement a greatly simplified and disingenuous observation.
In other words, I responded, said exactly what I said above, but with an added statement: I claimed that the observation deceived people into believing that the majority of powers look like upgraded versions of lower level powers.
And here is the kicker, due to the fact that the statement implies that James was trying to be intentionally deceitful, I left an apology. What more would you like me to do? I stand by what I said. The way I said it should have been less hotheaded though. So, I apologized for my phrasing. Yet here you are, rekindling flames, and being just as hot headed (if not more) then my original posts ever were. Again, what is your goal?
In case you missed it, here was my apology.
That being said, I may have been a little unnecessarily hostile to James Cosper. I do believe that one of his statements, and two of the semantics of that statement, are objectively false. I do feel that the logic behind that statement seems very wonky, in the sense that it seems to be logical on the surface despite making a statement that is blatantly false based on objective observation, or in other words specifically ignores (intentionally or unintentionally) objectively observable counterpoints in order to build a seemingly logical construct. But in retrospect, I guess I sort of did imply that he was being intentionally deceitful, and implying that he was being intentionally deceitful was unnecessarily hotheaded of me. Sorry James.
So lets move on.
Again I could go through the players handbook and cite powers and pages to back my statement up, but its too much work... I have the book, I've read the powers and anyone who bothers to look can see that as you go up in levels, the game is DESIGNED so that you get rid of lower level powers and REPLACE them with improved versions of those powers. But its easier to let someone call me a liar.
Can you really cite powers to prove that the majority are upgraded versions? Hmm. Lets take a look at the cross section of a single class. The barbarian. It has two powers that are totally, 100%, just upgraded versions of the same power: Storm of Blades followed by Hurricane of Blades. All the other powers, despite the lower level powers generally being weaker and the higher level powers generally being stronger, are not the same or anywhere near as similar. Indeed, the differences are great enough that many of the lower level rages grant benefits appealing enough that a barbarian might choose to stick with such a rage instead of one of his/her higher level rages. In fact, I am specifically looking at the level 9 rage Stone Bear Rage on page 55. What other rage grants resistance to all damage equal to your Constitution modifier? For a character with a spiked constitution, which one build of barbarians will be, that is a huge benefit! The barbarian has a total of 89 powers (counting powers granted by class abilities). Lets assume that most classes gain more "similar" powers than this. Lets assume most classes gain double this number of "upgraded powers." So, if every class has about 89 powers total, about 4 of which are pretty much the same, are the majority of powers the same or different? Lets say 8 of them are pretty much the same, what are the majority of the powers then? How about 16? Are you honestly going to try and claim that over 46 powers in any given class pretty much look identical? Counting only attack powers, not granted by class abilities, each class has roughly 66 powers. Are you honestly going to claim that over 33 of these powers look almost identical? What am I supposed to call that claim when I have trouble finding more than 2-3 almost identical powers in any single given class? Can you find a class where more than half of its powers or attack powers look almost identical? Can you cite those identical powers? Can you even find a class who has more than 4 almost identical powers amongst the end game power selections? What class has 4 almost identical powers of level 14+? Please, cite this class, and their almost identical powers, because I DID look through my books and I can't find one. What am I missing?
Granted, there are many powers which are similar, or at least have some common similar effects. But there are still, more often than not, differences between such powers that are objectively greater then a simple "upgrade" in the potency of a previous powers effect (which I subjectively consider to be a fairly large difference). End game a character has 17 different powers, and most of these 17 do not look the same. A couple, like Storm of Blades/Hurricane of Blades might look virtually identical. But most don't. At least, that is what the objective evidence I have seen indicates. If you contend that I am mistaken, please show me where.
Have a nice day.
I think that I was trying to say that I don't believe that 4E limits roll playing and out of combat encounters with a lack of abilities specifically designed for them. I feel the rules are already there and the skills are enough. This is not the D&D boards however and I don't need to be a 4E avenger here.
I never played d20 modern, so I don't know exactly what I would want. I did play one adventure of Shadowrun and I enjoyed the modern themes and objectives in a paper and pen game. I do think I prefer defined roles and classes to the free form "buy what you can afford to make a unique creation" system of Shadowrun, but that might be due to my lack of experience. I bought the saga edition, but I haven't had the chance to play it and it's been a couple months since I read it. This is why I haven't placed a vote yet; I feel I need to reread the saga edition rule book and be better informed. I have had the chance to play 4E a bit, however, and I don't think it is deficient in its ability to handle the non-combat encounters of a modern adventure.
If I were DMing a modern campaign with the 4E system (plus some variations for the new weapons), I'd give the group an open ended problem and let them come up with some plans to accomplish the goal. I'd treat the problem as one large skill challenge that spans the entire adventure and have planned out how I would react to most of the ideas that I think they might come up with (allowing some room for them to throw out something completely random).
If I were DMing a modern campaign with the 4E system (plus some variations for the new weapons), I'd give the group an open ended problem and let them come up with some plans to accomplish the goal. I'd treat the problem as one large skill challenge that spans the entire adventure and have planned out how I would react to most of the ideas that I think they might come up with (allowing some room for them to throw out something completely random).
can I play in your game?
Sorry James.
Thanks for the apology. I went to reply this morning but the forums were down.
I spend most of my time on the Saga boards and I think I walked into a conflagration over here without checking the door handle.
Anyway, I stand by my statement: it is my opinion. No, the powers are not identical at high level compared to low level. But I do believe a lot of the powers are improved versions of low level powers. At low level you have a power that does 1(W) to all adjacent. At medium level you have a power that does 2(W) to all adjacent or 1(W) and Prone, for example. I am fine with disagreeing and would like to talk about other aspects of the game.
I am interested in seeing what people think a new Modern will look like.
I love the basic 6 classes from d20 Modern. I prefer this model, and Saga’s base classes, to 4E’s ever-expanding list of characters classes. Expanding talent trees are better, in my opinion, than needing a new class whenever you want a little variation.
One reason I do not think a Modern game can be too much like the D&D model is that you won’t be able to get the full rules in one book. All those power cards take up a lot of space. Some have suggested using only a couple of classes with overlapping powers and that might be more feasible.
Concerning powers, maybe something like the Force Training and Starship Tactics feats from Saga could be used. You buy a feat and get some encounter powers that scale based on your skill or attack value rather than tied to levels. This would allow characters to have resources that are not all tied to typical combats while giving some options. This would also open the pool up to all of the base classes rather than having discrete lists.
I’d like vehicular combat rules that are a little more robust. I like that Saga ship combat allows the use of skills and talents at starship scale as well as character scale with a few restrictions. The model for Starships of the Galaxy would be sufficient. The core book could have the basic vehicles and the expansion a lot more stuff and maneuvers. Hopefully Crazy IronStar’s Used Car Lot will reopen with the new edition.
I’d like a way to get more languages than DD4 or Saga. Both Saga and DD4 are a little tight with languages for the games I’m usually playing.
So, I am looking for a new Modern that has a viable system for combat and rp encounters, no-FX in the base game, can be expanded into traditional non-fantasy Sci-Fi, and can run everything that I could run with the old system. The only fantastic element I really want is an option for a cinematic martial arts system.
And most of all, I want a game where when I look at it I have too many possibilities for a campaign rather than the feeling that there are too few.
It is not that I hate 4E.
Like I said, I am a subscriber and have a bunch of the books. I've run Game Days and adventures for my old group to get them to try it when visiting family.
I've played it since the preview adventure came out and have played a Cleric, Monk alt/ranger build, Swordmage, Barbarian playtest, and Fighter. My groups have had every class before PH2 came out, all of the races from the PH and most of the playable races in the MM.
I just don't see it as the best model for a Modern game.
I am thinking of starting a new 4E campaign to see if my opinion changes.
So, I am looking for a new Modern that has a viable system for combat and rp encounters, no-FX in the base game, can be expanded into traditional non-fantasy Sci-Fi, and can run everything that I could run with the old system. The only fantastic element I really want is an option for a cinematic martial arts system.
I agree about this, which is why I've always advocated for genre-based expansion packs. You build the base book as a very general "action/adventure" manual (and don't include F/X, I think), and then you expand out by genre: d20 Sci-Fi, d20 Modern Fantasy, d20 Military, d20 Martial Arts, d20 Cops and Robbers, etc. (as opposed to the historical model that Modern was built on: Modern, Future, Past). Each one provides some classes, new feats/powers/whatever, sample characters, maybe a city or other setting, etc. The base book would be about as useful as the d20M CRB (minus the magic/psionics), and then the expansions would let you play a particular genre. There would be effectively no limit to the number of expansion packs you could build, depending on what's popular right now. Even better, you could do product tie-ins: d20 Transformers, d20 GI Joe, d20 Battlestar Galactica, etc. I know I'm not saying anything new. I just frustrates me that this is a distribution model that could work, could provide us with a steady stream of content and keep them printing the game.
PS: None of that requires that the game be 3e/4e-flavoured. It could work either way.
read page2 of the 4E Modern: Classes? thread
4e mechanic of Roles Classes Powers can work,
just with ModernRoles ModernClasses and ModernPowers
including NonCombat Roles, nonCombatClasses, and NonCombat Powers (not just seldom "utilitys")
I just read it this afternoon and I would agree that if the "roles" model is used it should be like that in general proposal.
I understand the question of how to make the princess in this system. In a martial-arts heavy adventure/truble shooter game I ran when Martial Arts Mahem came out one of the players went straight Smart Hero for 10 levels. I am not sure he even carried a gun but he always found something to do and had no trouble with tech skill challenges.
Our group also made a new source book for each genre game. It always seemed the other GM made one right before WotC announced one. It happened with Urban Arcana, Future, and Past.
I spend most of my time on the Saga boards and I think I walked into a conflagration over here without checking the door handle.
Yes. These forums have become a slowly boiling kettle...
Anyway, I stand by my statement: it is my opinion. No, the powers are not identical at high level compared to low level. But I do believe a lot of the powers are improved versions of low level powers. At low level you have a power that does 1(W) to all adjacent. At medium level you have a power that does 2(W) to all adjacent or 1(W) and Prone, for example. I am fine with disagreeing and would like to talk about other aspects of the game.
I see what you are saying. There are a number of cases where this is true. However, I just don't feel its the general rule of thumb. When I look through the books, most of the powers do not feel like upgraded versions of previous powers. There is too much objective difference between them for me to come to this subjective conclusion.
Even if some of your powers are upgraded versions of earlier level powers, most of one's powers will not be. There are simply not enough powers that are raw upgrades for a character to have four at will or four daily powers which are pretty much just upgraded versions of themselves. Certainly 2-4 similar powers is possible. And I really think the number four is pushing it. Like I said, I can only think of one combination where a character would have 3 powers which are virtually the same, and I can't think of any for four. And the case of the character with 3 such powers has two of them as encounter and one of them as a daily power, which still only leaves 2 powers actually being the same, as there will still be a tactical choice between the weaker per encounter and the more powerful per day power selections. But in any case, 3 similar powers for a character with 10 attack powers, 17 powers total, still leaves a character with quite a few options in combat. A lot more option then what I feel the average Saga edition character has. The average Saga edition character, unless they are a Jedi, still seems to perform the exact same action every round. There are of course exceptions to this rule, especially with some of the 4e influenced splat books.
I love the basic 6 classes from d20 Modern. I prefer this model, and Saga’s base classes, to 4E’s ever-expanding list of characters classes.
100% agreed.
Expanding talent trees are better, in my opinion, than needing a new class whenever you want a little variation.
Just to pick a nit with this statement, 4e includes both an ever expanding list of character classes and the 4e equivalent of expanding talent trees. The "power system" books do not introduce new classes. They introduce new builds and "build powers" (read: talent trees) for existing classes.
But, in a Modern system, what I would like to see is less new classes and more expanding "build powers"/talent trees.
One reason I do not think a Modern game can be too much like the D&D model is that you won’t be able to get the full rules in one book. All those power cards take up a lot of space. Some have suggested using only a couple of classes with overlapping powers and that might be more feasible.
A couple classes with overlapping powers is what I would like. Or rather, what I want is something like say 6 complete classes with full power lists, but a free form multiclassing system that allows a character to ultimately mix powers from any/all of these classes.
Concerning powers, maybe something like the Force Training and Starship Tactics feats from Saga could be used. You buy a feat and get some encounter powers that scale based on your skill or attack value rather than tied to levels. This would allow characters to have resources that are not all tied to typical combats while giving some options. This would also open the pool up to all of the base classes rather than having discrete lists.
I have wanted a set of "tactical training" feats for my Saga edition for a long time. I keep hoping they will release them with a new splat book. Something along these lines could work also, but to be honest, I would prefer it if all "combat talents" or "attack powers" were gained from a separate resource then everything else. I just really like the way 4e divided the "attack" from "utility" capabilities.
I think my ideal would be something a little closer to 4e in its system. However, instead of power sources, I think it would be nice if various groups of powers were grouped together under common "Power Trees" or some such.
I’d like vehicular combat rules that are a little more robust. I like that Saga ship combat allows the use of skills and talents at starship scale as well as character scale with a few restrictions. The model for Starships of the Galaxy would be sufficient. The core book could have the basic vehicles and the expansion a lot more stuff and maneuvers. Hopefully Crazy IronStar’s Used Car Lot will reopen with the new edition.
Yea, the Saga vehicle rules are pretty amazing. Definitely one of the high points of the system!
I’d like a way to get more languages than DD4 or Saga. Both Saga and DD4 are a little tight with languages for the games I’m usually playing.
What do you mean "languages." Do you mean like English/French and etc? I definitely think all of our real world languages should be present in the game.
So, I am looking for a new Modern that has a viable system for combat and rp encounters, no-FX in the base game, can be expanded into traditional non-fantasy Sci-Fi, and can run everything that I could run with the old system. The only fantastic element I really want is an option for a cinematic martial arts system.
And most of all, I want a game where when I look at it I have too many possibilities for a campaign rather than the feeling that there are too few.
We want something similar. I just want the game to be based a little closer of the 4e mechanics and a little less on the Saga. But I would still like a healthy dose of Saga in my Modern. The one key element about 4e that I REALLY want is the combat system, though. The combat system for 4e is phenomenal. The best of any d20 game to date.
4e D&D is pretty close to classless if you pick powers regardless of class list. What balances this is that groups of powers (read: abilities/talents) rely on different ability scores (Thieves, Warlocks, and Paladins, say, share dependence on Cha).
Yes. These forums have become a slowly boiling kettle...
This might be slightly random, and I haven't read up enough to reply to the rest of your behemoth post, but I think part of the reason the forum has become a little more hostile is because posting houserules has died (and very abruptly). D20Modern (at least on this board) was all about having a game you could mold to whatever you liked; this has stopped due to the combination of a mass awakening to the ToS "lol, we ownz yer stuf" clause.
This wouldn't be such a problem if there were still new books for D20Modern, but now that we 3.xers don't have anything to look forward to besides our own creations, and we'd at least like to legally own those... and possibly publish them in the future.
Basically, we don't have a place to vent/show our creativity to other Moderners without it being effectively stolen from us. That's why you don't see many more "New Class/Feats/skill uses/etc...", and we only have a fairly stale set of topics that have already been discussed to death.
/offtopic.
That is no longer true. Now three games exist. 3.5, Saga, and 4e, and nobody agrees on what Modern should be based off. Moreover, with the coming of 4e there has been a large rift over the internet. Those of us who were forced to partake in dealing with that rift (and 4e haters) have lost a lot of patience for false statements used to insult our system of choice. We are tired of people trying to force their subjective dislike of the system we prefer down our throats.
Now we come here, and try to create threads about positive brainstorming of a 4e d20 Modern idea. What we get is certain posters (a minority to be sure, but a very vocal minority) stamping over to those threads and pretty much suggesting "why don't you use this system instead." No matter how many times we say, "we don't want to use that system, we want to use this other system," they don't seem to get it. Now instead of creating house rules we are arguing over which system the house rules should be created for.
Couple that with people not wanting to release house rules at all, because the cherry on the cake is the realization that anything posted on these boards potentially ceases to be our intellectual property, and what you have is just the right ingredients to create an unpleasant situation. What you have is idle minds with nothing to do but argue.
Does this effect everything on the forums, or just stuff posted after a certain date? I have a couple old campaign settings on here, I'd prefer they stay mine.
Hold up, "anything posted on these boards potentially ceases to be our intellectual property"?! When did this happen?
Does this effect everything on the forums, or just stuff posted after a certain date? I have a couple old campaign settings on here, I'd prefer they stay mine.
Its in the Terms of serivce..it went up a while back...
What do you mean "languages." Do you mean like English/French and etc? I definitely think all of our real world languages should be present in the game.
Well, In 4E you have Common + racial and Linguist gives you 3 languages. At least there are relatively few languages in D&D so one feat might be all you ever need, particularly if you have a diverse party. In Saga you get Basic+ Species+ Int at lvl 1 and 1+Int for Linguist. Considering how many people know Huttese and Shyriiwook that isn't a lot. There is a Force Technique that lets you telepathically take knowledge of a language from someone for 24 hours but since Revan used it there is the stink of the Dark Side. This may be the only aspect of the skill group system I don't like.
I think there will need to be a stronger version of the Smart talent. I always bought extra languages and some characters had a dozen when you count the ancient read only languages of a Pulp Heroes campaign. Even characters that would not be smart enough to take Linguist in the new games spent some skill points in Modern to learn at least 1 second language. Officers, scholars, and professional adventurers took more.
Most of the time having a language helps the GM give the players information.
I liked the Spycraft method for learning languages at the mission briefing.
Hold up, "anything posted on these boards potentially ceases to be our intellectual property"?! When did this happen?
Not quite true. Anything you post online, you can expect people to informally crib, modify, borrow, and so on. But it legally remains your IP, and if they try to publish it, you could sue them.
The WotC forums are different, in that there is an actual clause in the ToS for using them, so that anything you post here does actually become their IP if they wish.
Not quite true. Anything you post online, you can expect people to informally crib, modify, borrow, and so on. But it legally remains your IP, and if they try to publish it, you could sue them.
The WotC forums are different, in that there is an actual clause in the ToS for using them, so that anything you post here does actually become their IP if they wish.
No. It says that they are perpetually licensed by you to use it royalty free. There is a difference. It remains your IP, but they can put it into any of their material without having to pay you a cent.
21 or 28.38% : Rules based on 4th Edition
24 or 32.43% : Rules based on a mix of 4th and Saga
-----------------
45 or 60.81% : for something revolving around 4th Ed. I strongly suspect the «silent majority» will slowly out vote the 7 to 10 «vocal PRO 3.5 users» of this forum.
-----------------
I favor a 4E generic version with the best of saga elements. RealOrion is right in pointing out that a system with «add-ons/plug-ins» makes more sense for Modern. Heck it even makes more sense economically speaking for WotC!
---------------
How do you interpret the fact that they are asking our opinion?
45 or 60.81% : for something revolving around 4th Ed. I strongly suspect the «silent majority» will slowly out vote the 7 to 10 «vocal PRO 3.5 users» of this forum
its ok, the cat is out of the bag
You dont have to use euphemisms like <>
you can just call them<< The 4eBoards Ringers Invited By Dave >> in his post there asking 4e guys to come here and skew our poll
Basically, any demagogue can skew a forum poll. I wouldn't read too much into one, especially one created with the intent of gauging opinions on a contentious issue.
its ok, the cat is out of the bag
You dont have to use euphemisms like <>
you can just call them<< The 4eBoards Ringers Invited By Dave >> in his post there asking 4e guys to come here and skew our poll
I was not aware of that. I come here less and less. When I come back all I find is the edition war the D&D forum went through a couple of months ago.
These days I mostly to go to the SWSE forum when i'm looking for ideas or inspiration for my FUTURE campaign...
BTW any member of the forum is allowed to voice an opinion in any section. I am both a 4E guy and a MODERN guy. One does not discredit the other. I suspect alote of the people who answer Dave's call are or were former Modern players. If Dave's initiative raise awarness for the MODERN section I say go for it. Actually why don't you all do the same ! The more traffic here the better...LOL
What i found odd is the number of folks who say none of the above..Which is equal to saying "we don't want new rules." IMO
Not surprising to me. For exemple, each iteration of D&D has its undying core of fans. My RPG group of the late 80's still play AD&D2nd. They are aware of the new editions but are happy with the older edition. This is a respectable choice but at the same time its an atypical behavior. Most people prefer «novelty».
/me contemplates calling on a small army of friends active in other forums, but most silent on the WotC forum, to come and skew teh poll back.
Basically, any demagogue can skew a forum poll. I wouldn't read too much into one, especially one created with the intent of gauging opinions on a contentious issue.
I didn't go outside of the WotC forums. The Future Release forums are PART of the WotC forums. They are a few forums up from the d20 Modern board. All I did was let posters from a different part of the WotC forums know that there was a poll of interest to them going on in the d20 Modern boards.
Modern is not just D&D with guns....
it has an entirely different scale of power that make Fighter and Strong not interchangeble
It has monsters set for that power level
it has a higher potential lethality with a 1st lvl guy 1d8HP and a 44mag doing 2d8 damage
it has to deal with a world with technological law enforcement, lawyers cops MIB
and mostly it deals with a whole lotta power coming in small discount packages like Cellphones and keyhole cameras... war surplus 2d10 guns are entry level weapons
d20Modern took d20D&D idea and changed it to be a diffrent game for modern(&future).
Modern4 shouldnt try to just be D&D4WithGuns.... otherwise it will just be a 32pg softshell D&D splatbook and not a different game.
Different
Means not the same.
I didn't go outside of the WotC forums. The Future Release forums are PART of the WotC forums. They are a few forums up from the d20 Modern board. All I did was let posters from a different part of the WotC forums know that there was a poll of interest to them going on in the d20 Modern boards.
And neither would I be, were I to do it. The community I am thinking of almost all have accounts here, so no one would be registering a new account just to vote.
I'm not going to do it because I am far too lazy. I was just pointing out that a little agitprop focused towards one side can very easily skew a poll with this kind of sample size, making it meaningless. That's basically what you did when you contacted a group in the 4e forums, who could, realistically, be expected to be overwhelmingly in favour of 4e. You skewed the poll results with that act.
I think TRO is right...
no matter what we vote (even a unanimous vote for rules based on 2nd Edition AD&D)... WotC is going to put out the rules that it wants to...
And those rules will be heavily influenced by the design lessons learned from 4ED&D.
But Honestly?
I'd be REALLY surprised if WotC put out another version of Modern. I don't think there's enough of us Modern Adventure fans out there in the marketplace to make it worth their while.
That's just my humble opinion... I could be wrong.
Hopefully it will be enough interest for them to release an updated version of the rules. I fear that Waylan, however, is probably right.
I don't know that this poll is not worth anything. Its results are certainly not empirical evidence of anything. They require context and translation. However, the fact that people are voting on the poll at all shows WotC that there is interest in d20 Modern.
Hopefully it will be enough interest for them to release an updated version of the rules. I fear that Waylan, however, is probably right.
Well lets all hope that I'm not!;) :P :D
I do understand why people would vote for neither (keep the same rules). The old rules are still great and there are 3rd party products that work well for genres WotC didn't feel the need to cover.
Also, there is that initial start up of a new system where you are buying updated versions of all the books you already own. If there is a new Modern we can expect an Urban Arcan to be the first update and then a Weapons Locker, etc.
Regardless of the new system it is safe to say they have my money for the core rulebook already. The core book has to sell all the others. I am just anxious to see if the summer cons will have any hints about a new direction.
I think TRO is right...
Did you just call The Real Orion a Temporary Restraining Order?
Also, my name is way cool.
What i found odd is the number of folks who say none of the above..Which is equal to saying "we don't want new rules." IMO
No, I wouldn't say this is equal at all.
I'm not even sure I've voted yet, but I contemplated voting none of the above. What it means, if anything, is the user didn't like any of the available choices. Does that mean there are no other choices, or the rules could not be improved, revamped, or what not?
Moreover, maybe I would choose none of the above because I don't have 4E, or Saga Edition, so I don't even know what I'm voting for.
I think Modern is pretty close to tabletop perfection on a lot of base fronts. Major revamps could come in the form of vehicles, most Future content, and maybe someone novel like taking a second look at the HP/Armor/Defense system and tweaking there a bit. The Hero system, though, is in my opinion the best tabletop class system on the market. Very high levels of customization, without getting too complex to the point I have to specify the length and width of my character's fingernails.
I'm actually a firm believer in standing behind what you say on-line. I think anonymity is a big part of why people on the intertubes have a tendency to act like jack-asses, especially if they wouldn't otherwise act that way. So I use my real name as much as possible. There are exceptions to this, of course. I don't judge people who don't use their real names, but it's a choice I make for a reason.
Also, my name is way cool.
My name isn't Waylan, but anyone who cares to click on the links in my sig can discover with little trouble that its actually William M. Canavan (But I go by Bill).
My Dad named me after a cowboy character from a Louis L'amore book.
I saw some complaints about not enough non-combat "powers"; but apart from maybe skill focus, and well modern's endless varieties of background feats (which can be done in 4E, without the feats no less; look around dragon or even the free previews for backgrounds and what they do for you) what exactly do you mean?
For me, a lot of the non-combat issues, from forging a sword, building a mech, to defending a client can be really done through the Skill Challenge system, and the creativity of the players. I personally would run things like that. I mean apart from lack of some of the specific skills, Computer Use and maybe Knowledge Tech (Which could arguably be called Engineering), and Knowledge Science; maybe a few more, which looking at Saga would, be a great base for the types of skills needed. I think that how it should run... do you seriously need to devote utility slot, encounter slot, or daily slot to uh.. up those powers? I think feats alone; or arguably "talents" not powers could fill that gap. I mean you gotta remember, that people in real life, especially those who know how to parcel out their time can be world class in a multitude of things. And well, in a modern game, you're basically a paragon of the modern man, whatever that is.
Also, what does it mean to be non-violent in a combat situation? HP is an abstraction, in which even non-violent combat powers still do "damage" and knocking a "monster" to 0 means what you want it to mean, from it dying on the ground to it fleeing, to it understanding your position and no longer being a combatant. I mean you could easily re-work some of leader role powers to be more "mundane" or even really be a another sort of skill altogether.
I'm just really wondering on a point as what that meant "non-combat solutions in combat" or that a "non-combat" character would be doing in a primarily combat oriented game (d20 modern is still arguably a combat oriented game)?
Poor Trappedslider... he meant well...
But Honestly? I'd be REALLY surprised if WotC put out another version of Modern. I don't think there's enough of us Modern Adventure fans out there in the marketplace to make it worth their while. That's just my humble opinion... I could be wrong.
Hey I just remembered a while back trappeslider gave us a link were someone from WotC said they would develop/playtest a 4E rules version for «everything not D&D» in 2009.
My «guesstimation» would be that first books would hit the shelves in mid 2010. Although the economic climat may have put a dent in WotC plans.
We will have confirmation when the 2010 product calendar comes out.
Yeah... except... does anyone actually believe them any more?
Call me naive but I do. There are too many franchises to market with such a system its unlikely they wouldn't want to cash in.
A Comic Writers Guide (CWG) with a Superhero Players Handbook (SPH) and a Villans Manual (VM) would garner alote of interest don't you think? LOL
- I don't trust WotC at all...but part of that is a personal bias against corporate entities and particular types of people.
- I do think though that they'll put out anoher Modern game, just because there is demand for it...inside as well as outside the WotC customer base. There are plenty of WW games players who would prefer an urban fantasy using the d20 system, let alone all those who would prefer an urban fantasy that actually doesn't make you want to shoot your dog and slit your own wrists. (Nah, I'm not biased against WW at all...:rolleye2:
:nonono Those games are worse than country music in Seattle, I swear.- I do think it'll be 4e rules, just because as stated by others, they spent all that time and money developing them, there's no way they won't at least be the basis of the other games.
- Everything stated in this post is opinion, and nothing more. Except for the part about me voting...I actually did that.
If you want "realistic" Modern D. Go to Starwars. Please. Just remove the spaceships and the force and you are good to go. (reflavor the lasers to be guns if you like too) The old rules were Saga's prototype anyway so if you want more of the same you should be playing the other current system Wizards uses for the "realistic game". Saga's just a reflavor of modern with the addition of The Force, and Space Ships conceptually speaking.
At the very least all things should follow Roles (which Modern D helped re pioneer in it's own.. overly complicated not at all balanced sort of way) design mechanics, along with Unified Skills, BAB, and feat progression. None of this varying BAB and other basic progression stuff that exists in Saga still. (there's no point in it really)
As far as talents go... should they stay should they go? I lean towards Go, if only because again, Saga already handles this incredibly well. And Modern d20 should have it's own Niche. Urban/Modern Fantasy or possibly Modern Fantasy Horror.
As far as Dave's efforts go frankly no one's going to waste the effort to "win a war" that's already done and over with. There's only one "side" of that fence still waging the war and that's the 3e side. It was smart of him to post it in another forum if only to raise awareness for Modern D's existence.
Whynot have a nonFantasy modern game that folks can just choose to add CRB Section II: Fanatasy & Magic.
Is d20Modern a modern non-Fanasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a modern fantasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a spaceship & giant robot game? Sure, if thats what you want its broken as hell
Why not just make Modern4 a non-fantasy game
that has optional drop in fantasy classes & setting,
and allows noncombat characters to not have mandatory combat equality if they dont want it
Why have one modern game system for Fantasy Modern and another for Non-Fantasy?
Whynot have a nonFantasy modern game that folks can just choose to add CRB Section II: Fanatasy & Magic.
Is d20Modern a modern non-Fanasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a modern fantasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a spaceship & giant robot game? Sure, if thats what you want its broken as hell
Why not just make Modern4 a non-fantasy game
that has optional drop in fantasy classes & setting,
and allows noncombat characters to not have mandatory combat equality if they dont want it
I can agree with that format, but then, even so I still prefer 4e's ruleset. Ironically, I loved Saga til 4e came out. Once I saw the powers system, I was ****** as all hell that they hadn't used it in Saga...which would have ENDED the whole "Play a jedi or don't play" problem that I feel still exists. But, the idea that a modern game should start basic and tack on things like time periods and the supernatural I think is simply common sense.
Past, Apocalypse, and Future could all be "settings" and technically so could things like the Urban Arcana. Frankly though, I don't think they should bother with Urban Arcana. It would be both more cost effective, and potentially get more people to play both games if they simply produced the non-fantasy material only for d20 Modern. If they made it completely compatible with 4e, they wouldn't have to REPRINT every monster and so on.
They could print a couple of classes or so, paragon paths, and epic destinies for mundane, martial characters in a modern world, with reflavoring notes for existing D&D martial classes. Something like Urban Arcana could be reflavoring notes on how to incorporate all the OTHER power sources into modern fantasy games.
Ultimately, this would let people play strictly a d20 Modern game without anything supernatural at all, in any time period. If they want supernatural, they can by the D&D books. That exposes them to another game entirely, and they might decide to look into it and play it also, buying MORE books. Conversely, if it's fully compatible with D&D, pleny of D&D players might decide to check it out, and realizing they don't have to buy new MMs and things like that, might buy the different d20 modern books as well and again cross genres.
If you ask me...that sounds like a hell of a payday for WotC without a huge effort on their part. It also sounds like a really fun game to me.
-
Giant robots would not automatically be broken as hell. Odds are that they would end up that way...but as a concept, they are not broken...they're just always done wrong. Lay off my Gundam, man!
Here's a cookie for peace. 
Giant robots would not automatically be broken as hell. Odds are that they would end up that way...but as a concept, they are not broken...they're just always done wrong. Lay off my Gundam, man!
oh, sure
it is not a forgone conclusion that giant robots HAVE TO be broken as hell,
we all know thats what will probably happen,
<16d8 "1MegaTon Nuke", I'm looking at you
>but we can still hope it doesnt ;)
d20M Player's Guide: Comprehensive rules about building a character in a non-fantasy game. But, unlike d20M, let's stray away from the base, stat-derived classes. Instead, let's see a modern setting attached to the d20MCR and have classes that correspond to it. Includes equipment, backgrounds, classes, and the rules that a player needs.
d20M GM's Guide: The "how-to" rules to run a game and advice for the GM. Includes a setting to start running out of the box (I think Top Secret would be idea for this). Includes rules on how to run, stock NPCs, NPC creation advice, setting creation advice and everything a GM needs.
d20M Menace Manual I: The first of many modern opponent guides. Kind of a mix of SWSE Threats of the Galaxy and 4e Monster Manual. Has some stock opponents, animals, monsters, templates for "sharks-with-lasers-on-their-heads" and other things.
Campaign Books
Each campaign book would expand the game with new classes, new rules, equipment, prestige classes, character options and general information that anyone would need to run a game in the campaign.
GI Joe: Resolute CS: The first campaign setting for the new d20M. Has classes, background info, stats, vehicles ... everything you need to play a GI Joe game. Could be made into two books like the campaign settings for 4e.
GI Joe: Resolue - Roster Book: All your favorite Joes and Cobra agents are listed within. Additionally, new character rules, prestige classes, equipment, etc. The perfect add-on to the GIJ:RCG.
Urban Arcana - New Millenium: A more detailed Campaign version of the old UA setting. Includes new classes, spells, rules for races, etc.
And this goes on to include old settings like Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Dark*Matter, and Stardrive, as well as licensed settings like Transformers and Indiana Jones. Add to this a digital magazine, either as part of Dragon/Dungeon (like Polyhedron or Ares) or on its own, that expands settings and has some mini-settings available to play. Not to mention additional d20M books like Menace Manual II: UA Threats, or DM's Guide II: Future, and it'd be a cohesive and fun set of rules
templates for "sharks-with-lasers-on-their-heads" and other things
wouldnt that be in the PlayersGuide as a playable race?
wouldnt that be in the PlayersGuide as a playable race?
Maybe list playable stats with the entry? ;)
Why have one modern game system for Fantasy Modern and another for Non-Fantasy?
Whynot have a nonFantasy modern game that folks can just choose to add CRB Section II: Fanatasy & Magic.
Is d20Modern a modern non-Fanasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a modern fantasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a spaceship & giant robot game? Sure, if thats what you want its broken as hell
Why not just make Modern4 a non-fantasy game
that has optional drop in fantasy classes & setting,
and allows noncombat characters to not have mandatory combat equality if they dont want it
Because then you have designers designing two systems in one which may or may not be compatible at all with each other and end up with the mess of modern d20 all over again?
Modern d20 without -massive- changes does not function properly. (I think everyone down here in this forum knows this... I mean really ya'll were like the Go To for Houserules. Especially when Modern D was involved) This is due in part because they designed two totally different games and smashed a square peg into a round hole.
It would be this simple to do a non magical Modern D. *let's assume for simplicity that they use the same power source idea.*
In a non Fantasy campaign, you do not use the Arcane, Divine, or other overtly Magical Power source.
The reason I feel though that the book by default should focus on Modern/Urban Fantasy is because Saga covers the other type of Modern Campaign -that well-. And re releasing SAGA's rules with a new cover on it, would be a waste of printing. Also is the fact that Saga's rule set in my opinion does not function as well as 4e with a Fantasy mindset. I mean the most overt thing in it is the Force and even that's really not all that spectacular.
Because then you have designers designing two systems in one which may or may not be compatible at all with each other and end up with the
That is the entire point-
The combat system and the magic system in a game must be compatible,
less ye end up with a 'modern' combat system that only works in unreal fantasyland.
The big problem with d20Modern failing in Self Compatability was not FX vs NonFX,
it was the huge problems of all the nonFX stuff failing against themselves without any mention of FX.
The horrible Mecha weapons had nothing to do with FX
The silly nonscaled Ship weapons had nothing to do with FX
The fact that Infantry & Mechs & Ships had incompatable rules had nothing to do with FX.
One of the few things that did work ok was a guy with a gun could fight a guy with spells.
Guys with weapons fighting along side guys with spells has worked in D&D for decades, and in nomagic D&D campaigns we did just fine without the spells / potions/ fantasy items (nobody played a mage or cleric, bard was one of the most powerful classes even without spells)
First make a decent nonmagic modern combat system, the world we live in,
then fit an optional scheme of magic to it.... be it Mana, Mental, or Mythical
D&D's current incarnation the magic system and combat system are completely compatible. I don't see what the great fuss is over about this.
It's self evident.
SAGA handles Tame Modern games very well. It doesn't work so hot on really high fantasy (as in overt magic not High Fantasy as a genre).
I would rather they keep Saga, and Modern d20 seperate. Because Modern D is honestly a niche product, that is better off served following the D&D platform in design.
What I'm trying to tell you is that there's an existing product already for a "real world" game with "some magic thrown in" It's called Reflavored Star Wars. Literally other than flavor text changing (M4 carbines instead of blaster carbines) and the Force being removed it'd be the same game. Strip the game of space ships, and the Force and you have a completely grounded and ready to run Modern D20 Tame Edition game already. It would be a redundant at best product, without alot of Saga's rules in it.
Urban Fantasy though is a niche that presently Saga, does not fill well. (even with the Force thrown back in)
Now, the mundane rules themselves are, of course, going to lean one way or the other with regards to fantasy/realism. The d20M rules leans way fantasy-wards, in my opinion, because of mechanics like HPs. If you get tougher with levels, then it's a fantastic game. Now, when I say "fantasy," I include the average American action movie. I have said for years that d20M should have been called "d20 Action/Adventure" (or something less lame). The system is terrible at replicating a Martin Scorsese film, but it would be perfect for Die Hard VII.
The solution to a lot of those kinds of problems, though, would be to present d20M as something of a tool-kit rather than a unified system. Have one "standard" way to play the game, and then a whole chapter of "optional rules," so that you can slap together a "grim and gritty" game system by replacing HPs with a limited condition monitor, for example. I know a lot of gamers really crave one, consistent system, so any book should provide that, but I think they (the books) should also include the assumption that many gamers are smart enough that they could choose between an array of options when it comes to subtly shading the rule system.
Alternatively, d20 Action/Adventure (or whatever) is the base book, with mundane options, and then you have multiple expansion books for specific genres. Within those genre books, you could have all kinds of alternative rules. The True Crime book has rules in-depth rules for gun combat and the legal system. The Modern Fantasy book has magic. The Sci-Fi book has supertech. Etc. The only problem with this scheme is that it assumes that (a) people are willing to buy loads and loads of expansion books for a game that's just not as popular as D&D, and (2) that those expansion books are actually designed well. I mean, in addition to having a zillion options, it still does have to work "out of the box."
I'm talking about using the 4e chassis as a baseline and going from there. (Roles, Powers, Skill System, current Feat Design)
"Optional FX" type games are best handled with a spaceshipless, Force equipped, reflavored Saga.
Which means the only thing you'd be buying the book for would be the Space Ship Delete, and reflavored Text not so much rules.
I don't know about you but I'd rather not shell out 30 dollars (or 20 if from Amazon) for a reflavor.
I considered 3.5 a raping of my wallet. And that had more rule changes in it than what Tame Modern would be from Saga.
spaceshipless, Force equipped, reflavored Saga
I dont see those in the modern world,
you know, the one we would model "Modern" on
Just cause we would be able to expand a decent Modern combat system to include high tech stuff and/or FX, that dont mean Modern requires spaceships and magic
Seems your plan for a magical spaceship Modern game would do everything well except for "modern" Modern that doesnt have magic nor spaceships. I would like to be able to play a JamesBond or Punisher campaign without having guys shoot fireballs out their nose or have giant robots (with giant swords
) appearSome folks dont want too much realism in their Modern,
do you plan on having ANY?
I dont see those in the modern world,
you know, the one we would model "Modern" on
Just cause we would be able to expand a decent Modern combat system to include high tech stuff and/or FX, that dont mean Modern requires spaceships and magic
Seems your plan for a magical spaceship Modern game would do everything well except for "modern" Modern that doesnt have magic nor spaceships. I would like to be able to play a JamesBond or Punisher campaign without having guys shoot fireballs out their nose or have giant robots (with giant swords
Some folks dont want too much realism in their Modern,
do you plan on having ANY?
Do you have any brain in there at all? Did that 3e rot your brains?
Spaceshipless means NO SPACE SHIPS.
The Force is every bit as optional to Saga as "FX" was to Modern D20.
Droids would also be -entirely optional- rules as well (if not present at all. And then the races all but human are deleted again... Saga's rules just keep getting lighter and lighter so you are paying the same for less content even)
I know for a fact that Saga works brilliantly for Tame Modern with Space ships gone, aliens gone and the Force not in play. Give a slight reflavor to the weapons and you are good to go. Been there done that.
What Saga does not do that well though is Overt Magic in an Urban Fantasy. Even with the Force added back in.
I'm saying there's already rules for a Realistic Modern D20 game out there. And you don't even have to work to get them to work well. It's largely just a matter of changing flavor text and deletions. Frankly I'd rather Wizards not waste the printings to do a Saga with Rules Deleted and Flavor Text Changed. Because again, that system already exists.
There aren't really rules out there for a Modern Fantasy.
Do you have any brain in there at all? Did that 3e rot your brains?
Do you have any brain in there at all? Did that 4e rot your brains?
hahaha, insulting folks is fun
can we fingerpaint next or should we eat some paste first?
Originally Posted by backstabbist
Why have one modern game system for Fantasy Modern and another for Non-Fantasy?
Whynot have a nonFantasy modern game that folks can just choose to add CRB Section II: Fanatasy & Magic.
Is d20Modern a modern non-Fanasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a modern fantasy game? Sure, if you want that works fine
Is d20Modern a spaceship & giant robot game? Sure, if thats what you want its broken as hell
Why not just make Modern4 a non-fantasy game
that has optional drop in fantasy classes & setting,
and allows noncombat characters to not have mandatory combat equality if they dont want it
I actually agree with most of this. It does bring up problems though. If you want a game that has optional fx rules that can just be "dropped in", the game has to be balanced to accept those rules; which means magic and technology must be balanced against each other. This, of course, means that the sturcture of that balance must still be in place if fx are not dropped in. If this isn't the case, then you will (by virtue if the nature of the beast) end up with 2 different systems.
As for the bit about all players being able to contribute in combat, we will have to agree to disagree. It is my opinion that all characters should be able to participate equally in combat encounters (even if they are using non-damaging combat abilities) and non-combat encounters.
If you want a game that has optional fx rules that can just be "dropped in", the game has to be balanced to accept those rules; which means magic and technology must be balanced against each other.
Yup. Exactly. Now, "balanced" doesn't mean "basically the same," though. One of my annoyances with 3e is that arcane, divine, and psionic are more or less the same. Yes, psionics work on power points, but so do Sorcerers (kinda sorta not quite, but you get what I mean). Just having another spell-casting class doesn't change the rules enough for my liking. I'd rather they were genuinely different options. Same goes for tech. So the real question is: how much variation can you introduce between those systems before they do end up being incompatible?
Plan B, however, is to say (as a game designer): tech and magic are not going to be introduced into the same system all that much anyway, so you might as well allow them to fork off into two different paths, which is kinda what they did with Future (which I haven't played, but I'll believe you all when you say it's irretrievably broken) vs. d20 core magic (arcane/divine) as well as the pseudo-science in "Pulp" (from Past). The "inventor" is yet another variation on the wizard, really (although I do love the flavour). I think Plan B has some merit, actually, but I'm designing a superhero system, in which magic and tech and psionics and everything else clash all the time, so they must be compatible, which means that I've had to make them somewhat similar (which is frustrating, but there you go).
As for the bit about all players being able to contribute in combat, we will have to agree to disagree. It is my opinion that all characters should be able to participate equally in combat encounters (even if they are using non-damaging combat abilities) and non-combat encounters.
I think this is one of the biggest differences between 3e and 4e, right here, and it reflects a fundamentally different perspective on what we want out of an RPG. The "everyone contributes in combat" model is very combat-centric. It makes 4e much closer to WoW (that is not an insult! merely an observation!). The 3e/2e/1e/Basic model is "everyone contributes to some element of the game," which to me is a lot more story/character-centric. BUT I don't see these two options as superior/inferior. Even though I prefer one, I know that's a subjective thing that's based on the kinds of games I prefer to play.
I think this is one of the biggest differences between 3e and 4e, right here, and it reflects a fundamentally different perspective on what we want out of an RPG. The "everyone contributes in combat" model is very combat-centric. It makes 4e much closer to WoW (that is not an insult! merely an observation!). The 3e/2e/1e/Basic model is "everyone contributes to some element of the game," which to me is a lot more story/character-centric. BUT I don't see these two options as superior/inferior. Even though I prefer one, I know that's a subjective thing that's based on the kinds of games I prefer to play.
This is definitely a matter of personal taste. And I can respect that. Personally, when I play an rpg, I prefer to play. In past editions, there have been times when I wondered why I showed up to a certain game because my character didn't have many options in combat. There were times out of combat when I was the sole star too. Which is cool in one sense, because I saved the party's butts a few times and no one could deny it was 100% my efforts that did it. On the other hand, I know I got bored during the fights, and other players got bored during the other stuff. Finding a balance between combat and non-combat is hard for the DM when only one player has a socially or tech focused character.
To sum up, I would have prefered to have options during combat other than "I'm gonna go watch the Simpsons, call me when the fights over".
Model 1- Modern Core Mechanics with add-on expension packs. WotC has tried this model before and failed at it as more and more books came out. One cannot imitate GURPS over night...
Model 2- Simply go the other way. Create stand alone games based on licences/franchises. Each games would be loosely related to the other and have its own internal set of mechancis to deal with the rules generated by the setting. The older gamers on this forum will remember that that was TSRs business model way back when I didn't have gray hair... and it worked.
Boot Hill, Gamma World, Gang Busters, Top Secret, were all spins-offs of D&D with specific sets of rules. Its my personnal belief that this is the way WotC will go. Stand alone games with strong brand values to attract buyers.
They did it with Star Wars and it worked. WotC now has a strong Fantasy franchise with D&D. A strong SF franchise with SW. My bets are placed on a 4E like superhero game to capture the «modern» crowd - there was a rumor about Marvel rights not so long ago.
I think this is one of the biggest differences between 3e and 4e, right here, and it reflects a fundamentally different perspective on what we want out of an RPG. The "everyone contributes in combat" model is very combat-centric. It makes 4e much closer to WoW (that is not an insult! merely an observation!). The 3e/2e/1e/Basic model is "everyone contributes to some element of the game," which to me is a lot more story/character-centric. BUT I don't see these two options as superior/inferior. Even though I prefer one, I know that's a subjective thing that's based on the kinds of games I prefer to play.
I know you were not trying to be insulting with that WoW comment, but it really gets me up in arms. It really makes no sense. How does 4e become more like WoW? Can you actually draw a logical comparison about some 4e game element and some WoW element which was not originally a component of D&D (that WoW ripped off)? And what is more, how did 3e/2e/1e not attempt to make the game "combat centric"? If anything, I see more out of combat resolution mechanics present in 4e than I did in any of those three editions. 4e just made sure that all the classes were balanced in combat scenario's as well.
And, like MechaPilot, I have seen too many games where the game is actually split up between two different games. The out of combat game, and the in combat game, and somebody is always bored during one of the two games (and not paying attention). I like story centric/character centric games. Like I said above, combat attack powers don't necessarily mean weapon attack powers, or even damage based powers. A domination effect with no damage component is a perfectly viable model for a charismatic hero attack power. However, I really don't like playing games where half the time someone at the game table is pretty much sitting there and reading a book or watching TV because the game is making no attempt to cater to them whatsoever... I just don't think that is good game design.
To sum up, I would have prefered to have options during combat other than "I'm gonna go watch the Simpsons, call me when the fights over".
Have you tried taking a level of Strong or Fast in this free multiclassing game
to tailor your character to the mix of Smarty-Fightyguy you want?
Sounds like you took fewer levels of Fightyguy than how you want to play the guy.
Princess runs a 100% non-fighty mix, you shouldnt run that mix if you want to be more fighty than 0% Fighty....
If you want to be like half fighty and half smart.... well, duh, take equal levels of combat and noncombat classes. If you want to be mostly a fightyguy that has some expert skills, then maybe a 2:1 fighty:non mix is for you
If you want to complain that the multiclass mix you chose wasnt fighty enough for your tastes... who is to balme other than the guy that chose that mix of combat:non classes?
Free multiclassing- you can choose exactly the degree of fighty:nonfighty you want
I sometimes like really nonfighty characters (2ndStory Burgler, I'm looking at you) and other times I play a shooty guy that spent a bit of time at the Community College instead of the range.
Though with a brain that size he could probably jury-rig PL Yours+1 equipment on the fly.
I usually GM combat-moderate to combat-heavy campaigns and even the Smart Hero PCs know to multiclass some Fast or Strong.
I know you were not trying to be insulting with that WoW comment, but it really gets me up in arms. It really makes no sense. How does 4e become more like WoW?
(Hey Dave, when you, first, say that my position makes no sense and then ask me to explain it, what I hear [though not what you meant, I'm sure] is that you don't want to hear my answer at all. You just want to demonstrate that I'm wrong. How about we talk it out instead of being confrontational about it, eh?)
The parallel that I see is that classes and roles are designed to all contribute to combat somewhat equally, which is precisely what you're claiming, yes? Seems to me that the hard-core consumers of 3e demonstrated that that's what they wanted, so Wizards responded. There's nothing wrong with that, that I can see. It's just not how I like to play the game. If you believe that comparison is inaccurate,then I'd be happy to hear your opinion, but I suspect that we'll have to agree to disagree about it.
I like story centric/character centric games. Like I said above, combat attack powers don't necessarily mean weapon attack powers, or even damage based powers. A domination effect with no damage component is a perfectly viable model for a charismatic hero attack power.
Sure, but I'd prefer not to play a game where a Charismatic's abilities are all, or even primarily, focused on combat applications. At that point, Diplomacy becomes just another form of attack. Again, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that. It's just not for me. I would prefer to play a game where I can play, for example, an ambassador/negotiator who is a genuine pacifist (for example) and not be required to use up resources on combat abilities that I don't intend to use. I want that option to be left in the game.
I really don't like playing games where half the time someone at the game table is pretty much sitting there and reading a book or watching TV because the game is making no attempt to cater to them whatsoever... I just don't think that is good game design.
Fair enough. For me, just from my perspective, I don't think it's good character or adventure design. If you build a one-trick pony character, that's not the system's fault (unless it genuinely doesn't provide any other options), and if you design an adventure that relies on only one of the many skills/abilities that your PCs have, then that's not the system's fault either. I feel as if a lot of the debates around RPG design these days assume that (a) all players are ultimately self-serving and that therefore (b) they are absolved of their responsibility to make decisions that contribute to everyone's fun, not just their own. This all comes back to my basic objection to incentive-based systems, rather than systems based on responsibility, but that's a whole other discussion.
NB: this is not a criticism of 4e but instead a criticism of the whole industry and the community that surrounds it, including 3e. Please do not try to turn that into an attack on 4e. It isn't.
You put a good point in there.
The one trick pony is why folks found themselves "sitting out".
When a PC is minmaxed out to be able to do only 1 thing, but 10x better than everyone else, it aint very much fun when the adventure calls for something other than that thing.
If folks dont want to play a 210 IQ noncombatant, ok
but why do they have to prevent me from playing that noncombatant?
Saga still creates a feeling (though significantly reduced, I admit) of, "I'm only useful in certain situations some of the time...unless I'm a Jedi and then I always rock." That is NOT good, at all, period.
A powers-based system like 4e would be far better insurance that supernatural abilities will be comparably balanced to mundane ones. If you want balance between the mundane core and the FX add-ons, then powers are the way to go.
I think the preference for Saga over 4e stems from the fact that 4e doesn't do guns and cars. I'm not sure how to work that out off the top of my head, BUT I do have an idea to help mitigate the vast difference in weapon damage.
Behold, the Mega-Damage equipment trait...
Mega-Damage (Defensive): Vehicles or creatures with this trait reduce all damage dealt to them by weapons or attack powers without the Mega-Damage (Offensive) trait, to 1.
Mega-Damage (Offensive): Weapons or attack powers with this trait deal their damage normally to targets with the Mega-Damage (Defensive) trait.
That way, damage and HP don't have to be astronomically high to reflect the fact that your bow isn't going to do jack against a tank. And since there's really either dead or not dead, there's no reason for things like bazookas to do astronomical damage either. It's going to kill you anyway, why overdo it? Sure, they'll still do pretty big damage, but after a certain point, it just doesn't matter anymore. This concept (with probably significant refinement) would curtail the need for many hundreds or even thousands of HP with weapons that do hundreds of points of damage a shot or something.
That's my take on it all anyway. Now, we bring you back to your regularly scheduled trolling.
A powers-based system like 4e would be far better insurance that supernatural abilities will be comparably balanced to mundane ones. If you want balance between the mundane core and the FX add-ons, then powers are the way to go.
If you mean to apply that to NonCombat as well.....
but you dont, do you
I get the feeling powers are only for attacking at many levels, even for the Mechanics Scientists and Investigators. The Powers system is swell for fighting guys, but is a real kick in the shorts for guys that do more fixing or working than killing.
You want your character to be good at killing?
Take some levels in a killer class.
I want mine to be better at fixing than killing, so let me have some non-killer classes to take.
We get it, you want to have combat characters that are OK at skills.
Great, do that, take the combat classes that are only +5 at some skills.
Nobody is forcing you to take any "Really Good At Skills & Bad At Combat" class.
Why must you dictate that I have to take a combat class too?
Why cant you let my PC choose to be not good at combat.
Stop forcing my Librarian to have leet ninja skilz she will never use!
If you want everyone in your party to be killers,
dont let Librarians in your special forces team
Mega-Damage (Defensive): Vehicles or creatures with this trait reduce all damage dealt to them by weapons or attack powers without the Mega-Damage (Offensive) trait, to 1.
Surely you've heard by now,
HP dosnt mean the sword/bullet/tankshell actually hit you... its an abstract that the Warlard can just give you a PepTalk & Hug and you regain the "HP" that you never actually lost to the bullet that didnt actually hit you
In that light,
it dont mater that the dagger cant penetrate the tank,
cause you wont be actually hitting the tank with the dagger anyway to drop the taks HP.
Which brings us to the new ammo type
4e Blanks Ammo
DMG: standard ammo -1
Weight: 1/4 standard ammo
Attack: per applicable attack power, but subsitute targets Wis instead of AC or Dex
Since the bullet doesnt actually need to hit the guy to do damage, the bullet doesnt need to even exist as long as there is a loud Bang and muzzleflash. When the target tries to Healing Surge the damage away, since he can just self heal the damage from bullets that dont actually hit, things work as normal.... no bullet hit him just like FMJ / HP / AP didnt hit him
The parallel that I see is that classes and roles are designed to all contribute to combat somewhat equally, which is precisely what you're claiming, yes? Seems to me that the hard-core consumers of 3e demonstrated that that's what they wanted, so Wizards responded. There's nothing wrong with that, that I can see. It's just not how I like to play the game. If you believe that comparison is inaccurate,then I'd be happy to hear your opinion, but I suspect that we'll have to agree to disagree about it.
This is the way things look from my perspective: Just because prior editions were balanced poorly doesn't mean that all the classes of prior editions were not, still, pretty much combat classes. There has not been a D&D or d20 game, published by TSR or WotC, that was not pretty much "combat centric." Saying that 4e is like WoW, because all of its classes can participate in combat, and the majority of their abilities revolve around combat, is sort of like saying that real life is like WoW, because in real life we all have two arms, two legs, and a head, just like WoW characters. Its WoW that imitated D&D, not the other way around.
Sure, but I'd prefer not to play a game where a Charismatic's abilities are all, or even primarily, focused on combat applications. At that point, Diplomacy becomes just another form of attack. Again, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that. It's just not for me. I would prefer to play a game where I can play, for example, an ambassador/negotiator who is a genuine pacifist (for example) and not be required to use up resources on combat abilities that I don't intend to use. I want that option to be left in the game.
See, from my perspective, if you can choose all of your "combat abilities" as abilities that don't involve physical violence, that instead deal psychic damage via verbal attacks, or don't deal damage at all and instead deal lots of status effects, then you have already made a truly pacifist character. In game, your character will never have to pick up a weapon, or attempt to physically hurt another character. All your character uses is words. Yes, some forms of diplomacy WILL just be another form of attack, but the pacifist option will still be a reality. Real pacifists today still attack people with words. They still try and use verbal actions to dominate/effect others. They just don't use physical violence. But this sort of game design also allows to pacifist character to have something to do when the group gets forced into combat. What is more, nobody said that such a character would have to be "primarily" focused on combat. In 4e, you get a total of 17 abilities end game. 7 of those are "utility powers." Utility powers are the ideal "skill check" based powers. With a 10:7 combat:non combat power ratio, the theoretical 4e Modern character is less combat focused than the 3e characters were. The ratio of combat:non combat talents was not anywhere near as much in favor of non combat talents in 3e d20 Modern. What is more, nobody said the ratio in a 4e Modern needs to be 10:7. The exact number of attack/utility powers gained can be played with.
Fair enough. For me, just from my perspective, I don't think it's good character or adventure design. If you build a one-trick pony character, that's not the system's fault (unless it genuinely doesn't provide any other options), and if you design an adventure that relies on only one of the many skills/abilities that your PCs have, then that's not the system's fault either. I feel as if a lot of the debates around RPG design these days assume that (a) all players are ultimately self-serving and that therefore (b) they are absolved of their responsibility to make decisions that contribute to everyone's fun, not just their own. This all comes back to my basic objection to incentive-based systems, rather than systems based on responsibility, but that's a whole other discussion.
See, to me, 3e just felt like it sort of gave a group every incentive to have ever character focus towards one area, and really max out that area. The result was a group that played best as a group, with each character being a specialist in one area of play, but which only ever had one character playing at a time. I really don't like that design. What is more, I see no reason why a 210 IQ scientist can't be an effective in combat character. One who never pulls out a gun, but who is regularly figuring out ways to use science, on the fly, to control the battlefield.
Have you tried taking a level of Strong or Fast in this free multiclassing game
to tailor your character to the mix of Smarty-Fightyguy you want?
Sounds like you took fewer levels of Fightyguy than how you want to play the guy.
Princess runs a 100% non-fighty mix, you shouldnt run that mix if you want to be more fighty than 0% Fighty....
If you want to be like half fighty and half smart.... well, duh, take equal levels of combat and noncombat classes. If you want to be mostly a fightyguy that has some expert skills, then maybe a 2:1 fighty:non mix is for you
If you want to complain that the multiclass mix you chose wasnt fighty enough for your tastes... who is to balme other than the guy that chose that mix of combat:non classes?
I understand (after play experience) this is how the current system works, that one must multiclass to have any serious combat options. I will add that the notion of being required to multiclass to have options in combat is insulting. The character I was playing was not a genius-soldier like Samatha Carter; but was more of the eccentric-genius variety, like Jared from The Pretender. If the character had been militarily based, multiclassing into one of those other classes would have made sense.
Now one can certainly make the argument that the character theme I chose was inappropriate for a group game. At the same time, it's just as easy to see how such a character should have at least some kind of combat options available. And, of course, the inverse is true. My character should not have been the only one able to participate with any hope for success in the non-combat encounters.
Sure, but I'd prefer not to play a game where a Charismatic's abilities are all, or even primarily, focused on combat applications. At that point, Diplomacy becomes just another form of attack. Again, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that. It's just not for me. I would prefer to play a game where I can play, for example, an ambassador/negotiator who is a genuine pacifist (for example) and not be required to use up resources on combat abilities that I don't intend to use. I want that option to be left in the game.
I understand that you are not attacking 4e, and I applaud you for it. I will say that there is an option available that many people are not entirely understanding.
The powers in the 4e system are not all about combat.
Now, I will clearly confess that (aside from the few utility powers presented) WotC has done a bad job of showing that at-will, encounter, or daily powers can be of a non-combat nature.
It is certainly possible to have an encounter power that gives you bonuses to skill checks during a skill challenge. Bs' aforementioned Princess might have an encounter power that grants her a large bonus to one charisma-based skill check; or a small bonus to all her charisma-based skill checks in that encounter.
A tech-based character could have a power that lets them jury rig one item either as a fixit or to have a different purpose for the duration of one encounter. This could be directly combat-useful (like a portable electronic device being made into a stungun) or it could simply allow the character to modify a car's gps transmitter to jam police radar.
The point is that, although they haven't been very well showcased in 4e. the 4e system does easily lend itself to powers that are encounter useful without being combat useful. Princess' Cha-based skill bonus from the above encounter power wouldn't do a lick of good in combat; unless she also had a power that let her Diplomat her opponent into staying their attack for one round (bearing in mind that any other use of diplomacy in combat is usually autofail).
I will add that the notion of being required to multiclass to have options in combat is insulting.
That is an interesting point,
but you do have the option to be all Combat classed, Heavy Combat mix, Light Combat MIx or even purely scientific / skilled
The same goes for me in Modern: all Science-Mechanics, Heavy Mechanical with some combat, Light Mechanical combatant, or even all combat ant
Now lets look at the 4e way:
MP & Back have to be the same , both have to be good fairly balanced at combat and both need to take part in fixing computers/plumbing/femers/IonDrives
I dont want to be as Fighty as you, I'm a lover not a fighter,
and you clearly dont want to allow me to be not as fighty as you
Taking Superscience skill in 4e makes you as good at Superscience as a 10th level ditchdigger, since it is only worth +5 vs gaining levels in any ditchdigging class grants upto +15. When it comes to 30th level superscience, the scientist guy ( has to be a killer of some kind) is +20 vs the killer-ditchdigger guy that is +15.... but of course the ditchdigger isnt still paying off his student loans for some Superscience degree.
My character should not have been the only one able to participate with any hope for success in the non-combat encounters.
So what you are saying is,
the folks to blame for the other PCs not having any noncombat class abilities would be.... the the guys that chose to take all combat classes and chose to not have any non-combat ability? .... those guys? ... Cause thats who I blame for PC being overly specialized to the point that the character sufferes.
Every character is given their prefered mix of combat to noncombat ability.
Who is to blame if a guy chooses to make his character have 100% Combat and then whines about not having any noncombat ability?
"My charcater knows nothing about combat, I'm a Librarian Researcher-Techguy"
Oh yeah, my guy knows nothing BUT combat
"OK, got it. You know knothing."
Hey!
"Oh, You know plenty, just none of it is applicable outside of combat"
Right
"And you are ok with that?"
uh.... no, its not fair
"Then why not choose to give up a weee bit of combat power and gain some skill ability?"
What!!! Make myself weaker on purpose?!!! NEVAR!!
"uhhuh... and you are ok with being 100% combat?"
Helyeah!
".... and 0% skills?"
Heck no. But at least I know how to use a gun
"And I know to surround myself with armed Meatshields"
Saying that 4e is like WoW, because all of its classes can participate in combat, and the majority of their abilities revolve around combat,
That's not quite what I meant. Let me clarify. Of course D&D has always been centred on combat (much to my chagrin, actually). But what I said was that all the class and roles seem (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) to be designed on the principle that they should all take equal part in combat, to the point of doing similar damage/having similar effects. In 3e, the Wizard will probably rack up a way higher kill-count than the fighter. My understanding is that 4e tries to correct for that. Am I mistaken? (honest question!) It also seems to me that "roles" in 4e are extremely similar to traditional MMORPG roles, like "tank" or "blaster" or "buffer." That terminology did not develop, as far as know, before games like World of Warcraft. Given that WoW is hands down the most popular example of such games, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Wizards was indeed patterning its roles off of those on-line gamer terms. Add to that the striking resemblance between how Wizards is trying to sell 4e, pushing towards an on-line model in which you pay a fee every month, and you start to see the resemblance even more strongly. Again, I don't think any of this is "bad." I'm just making an observation about a similarity.
Its WoW that imitated D&D, not the other way around.
In fact, it's even more complicated than that. Chainmail begot D&D begot lots and lots of video games (like Gateway to Apshai or Golden Axe), and that whole branch begot Warcraft (a real-time strategy game) which begot World of Warcraft (a first-person MMORPG) which then had a striking influence on the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons. The influence goes both ways. Given, also, that WoW is far far far far more popular than D&D probably ever will be (in sheer number of people playing and social recognition outside of its dedicated community), it is again more likely that D&D would now be influenced by it somewhat more than the other way around, although you're absolutely right that D&D is the template on which games like WoW were originally cut.
See, from my perspective, if you can choose all of your "combat abilities" as abilities that don't involve physical violence, that instead deal psychic damage via verbal attacks, or don't deal damage at all and instead deal lots of status effects, then you have already made a truly pacifist character.
Ah, I think I see where I'm not being very clear. Sorry about that. The thing is, I'm not anti-violence in RPGs. Violence is a big part of the game. I made my peace with that some time ago. I just want the talking solution to a conflict to have a genuinely different mechanic than the hitting/shooting solution. I want it to feel different at the game table. It's the same way that I want my magic solution to feel different than the hitting/shooting solution, too. For the sake of feeling like I'm doing something distinctly different, I want to actually do something different, in the rules. I may very well be utterly alone in that, though, but I'm okay with it.
See, to me, 3e just felt like it sort of gave a group every incentive to have ever character focus towards one area, and really max out that area. The result was a group that played best as a group
I think, though, that you're presuming that one particular thing constitutes "playing best as a group," there. To me, a group that plays well together supports each other in their individual desires to live out a given fantasy life. Killing the bad guys is part of it, of course, but only one part, and not always the most interesting part. I'm one of those who thinks the rules are there just to facilitate my ability to play a certain kind of heroic (or villainous!) character. My background is literature and drama, including a fair bit of improv. This is just a paper-work heavy version of playing make-believe, for me.
The powers in the 4e system are not all about combat.
Now, I will clearly confess that (aside from the few utility powers presented) WotC has done a bad job of showing that at-will, encounter, or daily powers can be of a non-combat nature.
Well, not to nit-pick (which is the international sign for "now I shall nit-pick"), but what it sounds like you're saying is that they are, currently, almost all about combat, but that they don't have to be. I agree that that's very promising, but I have to ask why you think that there haven't been (by your description) all that many non-combat powers so far...?
Now, I will clearly confess that (aside from the few utility powers presented) WotC has done a bad job of showing that at-will, encounter, or daily powers can be of a non-combat nature.
So we obviously should have classes with access to AtWil Encounter & Daily powers at each level to use in "Non-Combat Encounters"
please refer to the journal page of Jimmy The Squeeler
Now lets look at the 4e way:
Taking Superscience skill in 4e makes you as good at Superscience as a 10th level ditchdigger, since it is only worth +5 vs gaining levels in any ditchdigging class grants upto +15. When it comes to 30th level superscience, the scientist guy ( has to be a killer of some kind) is +20 vs the killer-ditchdigger guy that is +15.... but of course the ditchdigger isnt still paying off his student loans for some Superscience degree.
There is one subtle flaw here. NPC ditchdiggers in 3.5 have class levels (likely 2 of them from the NPC descriptions in the gamemasetering secion of the CRB). In 4e, bystanders have no class level, they just have a creature level. Which is likely to be 1 for most people.
A ditchdigger is not trained in superscience has a maximum bonus (as an average joe with no mental attribute bonuses and no skill bonus from level or training) of +0. Also, superscience is likely a trained only skill. Most of the things that could be accomplished with it can only be attempted by people who have it as a trained skill (like the trained-only uses of certain skills in Saga).
Well, not to nit-pick (which is the international sign for "now I shall nit-pick"), but what it sounds like you're saying is that they are, currently, almost all about combat, but that they don't have to be. I agree that that's very promising, but I have to ask why you think that there haven't been (by your description) all that many non-combat powers so far...?
I believe it has to do with economics. As a business, WotC probably spent a lot of time trying to make the game appeal to as large an audience as possible. At the same time however, they had to keep costs down (which often means reducing art or page-length when it comes to books).
That's not quite what I meant. Let me clarify. Of course D&D has always been centred on combat (much to my chagrin, actually). But what I said was that all the class and roles seem (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) to be designed on the principle that they should all take equal part in combat, to the point of doing similar damage/having similar effects. In 3e, the Wizard will probably rack up a way higher kill-count than the fighter. My understanding is that 4e tries to correct for that. Am I mistaken? (honest question!) It also seems to me that "roles" in 4e are extremely similar to traditional MMORPG roles, like "tank" or "blaster" or "buffer." That terminology did not develop, as far as know, before games like World of Warcraft. Given that WoW is hands down the most popular example of such games, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Wizards was indeed patterning its roles off of those on-line gamer terms. Add to that the striking resemblance between how Wizards is trying to sell 4e, pushing towards an on-line model in which you pay a fee every month, and you start to see the resemblance even more strongly. Again, I don't think any of this is "bad." I'm just making an observation about a similarity.
The concept of roles is nothing new to 4e, and was not taken from MMORPGs. The concept of roles was ALWAYS present in D&D, right from its conception out of chainmail. In tactical wargames, different unites have different roles. In D&D, different characters continued to have different roles. The only difference is that 4e hardcoded the feature. The concept, however, was taken out of D&D long before it entered into videogames. D&D always had the tank, the healer, the class that could do a lot of damage, and so on and so forth.
Likewise, having classes actually be balanced against each other is not a bad thing. In a game that is already combat centric, I have no desire to ever see one class that is hands down the superior class in game play (ala the Wizard in 3e). Achieving balance doesn't make a game more like "WoW." All 4e did is take the old template, and try and balance it out.
But no, not all classes in 4e have "similar" powers, or powers that pretty much do the same thing. If you look at the powers of a class like wizard, and a class like fighter, they are very different. They do very different things.
Ah, I think I see where I'm not being very clear. Sorry about that. The thing is, I'm not anti-violence in RPGs. Violence is a big part of the game. I made my peace with that some time ago. I just want the talking solution to a conflict to have a genuinely different mechanic than the hitting/shooting solution. I want it to feel different at the game table. It's the same way that I want my magic solution to feel different than the hitting/shooting solution, too. For the sake of feeling like I'm doing something distinctly different, I want to actually do something different, in the rules. I may very well be utterly alone in that, though, but I'm okay with it.
There already is the different mechanic for "talking it out." There is the diplomacy skill check, and the skill challenge system. But, when the **** really hits the fan, and a fight is forced on the players, now the charismatic hero can have some talking based attack powers. They won't be nearly as "neat" a solution as simply succeeding at the skill challenge would have been, but at least now he can daze, dominate, and otherwise mess with the psychic mental space of his foes, as well as giving his side the pep talk they need, so that the strong hero, tough hero, and fast hero, can do what they need to do with their firearms. After all, what fast hero doesn't want a chance to make a free ranged basic attack, against a foe of the charismatic heroes choosing, with the charismatic heroes charisma bonus to hit and damage.
I think, though, that you're presuming that one particular thing constitutes "playing best as a group," there. To me, a group that plays well together supports each other in their individual desires to live out a given fantasy life. Killing the bad guys is part of it, of course, but only one part, and not always the most interesting part. I'm one of those who thinks the rules are there just to facilitate my ability to play a certain kind of heroic (or villainous!) character. My background is literature and drama, including a fair bit of improv. This is just a paper-work heavy version of playing make-believe, for me.
I'm presuming the same thing you are. I just happen to have noticed that certain combination's are better supported by the RAW. A 3e group works best if it is composed of a bunch of specialists. But, such a group is always suck with one person playing at a time, instead of everyone playing together as a group. Its not a fun mechanic.
Well, not to nit-pick (which is the international sign for "now I shall nit-pick"), but what it sounds like you're saying is that they are, currently, almost all about combat, but that they don't have to be. I agree that that's very promising, but I have to ask why you think that there haven't been (by your description) all that many non-combat powers so far...?
Some of the classes get a lot of non combat powers. Rogues are a good example. Unfortunatly, instead of giving all the classes non combat powers, some classes (fighter, I am looking at you) got utility powers that were pretty much combat powers as well. Who knows why. I'm certainly not happy about it. What I want from a 4e Modern game is a system where each class gets their combat powers, and each class gets their non-combat powers, and every classes powers have their own distinct flavor. Your looking for athletics based utility powers? Strong hero. Acrobatics/stealth based utility powers? Fast hero. Knowledge based utility powers? Smart hero. Diplomacy/Intimidate based utility powers? Charismatic hero. Healing/perception/intuition based utility powers? Dedicated hero. Endurance based utility powers? Tough hero. And so on and so forth.
There is one subtle flaw here. NPC ditchdiggers in 3.5 have class levels (likely 2 of them from the NPC descriptions in the gamemasetering secion of the CRB). In 4e, bystanders have no class level, they just have a creature level. Which is likely to be 1 for most people.
No, the obvious flaw is
you trying to introduce NPCs to a PC point.
Turn off your ExampleSpinner and re-evaluate as 2 PCs with PC classes, one that took the Superscience skills and one that went Ditchdigger skills. It is a difference of just 5, when they both get upto 15 for all that killing experience
Also, superscience is likely a trained only skill
what? you still spinning one-sidedness into the simple example?
When you stop trying to change the situation to meet your agenda
2 PC classed guys with the same Int,
One has the not TrainedOnly skill Superscience
Learning science is only worth 5 whereas levels gained by stabbing stuff can give 15
"What you know" is worth as little as 1/3 as much as "Who you kill"
This is all based on the fighters that dont want to give up combat ability to learn noncombat stuff. They want to be 100% combat PLUS 50% noncombat... rather than have to trade off come combat ability to gain noncombat ability.
How can you find it insulting to have to stop taking gym classes for at least 1 period to take History, if you want to be a thug that knows history? The more subjects you want to know, the more gym classes you give up for math physics and chem.
You dont get to just know chem & physics and never skip a gym class... unless you're in a 4e world... where Refrigerator Perry knows more physics than 1st year HS Physics Teachers cause Perry has many levels in PC MongoSmash Class
What I want from a 4e Modern game is a system where each class gets their combat powers, and each class gets their non-combat powers, and every classes powers have their own distinct flavor.
Hows about
A 4e Modern game with a system where each class gets their combat and non-combat powers to pick from, and many classes can have the same power in that pool
Or even better,
just put an asterisk next to the noncombat classes that warn players that these classes are tehsuxxor at combat and shouldnt be played by guys that dont have what it takes to play weak characters effectively.
.... then we can have classes that are better at doing things than killing things
for characters that are played as better at doing things than killing things
Just because you dont want to play noncombat classes,
doesnt mean you have to ban them from the books so NOBODY can play them.
In D&D, different characters continued to have different roles. The only difference is that 4e hardcoded the feature.
Yes, exactly. They hard-coded something that, in my opinion, worked just fine as a casual thing. I'd rather have the freedom to play different kinds of combinations, have different classes fill different roles based, as much as anything else, on the player.
Likewise, having classes actually be balanced against each other is not a bad thing.
Dave, seriously, I don't know who you're arguing with right now because I don't think I've made any of the claims that you seem to be disputing. I haven't spoken against "balance." I have tried to imply that "balance" should include classes whose function is not necessarily combat.
But no, not all classes in 4e have "similar" powers, or powers that pretty much do the same thing. If you look at the powers of a class like wizard, and a class like fighter, they are very different. They do very different things.
Yes, you've said this many times. I'm not sure why you're repeating it now.
After all, what fast hero doesn't want a chance to make a free ranged basic attack, against a foe of the charismatic heroes choosing, with the charismatic heroes charisma bonus to hit and damage.
Perhaps a Charismatic or a Wise who doesn't believe in violence...? See, this is my point, and again it's just a preference of mine, so I'm not arguing that it's better. Only trying to explain. I don't want the Charismatic's in-combat abilities to be just enable the fight. I want them to have the capacity to resolve the conflict some other way. Just granting more bonuses to this and that... I mean, yeah, it's useful if your goal is to "win" the fight, but I want more options than that.
I'm presuming the same thing you are.
I don't think you are. But just to test the theory, what do you think I'm presuming?
I just happen to have noticed that certain combination's are better supported by the RAW. A 3e group works best if it is composed of a bunch of specialists. But, such a group is always suck with one person playing at a time, instead of everyone playing together as a group. Its not a fun mechanic.
Suck at what? What are they going to suck at? (This is a pointed question, just to be fair.)
Some of the classes get a lot of non combat powers. Rogues are a good example. Unfortunatly, instead of giving all the classes non combat powers, some classes (fighter, I am looking at you) got utility powers that were pretty much combat powers as well. Who knows why. I'm certainly not happy about it.
Sorry, we talking 4e or 3e now? If we're talking 4e then... haven't you just made exactly the point that many have been arguing, that the game doesn't have the variety that it could/should/ought to have?
If you're talking 3e, then I'm inclined to agree. The fighter in particular is supposed to be the Best There Is at the fightin', but he's not necessarily the best and he's not great at anything else, either.
What I want from a 4e Modern game is a system where each class gets their combat powers, and each class gets their non-combat powers, and every classes powers have their own distinct flavor.
Yes, I know that that's what you want. You have made that very clear. I'm not trying to be snotty. You really have expressed this desire quite clearly. I just don't happen to want to play that kind of system on my kitchen table. It's really that simple. I want some classes to not have any combat applicability. I want the option to build a class that has no place in a fight at all, but is slam-bang useful in other circumstances. I agree on the flavour, though (it's nice to end on a point of agreement, I've always thought).
Given how Modern d20 was, and 3e were. (and how similar they really were)
It is probably a safe bet at this point to assume that it's going to follow in the same direction that D&D goes.
as far as not enough skill plus powers and the like.
You do realize that it was the first player's handbook? More classes since then, have gotten more non combat based powers (the bard is a prime example of this).
Refinement will happen as the game goes on. The developers were more concerned with making sure that the game actually functioned out of the gate rather than just throwing a bunch of **** at a wall and hoping something sticks. Expecting Wizards to get it perfect right out of the box is unreasonable to put it lightly. And to expect this out of 4e and not to remember that 3e was so full of non functioning components that the game didn't even work properly, is to apply a hideous double standard.
Classes should have use in and out of combat. They should not be balanced around being "good in and bad out, or bad in fantastic out" because, no campaign is ever going to have a "perfect mixture" of combat and non combat. Ever. Most of the time it's a 70/30 split one way or another with campaigns. So you could very well end up with a character that might as well not even be present 70 percent of the time, and then relegate everyone else to useless land 30 percent. Classes should also be even throughout the entire level range because if there's someone that Sucks at end game or even mid game campaigns that start there means anyone that had the misfortune of starting out at that level with the Suck class, means they really bring nothing to the table other than their good company.
Refinement will happen as the game goes on. The developers were more concerned with making sure that the game actually functioned out of the gate rather than just throwing a bunch of **** at a wall and hoping something sticks.
You obviously never looked inside d20 Future
You obviously never looked inside d20 Future
Oh I did.
I don't feel the designers actually cared about their games till they started working on Star Wars really. Someone realized "hey if we make a good game instead of one where we just throw **** at a wall, people will buy more!"
Future D20 I am never touching again... not without a gout of flame from my flamethrower.
because if there's someone that Sucks at end game or even mid game campaigns that start there means anyone that had the misfortune of starting out at that level with the Suck class, means they really bring nothing to the table other than their good company
and there is one of the core contentions
Your demand that everyone not suck,
is presuming that being a noncombat character that is realy real realy good at noncombat "sucks"
Thats fine,
you can have the mentality that anyone that dosnt play like you sucks.
So you can respect that I have the mentality that folks that dont play like me are the ones that Suck.... that playing anythng but noncombat roles makes chars suck.
We both have opinions,
mine is either as right or as wrong as yours.
The difference is,
I am not demanding to eliminate combat classes from the game,
by simply making all characters equal in combat (1/2 level & +5 if "Combat Skilled")
and focus on just classes with abilities and powers for outside of combat... since all combat ability is the same
Nope, I'm not kicking combat classes out of the game,
why are folks scared to let 'underpowered' & 'suck' noncombat classes get printed in the book.... if you dont want to play one cause they suck the way you play them, well then, just DONT PLAY ONE.... cause they dont suck the way some of us play them
Gilligan & Maryanne should not have to be combat balanced to the Skipper
in a Modern "3 Hour Cruise" campaign
No one's advocating that non combat be eliminated from the game.
What we are advocating is that characters should always be able to contribute to an encounter, be it combat or non combat.
that "meager +5" is totally different than how it works in 3e. 3e a +5 bonus was pathetic and minor and not worth noting, between characters because how insane the DCs could be, and how widly different modifiers could be.
In a system where +5 actually means a 25 percent more likelyness to succeed than not having one that's -seriously substantial-. Let alone that the stat modifiers are probably going to be different (since different classes use different Prime Stats, and usually their skills are arranged to fit their Prime stats) you are going to have usually more than a +5 worth of difference.
*usually the number can be as high as 10 different between stat and training, to say nothing of Skill Focus*
Then there's still the fact that there are checks that you do that you can only do while trained in a given skill.
There's also several tiers within aptitude with a skill. There's semi apt which has either a good stat mod in the skill, -or- jack of all trades. Then there's having both or a poor stat mod, and just training which we'll call semi apt or "he's a natural".
Technically there's a step between this even where you have skill focus, and training but not the good stat mod.
And then there's Apt which is a full training and a good stat modifier.
And then there's Extremely Apt which is full training a good modifier and skill focus.
The biggest difference between the two is alot of the micromanaging not even close to realistic BS that came with skill points has been dropped, and that someone that's been hanging out and following his buddy along since like ever has a chance at succeeding a check that involves that skill. (that is far more likely than needing a Natural 20)
Even white Wolf's system doesn't make you make the choice between combat and non combat in even their games you have different pools to put points in. If even they can figure it out..
What we are advocating is that characters should always be able to contribute to an encounter, be it combat or non combat
When the task is to sneak upto the gates and pick the lock,
perhaps Mongo in platemail shouldnt be considered an asset and contributing to the success of the sneak.... yet we see him actually adding 2 to the sneak roll for his non-combat contribution rather than being the blame for the team geting caught because he wanted to sneak unskilled in platemail.... what kind of big meany would discriminate against poor platemail Mongo and say he shouldnt be on the sneak mission
Yeah, the "Every Mook Gets Upto 15, Experts Get 5" system is great.
In a system where +15 actually means a 50 percent more likelyness to succeed than +5 that's -seriously substantial-.
This is of course using the minmax overspecialized PrimeStat-DumpStat concept that worked so well at making guys great at one thing and suck at the others... which you seem to be projecting onto making everyone valuable outside of combat regardless of them dumpstat'ing for their minmax specialty.
Pick one side of the Stat coin to play:
Either guys will play balances stat chars that would have a fair shake outside of combat, or they are still class-wise MinMax DumpStating to support your differences between chars theory.
All this discussion seems to be focussed on assuming the PCs cant just tailor their Ratio of combat-Noncombat effectiveness by multiclassing the mix they want.
Noncombat classes existing in the book doesnt have to mean that PCs are stuck in that class and without any combat value for 30+ levels.
That is a very Not Modern way to look at it.
Soccermoms can take self defense lessons at the community college,
Infantry can take Computer Literacy classes,
Pharmasists can take Basic Auto Repair or Gunsmithing
or even (in Cal) PC832 class & qual like I did,
something D&D doesnt have... readily availible cusomized eduacation avenues
If 100% noncombat classed PC is not your thing,
great, take a level or two of combat classes.
If you want to be totally comitted to 100% combat, ok, dont take any noncombat levels
But dont try to say that folks can be 100% combat oriented without having to give up anything. And certainly dont say librarians have to be as valuable in combat as fighters.... if you want to fight, dont take 100% librarian levels... take a 2:1 mix to be a BattleBooker
I don't think you are really capable of getting it so forget it.
You don't want change because your a changephobe. We get it. Really we do.
You won't be happy with anything Wizards does because you've grown far too comfortable with what is already there (and not functioning). Infact you won't be happy with anything any major brand of RPG has done in the last 10 years.
So why do you even bother participating in these threads?
It's a different style of play. Everyone can already contribute at least a little, but you're not going to listen to me or anyone else who tries to explain that to you. We happen to enjoy having characters with Achilles Heels, and working around them. We happen to enjoy a game where the hacker is busy hacking a computer to close the two-tun door and keep the enemy forces from crushing his buddies who are holding them off. We happen to enjoy games when charisma IS all talk and no substance.
If you can't understand that, it's your failing. Kinda like when we do the same stuff to you ("4E's a fighting gamelol!"), it's our failing to understand your enjoyment.
Edit: I personally don't want to see a 4E or SAGA-based D20Modern. Why? Because that'd get us the same attention as the last D20Modern. I'd much rather they pioneer something new, keeping the comparative grittiness of the original Modern and reinventing it into a system of comparable complexity, but unparalleled flexibility.
But if they want to simply make a copy-pasta Modern, that's fine. I'm already working with others to make a Modern Expansion. We've got some good stuff so far, too. ;)
You don't want change because your a changephobe. We get it. Really we do.
Did he just say I dont come up with new & different ways of doing things outside of RAW?
Changephobe? There is very little RAW I havent helped folks change on this board.
Try this on for size:
What we dont like about D&D use of 4e we can change for Modern use of 4e mechanics
Right?
Change D&D to fit Modern,
rather than ignore the modern world to fit existing unchangable 4e D&D rules.
Who is afraid of change?
Maybe the guys that cant accept D&D rules need to be changed to fit Modern.
... modern Roles, modern Classes, modern Powers (combat & noncom at all levels)
Can you stand it if D&D CombatPowers changes to Modern LevelPowers (combat & concom) ?
its just change, what are you afraid of?
None of the systems mentioned are broken, or not functioning. They all function.
If you ask me, the differences boil down to the amount of work for the GM, or the PCs, or both, or neither.
I openly admit d20 Modern requires a lot of prep time out of me as a GM, but its prep time I personally enjoy, so it is a good system for me.
I haven't even SEEN a 4th edition Modern so I can't really comment on it, now can I?
And with that, I think I now have to excuse myself from the thread because it's based on what I think is a false binary. I'm not trying to "take my toys and go home." I just think that the basis of this discussion isn't helping us (although, again, that is not meant as a criticism of the OP).
There are as many if not more Realism issues with Modern D. Hp, AC, Armor making you harder to hit rather than more damage resistant, Base Attack Bonus, Levels... feats, skills... the game's already incredibly abstracted.
4e is a modular system it is not Codified like the previous edition was.
Meaning it can be made to suit many needs.
Combat and non combat classes don't mix at the same game, that's why in a -mass marketable game- you need everyone being able to contribute in a given encounter.
That's where 3e flopped (well that and assuming that Mundanes and Casters could exist at the same time). That's also the starting point of where Modern D20 goes so badly wrong. Because they have two distinct gameplay mentalities going on and forcing them to work at the same time.
Combat and not combat powers, do not deserve equal slots. They utterly fail to compete against one another for one oh so critical reason. They most often are not used at the same time. That's why there was a skill system made in the first place.
If you want to suck at combat impose a -10 penalty on yourself with your smart hero or whatever. Just don't assume the masses want the same.
Combat powers are separate from utilities if you've noticed because of this (barring earlier classes). They aren't =. And it's damned near impossible to balance them against one another.
Saga star wars is about the best you can hope for a still flexible but "deep rules" system.
If Gygaxian Sim World was even possible to create a flexible game system with don't you think someone would have figured out how to do it over the last 30 years? Need I also remind you that the more complex the system gets the less flexible it will get as well?
Modern D20 is a broken mess of garbage. Tame Modern = Saga with Deletions and Reflavors.
That leaves High Magic Urban Fantasy as a niche.
As much as I'd -love- to see a third system emerge, it ain't gonna happen. Modern d20 is a subset of two very incredibly popular franchises at best. It's not got the Name that either of the other two games have.
Just look at this forum. It's not it's own board separate from all others. It's under the D&D forum. It's not considered worthy enough to receive it's own Full Blown System. Especially since Wizards lucked out and made two systems that actually work.
If all you're going to do is come here and trash the system a bunch of us love, then I have nothing to say to you.
Which would probably lead to it being like one of two current babies... Especially if they were to go with the poll results.
Everyone I've talked to in real life would rather play in a spaceshipless forceless Saga, than to even -look- at Modern d20 again. I think that's quite telling in of itself.
Also this thread is about how the -new- Modern D20 should be not the current one. (which implies that it's going to change. They aren't going to keep it the same forever unless they've simply dropped the line)
I know one person who likes 4E/Saga better than modern. The rest of my friends hate both after actually giving them a shot.
Then again, I live in a town full of engineers. 4E feels like the Mac RPG to us.
Yes, exactly. They hard-coded something that, in my opinion, worked just fine as a casual thing. I'd rather have the freedom to play different kinds of combinations, have different classes fill different roles based, as much as anything else, on the player.
See, I guess from my perspective, I really never felt like that freedom was actually there on the players side of things. At least, not until 3e. Earlier iterations of D&D were very "hardcoded" in terms of a classes abilities. They were not multiclassing free-form games at all. That was an innovation of 3e. The problem for me was that while classes were hardcoded in terms of class abilities, and there was the distinctive implicit existence of roles (such as tank, healer, etc.), it did not seem like there was an explicit hardcoding of those roles during the class design process. The result was that, until 4e, there were often classes that were still "combat centric," but were hands down inferior choices from a mechanical perspective. These classes were not "non combat classes," they were just "I suck classes." Now 3e had a lot of multiclassing to "make up for the sucking," but the truth is, to me, it didn't make up for anything. There was no reason for anyone to ever take more than a couple levels of something like fighter. Truth is, someone was probably better off not taking fighter at all. That really bothered me. I much prefer the 4e system. And for the purposes of D&D, it still has plenty of multiclassing available. You can step outside of your roll. You can pretty much build a character that is up to 50/50 composed of two different classes. Well, maybe 55%/45% actually. And, as of the PHB 3 (with its new hybrid classing system) characters will be able to divide that up between 3 classes. I think that that does a better job of capturing the best elements of both 2e and 3e, and the game finally feels balanced. I like that, a lot. Though, for a d20 Modern system, I want something that is a lot more open in terms of multiclassing. But, I think 4e has the potential to do that and do that well. And, I still wasn't happy with the 3e version of the d20 Modern classes. It didn't feel like there were combat and non combat classes to me. Every class still gave a serious nod to combat. There were just the better classes, and the worse classes. What I want is charismatic heroes and dedicated heroes who can contribute equally to the weapon focused classes (in combat), but in a different way.
Dave, seriously, I don't know who you're arguing with right now because I don't think I've made any of the claims that you seem to be disputing. I haven't spoken against "balance." I have tried to imply that "balance" should include classes whose function is not necessarily combat.
I am not arguing. Me and you have different perspectives. I am simply trying to show you mine in a manner that you will understand (or, perhaps in the process, end up understanding yours better).
From my perspective, a class whose function is "not necessarily combat" should still have a full deck of "combat capable" powers. Those powers should just operate differently than the "combat focused" classes. Where a combat focused class gets weapon powers, a smart hero can jury rig scientific experiments on the fly using his kit. Where a fast hero gets the ability to snipe, a charismatic hero can fast-talk an opponent into turning on his allies... at least for a short period of time.
Yes, you've said this many times. I'm not sure why you're repeating it now.
You made the following statment:
But what I said was that all the class and roles seem (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) to be designed on the principle that they should all take equal part in combat, to the point of doing similar damage/having similar effects.
I was responding to that statement. Its not fully accurate. They have "similar damage/similar effects" within reason. But, at the same time, every class has its own very unique and distinct flavor. A better analogy would have been the bard and the cleric (then the wizard and the fighter). They are both part of the same role, but they are in no way, shape, or form, similar (other than they both get a healing power).
Perhaps a Charismatic or a Wise who doesn't believe in violence...? See, this is my point, and again it's just a preference of mine, so I'm not arguing that it's better. Only trying to explain. I don't want the Charismatic's in-combat abilities to be just enable the fight. I want them to have the capacity to resolve the conflict some other way. Just granting more bonuses to this and that... I mean, yeah, it's useful if your goal is to "win" the fight, but I want more options than that.
Ok, so such a character would not pick powers that allow allies to gain extra attacks. Only a more military oriented charismatic hero would choose such powers. Instead such a charismatic hero would pick "pacifist" powers. Non damaging powers that "daze" everyone in an close burst around him, or dominate a single target, thus allowing him to convince enemies to stop attacking him and his group long enough for the group to run away (if he can convince his group that running is their best option). Not to mention, such a character would be a great asset at diplomacy based skill challenges used to avoid combat situations, because he would have a full deck of diplomacy based utility powers for use in skill challenges. I guess what I am asking is, what is the problem with "non damage based attack powers that deal status effects to enemies based on semi-realistic results of super-diplomatic and charismatic speaking capabilities?"
I don't think you are. But just to test the theory, what do you think I'm presuming?
That the game is a paperwork heavy method of creating a communal narrative, and that the most important part of the narrative is its characters and plot.
Suck at what? What are they going to suck at? (This is a pointed question, just to be fair.)
Overcoming the challenges presented to them over the course of the narrative, and thus moving the narrative along.
Sorry, we talking 4e or 3e now? If we're talking 4e then... haven't you just made exactly the point that many have been arguing, that the game doesn't have the variety that it could/should/ought to have?
We are talking 4e. And though I love the system, I am not totally happy with it. It has great potential for non-combat resolution mechanics. It has more such mechanics then I have seen in previous editions of D&D. Its ritual mechanics, the ideas behind their skill challenge mechanics, and those non-combat utility powers that exist, are great! The problem is, they dropped the ball on one issue (which I take personal beef with ). They balanced combat very well. They did not balance "non-combat." Some classes still get to be the non-combat stars. Others "sort of" suck at it. They still can take plenty of feats and skills to take part in that area of the game, but they don't gain beneficial utility powers to do so (while other classes get plenty). This bothers me quite a bit. What I want from a d20 Modern game is equal balance in both areas. Each class should have a type of combat activity that they can be good at, and a type of non-combat activity that they can be good at.
Yes, I know that that's what you want. You have made that very clear. I'm not trying to be snotty. You really have expressed this desire quite clearly. I just don't happen to want to play that kind of system on my kitchen table. It's really that simple. I want some classes to not have any combat applicability. I want the option to build a class that has no place in a fight at all, but is slam-bang useful in other circumstances. I agree on the flavour, though (it's nice to end on a point of agreement, I've always thought).
I don't know what to say. If they release another game where some classes outright suck in combat, and will never be decent, I probably won't buy it (unless it really wows me in other areas of its mechanics). Or rather, I won't buy anything other then the first book released (since I will need to read over the first book in order to judge the rest of the product line not worth my money). I will similarly be REALLY upset if non-combat is not balanced out amongst all the classes in a decent manner. I know nothing can ever be perfect in terms of balance, but I want a serious nod to the attempt.
But here is the thing, I also want the game to be fun to as many different players as possible. The larger the customer base, the better for the game. So, like I said earlier, I can live with the game being designed in a manner where all classes get two separate pools of power, "combat powers" and "utility powers" (ala standard 4e). However, attack powers can be traded out (at the players discretion) for utility powers (though a blurb at the side of the page should warn players of the potential consequence so that this is not a hidden trap). What I really don't want is for both utility powers and attack powers to come from the same pool of resources, because while I am ok with the game allowing players to swap out attack powers for utility powers at their discretion, I am not ok with the game allowing players to swap out utility powers for attack powers at their discretion. If utility powers can be swapped out for attack powers, the result will be a discrepancy in power so large that the game will once again become a game that mechanically rewards groups of specialists, none of whom actually play the game at the same time. I'm ok with people intentionally gimping themselves for the sake of story, if that is what they want to do. I am not ok with the game forcing certain classes to gimp themselves (because I can think of story reasons why any class could participate in combat in their own unique and flavorful way), or allowing for massive combat min-maxing (which, for a wide variety of reasons, makes the life of a DM, or at least my life as a DM, hell).
Combat and not combat powers, do not deserve equal slots. They utterly fail to compete against one another for one oh so critical reason. They most often are not used at the same time. That's why there was a skill system made in the first place.
Sure they dont get used at the same time,
Jimmy The Squeeler demonstrated that "NonCombatEncounters" is the time to use Encounter Powers that boost noncombat actions.
Why on earth would you have powers to boost Combat Encounters,
but be so rallied against having classes with gobs of NonCombat Encounters?
We recently saw a thread that was belittleing the value of Charismatic Chars. Turns out his group was imposing major gimps on the actions of those chars and wanted to combat them up to fit the combat campaign better.... we explained that there was nthing wrong with the class when used properly, which they were not doing.
If combat oriented characters can get AtwillEncounteDaily powers to help them fight,
shouldnt noncombat oriented characters get AtWillEncounterDaily powers to help them in the NonCombat encounters?
I know D&D4e has noncombat encounters, I saw them in the book... a couple boooks talked about them... so the problem is that you guys dont recognize that partys can actually level up to epeic without ever killing anything. Just because you cannot play anything but bloodthirsty theives (kill them & take their stuff style D&D), dont think that we lack the gamesmanship prowess to play noncombat chars in D&D or Modern.
I'm oldschool, I play Thieves, not rogues,
and I consider a burglery a failure if I have to roll a ToHit against a guy rolling to hit me.
Back in the day, it was printed that the game doesnt tell you what to do, just gives you tools to do what you want.... and now that has been replaced with the gaming demanding you KillKillKill
If you want to suck at combat impose a -10 penalty on yourself with your smart hero or whatever. Just don't assume the masses want the same.
Nice use of Balance there.... I can only assume you didnt have time to type the other half.
I am more than happy to accept your suggestion that
SmartHeros get a -10 on all attack rolls , and +10 on all skill rolls, as a Class Ability
we can even extend that to
Experts get -5 on all attacks and +5 all skill rolls as a class ability
And when we let them take noncombat powers at all power chances,
then they will be even worse at combat since they can choose to not take combat powers
but they can also choose TO take combat powers instead of noncombat powers.
I am more than happy to include CombatEncounter powers of WillEncounterDaily,
why are you guys having a heart attack over leting me choose NONcombatEncounter powers of WillEncounterDaily?
If you dont want to take a noncombat power at that level, then choose one of the combat powers. Stop telling me you dont choose to take it, and must prevent me from choosing it as well. Just because you dont have what it takes to play a noncombat char doesnt mean the rest of us have to stop playing them
Its my contention that with that systm you can run just about any non-combat encounter and every character can participate in it according to his competence level (skill) or by taking an «help another» action. In fact you can pretty much run a non-combat story ONLY if you want.
On the other hand I DO agree that D&D4E cannot be copy pasted into Modern if you goal is to maintain viable non-combat classes. A look at the Bard will convince you... I'm a fan of 4E but was disappointed with the migration of that class into 4E.
A CHALLENGE IF YOU WILL : We know, almost for a fact, that the new Modern will be «distilled» from 4E. Can you spell out how YOU would go about the change to make shure the non-combat classes option remain part of the game?
[EDIT] No monster posts please. Keep it synthetic...LOL[/EDIT]
A CHALLENGE IF YOU WILL : We know, almost for a fact, that the new Modern will be «distilled» from 4E. Can you spell out how YOU would go about the change to make shure the non-combat classes option remain part of the game?
As I said in a couple posts, this is what I would do:
So, like I said earlier, I can live with the game being designed in a manner where all classes get two separate pools of power, "combat powers" and "utility powers" (ala standard 4e). However, attack powers can be traded out (at the players discretion) for utility powers (though a blurb at the side of the page should warn players of the potential consequence so that this is not a hidden trap). What I really don't want is for both utility powers and attack powers to come from the same pool of resources, because while I am ok with the game allowing players to swap out attack powers for utility powers at their discretion, I am not ok with the game allowing players to swap out utility powers for attack powers at their discretion. If utility powers can be swapped out for attack powers, the result will be a discrepancy in power so large that the game will once again become a game that mechanically rewards groups of specialists, none of whom actually play the game at the same time. I'm ok with people intentionally gimping themselves for the sake of story, if that is what they want to do. I am not ok with the game forcing certain classes to gimp themselves (because I can think of story reasons why any class could participate in combat in their own unique and flavorful way), or allowing for massive combat min-maxing (which, for a wide variety of reasons, makes the life of a DM, or at least my life as a DM, hell).
Then, at a players discretion, any class can become the "non-combat class." You can have the non-combat strong hero who couldn't win a fight against a trained opponent if his life depended on it, but who is an amazing athlete, and has a pretty good basic attack (which means he is decent in a fight against untrained opponents). You can have the non-combat fast hero who is a burgler. Don't expect them to snipe anyone at a distance, but they can steal your grandmothers jewles out of fort knox without firing a single bullet. You can have the tough hero who has never "won" a fight, but most of his bar-fights have ended up in his opponents giving up after they tire themselves out, and who can win any drinking contest he engages in. You can also have the charismatic hero who can actually charismatically "lead" troops on the battlefield, and meaningfully participate in combat. You can have the smart hero who could rig a decent sized explosion with nothing but materials found on hand and his tool kit. You can have the dedicated hero who will never give up in a fight, and has the heart to pull off some stunts that nobody else would have the dedication to try.
Judging from the poll results so far, I'd say at the very least a MASSIVE system over haul needs to be done.
Which would probably lead to it being like one of two current babies... Especially if they were to go with the poll results.
Everyone I've talked to in real life would rather play in a spaceshipless forceless Saga, than to even -look- at Modern d20 again. I think that's quite telling in of itself.
Also this thread is about how the -new- Modern D20 should be not the current one. (which implies that it's going to change. They aren't going to keep it the same forever unless they've simply dropped the line)
Actually, d20 Future supplement is pretty broken in a lot of places. I don't see many people arguing otherwise, anywhere. but the core d20 Modern system is not broken.
Abstraction? We're rolling dice and cracking down on drug rings with paper and pencil, this is an abstract game.
Hopefully 5e gets rid of leveling, after all, nobody levels up in real life.
I was wondering guys (specifically : backstabbist, RealOrion, MasterVega, Rhialto) if you had given a GOOD look at the «Skill Challenge» system introduced in 4E.
I own the 4E PHB. I've read up on skill challenges and while the idea is nice, it does little to help that everyone's blasty/shooty/smashy and focused around it.
My group did this before 4E was released, with the exception of instant-effect physical skills. It makes important skill checks less make or break. It works nicely with d20 mechanics. :P
@ the challenge: I can't say everything I'd like to change because I actually want to publish my revamp. I will say that I want it to be broader and keep the current type of multiclassing. I enjoy having the ability to make 8 different types of sniper, which cover the archetype perfectly in their own separate ways. I want to stay far away from 20-level classes. Everything will have at least 3 talent trees, so you can have two characters take the exact same multiclass path, but end up with very different characters.
I was wondering guys (specifically : backstabbist, RealOrion, MasterVega, Rhialto) if you had given a GOOD look at the «Skill Challenge» system introduced in 4E.
NonCombat Skill Challenge: Sneak to the Gate, and Pick Lock
Jimmy: I use my Steath skill to sneak up
Mongo: I.... Can I use Athletics?... doh I just help Jimmy sneak up
BigAl: Me too
Me: Me too
Princess: You guys are pathetic.. I guess only Jimmy & I shall be attempting for 'successes' ... Alfonse, provide your aide to me, Jimmy is not in need of it.
BigAl: Thats 'BigAl'
Princess: Your so cute when you're being stupid.
thats the one where Platemail Mongo becomes a +2 help to the Rogue trying to sneak the whole team upto the gate, rather than an ungodly hinderance for trying to be sneaky unskiled in platemail?
Any way in hell can Mongo sneak up?
Nope.
But maybe he provides a +2 to Jimmys Sneak while being a sore thumb clanky attention getter.
Best of all, no matter how many Catastrophic Fails that Mongo rolls, they are not counted cause he is just aiding, right? It completely removes the entire concept of being the UberSuk at something having any negative effect on your ability to contribute
See, he is contributing,
aint that better than Mongo having to admit that he cant sneak cause he is unskilled and in platemail?
Yea. Contributing.
..........................
This NonCombat Encounter Skill Challenge looks like a perfect spot for Jimmy to use some of the many NonCombat Encounter Powers he can choose each level instead of Cleave or DTap.
which should be done over the phone to have Visitor Badges waiting for us at the gate
.........
but, once we do get snuckt upto the gate, the second part of picking the lock as a group effort kinda reminds me of Sarge with his Leadership ability:
[indent]"Listen up Maggot! If you do not have that lock picked by the time I count to 'One,' I will personally fold you into a tiny little rogue and shove you into that keyhole to give you a better view... you hear me?
Pick 2 3 4 Pick 2 3 4 !
What is you malfunction numnut?
On the field of combat there are fast lockpicks & dead lockpicks. I will find you, I will dig you up, & I will bust your coprse down to private if you make me write your kin telling them how bad you were at doing your job.
Pick 2 3 4 Pick 2 3 4 !
If that procedure is beyond your ability, just say so & I will go get a 12 year old little girl to do it for you.
Pick 2 3 4 Pick 2 3 4 !"[/indent]
If that dont give Jimmy a +2, I dont know what would
Maybe you should be playing gurps.
Maybe you should make your own houserule 4E modern. ;)
D20Modern was about where I want a system, so far as complexity of rules go. I hated Battletech (a strategy game, I know, but still) for its clunkiness and ovecomplexity.
d20 is a nice sweet spot for me, where I don't feel drowned, but I also don't feel like I'm being spoon fed. That's my opinion. 4E is a nice game, but I don't believe it is a suitable system to support Modern.
That won't stop me from helping the folks who want to make a 4E Modern, though.
I'm working on a Sci Fantasy 4e because it's much easier to work with. (cause I don't even have to change classes there)
However, a Modern Fantasy I'm left high and Dry with because 1 I'm not even sure where to start with it. (It's a total build from the ground up, using the 4e chassis.. not just a stick a Fighter In Space, give him a Laser Sword and Power armor type deal).
Someone else is going to have to do that leg work for me.
Maybe you should be playing gurps.
Why, Modern, and soon Modern4, will provide what we need:
Modern Roles, Classes, and Powers.... including Modern Classes centered on noncombat activities with PowerLists that include NonCombatEncounter powers to choose
and with free multiclassing, you can make your PC as fighty or as fixy as you want
GM: You run afoul of EncounterX
PCs: we use some Encounter powers to prevail in EncounterX
what dif it it is a fight or a challenge or a trap
its an encounter, we use our encounter powers... combat or otherwise
Modern4 sounds like fun... my mechanic could use some Unexplained Daily Uberness to fix stuff
I think that article expresses my dissapointment best wrt skill challenge mechanics. If you can refute all the points raised in it to my satisfaction, I will reconsider my position on them.
We are talking 4e. And though I love the system, I am not totally happy with it. It has great potential for non-combat resolution mechanics. [...] They balanced combat very well. They did not balance "non-combat." [...] What I want from a d20 Modern game is equal balance in both areas. Each class should have a type of combat activity that they can be good at, and a type of non-combat activity that they can be good at.
Oh well crap, man. I wish I'd known that was your position! That's totally reasonable. It doesn't quite match my preference, but I have no beef with this as a basic idea.
What I really don't want is for both utility powers and attack powers to come from the same pool of resources, because while I am ok with the game allowing players to swap out attack powers for utility powers at their discretion, I am not ok with the game allowing players to swap out utility powers for attack powers at their discretion. [...] I'm ok with people intentionally gimping themselves for the sake of story, if that is what they want to do. I am not ok with the game forcing certain classes to gimp themselves (because I can think of story reasons why any class could participate in combat in their own unique and flavorful way), or allowing for massive combat min-maxing (which, for a wide variety of reasons, makes the life of a DM, or at least my life as a DM, hell).
Well, here's my take on that problem: disallow it at your table. Designate it as two different pools or a trade-one-way-but-not-the-other thing. I know that there are some who baulk at the idea of "off-loading" responsibilities onto the GM, responsibilities that they perceive as belonging to the designer, but the way I see it, an RPG should be a bunch of modular toys that gamers can then mix and match at their leisure. I know that this makes the game open to min/maxing. Oy vey, do I know! But the dirty little secret is this: a role-playing game is only as "broken" as its players. If you're at a table full of optimisers, then you'll always have the problem of min/maxing on your hands. Always. They'll find a way. The goal, then, is to find gamers who share your sense of balance between combat and story (whatever that balance might be) and then trust them to make choices that reflect that sensibility. I know that my gaming group just isn't going to min/max. If they do find powerful combinations, it's because they reflect a character they've designed. For another group I game with, I know that optimisation is a huge part of their fun (along with other things, too).
So for me, I actually do want the system to offer classes that are utterly useless in combat, because I might want to play a drama-heavy game. And vice-versa, of course. If I want to play a straight-up commando-unit crawl, I might want blood-and-guts, nothing-but-fightin' characters. The thing that I like about d20M is that it offers those kinds of classes. I mean, "Negotiator"? That's not a combat class. Not really. But it might be really fun to play someone who's amazing at the talkin' but sucky at the fightin'. All I'm saying, then, is that I'd like to retain that option. And like Backstabbist says, I don't see how it hurts your experience to retain that option if you're just not going to take up the option anyway. It's like if someone objected to the presence of FX in the d20M core book because they don't want to play fantasy. My response to him would be: then don't.
I suspect this may be as far as you and I can get with this topic, though, because we've found the basic nub of... not disagreement, but differing preference. Shake hands and call it a day, then?
Love that link
I suspect this may be as far as you and I can get with this topic, though, because we've found the basic nub of... not disagreement, but differing preference. Shake hands and call it a day, then?
Consider our hands shaken.
Letting the GM call all the shots as a nearly unchecked referree is ludicrous. I prefer simple, but broad and effective rules. The fewer chances for the GM to get to make judgement calls, the better.
That's why I avoid social encounters. They're too wishy-washy. Even the best non-com rules so far completely blow. In the end, it's completely up to GM whim and the hope that he's not actually as caprcious a prick as they always are. Honestly, my experience is that good roleplaying usually gets you hosed purely out of spite on the GMs part...especially if you tend to kill his favorite NPC too quickly in an encounter.
That's what I know of GMs for the most part (though there have been a couple of notable exceptions) and homebrews, houserules, and general gaming perspectives I find ALL OVER all of these forums doesn't lead me to think much more highly of GMs as a whole.
-
Now...what I've been considering lately...is the idea of literally building a non-com system that literally functions identically in mechanics to combat. Social powers, social HP, things like that. Tactics and quick thinking in how to use what you've got would be most important. Speaking eloquently and such wouldn't really matter at all. People who want to play the "silver-tongued devil" but in RL have all the social grace of jackhammer...can still be the party face without any fear of being hosed just because as a person they can't be as suave as their character.
The reason I went so far as to think of social powers and HP and the like is because in that case, they would be potentially equal in value mechanically to combat powers and HP. Perhaps that would finally end the glaring gap in sacrificing valuable combat ability for a social bonus you'll hardly use and won't help much when you do...or trying to convince your DM that the bonus in question is worth giving up for aquiring an equal bonus to-hit or something.
Perhaps the idea is too complex, since you'd almost have two characters, but maybe it's worth working on, refining, simplifying? I dunno, that's just my take on it all.
...stuff...
I think I just disagreed with almost everything you just said...
No, the obvious flaw is
you trying to introduce NPCs to a PC point.
Actually, the real flaw is that I thought you were comparing a PC to an NPC. Clearly you were not. I would have appreciated you pointing that out with less venom in your words, but at least I know what you meant now.
Turn off your ExampleSpinner and re-evaluate as 2 PCs with PC classes, one that took the Superscience skills and one that went Ditchdigger skills. It is a difference of just 5, when they both get upto 15 for all that killing experience
I did look at that example with the notion that some uses of a skill are likely to be trained only, as is the case with certain skill uses in both Saga and 4e. To this you replied:
what? you still spinning one-sidedness into the simple example?
When you stop trying to change the situation to meet your agenda
2 PC classed guys with the same Int,
One has the not TrainedOnly skill Superscience
At this point you accused me of having an agenda when I was attempting to make a legitimate point. There are clearly some skill uses that should require training in a skill to perform. the surgical use of the Treat Injury skill is a prime example of this.
This is all based on the fighters that dont want to give up combat ability to learn noncombat stuff. They want to be 100% combat PLUS 50% noncombat... rather than have to trade off come combat ability to gain noncombat ability.
I think this part of your post has clarified, in my understanding, the reason for our disagreement. I am not advocating that fighters should have abilities that add up 150% (like the 100% plus 50% ability ratio in the above quote). That would clearly be unfair to those whose abilities add up to 100% (which should be the case for all characters), which is actually what I want to see.
That's why I avoid social encounters. They're too wishy-washy. Even the best non-com rules so far completely blow. In the end, it's completely up to GM whim and the hope that he's not actually as caprcious a prick as they always are.
ok, we now see the actual problem-
your GM doesnt run noncombat worth a darn,
so you want to stop the rest of us from enjoying combat-light / noncombat campaigns with our noncombat / combat-light classed characters
Your GM is no good at noncombat, so you dont see value in noncombat classes.
But our GMs are good at noncombat encounters, intrigue, investigation & suspense... so we DO see value in noncombat classes
My group doesnt want to play a magical Modern game, so we just dont use those rules.
Why must the guys that dont want to play noncombat classes
have to prevent those noncombat classes rules from being printed? If you dont want to have those classes in your game, then just dont have them.
When a old D&D campaign was upgraded from v2 to v3 D&D,
the GM said we couldnt take Sorcerer class because his campaign didnt have them and he doesnt want to recalculate the magic distribution & control of all the different countries and cities of his world. So we just didnt use that class. No Problem, we didnt miss it and we had fun without any Sorcerors at all in that D&D3 campaign
http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080518
I think that article expresses my dissapointment best wrt skill challenge mechanics. If you can refute all the points raised in it to my satisfaction, I will reconsider my position on them.
This guy is good. But personally I have no problem with Disscociated Mechanics. It may be because my gaming group as always been very strong on wargames of all kind... Oh and this does not imply that my players have no RP skills.... Shades of gray! No black in white please.
As I said in a couple posts, this is what I would do:
So, like I said earlier, I can live with the game being designed in a manner where all classes get two separate pools of power, "combat powers" and "utility powers" (ala standard 4e). However, attack powers can be traded out (at the players discretion) for utility powers (though a blurb at the side of the page should warn players of the potential consequence so that this is not a hidden trap).
What I really don't want is for both utility powers and attack powers to come from the same pool of resources, because while I am ok with the game allowing players to swap out attack powers for utility powers at their discretion, I am not ok with the game allowing players to swap out utility powers for attack powers at their discretion.
Interesting. Do you see any room for Talents? Which were IMHO the best thing Modern did for D20. SWSE imported and improved them. Don't you think that non-combat class would benefit greatly by having a 4E mechanical variation of Talents?
NonCombat Skill Challenge: Sneak to the Gate, and Pick Lock
Jimmy: I use my Steath skill to sneak up
Mongo: I.... Can I use Athletics?... doh I just help Jimmy sneak up
BigAl: Me too
Me: Me too
Princess: You guys are pathetic.. I guess only Jimmy & I shall be attempting for 'successes' ... Alfonse, provide your aide to me, Jimmy is not in need of it.
BigAl: Thats 'BigAl'
Princess: Your so cute when you're being stupid.
thats the one where Platemail Mongo becomes a +2 help to the Rogue trying to sneak the whole team upto the gate, rather than an ungodly hinderance for trying to be sneaky unskiled in platemail?
Any way in hell can Mongo sneak up?
Nope.
But maybe he provides a +2 to Jimmys Sneak while being a sore thumb clanky attention getter.
Best of all, no matter how many Catastrophic Fails that Mongo rolls, they are not counted cause he is just aiding, right? It completely removes the entire concept of being the UberSuk at something having any negative effect on your ability to contribute
See, he is contributing,
aint that better than Mongo having to admit that he cant sneak cause he is unskilled and in platemail?
Yea. Contributing.
..........................
This NonCombat Encounter Skill Challenge looks like a perfect spot for Jimmy to use some of the many NonCombat Encounter Powers he can choose each level instead of Cleave or DTap.
I must say you always provide very creative and provoking posts. I'm almost incline to agree with you...except that in your «scene» one very important thing is missing. The GM. The guy who regulates the game flow should tell you that if you try to «help another» sneak up on a gate in chainmail that would amount to «one» automatic failure for that challenge... Its how we play skill challenges. That's not even a house rule it basic RPing.
I own the 4E PHB. I've read up on skill challenges and while the idea is nice, it does little to help that everyone's blasty/shooty/smashy and focused around it.
My group did this before 4E was released, with the exception of instant-effect physical skills. It makes important skill checks less make or break. It works nicely with d20 mechanics. :P
You know Master I've been playing along time at RPGs and we had the same
type of house rule also. But it good to see that they finally provided us with
a system we can agree to disagree on ... LOL
@ the challenge: I can't say everything I'd like to change because I actually want to publish my revamp. I will say that I want it to be broader and keep the current type of multiclassing. I enjoy having the ability to make 8 different types of sniper, which cover the archetype perfectly in their own separate ways. I want to stay far away from 20-level classes. Everything will have at least 3 talent trees, so you can have two characters take the exact same multiclass path, but end up with very different characters.
I hope you have carefully read the OGL and asked legal advice. If you are trying to earn profit be very carefull and good luck !
----
Beautiful sunny day here in Montreal. 25°C. Enough computer for the weekend. Back to real life, real fresh baked butter croissants...
This guy is good. But personally I have no problem with Disscociated Mechanics. It may be because my gaming group as always been very strong on wargames of all kind... Oh and this does not imply that my players have no RP skills.... Shades of gray! No black in white please.
It's all very well saying that you personally have no problem with the mechanic in question, but a great many people do. In it seems telling to me that you didn't make any attempt to refute his claims at all - indeed, but saying "this guy is good", it's almost a tacit agreement with him and his criticism of teh system.
Also, wargames (at least, the older versions of WFB with which I am familiar) don't use dissociative mechanics.
The GM. The guy who regulates the game flow should tell you that if you try to «help another» sneak up on a gate in chainmail that would amount to «one» automatic failure for that challenge
Really? I didnt see that.
I thought each Armor had a Armor Penalty that gets appied when trying to do activities like Swim Sneak Jump in armor.... I was unaware that in 4e you AutoFail any Swim Jump Sneak attempts in armor
But thanx for letting me know I missed the 4e Armor Auto Skill Failure part of skills & armor stats
I hope you have carefully read the OGL and asked legal advice. If you are trying to earn profit be very carefull and good luck !
Thanks.
I've reviewed it, and will keep reviewing it as I add new material. Hoping to get some decent/good legal advice from my cousin (in law school). I'm obviously not going to try and publish/profit until I'm sure I'm not stepping on anyone's copywritten non-OGL material.
I don't suppose you'd know of a publisher that'd pick up a small never-been-published development team... :P
Interesting. Do you see any room for Talents? Which were IMHO the best thing Modern did for D20. SWSE imported and improved them. Don't you think that non-combat class would benefit greatly by having a 4E mechanical variation of Talents?
I sort of see powers as the 4E mechanical variation of Talents...
Thanks.
I've reviewed it, and will keep reviewing it as I add new material. Hoping to get some decent/good legal advice from my cousin (in law school). I'm obviously not going to try and publish/profit until I'm sure I'm not stepping on anyone's copywritten non-OGL material.
I don't suppose you'd know of a publisher that'd pick up a small never-been-published development team... :P
Strange day! Took a walk at the botanical garden with my wife and forgot the put sun screen. I have aquired a lobster red hue ... Now we have sudden shower storms... Its going to be one hell of a summer. Buts that's better than snow and freezing temperatures.
Back to the virtual world : Since you ask, my advice is go solo. More so for a RPG. Make you own company and sale PDFs with LULU.
WHY: In 2004 I submitted a non collectible card game to one of the independant game compagnies in the US. They opened the game upon receiving it and were very enthusiastic about it took. Still it took them 1 YEAR to actually do a first playtest. That puts us in 2005. After receiving their very generous comments it was back to play testing with friends.
We have been going back and forth ever since. The game evolved/changed alote during that time to fit the needs of the editor.
So, by the end of 2007 we agree that my next submission should be «final». I'm happy. After an extensive 12 month playtest at conventions and at game shops I finally send the finished product in May last year. Emails are exchanged all seems well. By the end of summer 2008 I'm told a playtest is in the works very soon. Then nothing.
I recontact them in November 2008. Apologies are sent. My project was side tracked because many house hold brand products needed expensions or reedition.
In March 2008 I contact them again... This time my prototype was misplaced and everyone forgot about it due to overworking. Also they tell me that they have changed their policy and do not develop games with external designers anymore. Luckily for me I'm given a written statement
that I can present the game other compagnies if I wish so. But that leaves me nowhere really...
After 5 years of doing exactly what the publisher wanted I'm still no closer to getting the game published even if everyone had loads of fun playing and replaying* the «final» version sent in May 2008.
At this point I'm discusted and have no energy left to go solo. Which now I'm thinking I should have done from the start.
---------------
*No small feat - replayable value was rated very high by testers - generaly its a good sign the game will sell.
Yea, I'm trying to look at the silver lining for you.
It's all very well saying that you personally have no problem with the mechanic in question, but a great many people do. In it seems telling to me that you didn't make any attempt to refute his claims at all - indeed, but saying "this guy is good", it's almost a tacit agreement with him and his criticism of teh system.
Also, wargames (at least, the older versions of WFB with which I am familiar) don't use dissociative mechanics.
WFB : Rolling randomly at the beginning of the game to know which spell your caster will have makes no sens whatsoever. It dissociative mechanics. But they did that to stop abuse from powerplayers. So I was okay with it.
Yes I gave him tacit agreement. BUT my group like to play by these rules just like 1000s of gamers who adopted 4e. This disagreement really goes back to what kind of game you want to play. 4E does not try (with its qualities and faults) to be SIMULATIONISTS. Instead it takes short cuts for the sake of expediancy.
I perfectly understand why you can't live with that. I've played RPGs since 1981. Like most people we went through all kinds of play styles/phases. These days my group is 90% content with the mechanical environment 4E provides for D&D. Our only beef is the lack of non-combat classes or some kind of system to take that into account. Like I said I don't like what they did to the Bard...
For your info I'm very worried about what the 4E version of Modern will turn out to be. If its just D&D with Guns (like stabbist says) I won't buy it. I'll play D&D instead. I just wish we could actually discuss this problem on this forum without resorting to full blown monster posts riddled with improper comments.
So Dave gave his take on non-combat classes «a la 4E» what's your angle (all of you)?
---
Wow big post (for me)... sorry
Honestly antakar, if I were you, I think I would at least be happy that the development process is pretty much over. All you need now is a publisher. :P
Yea, I'm trying to look at the silver lining for you.
Thanks I see that BUT then I'd have to start the process over with demands of the new publisher... I'm being negative. I'll get over it.
Really? I didnt see that.
I thought each Armor had a Armor Penalty that gets appied when trying to do activities like Swim Sneak Jump in armor.... I was unaware that in 4e you AutoFail any Swim Jump Sneak attempts in armor
But thanx for letting me know I missed the 4e Armor Auto Skill Failure part of skills & armor stats
Its called a «jugement call» by the GM. A technic really well spelled out in all the DMG I've read since the original. Do you play with a GM or do you only rely on dice rolls to resolve everything? LOL ... I'm pulling your leg don't go balistic on me.
I sort of see powers as the 4E mechanical variation of Talents...
Personnaly I'm not shure I'd give Talents the at-will/encounter/daily cap. Seems too restrictive for a Modern environnement.
My feeble attempt at Modern 4E would start with the following kernel:
1- I see powers as cinematic actions. A kind of an action point system you can use to do «extraordinary» moves during combat/action scenes. [*Note that basic range and melee attacks exist in 4E. They require no use of powers to activate ]
2- Talents on the other hand should be kept in the realm of non-combat combat actions.
3- Abilties, Skills and Feats are there to customize, compliment and/or amplify the effects of either Powers or Talents.
4- Classes should reflect a balance between Powers and Talents according
to their founding concept. So (rethoricaly speaking) a Soldier would be 75% power and 25% talents. Gunslinger 50% powers and 50% talents. Field Medic 25% powers and 75% talents.
Any thoughts ladies and gents?
Personnaly I'm not shure I'd give Talents the at-will/encounter/daily cap. Seems too restrictive for a Modern environnement.
Tell me, what other possible action is there except for one that can be performed at will, per encounter, or per day?
Saga continues to use the name "talents." However, many of the abilities granted by the Saga talents already offer an at-will, per encounter, or per day abilities. Those are the Saga talents I prefer. The problematic ones (which lead to characters that perform only a single action) tend to be those that somehow boost an already existing power in a manner that stacks with other talents. Talents (at least those I think work well) are pretty much, thus, already powers. Attack powers (whether they deal damage or not) are "combat" based talents. Utility powers, which never deal damage or attack a foe, and are an ideal mechanic for non-combat powers, become your non combat powers. To keep combat interesting the combat powers are divided into a static number of at-will, per encounter, per day powers. However, like 4e, the utility powers come in all shapes and sizes (from at-will to per day) with no strict rules as to what sort of power you must choose. A utility slot can be used on any utility power you want. This already models the way talents work in Saga, except that it adds restriction onto what sort of combat "talents" one may pick (in order to keep combat tactical), and divides the resource pool into attack/utility powers instead of allowing to pick all "talents" from a single resource pool. As stated before, however, I am totally cool with rules that allow characters to swap out combat powers for utility powers if a character so chooses.
Basically, I sort of see the "power" system as just another name for the "talent" system.
And feats are in turn used not to grant powers (generally speaking) but to add flat modifiers to your other abilities. Some feats, however, allow you to swap out one type of power for another type of power.
That sort of mechanic just seems more intuitive to me. I mean, what is the real difference in mechanics between Saga talents and 4e Powers other than notation and name? And neither of those actually dictates mechanics, they really only dictate presentation and description.
I think I just disagreed with almost everything you just said...
Um...ok...no problem. Not sure why though. But fortuntately, I don't really care why either...except for curiousity's sake. But, moving on...
ok, we now see the actual problem-
your GM doesnt run noncombat worth a darn,
so you want to stop the rest of us from enjoying combat-light / noncombat campaigns with our noncombat / combat-light classed characters.
Your GM is no good at noncombat, so you dont see value in noncombat classes.
But our GMs are good at noncombat encounters, intrigue, investigation & suspense... so we DO see value in noncombat classes.
Actually, we played the WW games and we hardly ever fought. When we did fight, we'd miss the social encounters just because of how often he'd fudge die rolls to satisfy his story.
Now...as for whether non-com encounters were run well...I guess that depends. They were narrated exceptionally well. They were a tad cliche in their composition, but still crafted fairly well also. Most of us fully got into character (myself most of all, actually), and we played out scene like anyone else.
Then comes the issue... One of our characters says or does something that disrupts his story, but we play the part so well that the only (in my opinion) appropriate way to prevent success is to allow a die roll. On the merits of what our players have said alone, there ought to be many times when we simply convince an NPC, no die roll needed, even if the NPC hates us. But, he does the opposite. He still allows no roll as even a nod to fairness, and simply declares the whole thing a failure.
Is he the source of my troubles...sure. He's a LOUSY GM. But like I said, with extremely FEW exceptions, everything I've ever seen on all the forums I've been to (though I've not seen it all, of course) has only served to convince me that that and worse is the natural state of being for all GMs.
Now, I really fail to see how giving consise rules for non-com encounters "ruins" your non-com character.
- Does it stop you from being in-character and roleplaying a scene in a fashion consistent with your characters views and behaviors? Not remotely.
- Does it make it no longer possible for you to do things in non-com situations that you could've done before due to GM fiat? Perhaps a little, truthfully, but not so much that it would make a difference, and nothing that your GM wouldn't really still be able to "fudge" anyway if it seemed warranted.
- Does it make it take away the opportunity to succeed or fail in a given non-com situation based SOLELY on how well you as a person manage to convince the GM alone? Absolutely, and I think it should take that away. It's not even remotely fair to players who can't lie their way out of a wet paper bag.
None of this would STOP you from role-playing a thing. Don't you people describe in exciting detail those maneuvers in battle that seem most entertaining? Don't you roleplay your characters shouting epithets and insults and more in the heat of battle? What on Earth about having such a structured system for non-com encounters actually STOPS or even slightly hinders you from being just as expressive and descriptive as you are now?
My group doesnt want to play a magical Modern game, so we just dont use those rules.
Why must the guys that dont want to play noncombat classes
have to prevent those noncombat classes rules from being printed? If you dont want to have those classes in your game, then just dont have them.
When a old D&D campaign was upgraded from v2 to v3 D&D,
the GM said we couldnt take Sorcerer class because his campaign didnt have them and he doesnt want to recalculate the magic distribution & control of all the different countries and cities of his world. So we just didnt use that class. No Problem, we didnt miss it and we had fun without any Sorcerors at all in that D&D3 campaign.
Again, not one thing I've suggested PREVENTS or even hinders the concept of such classes. In fact, it would even HELP justify non-com classes. If a non-com character follows the same style of rules OUTSIDE combat that fighting characters follow INSIDE combat, you now have a system in which everything actually does equal out.
You could have a non-com character who's completely worthless in combat, but is finally mechanically no more or less valuable to the overall story than the party muscle. So again, what's the problem?
Ok, you value your non-com classes. Great, so do I. I'd like to be able to play a character who doesn't really do the fighting but handles all those little situations outside it. But I don't want to feel like what I do is somehow less important and less valuable than what the fighting characters do. Easily remedied if no one in the party is built for fighting and the story involves little to no combat...but what about mixed games? I hate sitting on the sidelines in either situation. I sure don't need to be a deciding factor, but it would be nice to do something useful, as well as fair and balanced also.
I don't want a system like this because I don't value non-com aspects of a story. And frankly, I'm offended you'd even suggest it. Psh...the worst part is I'm not even turning your non-coms into combatants anyway...they STILL wouldn't fight worth a frak in such a system. I'd like a set system that's on par with combat rules simply because I want to make sure what I do in a non-com situation REALLY does matter in the final analysis. I don't trust GMs, and I'm likely never going to, except for a couple of them who've already proven they can be trusted. But they're the exception, not the rule.
So, seriously...tell me where in any of that I have actually "taken something away" from the precious non-coms? The rules wouldn't inhibit your role-playing or how in-character you get, they wouldn't inhibit your options or choices, and they wouldn't somehow miraculously make you better in combat when you shouldn't be good at it. So, what's the problem?
Since people seem to have mistakenly thought that I simply don't like non-combat in games, I think I'll take a stab. Personally, I think people don't want solid non-com rules because they like getting special treatment for managing to pretend to be slightly more clever than their GM. I think it's a bit of secret elitism because they enjoy the notion that if someone can't be an apparent smooth-talker, they cannot play the party face at all. So, instead of support a system that encourages ALL people to play in ALL aspects of the game, they mistakenly yell and scream about how such rules would ruin non-com encounters and destroy role-playing...even when it helps the encounters and has NO effect at all on role-playing one way OR the other.
People don't like the idea, I get that. It's not like it would've made it in anyway. I was considering more from a houseruling perspective. It's not like I expected agreement so much as I figured the thought would've gotten a fair shake. Too much to ask for on these boards though.
Ah well...hopefully d20 Modern 4e will turn out better than Saga. I'm out.
I don't dispute that at all.
What I dispute is who actually qualifies in that capacity, and whether or not others should be forced to suffer for the ineptitudes of the common gamer. I'm not saying common gamers shouldn't be allowed to play...we really HAVE to let them play, or we'd never have enough people for a complete group at any given location. Everybody needs filler...unless they're miraculously lucky enough to have a group of all worthwhile players, which does happen, rarely...or they happen to be a common gamer themselves, in which case they likely mistakenly believe they're actually the good gamer.
I'd really love for things to work out so that the average GM is good enough to properly and fairly adjudicate circumstances in the game. If that were the case, I genuinely wouldn't care about such concrete rules for non-com. I'd have fun as-is and wouldn't think twice about it. But the average GM is terrible. In fact...so-called "above average" GMs are pretty bad too. So my feeling is that, unfortunately, rules are needed to prevent the little egomaniacs from hosing the party just to satisfy their own narcissism. I think people give FAR too much credit to most players and GMs.
I would put that differently. I think we ought to hold GMs and players to a higher standard. Don't design the game with egomaniacs in mind. Instead, let the egomaniacs eat each other if they want to, and just don't play with them. If people are mature and honest and actually level constructive criticisms at their GMs (and GMs at their players!), and then actually take those criticisms on-board, then those gamers get better. Similarly, you have to be willing to train people up in a positive atmosphere, show them how to interact with other gamers in a way that contributes to the game (regardless of what kind of game it might be). As a teacher, I do something called "Stop, Start, Continue." What would you like to see STOP? What would you like to see START? What would you like to see CONTINUE? Actually telling the GM what parts of the game don't work and what parts do is really the only way that GM will get better at it.
In an ideal world, I'd agree with you. But the world is not, and cannot ever be, ideal. Most players and DMs are bad. A few of them can improve and become the sorts of people we'd all like to have in our group, but most can't. Most people are simply beyond help entirely, or beyond the cost in time and effort of helping them. It would take too long, and take too much trouble, to "fix" certain players and DMs, and the few games that could be gotten from them afterward don't justify the attempt.
I'd be thrilled to let the egomanics devour each other, and just play with a different group myself. But, that's not an option most of the time. I personally know nearly every player in my whole city of 200,000 people...that's how FEW there are in the first place. And considering the part of the country I live in (not that people are really all that different anywhere else), it's no surprise they're quite selfish and none-too-clever. I've managed to get the best ones together now and then, but it's such a pain as to barely be worth it for a measly game. More often that not, letting the egomanics destroy each other means simply not playing at all (which I consider from time to time anyway).
Maybe I am wrong...but I think a few people are worthwhile, and I think a few others could be if given the right opportunity and help...the rest are just write-offs, dogfood waiting to happen. I know...I'm harsh, I take after mother nature.
I would LIKE it if people could get better...and I do think a few can. But mostly, they're all going to stay terrible...or worse, they'll learn how to be subtle and quiet about it, making it harder to deal with appropriately.
As things are now, I'd prefer a buffer between my enjoyment of ALL aspects of the game, and the communal stupidity of the majority.
but what about mixed games? I hate sitting on the sidelines in either situation. I sure don't need to be a deciding factor, but it would be nice to do something useful, as well as fair and balanced also.
that is a very D&D 4e "Thou Shalt Not Multiclass" way to think
whereas you should be thinking in a more Modern "FreeMulticlassing" mind
Choice.
If your character that is taking nothing but noncombat classes level after level, and he is thinking that they want to get into the fray more.... ok, CHOOSE THAT and take a combat class level next time. CHOOSE a power for fights rather than for traps from the Class Powers list that has both combat and noncombat choices at each level.
If you dont want to have just 10 levels of Smart that leaves you weak in combat,
ok, great, go right ahead and take 1 or 2 or however many levels of Thug you want.
Smart-Thug-3Smart-Thug-Smart-2Thug......whenever you want to be more fighty, just take a fighty class at your next level.
Same with Thugs that cant do anything but BustSkulz
cause they too nothing but combat focused & specialized classes,
go right ahead and take a level of Smart and a level of Sneakyboi to learn how to do something... anything... other than punch your way out of all encounters (including PitTraps.... they take a whooooole lotta punching to get out of)
Learn however much combat ability you want, and learn however much noncombat ability you want.... Free Multiclassing that includes classes that are weak in combat cause they are strong out of combat
Choice
You can take a Math class, or a Gym class each period,
Depending on if you want to know more math or bulk up the pects more,
but dont say all us Math guys have to do curls while we are factoring polynomials or sacraficing our offerings to the Omninomial
I would put that differently. I think we ought to hold GMs and players to a higher standard. Don't design the game with egomaniacs in mind. Instead, let the egomaniacs eat each other if they want to, and just don't play with them. If people are mature and honest and actually level constructive criticisms at their GMs (and GMs at their players!), and then actually take those criticisms on-board, then those gamers get better. Similarly, you have to be willing to train people up in a positive atmosphere, show them how to interact with other gamers in a way that contributes to the game (regardless of what kind of game it might be). As a teacher, I do something called "Stop, Start, Continue." What would you like to see STOP? What would you like to see START? What would you like to see CONTINUE? Actually telling the GM what parts of the game don't work and what parts do is really the only way that GM will get better at it.
I'm entirely on board with Orion on this one. «Building» a good RPG group takes effort and time. For exemple it took me close to nine months to find a third player for our group. After recruiting people on forums I conducted interviews in neutral ground. 75% of candidates did not pass them. The 25% who did had a shot a playing with us. We are not perfect as GM and players. BUT we know what we DON'T want. In the end of the 5 people who played with us only 1 turned out to be good player material.
So you see Nietzsche we «sacrificed» 15 gaming sessions to find one person we are confortable with (and vice versa). Now all that remains to do is the fine tuning. I'm not going to elaborate on the «psychological stress» I had to live through when I told the players they couldn't play with us anymore. But that is all behind me now.
As a GM I'm happy with my initial decision to be very selective. My campaigns usually last 3 to 5 years. I went through the 90's with a completely disfunctional group no matter what I tried. No more !!!
that is a very D&D 4e "Thou Shalt Not Multiclass" way to think
whereas you should be thinking in a more Modern "FreeMulticlassing" mind
Choice.
If your character that is taking nothing but noncombat classes level after level, and he is thinking that they want to get into the fray more.... ok, CHOOSE THAT and take a combat class level next time. CHOOSE a power for fights rather than for traps from the Class Powers list that has both combat and noncombat choices at each level.
If you dont want to have just 10 levels of Smart that leaves you weak in combat,
ok, great, go right ahead and take 1 or 2 or however many levels of Thug you want.
Smart-Thug-3Smart-Thug-Smart-2Thug......whenever you want to be more fighty, just take a fighty class at your next level.
Same with Thugs that cant do anything but BustSkulz
cause they too nothing but combat focused & specialized classes,
go right ahead and take a level of Smart and a level of Sneakyboi to learn how to do something... anything... other than punch your way out of all encounters (including PitTraps.... they take a whooooole lotta punching to get out of)
Learn however much combat ability you want, and learn however much noncombat ability you want.... Free Multiclassing that includes classes that are weak in combat cause they are strong out of combat
Choice
You can take a Math class, or a Gym class each period,
Depending on if you want to know more math or bulk up the pects more,
but dont say all us Math guys have to do curls while we are factoring polynomials or sacraficing our offerings to the Omninomial
I see your point, I really do. I still disagree, but I see your point.
To continue the multiclassing analogy...
Multiclassing between two classes that compliment each other in unusual and interesting ways without being more powerful than normal is great.
Multiclassing between two classes...we'll say com and non-com...I don't see as particularly useful OR entertaining.
If you take two classes that compliment each other, you end up able to do more things, but if you take two which have no interaction at all, and then you're only half as good in either situation.
The 4e idea of 1/2 level to everything would help to mitigate some of that, but ultimately, you're only going to be half as useful to the party in either instance. That's one of the other reasons why I don't like the idea of straight non-com "classes". Especially because whether the game features a great deal of combat or not, actual HEROES should be pretty good at both, really.
Now, if all of modern's "classes" were designed in such a way as to be already evenly divided between com and non-com in a fairly generic distribution, I'd have no issue. I mean generic strictly in the division of their capabilities, not their methods. The specifics of WHAT each class does and HOW they go about it can still be as unique as anything.
The choice in a heroic game...whether past, present, or future, fantastic, horrific, or mundane...should never come in whether or not you CAN do something, but rather in how you go about it. 4e breaks that a bit with their roles, but that's generally how things are. Each person in a group has a job to do, regardless of the situation...again, whether com or non-com is really irrelevant...because everyone still has a part to play, or they should anyway.
Seriously...I'm not AGAINST non-com character concepts per se, but really, heroic characters shouldn't have to choose between one or the other. d20 modern should be about some Big Damn Heroes. Expert surgeons who moonlight as deadeye snipers, master hackers who have a penchant (I say Pen - Chant, just to annoy people) for making Bruce Lee look bad.
I simply do not find that the two should be mutually exclusive in a game where one plays the truly exceptional 1% of the world's population. Even if there's no magic or anything remotely supernatural, the game will still be about heroics...and not firefighter, beat cop, ER doctor heroics (noble as they all are)...but completely action/adventure/drama (/comedy) flicks we get to be a part of.
Whether mundane or supernatural, the game will be about unbelievable adventures of some sort. Indiana Jones is the best example of all. He's a friggin archaeologist for crying out loud...a PROFESSOR no less...but he throws down like Rambo and/or Muhammed Ali fairly often. Granted, there were actually supernatural aspects to the various artifacts he collected, but they allude often in the movies to equally thrilling adventures he has that don't involve supernatural artifacts.
But, I'm droppin it, because I'm not going to convince anybody. And like I've said a few times already, as long as it ACTUALLY works, I'll go with whatever's in the book in the end anyway. I'll just have to wait and actually play it to see...assuming it really ever comes out.
The historical reality of archaeology in the 30s was that, to get any recognition, you had to do fieldwork. He was based in the USA. There's not much in the way of archaeology sites there, at least when compared to almost any other corner of the planet. Of course he is going to be well-travelled. It's a natural consequence of his career.
In a dire emergency situation, he picked up the controls of an airplane, in which he demonstrated no greater knowledge of piloting than any ordinary person in an extraordinary situation (planes in the 30s had relatively simple controls compared even to a modern groundcar).
Yes, he was handy with a gun. This was the 30s and America. Every man and his dog had a gun and knew to use one, especially if they expected to be anywhere remotely outside their safety zone. It is no surprise at all that he carried one and wasn't afraid to use it. I don't actually recall seeing him do much shooting in the films though. The one scene where I do recall him using a gun in combat was at point blank range against a target who was standing still and waving a sword around to intimidate him. That counts as a very easy target, and doesn't require high attack bonuses to pull off.
Really, the only aspect of the character than isn't explained away by a common-sense answer is his expert knowledge of using a whip to perform stunts.
In d20 Modern terms, he was probably a mix of smart/dedicated hero, with explorer (from d20 past) as an advanced class, and academic as his "starting occupation".
Tell me, what other possible action is there except for one that can be performed at will, per encounter, or per day?
Saga continues to use the name "talents." However, many of the abilities granted by the Saga talents already offer an at-will, per encounter, or per day abilities. Those are the Saga talents I prefer. The problematic ones (which lead to characters that perform only a single action) tend to be those that somehow boost an already existing power in a manner that stacks with other talents. Talents (at least those I think work well) are pretty much, thus, already powers. Attack powers (whether they deal damage or not) are "combat" based talents. Utility powers, which never deal damage or attack a foe, and are an ideal mechanic for non-combat powers, become your non combat powers. To keep combat interesting the combat powers are divided into a static number of at-will, per encounter, per day powers. However, like 4e, the utility powers come in all shapes and sizes (from at-will to per day) with no strict rules as to what sort of power you must choose. A utility slot can be used on any utility power you want. This already models the way talents work in Saga, except that it adds restriction onto what sort of combat "talents" one may pick (in order to keep combat tactical), and divides the resource pool into attack/utility powers instead of allowing to pick all "talents" from a single resource pool. As stated before, however, I am totally cool with rules that allow characters to swap out combat powers for utility powers if a character so chooses.
Basically, I sort of see the "power" system as just another name for the "talent" system.
And feats are in turn used not to grant powers (generally speaking) but to add flat modifiers to your other abilities. Some feats, however, allow you to swap out one type of power for another type of power.
That sort of mechanic just seems more intuitive to me. I mean, what is the real difference in mechanics between Saga talents and 4e Powers other than notation and name? And neither of those actually dictates mechanics, they really only dictate presentation and description.
So the entire game is governed by four types of powers [AW, EN, D, UT] and three types of possible actions [standard, move, minor] during action rounds.
This means every single imaginable action as to be codified within the constraints the «6 seconds» a round last OR any action too long to fit in this frame becomes the Modern equivalent of a Ritual? Shall we say a TASK, mesured in minutes to accomplish?
Since you picked Indiana Jones, let's run with it. He's an archaeologist first and foremost. From his character story, the professorship came later.
The historical reality of archaeology in the 30s was that, to get any recognition, you had to do fieldwork. He was based in the USA. There's not much in the way of archaeology sites there, at least when compared to almost any other corner of the planet. Of course he is going to be well-travelled. It's a natural consequence of his career.
In a dire emergency situation, he picked up the controls of an airplane, in which he demonstrated no greater knowledge of piloting than any ordinary person in an extraordinary situation (planes in the 30s had relatively simple controls compared even to a modern groundcar).
Yes, he was handy with a gun. This was the 30s and America. Every man and his dog had a gun and knew to use one, especially if they expected to be anywhere remotely outside their safety zone. It is no surprise at all that he carried one and wasn't afraid to use it. I don't actually recall seeing him do much shooting in the films though. The one scene where I do recall him using a gun in combat was at point blank range against a target who was standing still and waving a sword around to intimidate him. That counts as a very easy target, and doesn't require high attack bonuses to pull off.
Really, the only aspect of the character than isn't explained away by a common-sense answer is his expert knowledge of using a whip to perform stunts.
In d20 Modern terms, he was probably a mix of smart/dedicated hero, with explorer (from d20 past) as an advanced class, and academic as his "starting occupation".
Multi-classing : The Achilles' heel of the D&D since its inception. 3.5 provides so much customization it leads to well documented abuses while in 4E its been reduced to worthless.
If wish they could bring in something similar to the original STAR FRONTIERS system into Modern 4E. At the time of character creation one chooses a Primary «field of expertise», secondary and tertiary one. This results in a generous variety of possibles characters from the get go!
Most of the abuses of the 3e multiclassing system can be blamed on editors of the various splatbooks paying little attention to what any other editors in another splatbook had written. In essence, 3e wasn't written as a unified set of rules, but as a rush to get the next splatbook out and make more bux.
I think a multiclassing system a la 3e can work, but the following need to be observed:
1) A grand unified plan from the start on what classes will exist, ever.
2) Within a single class, there should be considerable flexibility on how a character can develop, even if he stays single class throughout 20 levels.
3) prestige classes should generally be folded into one or more base classes, and done away with. Folding them into base classes simultaneously creates lots of material with which to make teh base classes more flexible and "broad".
So the entire game is governed by four types of powers [AW, EN, D, UT] and three types of possible actions [standard, move, minor] during action rounds.
This means every single imaginable action as to be codified within the constraints the «6 seconds» a round last OR any action too long to fit in this frame becomes the Modern equivalent of a Ritual? Shall we say a TASK, mesured in minutes to accomplish?
Sounds about right. Though the "task" could take minutes to hours, or even days.
I actually think 3e's multiclassing was one of its greatest strengths.
Most of the abuses of the 3e multiclassing system can be blamed on editors of the various splatbooks paying little attention to what any other editors in another splatbook had written. In essence, 3e wasn't written as a unified set of rules, but as a rush to get the next splatbook out and make more bux.
I think a multiclassing system a la 3e can work, but the following need to be observed:
1) A grand unified plan from the start on what classes will exist, ever.
2) Within a single class, there should be considerable flexibility on how a character can develop, even if he stays single class throughout 20 levels.
3) prestige classes should generally be folded into one or more base classes, and done away with. Folding them into base classes simultaneously creates lots of material with which to make teh base classes more flexible and "broad".
Indeed. We designed a very similar systems for our Modern and SWSE campaigns.
Sounds about right. Though the "task" could take minutes to hours, or even days.
So we would get something like this :
Skill : Piloting a starship • Move Action
Power : Full Reversal & Fire Main Canon • Standard Action • Encounter
Task : Repair Starship • Amount of damage [HP] to be repaired x 1 hour
At the time of character creation player decides the type of concept he wants to play and then selects three classes that express this the best. A primary class he draws most of his powers from, a secondary and tertiary class to flesh out the concept. I believe such a variation for Modern could prove interesting. After all we want nothing less then 4.5 for Modern 2.0 just like we got 3.75 for Modern 1.0... I'm a dreamer ;)
Many things still need to be worked out [HP, saves, etc] but its a start.
I actually think 3e's multiclassing was one of its greatest strengths.
Most of the abuses of the 3e multiclassing system can be blamed on editors of the various splatbooks paying little attention to what any other editors in another splatbook had written. In essence, 3e wasn't written as a unified set of rules, but as a rush to get the next splatbook out and make more bux.
I think a multiclassing system a la 3e can work, but the following need to be observed:
1) A grand unified plan from the start on what classes will exist, ever.
2) Within a single class, there should be considerable flexibility on how a character can develop, even if he stays single class throughout 20 levels.
3) prestige classes should generally be folded into one or more base classes, and done away with. Folding them into base classes simultaneously creates lots of material with which to make teh base classes more flexible and "broad".
Personally, while fluff-wise I agree with your assessment of Dr. Jones, in terms of outcome, the only way to consistently produce the sort of apparent "luck" he has would to have full-on class features of some sort that give him very broad capabilities. But, that's not really important, I think. He's still an awesome example of a mixed com / non-com "modern mundane" adventure character.
But anyway, in reference to the post I quoted finally...
I didn't care for multiclassing for the specific failings you described. I don't think there needs to be a grand, ultimate list of classes beforehand, but I do think they need to do a better job of defining what all classes as a whole are...instead of pre-generating all classes that will ever be used. Maybe that's the same thing, I dunno.
I agree with 2 and 3 for the most part. But flexibility can only go so far without "stepping on another class' toes." Because of how 4e pairs the ability scores, I really think what we'll get anyway are 6 fairly generic classes, 2 defender, 2 striker, 2 warlordish leaders. Not sure about PrCs. If classes weren't limited to being generic, maybe there could be a few more, just not sure what. Most PrCs should probably be limited to the equivalent of PPs or EDs. Unless those are getting done away with...which would annoy me.
For multiclassing on the whole, it should be pretty freely applicable, but I think it should be restricted to only being able to mix two, MAYBE three classes at a time. I think multiclassing should be able to be freely mixed in almost any number of ways...but so-called "character concepts" that mix half a dozen or more classes into a build NEVER strike me as anything but min/maxing and worse, no matter how the player tries to justify it.
If someone can't build a viable concept out of 3 different classes...there's a problem with them.
So we would get something like this :
Skill : Piloting a starship • Move Action
Power : Full Reversal & Fire Main Canon • Standard Action • Encounter
Task : Repair Starship • Amount of damage [HP] to be repaired x 1 hour
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Seriously...I'm not AGAINST non-com character concepts per se, but really, heroic characters shouldn't have to choose between one or the other. d20 modern should be about some Big Damn Heroes. Expert surgeons who moonlight as deadeye snipers,
Is it possible for someone that spent all their time learning Sniping (while that surgeon/snipe guy was taking a decade of college)... even possible that the SinglePurpose Sniper could actually be better at sniping than DrSniper?
What about the other surgeons?
The ones that dont spend 3 days week at the range and a weekend a month crawling 27hrs across 3miles of brush... wouldnt those guys that spent that time at Seminars and whatnot be better at Surgery?
It is entirely NOT exclusive to have a Surgeon5Sniper5 character... that is 100% the opposite of exclusive since hie is indeed a surgeon and a sniper and can do both.
.... can do both, but actually do neither as well as a singlepurpose surgeon or sniper.
Why shouldnt Players choose to be UberSniper by taking nothing but 10 levels of Sniper?
Cause they will bleed out from a papercut since they never bothered to learn anything but sniping. They cant fix trucks, cause thy have no idea about anything electrical. They will end up with -$2700 on Jeopardy cause they never attended classes that werent held at a rifle range.
AND THAT IS THEIR CHOICE!
Nobody forced them to be the best sniper in the world by trading away everything else.
If the Player had half a brain he would realize just how ungodly BORING playing a singlepurpose sniper is before its too late.... like after 3 adventures of boredom the Player would shout out "At 2nd level I will take some skills based class".
And aint that another problem?
Folks are not playing up their PCs from 1st,
so they dont find out just how boring a sniper is while gaining levels 1-3... they just want to have a 10th level super sniper and then complain that the guy cant do anything but what he is SinglePurpose designed for. Well, no duh. Meanwhile the multiclassed guy does a lot of stuff, and and does some shooting too cause he is a Smart3Thug5Sneak2
"Cant" do things?
Even thugs can TRY to do things.
But dont insult the guys that spent the time to learn skills by saying What You Know is worth less than Howmuch You Kill
5 for Skill, upto 15 for killingstuff,
towards FixTruck... "UhOh, the alternator is completely busted. I'm gonna have to kill a whole lotta guys to be good enough to fix this."
Is it possible for someone that spent all their time learning Sniping (while that surgeon/snipe guy was taking a decade of college)... even possible that the SinglePurpose Sniper could actually be better at sniping than DrSniper?
What about the other surgeons?
The ones that dont spend 3 days week at the range and a weekend a month crawling 27hrs across 3miles of brush... wouldnt those guys that spent that time at Seminars and whatnot be better at Surgery?
It is entirely NOT exclusive to have a Surgeon5Sniper5 character... that is 100% the opposite of exclusive since hie is indeed a surgeon and a sniper and can do both.
.... can do both, but actually do neither as well as a singlepurpose surgeon or sniper.
I'm going to try to do my best here, seeing as I really can't find any relevance to anything in the post you quoted, and there doesn't seem to be much structure or flow at all to any of this. But, it's possible you could've been, at the time, in the same boat I am now...which would be the really really sleepy boat.
Now, for this first part... For the sake of realistic fluff, I'd have to agree with you...I think. I'm still not TOTALLY sure what you're trying to convey here. Thing is, I don't find surgery, or sniping, to be story components. They're just tools the character uses. I don't think non-com tools should take away from combat tools, or vice-versa. I don't think anyone should go for 30 levels of hacker...or 30 levels of sniper, for that matter.
Having said that, I don't think there should even be classes that ALLOW for such lopsidedness. Expertise or specialization are one thing, but that degree of singularity of capability is...I believe you later call it, boring? So, WHY even allow that possibility? Sure, some players might choose it, but generally, most won't...so again, WHY even have the potential for it?
Why shouldnt Players choose to be UberSniper by taking nothing but 10 levels of Sniper?
Cause they will bleed out from a papercut since they never bothered to learn anything but sniping. They cant fix trucks, cause thy have no idea about anything electrical. They will end up with -$2700 on Jeopardy cause they never attended classes that werent held at a rifle range.
AND THAT IS THEIR CHOICE!
Nobody forced them to be the best sniper in the world by trading away everything else.
If the Player had half a brain he would realize just how ungodly BORING playing a singlepurpose sniper is before its too late.... like after 3 adventures of boredom the Player would shout out "At 2nd level I will take some skills based class".
At no time will any worthwhile story be about fixing a truck, performing brain surgery, or hacking the NSA's database. Those events might be PIECES of a worthwhile story, and someone should be able to do them, but they're not something a story revolves around...at least, not a GOOD story, anyway.
I suppose it could be argued that I can't know that, or that my idea of a good story is merely opinion (which is true, I admit), or flat-out wrong (which wouldn't surprise me coming from these boards), but that doesn't seem to me the proper way to go about anything.
Choice for both concept AND build is paramount, but stupid choices should be kept to a minimum. If they're stupid, WHY present them? Just because a minor handful of people might actually pick the stupid boring choice out of ignorance or for comedic value? That's a huge waste of time, effort, and book space. It's better for everyone if the boring choice isn't available to the ignorant, and you can get comedic value out of any character if you play it out that way. So...dumb, boring choices...completely pointless, shouldn't exist.
And aint that another problem?
Folks are not playing up their PCs from 1st,
so they dont find out just how boring a sniper is while gaining levels 1-3... they just want to have a 10th level super sniper and then complain that the guy cant do anything but what he is SinglePurpose designed for. Well, no duh. Meanwhile the multiclassed guy does a lot of stuff, and and does some shooting too cause he is a Smart3Thug5Sneak2
"Cant" do things?
Even thugs can TRY to do things.
But dont insult the guys that spent the time to learn skills by saying What You Know is worth less than Howmuch You Kill
5 for Skill, upto 15 for killingstuff,
towards FixTruck... "UhOh, the alternator is completely busted. I'm gonna have to kill a whole lotta guys to be good enough to fix this."
Ok, this section leads me to think that you believe I'm advocating the boring choice by saying people should be equally viable in com and non-com situations even when single-classed. I'm not advocating the "boring" choice by this. What it sounds to me like you're suggesting is that you don't just want a workable multiclass system, you want effective characters to be dependent on it.
Personally, I am, and will remain always, a firm believer that single-classed characters should be equally fun and capable as multiclassed ones. Hence again why I suggest that non-com features generally remain balanced within a given class with the combat capabilities. I'm really figuring now that there should simply be generic classes, rather than D&D style classes (which I've never actually advocated for in d20 Modern anyway), like in my last post before this one. But I don't think ANY of them should espouse non-com over combat, or vice-versa. Just different, reasonable mixes of each.
Also, this last section seems to indicate to me that you almost have more of a problem with the idea of "XP from kills = gaining of skills" idea. Really dunno why that is. Combat's just the easiest part of the game within which to fairly quantify how much one can go through to learn new things. XP is just an abstraction of one's ability to learn, and it's meant to be assumed that your character is picking up the knowledge and technique of any given skills whenever they have the free time.
Which, if you and your group wanna play that out, go for it. Nothing wrong with that. But I absolutely disagree that it, or any notion like it, should be a core aspect of any game at all...not just d20 Modern. For the record, the best group I played with, built encounters...period. It didn't matter if we fought our way through, negotiated, or skillfully bypassed (not just getting lucky by having an easy out), we'd get all the XP for "defeating" the encounter. The trade-off was that if we got passed it with our skills rather than combat, we couldn't turn around and slaughter them for the extra XP. The encounter would be considered over and they'd all be spent.
Anyway, like I said at the beginning, I'm sleepy, and that may have affected my understanding and my expression. But honestly, I don't think I would've had much of an idea what you meant at all anyway. But, hopefully I got close enough to the mark. I'm going to bed.
Having said that, I don't think there should even be classes that ALLOW for such lopsidedness. Expertise or specialization are one thing, but that degree of singularity of capability is...I believe you later call it, boring? So, WHY even allow that possibility? Sure, some players might choose it, but generally, most won't...so again, WHY even have the potential for it?
so, if you find it boring and know other players dont,
you need to prevent it from being published in the book?
"WHY even have the potential for it?"
uh, I think you just said 3 seconds ago
"Sure, some players might choose it"
The problems are not that the guys that take Sniper30 and are content with having charcaters not able to fix trucks.... its when whiners take Sniper30 or Fighter30 and want to be good at surgery and mechanics as well, despite them choosing not to invest any levels into those skill classes
You made it clear.
Just because you wouldnt like to play a char 100% combat or 100% Noncombat classed, you need to remore the freedom of choice from all other players. I wanna play a 90% noncombat char, and you're taking that option away by taking away my ability to choose what to take each level... if all classes have to be equal in combat then each level of CombatSmart is not as skillful as a level of regular combat weak Smart
so, if you find it boring and know other players dont,
you need to prevent it from being published in the book?
"WHY even have the potential for it?"
uh, I think you just said 3 seconds ago
"Sure, some players might choose it"
The problems are not that the guys that take Sniper30 and are content with having charcaters not able to fix trucks.... its when whiners take Sniper30 or Fighter30 and want to be good at surgery and mechanics as well, despite them choosing not to invest any levels into those skill classes
You made it clear.
Just because you wouldnt like to play a char 100% combat or 100% Noncombat classed, you need to remore the freedom of choice from all other players. I wanna play a 90% noncombat char, and you're taking that option away by taking away my ability to choose what to take each level... if all classes have to be equal in combat then each level of CombatSmart is not as skillful as a level of regular combat weak Smart
Ok, fair enough. But why does it matter? If you would be equally as good mechanics-wise at non-com when split 50 / 50 as you would for a full-on non-com class, what does it matter that you're not 90% non-com? As long as you could do the same things? You seem to think they wouldn't, but if one's non-com and combat abilities never mix, why sacrifice one for the other?
Why not have both? I think you're actually treating it as percentages or something. Like 50% non-com and 50% combat. I'm saying that since the two are unrelated, even though the class can do both, he's equally as good as both. If ALL classes are that way, there's no imbalance.
I mean, obviously, there could be plenty of options for improving the non-com side of your character's class. I mean, its as if it's not merely that you want a non-com character, you act as if combat were a disease sometimes.
But, I can understand the position that it's the whiners who say single-classing in sniper sucks, and wanna be able to do more. But, why multiclass for that? It's not as if being a sniper will make him better at fixing trucks, or that fixing trucks will make him a better sniper, so make fixing trucks a part of the class too. It's not overpowered at all. My point is...why FORCE a choice when it's not necessary? Because that's what it's striking me as, forcing the choice. Multiclass or die.
But hey, it's obvious we won't ever come close to agreeing. I'm ok with that. I don't think you're wrong (except in accusing me of wanting or needing to remove players' freedom of choice...dunno what you're problem is there), I just don't share your view.
In the end though, I don't think you're going to be very happy. Don't expect to see that style of multiclassing ever make a comeback...judging by the way the d20 rules have been progressing. At best, there'll be a d20 Modern variation of the hybrid system currently being playtested in D&D. If it's any consolation, I won't be getting my mechanically-combat-styled "skill challenges" either...but then I always knew that, I just wanted to pitch the idea.
But, why multiclass for that? It's not as if being a sniper will make him better at fixing trucks, or that fixing trucks will make him a better sniper, so make fixing trucks a part of the class too. It's not overpowered at all. My point is...why FORCE a choice when it's not necessary? Because that's what it's striking me as, forcing the choice. Multiclass or die.
It is not Multiclass or Die,
it is Multiclass or be good at only the thing in the class you chose to focus in.
In your opinion, the way they added Can Do Everything to the Sniper Class is not overpowered.
And in my opinion, when you take the most snipey-est guy that does nothing but snipe,
then ADD the ability to do.... everything... to that class without giving anything up,
is illogical and not fair to the noncombat classes. Yes, we do have to FORCE the guy to choose between being SinglePurpose or MultiPurpose. You cant just be the best of the best at something, and then add being good at everything else as well to that. You either focused completely on being the best at one thing, or you didnt.... and it should be upto each character rather than having the choice made by the game for you.
You seem to believe the way to make if fair to the noncombat classes
is to exterminate the noncombat classes.... there by creating an enviroment that no longer has the folks that get shafted. Is it fair to the Skill classes that you just give away upto +15 at skills to the dumb thugs? It is if we eliminate the skill classes so they cant exist to complain about it.
Ok, fair enough. But why does it matter? If you would be equally as good mechanics-wise at non-com when split 50 / 50 as you would for a full-on non-com class, what does it matter that you're not 90% non-com? As long as you could do the same things? You seem to think they wouldn't, but if one's non-com and combat abilities never mix, why sacrifice one for the other?
You do realize that by giving up combat activity prowess the noncombat classes will recieve bonuses to noncombat activities, right? TRADE away combat ability for better noncombat ability. That is why a person that chooses to take many noncombat class levels and just a few combat levels will be much better at a broader range of noncombat activities than Mongo Da Thug.
This is what CyberDave hates,
that folsk might play characters that are not all equally strong in combat situations.... he is afraid I might choose to make my PCs weak in combat, which somehow is a threat to his way of life.
Simple exercise of WHAT IF:
WHAT IF D&D4e got a new class that had the class ability
XXXXX characters do not get the standard 1/2Level added to their ToHit, but instead get 1/4 Level added to their ToHits, due to the extensive amount of time & resources commiteed to advancing their studies. This time is well spent though, and XXXXX characters get a +1/4Level bonus to all skill checks
Now, obviously CyberDave will hate that class cause it it not equal power in combat with the other classes, it is much weaker. Obvious solution: Why doesnt CyberDave just not allow that "too weak" class in his games?
Let them put it in the books,
those that want to play the combat weak skilly guy can,
and those folks that dont want to can just not allow them in their games.
My buddy doesnt allow any Sorcerers at all in one campaign.... but he isnt tearing that page out of the book.
If YOU GUYS doant want to play the weak but skillfull guy,
great, dont. Play the fighty guys to your hearts content.
But for pete sake dont forbid others from playing it just cause you dont want to play it.
The problems are not that the guys that take Sniper30 and are content with having charcaters not able to fix trucks.... its when whiners take Sniper30 or Fighter30 and want to be good at surgery and mechanics as well, despite them choosing not to invest any levels into those skill classes
I don't understand. Are you saying that snipers cannot be combat surgeons? Using the "trained only" uses of certain skills means that (no matter how high the sniper's Treat Injury bonus) unless he is actually trained in it; he's just really skilled at basic lifesaving techniques.
This is what CyberDave hates,
that folsk might play characters that are not all equally strong in combat situations.... he is afraid I might choose to make my PCs weak in combat, which somehow is a threat to his way of life.
I could care less what you do with your PC. What I can't abide is the restriction that I can't play a non-weapons combat character, based off the smart, charismatic, or dedicated hero, that is not as good in combat as any other character, albeit by different means. d20 Modern was never supposed to feature "non combat classes." All the classes were supposed to be combat capable, and the majority of their powers are combat centric. All I want is a 4e Modern that does the same thing, but better balanced this time around. You want to then allow that character to give up their combat powers in favor of extra utility slots? Go ahead. Be my guest. As long as the option to play a combat-capable, but not necessarily weapons capable, version of the smart, dedicated, or charismatic hero is afforded to me.
Simple exercise of WHAT IF:
WHAT IF D&D4e got a new class that had the class ability
XXXXX characters do not get the standard 1/2Level added to their ToHit, but instead get 1/4 Level added to their ToHits, due to the extensive amount of time & resources commiteed to advancing their studies. This time is well spent though, and XXXXX characters get a +1/4Level bonus to all skill checks
Then you would have just broken the system. You have now added in "different BABs," as well as "different skill bonuses," progressions. Your proposal will fundamentally break the math of the 4E system on a number of different levels. If a "non-combat character" option is made available, it should be done through something like the ability to give up attack powers for utility powers, not this. This suggestion will totally break the game.
Now, obviously CyberDave will hate that class cause it it not equal power in combat with the other classes, it is much weaker. Obvious solution: Why doesnt CyberDave just not allow that "too weak" class in his games?
I hate the suggestion because it breaks the math of the game. Because some classes will fundamentally be weaker no matter what. Because it removes the option to play a combat capable charismatic hero, who doesn't wield a gun, who instead talks his ways out of combat scenario's, and uses conversation to his benefit (as an example), in a manner as mechanically engaging and entertaining as how any weapons capable character interacts with combat. These reasons are not the same, but I hate your suggestion for all of them. If they release a system as broken as what you suggest I won't "disallow powers," I just won't purchase the product. I am only interested in spending my money on something I consider to be a quality product.
If they work different BABS into the game in a balanced manner, which they did in Saga, then as long as all classes can be built in a combat capable (though not necessarily weapons capable) manner, and the game features 4E style tactical combat resolution, as well as a robust non-combat system, then I will purchase the product. But your suggestion is not a balanced manner. Not without a hell of a lot of work. The sort of work that would make this new system resemble 4E about as much as 4E resembles 3e. Which really seems sort of silly, because they could make a heluva awesome Modern game using a chassis that is a lot closer to the 4E that already exists... They could even allow non-combat builds by allowing characters to swap attack powers for utility powers. Its sort of silly because 64.54% of the voting population, here on these forums, wants to see a product based off 4E. And what you are suggesting would be so far removed from what this 64.54% of the population desires that we would not be able to recognize it.
It is not Multiclass or Die,
it is Multiclass or be good at only the thing in the class you chose to focus in.
In your opinion, the way they added Can Do Everything to the Sniper Class is not overpowered.
And in my opinion, when you take the most snipey-est guy that does nothing but snipe,
then ADD the ability to do.... everything... to that class without giving anything up,
is illogical and not fair to the noncombat classes. Yes, we do have to FORCE the guy to choose between being SinglePurpose or MultiPurpose. You cant just be the best of the best at something, and then add being good at everything else as well to that. You either focused completely on being the best at one thing, or you didnt.... and it should be upto each character rather than having the choice made by the game for you.
Ok...first off...I'm saying no non-com classes, AND no combat classes. Secondly, I don't want a sniper to do every non-com thing under the sun...just one of them. What I'm saying is, each class thematically should have one area or field of focus (but still pretty far from specialization) in combat, and another ONE area or field of focus in non-com.
THAT is not overpowered. It is NOT penalizing non-com. Your only gripe thus far isn't that you won't be able to non-com things, but that in addition, you'll still be able to fight...and all within a single class. That is just...that's out there...way out there, to me.
So, just like any class, they would have pretty much one area of focus...based on theme. Also, they'd have an area of non-com focus based on a similar theme. So, people still have roles to fill in a group...but those roles don't divide classes by combat and non-combat. Non-combat capabilities don't suffer in the least in such a format. If someone wants to play the geeky hacker, they can take the feats and whatnot that improve his hacking ability, but at least he won't be useless in a fight, AND he won't have to multiclass to do it.
You seem to believe the way to make if fair to the noncombat classes
is to exterminate the noncombat classes.... there by creating an enviroment that no longer has the folks that get shafted. Is it fair to the Skill classes that you just give away upto +15 at skills to the dumb thugs? It is if we eliminate the skill classes so they cant exist to complain about it.
You do realize that by giving up combat activity prowess the noncombat classes will recieve bonuses to noncombat activities, right? TRADE away combat ability for better noncombat ability. That is why a person that chooses to take many noncombat class levels and just a few combat levels will be much better at a broader range of noncombat activities than Mongo Da Thug.
What skill classes? In the format I proposed there wouldn't be any skilled or combat classes. There would just be generic classes that each focus on a certain theme...each one equally combat and non-com. Dunno what your problem is with that, it's not takin jack away from anyone.
I'm personally preferring the idea that enemies in whatever the new d20 Modern is follow the example of those in 4e. Where the PCs and monsters are built entirely differently. The monsters are built to be monsters, and the PCs are built to be heroes. Mongo da Thug isn't going to have skills because he's just a mook, not because he didn't take levels in whatever nonexistent non-com class. Mongo da Thug will not be a PC.
This is what CyberDave hates,
that folsk might play characters that are not all equally strong in combat situations.... he is afraid I might choose to make my PCs weak in combat, which somehow is a threat to his way of life.
Simple exercise of WHAT IF:
WHAT IF D&D4e got a new class that had the class ability
XXXXX characters do not get the standard 1/2Level added to their ToHit, but instead get 1/4 Level added to their ToHits, due to the extensive amount of time & resources commiteed to advancing their studies. This time is well spent though, and XXXXX characters get a +1/4Level bonus to all skill checks
Now, obviously CyberDave will hate that class cause it it not equal power in combat with the other classes, it is much weaker. Obvious solution: Why doesnt CyberDave just not allow that "too weak" class in his games?
That would be the most stupid thing ever to do in 4e. That's not even counting the fact that I dont like it. In 4e, skills don't count for enough for anything CLOSE to that sort of trade-off. That is because 4e does lean heavy on the combat. Yeah, I'm ok with that, but for a game like modern, I'd like some more non-com capabilities FOR ALL CLASSES, and therefore all characters. Since NPCs will be different, they can be split between combat and non-com.
No one in their right mind would allow a class like that in 4e. They'd be worhless in ALL ways because there isn't enough skill usage in 4e to justify them in even the most minimal way. The only way such a class would ever be even slightly relevant would be if the WHOLE campaign were skill-based (which is fine, IMO, just for the record). But it would be completely useless in all other games. THAT is why such a class was not included in 4e.
Let them put it in the books,
those that want to play the combat weak skilly guy can,
and those folks that dont want to can just not allow them in their games.
My buddy doesnt allow any Sorcerers at all in one campaign.... but he isnt tearing that page out of the book.
If YOU GUYS doant want to play the weak but skillfull guy,
great, dont. Play the fighty guys to your hearts content.
But for pete sake dont forbid others from playing it just cause you dont want to play it.
Yeah, see...here you go again. No one's forbidding you from being skillful. I suppose you could say you are being forbidden from being weak, per se. Obviously, your stats are NOT going to cover ALL the combat AND non-combat ground. That distinction alone would set your character FAR apart from the combat-focused players without leaving you as an absolutely dead-weight in a pinch.
Like I said, no one's taking anything from you, and if you want to play as if your character were frail and pitiful despite whatever combat prowess their class might grant them...so be it. Nothing's stopping you. We're not the ones you need to convince anyway though. And the people you do need to convince...are going to go but the sucesses they see, and that means no straight non-com classes. Sorry.
That would be the most stupid thing ever to do in 4e. That's not even counting the fact that I dont like it. In 4e, skills don't count for enough for anything CLOSE to that sort of trade-off. That is because 4e does lean heavy on the combat.
Wrong.
No one in their right mind would allow a class like that in 4e. They'd be worhless in ALL ways because there isn't enough skill usage in 4e to justify them in even the most minimal way.
Wrong Wrong
THAT is why such a class was not included in 4e
Wrong Wrong Wrong.
Your statements are WHOLEY regarding THE WAY YOUR GROUP CHOOSES TO PLAY 4e.
Please tell us the page number that MANDATES any combat encounters when deciding the combat encounter to Skill Challenge mix.
Go on, tell us the page number that justifies you declaring combat is required
I'll wait.
While I'm waiting,
I will point out that you just gave an abject lesson in how you guys have to prohibit folks from playing any way you dont (yet the rules allow). Yes, a party can go thru all 30 levels on Skill Encounters without ever rolling a tohit. Just because you dont want to plat that way,
why must you prohibit others from playing that way.
Again, you see the Skillguy as far too weak in combat to be allowed in the book.
That is personal opinion hooey.
This is not an unfair to you 'unbalanced' class, its unfair to folks that choose to play it,
this is allowing folks to choose to play someone you have said time & again is unfair to THEM. But that is a choice for THEM, not you.
If you dont want to play someone weak in combat,
fine, dont
but dont prohibit me from plating characters IN CHARACTER.... Princess & Jimmy the Squeeler are NOT combat folks so please
Someone got upset that I refered to the new d&d as a Fantasy Fight Game,
yet it is clearly 'fanatsy' and you seem very adament about it being a 'fight game'... to the point that you cant stand allowing someone that cant fight even to play the game
D&D 4e Fantasy Fight Game
Wrong.
Wrong Wrong
Wrong Wrong Wrong.
Your statements are WHOLEY regarding THE WAY YOUR GROUP CHOOSES TO PLAY 4e.
Please tell us the page number that MANDATES any combat encounters when deciding the combat encounter to Skill Challenge mix.
Go on, tell us the page number that justifies you declaring combat is required
I'll wait.
Never said it was "mandated" nor that anyone actually HAD to play all combat. I even flat-out said that 4e could be played without ANY combat at all, and that it could even be fun.
But non-com and combat ability in 4e are not an equal trade. To cut a class' combat ability in half and then up their non-com ability by an corresponding amount is NOT an equitable exchange. Now, that doesn't mean it cannot or should not be done for a 4e group who's playing a non-com heavy or all non-com game. But in a style of game where there's even a 50/50 mix between fighting and not fighting, it is completely unfair and unreasonable to do such a thing to any class for any reason.
Good job on quoting whatever section of my post suited your whims to present it completely out of context though...kudos.
While I'm waiting,
I will point out that you just gave an abject lesson in how you guys have to prohibit folks from playing any way you dont (yet the rules allow). Yes, a party can go thru all 30 levels on Skill Encounters without ever rolling a tohit. Just because you dont want to plat that way,
why must you prohibit others from playing that way.
Again, you see the Skillguy as far too weak in combat to be allowed in the book.
That is personal opinion hooey.
This is not an unfair to you 'unbalanced' class, its unfair to folks that choose to play it,
this is allowing folks to choose to play someone you have said time & again is unfair to THEM. But that is a choice for THEM, not you.
If you dont want to play someone weak in combat,
fine, dont
but dont prohibit me from plating characters IN CHARACTER.... Princess & Jimmy the Squeeler are NOT combat folks so please
Someone got upset that I refered to the new d&d as a Fantasy Fight Game,
yet it is clearly 'fanatsy' and you seem very adament about it being a 'fight game'... to the point that you cant stand allowing someone that cant fight even to play the game
D&D 4e Fantasy Fight Game
I like skillguys. The rest of your rhetoric just isn't worth the response.
it is completely unfair and unreasonable to do such a thing to any class for any reason.
"Just because you dont want to plat that way,
why must you prohibit others from playing that way."
"Just because you dont want to plat that way,
why must you prohibit others from playing that way."
Simple. I'm not "prohibiting" anyone from playing that way. If a DM and his players want to play that way, they can chop out pieces of classes til all they can do is tie their shoes correctly for all I care.
But, they don't make the rules for one person, or one group. They make the rules for all. And the most effective base to start from is NOT to do it the way you describe, because that's not what the majority seems to want.
Maybe that's wrong? Maybe there are more people that agree with you than not? Maybe you're simply the most vocal of a silent majority?
Problem is, neither of us REALLY knows, and silent majorities don't get squat. So, go rile them up to action or something if you're so set on having things your way, because you're not getting anywhere at all here. As it is, until more people pick up your points and hopefully argue them more reasonably, I'm gonna stick with the notion that more people would prefer NOT to do things the way you seem to.
Time will tell.
what would the "power sources" be for 4e modern? Smokeless powder? :D
I fail to see how a modern game can be like 4E at all, people in the real world do not have "powers", it might work in a StarWars style game or in a world like Urban Arcana. Much of d20 modern made little or no sense to me either. since wearing a bullet proof vest does not require anything from the wearer to actually work, yet in d20 modern you needed a feat to use one. If you have never worn a flak jacket it provides you with the same protection as someone who has worn one a hundred times.
what would the "power sources" be for 4e modern? Smokeless powder? :D
You can still use it, but you didn't gain the maximum benefits. I interpreted it as the armor interfering with your range of movement because you're not used to wearing it. In essence you gain the full benefit of the armor, but you lose out in dodging ability.
That's just my reconciliation of the rule, though.
Why do we really need power sources other than the fact that 4e has them?
I would suggest that power sources in a modern game would strictly serve one purpose. If you don't want an fx game, you would simply disallow any power that has an fx power source (Arcane, Divine, Psionic, etc.) while keeping those that are focused on skill and personal training (like Martial).
I also like the idea of "cherry picking" powers, but instead make them trees (thus, paths).
Also a thought I had earlier: consider how the Warlord's powers work, any Warlord can take any Warlord power, but there are powers that get extra bonuses if you're a Tactical Warlord, or if you're a Inspirational Warlord. My thought was do the same with the paths. Anyone can take powers from the Shooter path, but Fast Heroes get special boosts to their Shooter powers.
Know what I mean?
Why not have "paths" instead of power sources? You can call Arcane, Divine, Psionics, ect "FX Paths" for easy catagorization. Then you can cut up Martial into things like "Shooter," "Brawler," "Tactical," or whatever instead of only having one single "power source" for non-FX games.
I also like the idea of "cherry picking" powers, but instead make them trees (thus, paths).
Also a thought I had earlier: consider how the Warlord's powers work, any Warlord can take any Warlord power, but there are powers that get extra bonuses if you're a Tactical Warlord, or if you're a Inspirational Warlord. My thought was do the same with the paths. Anyone can take powers from the Shooter path, but Fast Heroes get special boosts to their Shooter powers.
Know what I mean?
Well...that's really still exactly the same as power sources. The ONLY difference is that instead of delegating choice of power by class, it's all by source alone...with special benefits for specific classes instead. But, it's still not a bad idea maybe.
But I also have issues with "cherry-picking" anything in any game. I don't think people are capable of doing so WISELY. Sure...any idiot can crunch the numbers, heck that just takes a calculator. Real players will make their characters effective without abusing the system. Buffet-style game options is a lot like voting. Everyone knows how, but no one understands why.
I wouldn't get my hearts set on "strong hero," "fast hero," "smart hero," and so on...because one thing I'm almost positive will carry over from 4e is Roles. d20 Modern is going to be just as team-based as 4e, and that almost garauntees roles will be ported over. They might double up on the three roles (the odds are highly against a martial controller...but if they do make one, I hope it can easily be ported back to D&D), but I dunno that I'd place a bet on it.
Whatever they do, even if it's not straight 4e rules, it's going to be mostly 4e. They spent a lot of time and money developing 4e, and they're not going to butcher it for a sub-game like d20 Modern, nor will they spend further time and money on developing all-new rules for the same reason. They'll modify 4e only as much as minimally necessary, and no more.
Why not have "paths" instead of power sources? You can call Arcane, Divine, Psionics, ect "FX Paths" for easy catagorization. Then you can cut up Martial into things like "Shooter," "Brawler," "Tactical," or whatever instead of only having one single "power source" for non-FX games.
I also like the idea of "cherry picking" powers, but instead make them trees (thus, paths).
Also a thought I had earlier: consider how the Warlord's powers work, any Warlord can take any Warlord power, but there are powers that get extra bonuses if you're a Tactical Warlord, or if you're a Inspirational Warlord. My thought was do the same with the paths. Anyone can take powers from the Shooter path, but Fast Heroes get special boosts to their Shooter powers.
Know what I mean?
This is exactly along the lines of what I am thinking of, and what I would like, with one exception. A 4e system of power progression would not work in "tree" formation. The manner in which retraining is constantly allowed, and characters can only have a certain number of powers tops, sort of prohibits this style of progression. It is impossible to code the system as having higher level powers which "require" that a character choose a lower level power without making the system unnecessarily restrictive.
But everything else, pretty much bang on along the lines of what I was thinking. Have six classes. Make them the typical d20 Modern classes. Don't make the powers "class based" but rather "path based," and allow characters to pick any power they want out of one massive pool of powers. But, give powers that belong to a certain path additional bonus effects when they are used by characters from the same class as the path. Sounds amazing. That's the sort of 4E Modern I want.
For the record, I am not on the same page as LuciferNietzsche.
Okie dokie...not sure anyone would've thought otherwise, but fair enough.
This is exactly along the lines of what I am thinking of, and what I would like, with one exception. A 4e system of power progression would not work in "tree" formation. The manner in which retraining is constantly allowed, and characters can only have a certain number of powers tops, sort of prohibits this style of progression. It is impossible to code the system as having higher level powers which "require" that a character choose a lower level power without making the system unnecessarily restrictive.
But everything else, pretty much bang on along the lines of what I was thinking. Have six classes. Make them the typical d20 Modern classes. Don't make the powers "class based" but rather "path based," and allow characters to pick any power they want out of one massive pool of powers. But, give powers that belong to a certain path additional bonus effects when they are used by characters from the same class as the path. Sounds amazing. That's the sort of 4E Modern I want.
Six classes is fine...but how would they go? Smart/Fast for Strker...Strong/Tough for Defender...Wise/Charasmatic for Leader? Sounds pretty reasonable. The powers should be separated by something though. I hated the gigantic mass of pages at the backs of books for spells and the like.
I don't think it'd be bad to split them by role, at least...then let each role "cherry-pick" whatever powers they want from the role they're filling. Sorry...I can see how people would like the game...but the good money's betting that roles are going to be important even in d20 Modern.
I think it'd be reasonable to further distinguish powers within a role by building certain "extra features" into specific powers according to which class, and/or build of that class, within the role, that they take.
-
Overall, it's pretty obvious I'm the BBEG of the thread. I'm really no more right or wrong than anyone else ever is, but even when I'm right, I'm still a bad-guy. Oh well, I'm used to it. It's not like I'm gonna get everything I want out of the game either, though. It's just that d20 Modern will be very much LESS like the previous one, and probably much MORE like D&D, with a modern twist.
The classes very probably won't be as sharply defined, but roles will still be the skeleton upon which they're fleshed out. Powers might be "buffet-style" to a certain extent, but it's pretty likely they'll be divided further in some fashion. That will certainly grant vastly more flexibility than the D&D classes, especially once their FX versions come out (I sincerely hope the standard mundane classes do NOT get to cherry-pick FX powers into themselves). Multiclassing is likely to be identical to 4e, especially once hybridization is fully worked out.
Neither side is going to get exactly the d20 Modern they want. Not that there seems to be much in the way of sides...there's me, and then everyone else apparently.
In combat, you should be able to do various things, some would just be better in doing certain things For example, you could go for Leg hit - slowed, knocked down, or both if using extra resource points; You should also have a way to regain resource points; Cowardly or Stalking character could gain them by ending turn being hidden from opponents for example, while heroic would gain them by getting into middle of things.
A bit of the 'all fun' and 'total balance' principles should be dropped - a bit of grittiness is good... Excelling in non-combat instead of combat should be possible; If killing monsters is just wearing them down from hit points, there's little excitement in combat. I've placed much higher level enemies against my players in 4E, they are shocked ('how can we possibly win this?!?') but the louder are the hoorays when the foe goes down. Solos as they currently are feel usually boring.
Also, situational bonuses are good, but they shouldn't make character otherwise bad; Rangers in 3.5E were excited when they met their favoured enemies, but were too weak otherwise. +1 bonuses aren't really meaningful against favoured enemies.
Just what on earth could possibly be stopping you from playing a d20Modern horror campaign?
crikey, they even already have "Investigator" class in the CRB & mSRD.
Have you tried to play a Medieval Horror campaign with DD4e rules?
What will 4e do for you that you dont get in a d20Modern horror?
Let me guess.... you make CombatOnly type specialized chars that feel left out of stuff other than combat, due to their choice to specialize in combat and not take other classes to broaden thier chars You want 4e to just make all your CombatOnly Specialized guy become great at skills too without taking any skill class levels. Simpler solution- if you want your chars to be multitasking, they need multiclassing, and d20Modern has freestyle multiclassing for a reason.... Modern classes are only 10 levels long- you HAVE TO multiclass per game design
Yes, a 4e modern with monsters would be horror,
I'm already horrified at the prospect of HP Frontloaded monsters and us with GimpedGuns
What will 4e do for you that you dont get in a d20Modern horror?
A better game.
A better game.
fascinating opinion
heres another opinion on the matter:
"A worse game"
wow. look at that , we both have opinions
and my opinion totally canceled your opinion out, & vice versa
great waste of thime there
Meanwhile
What will 4e do for you that you dont get in a d20Modern horror?
Intrigue? Research? Fear of geting killed?
Wouldnt that be an important part of 'horror'? Not knowing you can handle everything you encounter... maybe eaven fearing that things will kill you? Aint that taken away by Frontloaded HP, NoReasonSelfHealing, and extended safety net -HP Stabilize rules?
You want Horror?
leave the fear of getting killed by 'monsters' in the game
including the monsters that have guns
fascinating opinion
heres another opinion on the matter:
"A worse game"
wow. look at that , we both have opinions
and my opinion totally canceled your opinion out, & vice versa
great waste of thime there
The difference, of course, being that my opinion is supported by 65.40% of the voting population.
Meanwhile
What will 4e do for you that you dont get in a d20Modern horror?
A game where the outcome of the plot is decided by primarily by a player's choice of actions, slightly modified by chance, as opposed to primarily by chance, slightly modified by a player's choice of action, even at first level.
A game with a system of combat that is fun enough that I don't attempt to totally write combat out of the game in order to avoid the system's tedium.
A game with a system that actually has a robust system of non-combat encounter resolution.
A game where no character must choose between being capable in either combat, or non-combat encounters, and that allows all characters to participate in both forms of encounters.
A game that actually requires decision making before one chooses their actions.
A game that, even at higher levels, manages to achieve a more believable narration of the result of attacks. That is to say, a result of narration that has a common relation across all levels of play. Not a game where a character dies in one hit at first level, but can shrug off blow after blow of tank shells at high levels.
A game that does not make constitution so important that all characters must choose to boost the stat in order to play an effective character.
A game where certain characters can actually perform a variety of skillful actions; a game where a character does not have to spend every single one of their skill based resources on fulfilling one single character theme, the athletic character, because somehow even athletes need to have a fairly high Int in order to be able to do anything but perform athletic skills. I mean, god forbid the athlete manage to be both athletic AND charismatic.
A game with the potential to offer non-combat options to ALL characters, because maybe I want to play a non-combat athlete and not a non-combat professor of applied science.
A game worth playing, and thus worth writing a story filled with Intrigue, research, and Fear of getting killed. None of which is removed with 4e, by the way. Because really, at level one a character can take 3 or 4 dice worth of damage from a single (daily) attack, thus making up for their double hit points. Because even though the average (at-will) attack at first level does deal less damage in relation to first level hit points, first level is 1 level of play, and at higher levels (and depending on your Constitution score possibly even some of the lower levels) of play it is the 4e character that has more to fear from weapon attacks than the 3e character. I would rather have to fear attacks, within reason, all the way up to level 20, and not have attacks at first level be so dangerous that the game is a practice in roe-sham-bo, first attack wins. Because 4e does not have "NoReasonSelfHealing," it has self healing once per fight, and there is nothing stopping the 4e version of Modern changing that to once per day, no matter how many healing surges a character gets. Because without an available use of second wind, a character can not self heal. Because 4e, unlike 3e, offers a limit on how much others can heal you. Playing a future campaign with tons of money? Sorry, that healing spray can only work on you up to 7 times per day, because you only have 7 healing surges. Eventually, your body has just gone through too much trauma for a band-aid fix. It needs time out. Something it never did, with enough equipment, in 3e. Because really, you have yet to ever accurately depict what 4e actually does.
You want Horror?
leave the fear of getting killed by 'monsters' in the game
including the monsters that have guns
Yea. Will do. While we are at it, we would also like a better game. A game that about 65% of current voting population agrees would be a better game, no matter what your individual opinion might be.
The difference, of course, being that my opinion is supported by 65.40% of the voting population.
Holy cow, you still pretending this poll you stacked with ringers from the 4e board is worth anything.... cause the rest of us dont
oh, thats right...
you claim you were only trying to bring in more votes
not that you were just stacking the deck with 4e guy by posting that link in the 4e board,
which is easily proven by us looking at the link you put in the StarWars board to be fair
You did link the poll in Starwars board like you did in the 4e board, right?
To be fair you put a link in both, right?
Maybe you didnt know folks over at Starwars board were interested in Modern
... of course, there is that 2page thread with 5 posts of yours over at Starwars talking about Modern going 4e .... that would be a great spot for a link at Starwars for this Modern poll like you did for your 4e ringers
How is it that you can take part in a chat over at Starwars about Modern & 4e
and not think to let them know about the poll here like you let your 4e pals know?
I mean, unless you were trying to stack the poll with 4e ringers by intentionally not telling the Starwars guys you discussed Modern going 4e or Starwars with
squirm all you want
You stacked the poll and it is freakishly obvious you did it with pro-4e agenda
by not telling the Starwars guys like you told the 4e guys
And now you pretend we care about the poll numbers you corrupted with your ringers
Holy cow, you still pretending this poll you stacked with ringers from the 4e board is worth anything.... cause the rest of us dont
If you think the poll numbers are not fair, due to who knows about the thread and who does not, the onus is on you to go put the information out wherever you think it should be.
Until then, the poll shows what it shows. It shows that the majority of posters with an interest in voting don't agree with you.
Maybe you didnt know folks over at Starwars board were interested in Modern
... of course, there is that 2page thread with 5 posts of yours over at Starwars talking about Modern going 4e .... that would be a great spot for a link at Starwars for this Modern poll like you did for your 4e ringers
Sorry, what? Other than the Land of Nod, I have not taken part in any Star Wars forum threads in months. As in, long before this poll was ever released. And, to be honest, it is a post in this forum that got me to go back and start checking/updating The Land of Nod again. I don't know what thread you are talking about, or how old it is, but you need to pull your head out of whatever you have been drowning it in.
If you want to go put up a thread in the Star Wars Saga forums to let them know about a poll, go do so. I took my initiative. I posted where I know a lot of 4e d20 Modern fans reside. You know about some other location where a lot of d20 Modern fans reside, go let them know about the poll.
The poll is far from empirical evidence. I admit that. There are far too many uncontrolled variables that can contaminate it. But it is a good indication (as opposed to empirical verification) that my opinion and desire is closer to the desires and opinions of the majority of d20 Modern fans than yours is. Note, my desires are not the majority either. I want a Saga/4E mix. Its 4E alone that is in the lead right now. Though I am part of the majority of voters who wants a new Modern to at least be largely built around some elements of 4E (though, as I said, unlike the majority of those voters, I want a lot of Saga elements infused into it as well). As for what those desires are, as for what it is that we want that 4E grants us that 3e doesn't (in our opinion):
A game where the outcome of the plot is decided by primarily by a player's choice of actions, slightly modified by chance, as opposed to primarily by chance, slightly modified by a player's choice of action, even at first level.
A game with a system of combat that is fun enough that I don't attempt to totally write combat out of the game in order to avoid the system's tedium.
A game with a system that actually has a robust system of non-combat encounter resolution.
A game where no character must choose between being capable in either combat, or non-combat encounters, and that allows all characters to participate in both forms of encounters.
A game that actually requires decision making before one chooses their actions.
A game that, even at higher levels, manages to achieve a more believable narration of the result of attacks. That is to say, a result of narration that has a common relation across all levels of play. Not a game where a character dies in one hit at first level, but can shrug off blow after blow of tank shells at high levels.
A game that does not make constitution so important that all characters must choose to boost the stat in order to play an effective character.
A game where certain characters can actually perform a variety of skillful actions; a game where a character does not have to spend every single one of their skill based resources on fulfilling one single character theme, the athletic character, because somehow even athletes need to have a fairly high Int in order to be able to do anything but perform athletic skills. I mean, god forbid the athlete manage to be both athletic AND charismatic.
A game with the potential to offer non-combat options to ALL characters, because maybe I want to play a non-combat athlete and not a non-combat professor of applied science.
A game worth playing, and thus worth writing a story filled with Intrigue, research, and Fear of getting killed. None of which is removed with 4e, by the way. Because really, at level one a character can take 3 or 4 dice worth of damage plus a characters relevant ability modifier (lets assume Dexterity for firearms) from a single (daily) attack, thus making up for their double hit points. Because even though the average (at-will) attack at first level might deal less damage in relation to first level hit points, first level is 1 level of play, and at higher levels (and depending on your Constitution score possibly even some of the lower levels) of play it is the 4e character that has more to fear from weapon attacks than the 3e character. I would rather have to fear attacks, within reason, all the way up to level 20, and not have attacks at first level be so dangerous that the game is a practice in roe-sham-bo, first attack wins. Because 4e does not have "NoReasonSelfHealing," it has self healing once per fight, and there is nothing stopping the 4e version of Modern changing that to once per day, no matter how many healing surges a character gets. Because without an available use of second wind, a character can not self heal. Because 4e, unlike 3e, offers a limit on how much others can heal you. Playing a future campaign with tons of money? Sorry, that healing spray can only work on you up to 7 times per day, because you only have 7 healing surges. Eventually, your body has just gone through too much trauma for a band-aid fix. It needs time out. Something it never did, with enough equipment, in 3e. Because really, you have yet to ever accurately depict what 4e actually does.
Okie dokie...not sure anyone would've thought otherwise, but fair enough.
Because you, like me, really love 4E. Or so it seems. I just wanted to make it clear that while I want a 4E based Modern, I want something that is applied a little differently than what you seem to desire. Perhaps its my strong love of Saga, and my desire for an infusion of Saga mechanical flavor into the 4e rules. I don't know.
Six classes is fine...but how would they go? Smart/Fast for Strker...Strong/Tough for Defender...Wise/Charasmatic for Leader? Sounds pretty reasonable. The powers should be separated by something though. I hated the gigantic mass of pages at the backs of books for spells and the like.
I was actually thinking Tough for Defender, Fast/Strong for striker, Smart for controller. Dedicated and Charismatic for leader.
Neither side is going to get exactly the d20 Modern they want. Not that there seems to be much in the way of sides...there's me, and then everyone else apparently.
Its ok, none of us really seems to be in agreement. ;) :P
Because you, like me, really love 4E. Or so it seems. I just wanted to make it clear that while I want a 4E based Modern, I want something that is applied a little differently than what you seem to desire. Perhaps its my strong love of Saga, and my desire for an infusion of Saga mechanical flavor into the 4e rules. I don't know.
Actually, in one your own posts to backstabbist, you said pretty much what I was trying to. I think what really set everyone against me was the fact that I wanted a non-com system based more on the mechanical functions of combat...which obviously is a less-than-popular idea.
I was actually thinking Tough for Defender, Fast/Strong for striker, Smart for controller. Dedicated and Charismatic for leader.
Don't know how you can have a controller. Can't base it off technology, otherwise...why can't everyone do that? Intellect has nothing to do with knowing how and where to lob a grenade. I've run into this problem all over the various threads for martial controllers. My suggestion there was to flip the warlord over. Personally, I'm still an adamant believer that leaders are nothing more than flipped controllers, and vice-versa. But, that's just me.
Still though, I think controller should be left out for now. It'd be nice to have one, but we should assume for now that there won't be one to start with.
Its ok, none of us really seems to be in agreement. ;) :P
QFT
Actually, in one your own posts to backstabbist, you said pretty much what I was trying to. I think what really set everyone against me was the fact that I wanted a non-com system based more on the mechanical functions of combat...which obviously is a less-than-popular idea.
My biggest issue with your posts are your depiction of the GM/Player relation as a game of cops and robbers. The GM should never be playing against the players, he should be playing with them. The point is to create an evocative narrative. My next big problem is your anti-power pool (or so it seemed to me) stance. I think the ability to cherry pick powers from any class in the Modern game is the best way to capture 3e Modern's feeling of an "open multiclass system."
Don't know how you can have a controller. Can't base it off technology, otherwise...why can't everyone do that? Intellect has nothing to do with knowing how and where to lob a grenade. I've run into this problem all over the various threads for martial controllers. My suggestion there was to flip the warlord over. Personally, I'm still an adamant believer that leaders are nothing more than flipped controllers, and vice-versa. But, that's just me.
Even in the 3e days, intellect was the stat which one used to make chemical explosives and poison substances. It is also the stat used for the demolitions skill. Also, the 3e smart hero had a power which allowed them to use intelligence instead of other stats when making attack roles.
So, how I envision a 4e Smart Hero controller is as follows: a list of powers which involves setting area of effect "traps." In other words, effects that don't go off until an enemy enters into a particular square (or couple squares), and upon entering into the one or two squares they turn into a much larger AoE burst which also applies secondary status effects. I envision power which involve mixing two chemicals and throwing them to create an explosion. I envision all of these powers requiring a "tool kit" or "chemical kit" as an implement. I envision weapon powers that use intelligence to hit and damage, and not the stat regularly associated with the type of weapon, but which tend to deal low end damage, but with lots of added status effects. I envision an inversion of the 3e Smart Heroes "planning" ability, which instead of granting a bonus to allies grants a penalty to enemies within a lasting zone of effect. That is sort of how I envision Smart Heroes as controllers.
I also see Charismatic heroes as being a very controllery abilities, which many leaders already sort of get. Moreover, I would like to see them as a new spin on the Leader, one who does not heal, but instead grants temporary hit points (often at the cost of a spent healing surge).
The dedicated hero I would like to see as more of a standard/healing based leader.
Aside from a few nitpicks, I actually like it all so far. 4E Modern might actually do well as an adaptation. BUT, I think my concerns are reaffirmed that the lack of multiclassing is a HUGE loss to the Hero system unless it is replaced by something just as juicy. The most obvious solution to this is Powers, but maybe not as general as mentioned thus far.
Don't know though, have to think about it more.
Hey Dave, for my curiosity I'd be interested in seeing the posts you did in the other boards directing voters here. I'd like to see if the statement was one that invited those interested in playing a modern game setting to vote, or one that incited the 4E fans to vote. That would make a difference in how one perceives the votes.
These are the posts that mention it.
Hey there. There is currently a poll going on in the d20 Modern forums to let the developers know whether the community of d20 Modern fans would prefer a d20 Modern based off of 4e rules, Saga rules, or a mix of both. However, as a lot of people who like 4e or a mix of Saga and 4e probably don't frequent the d20 Modern forums (at least anymore) I thought I would post a link to the poll for everyone's benefit:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1175729.
This one was posted back during the hostility before the truce between those who like 4e for the new modern and those who want to discuss their counter-point rationally. This post directs to the original poll that did not include all the choices this one has.
This next post was made after this poll was created (with the formerly excluded options included) so that poll voters could cast their vote in the updated poll.
For those who want to see a new d20 Modern forum, there is a new what sort of d20 Modern game would you like poll in the d20 Modern forums (it included the "none of the above" and "3.5 edition" in order to accommodate some forum members who complained). So, if you are interested in seeing a 4e Modern game, please come out and vote at this link here!
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1175729
I know some will disagree, but I did not see them a solicitation of "ringers".
My biggest issue with your posts are your depiction of the GM/Player relation as a game of cops and robbers. The GM should never be playing against the players, he should be playing with them. The point is to create an evocative narrative. My next big problem is your anti-power pool (or so it seemed to me) stance. I think the ability to cherry pick powers from any class in the Modern game is the best way to capture 3e Modern's feeling of an "open multiclass system."
By cops and robbers, I meant more characters vs monsters, rather than players vs DM. But, the DM is all of the NPCs and monsters...some of the time...so I see how it could appear that I indicated an adversarialy Player/DM relationship.
Cops & Robbers though is just a game where a group of kids pretend to be other people doing other things. In any such game, rules exist to facilitate fair and fun play for all. The DM is the referee who makes sure those rules are implemented correctly. I really see the narrative as more the players' responsibility, myself...but that's just my opinion.
I don't have issue with a certain degree of "cherry-picking" powers...but I don't think they should ALL be in a single pool. Maybe some small class-based or role-based pools, and then one somewhat larger pool of general powers...with "path" distinctions inherent in some of the powers of all of the pools?
I just see a single pool as being rife with opportunity for abuse under the BEST of circumstances. It would also completely elminate any need for actual multiclassing or hybridization aside from aquiring an additional minor class feature and trained skill. It would seriously mitigate what little value multiclass feats (and apparently hybrid feats) have as it is. That's my main issue with it.
Even in the 3e days, intellect was the stat which one used to make chemical explosives and poison substances. It is also the stat used for the demolitions skill. Also, the 3e smart hero had a power which allowed them to use intelligence instead of other stats when making attack roles.
So, how I envision a 4e Smart Hero controller is as follows: a list of powers which involves setting area of effect "traps." In other words, effects that don't go off until an enemy enters into a particular square (or couple squares), and upon entering into the one or two squares they turn into a much larger AoE burst which also applies secondary status effects. I envision power which involve mixing two chemicals and throwing them to create an explosion. I envision all of these powers requiring a "tool kit" or "chemical kit" as an implement. I envision weapon powers that use intelligence to hit and damage, and not the stat regularly associated with the type of weapon, but which tend to deal low end damage, but with lots of added status effects. I envision an inversion of the 3e Smart Heroes "planning" ability, which instead of granting a bonus to allies grants a penalty to enemies within a lasting zone of effect. That is sort of how I envision Smart Heroes as controllers.
I agree for the most part. But everytime I or someone else tried to present such a position to those who oppose martial controllers, we got shot down with a variety of less than friendly arguments. I believe I was once called delusional.
But, for clarification's sake, let's see if I've even got this right to begin with...
- Smart Hero observes battlefield, and assesses the environment and the circumstances.
- Smart Hero then "plays out the possible scenarios" in his head based on what he observed and the conclusions drawn from those observations. And thus devises and selects plans based on the apparent outcome of those scenarios.
- Smart Hero then, in some way or other, communicates only the most necessary details to the rest of the party...thus abstractedly "setting up" one or more various "circumstantial traps" and the like throughout the encounter.
- Any given enemy "springs a trap" suffering X effect, for X turns, etc.
I know you intend for Smart Heros to do more than that, of course, I was simply meaning the most controllerish aspect in all of that.
Now, if that's the general sort of way you meant it. Then I agree and support this position. If it's not, then I'm totally lost and you're gonna have to explain that one to me again.
I agree. Nothing there that I see that would incite fanatics to show up.
I did make a couple typos, though, apparently.
Now, if that's the general sort of way you meant it. Then I agree and support this position.
That is pretty much what I meant.
I wonder if he realizes that frankly the edition war is over. Wizard's is not going backwards. Hell most posters have these things called lives. They aren't going to vote on something they have no interest in what so ever to "pad the results". The only people that voted on this, are probably the people that care about Modern d20 in the first place.
Most of the "simulation" modern d20 guys have long since moved on to Saga, or dropped d20 all together (because of how big a bag of Failure the pre saga d20 system was) they've already got a system they are quite happy with. (be it Saga, or something Non d20 all together)
Now for the useful part of this discussion.
I think Roles as they are in the 4e book could work with a Modern Fantasy game pretty readily. There would be some slight tweaking and adjusting here and there, (namely adding in more non combat Utilities, changing combat powers somewhat.)
Guns contrary to what some posters believe are less lethal than melee weapons so there's no need for them to be more powerful than the melee options realistically speaking if anything they should be -less lethal-.
It's obviously now that I've read through the PHB once the general power level of everything is right-shifted (given a Power vs. XP scatterplot, cough) in 4E. So has Massive Damage from Modern been considered? I always found that one of the more compelling rules, it kept my Modern players afraid of being shot long after their hit points surpassed the possible damage they could take from a critical hit handgun (4d6). As it should be, even heroes should be kind of wary of being shot, at least until 15th+ maybe.
Any thought into adaptation of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies for Modern? Maybe Strong Hero becomes Generic Action Hero, and Tough Hero becomes Marv from Sin City. These tiers may not be needed for 4E Modern. After all, it would not be insurmountable to just extend the Hero system all the way to 30th level. But, people like seeing a change or specialization of a class, in my opinion, over long periods of time. Something obvious like Soldier might apply to Strong Hero, coming right out of the d20 Modern rulebook, but the problem with the open-endedness of the multiclassing conversion is a Fast or Tough Hero was only 1, max 2 levels behind before they could become Soldiers as well. Thoughts?
And as a total side note, I like the 4E adaptation of action points. Practically right out of Modern...Know we were doing something right.
I agree. Nothing there that I see that would incite fanatics to show up.
Where is the same trolling for voters for the other side?
We know CyberDave was chatting it up on the Starwars board about Modern going 4e/Saga,
so he knew there were interested folks that like Saga there,
yet ye chose not te let them know, seemingly cause it fit his agenda to have selective amnesia
What is his solution to fix his cheating the poll?
He suggests others can cheat the poll too in the other direction to be fair for his cheating.
Problem with that is, the guys that are not on his side are not a bunch of cheaters... we dont stoop to stacking a poll with ringers
You know I bet if there had been 65 percent of the vote going towards a 3e/pre Saga based system backstabbist would be claiming Victory
"Don't dare impune me honor, boy." - Barbarose
You accuse the guy that didnt cheat the poll of having no inegrity,
based on what?
nice personal attack attempt, ineffective and incorrect, but nice
Your D&D edition war must be over,
cause it appears the 4e Crusaders are now spilling over into the friendly Modern forums
to create war where there was war not.
The Condition Chart, I've found works better than the old Massive Damage rules.
Also I believe there's a rule about taking your bloodied value worth of hp damage from one shot and making a save vs death. (either it was someone's house rule or it's in the phb somewhere I can't remember though for sure so I won't swear to it)
backstabbist: based on your snide, elitist and derisive remarks and in general poor attitude. I -know- you have no integrity. There are no "ringers' in this because frankly no one cares that much to do so. Sorry. Dave decided to raise awareness of this thread's existence in the forum because he has an interest in this game moving forward. Frankly there's so few posters down here that (because of how far down the forum is from the other forums. Or Up as the case may be) that I doubt many of the voters were even aware this forum existed until that link popped up.
Go ahead and link this to 3e General. Of if you like I'll do it for you. I've already hit the Saga board for you.
Unless Dave hacked the poll and fudged results he didn't "cheat" the poll. So I and others would appreciate it if you would quit flaming Dave unless you have evidence of him hacking the forum.
Your D&D edition war must be over, cause it appears the 4e Crusaders are now spilling over into the friendly Modern forums to create war where there was war not.
You are the one doing 90% of the huffing & puffing !!!
All we want is to discuss how the inevitable migration of Modern towards to 4E mechanics will take shape. This IS THE MODERN BOARD so we will keep on discussing it HERE. Its the appropriate place.
If they did it right I'd love a Saga based system. (Please make it so that there's more overt magical effects going on than what the Force often brings... though later supplements introduced more overt force powers such as Incinerate or whatever it was called) I would probably be disappointed somewhat that I didn't get my Modern Fantasy but I could easily live with a Saga and enjoy it.
If they made it a 4e based game, I'd probably be in heaven. Either direction Wizards takes this is a Win Win for me.
Now if Hell Froze Over, and they some how decided that "hur hur hur 3e is the best!" I'd probably drop off the face of these boards until the next time they were going to revise it. I am -not- going backwards. (I doubt they would do this however. Saga works brilliantly, as does 4e. I don't think they'd try to fix the Big Mess when they have two systems that can work brilliantly for this application already)
I like 4e, I LOVE 4e, but I also love 3e. I personally think of them as an apple and an orange. My group runs games with both editions because we like how one handles certain things over the other. And until I see something that proves me wrong, like hopefully NeuroSpasta, then I'm still on the fence about how 4e could really portray a non-FX, non-superheroic Modern game. (Which is the style I play the most) I mean, I have and have seen a lot of good ideas of how it COULD with modification, but I'm not ready to throw my hat into the "PLEASE MAKE A 4E MODERN" ring yet.
But on the other side of that, hasn't this board's entire purpose been about "making things work" since day 1?
Just my two cents.
Yet, pretty much everyone I know loves SAGA.
So, it's a no-brainer...
You know, in all honesty, the "we like 4e, therefor your opinion is invalid" attitude is just as annoying as the "we like 3e, therefor your opinion is invalid" one.
I like 4e, I LOVE 4e, but I also love 3e. I personally think of them as an apple and an orange. My group runs games with both editions because we like how one handles certain things over the other. And until I see something that proves me wrong, like hopefully NeuroSpasta, then I'm still on the fence about how 4e could really portray a non-FX, non-superheroic Modern game. (Which is the style I play the most) I mean, I have and have seen a lot of good ideas of how it COULD with modification, but I'm not ready to throw my hat into the "PLEASE MAKE A 4E MODERN" ring yet.
But on the other side of that, hasn't this board's entire purpose been about "making things work" since day 1?
Just my two cents.
I guess this is pretty much how I feel. Well, I don't LOVE 4e yet, but I mean come on, that'd just be crazy.
I am -not- going backwards.
going from Modern to Modern2.0 is not backwards
That is what you guys keep forgetting,
we are not D&D3x guys here, we are Modern guys here.
ITS A DIFFERENT GAME
myself I've been a lurker of these boards off and on for quite sometime. This poll was what really got me talking at all, on any serious level recently.
not me
I've been a big part of the Modern board since the Razoreface days
(right up to when WoC decided to kick us in our Glemaxes with the board scramble)
Let me ask you a question on playing a modern game:
Given a 8d8 explosion of radius 40',
should the guy 35' from the blast point
take the same damage as the guy that was standing on the bomb?
Or less cause explosions get weaker farther from the origin?
We know CyberDave was chatting it up on the Starwars board about Modern going 4e/Saga,
so he knew there were interested folks that like Saga there,
yet ye chose not te let them know, seemingly cause it fit his agenda to have selective amnesia
No, sorry, we have been over that:
Sorry, what? Other than the Land of Nod, I have not taken part in any Star Wars forum threads in months. As in, long before this poll was ever released. And, to be honest, it is a post in this forum that got me to go back and start checking/updating The Land of Nod again. I don't know what thread you are talking about, or how old it is, but you need to pull your head out of whatever you have been drowning it in.
After writing that post, yesterday, I made my first post on the Saga forums, outside of the Land of Nod thread, in many months. So, I don't know what forum you "know" I was chatting people up in, but your are either crazy or are lying, or have conveniently developed your own case of selective amnesia (by not checking the time stamp on my posts in order to date my participation) in order to twist the truth in order to try and slander me. I didn't post in the Saga forums because my participation level in those forums has dropped off into the virtually non-existent levels. I checked the Land of Nod thread from my favorites list once in a blue moon, and I even stopped updating that. It is not until AFTER this poll came into existence that I started wandering back into the Saga forums, and updating the Land of Nod again.
So, no, I didn't develop selective amnesia. I didn't choose where I would "let people know" selectively. I just don't know what the state of those forums is, or where in those forums d20 Modern fans hang out. I was, recently, hanging out in the 4E forums, however, and knew that a bunch of Modern fans are hanging out in the Future Release forums (based on recent threads).
It's obviously now that I've read through the PHB once the general power level of everything is right-shifted (given a Power vs. XP scatterplot, cough) in 4E. So has Massive Damage from Modern been considered? I always found that one of the more compelling rules, it kept my Modern players afraid of being shot long after their hit points surpassed the possible damage they could take from a critical hit handgun (4d6). As it should be, even heroes should be kind of wary of being shot, at least until 15th+ maybe.
Actually, yes, I have considered Massive Damage. Check in my signature under the house rules section. There is one for upping the grittiness of 4E. Its all about re-inserting Massive Damage mechanics.
What is more, I have also considered making those rules into Condition track rules. I think I would do it in a manner similar to how I wrote my Massive Damage rules, but I would say that if a character ever takes more damage then their Healing Surge value they drop 1 step down the Condition Track. But, I have not (as of yet) transformed my thoughts on the Condition Track system in 4e into actual written house rules.
Any thought into adaptation of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies for Modern? Maybe Strong Hero becomes Generic Action Hero, and Tough Hero becomes Marv from Sin City. These tiers may not be needed for 4E Modern. After all, it would not be insurmountable to just extend the Hero system all the way to 30th level. But, people like seeing a change or specialization of a class, in my opinion, over long periods of time. Something obvious like Soldier might apply to Strong Hero, coming right out of the d20 Modern rulebook, but the problem with the open-endedness of the multiclassing conversion is a Fast or Tough Hero was only 1, max 2 levels behind before they could become Soldiers as well. Thoughts?
I would use Paragon Paths as a replacement for prestige classes. I would use a mechanic similar to Paragon Paths, called Advanced Paths, which can be chosen at level 3. I would divide PP and AP into classes, just like powers are divided into classes. However, as I said, I would allow characters to choose powers from any class (with their base class only granting a benefit to using powers from that class, not restricting people to choosing powers from that class), and I would allow any character with a certain number of powers from another class to qualify for an AP. To pick a PP a character would have to either be the class that that PP belongs to, or have picked an AP that belongs to the same class as that PP belongs to. That is how I would do it.
And as a total side note, I like the 4E adaptation of action points. Practically right out of Modern...Know we were doing something right.
Me too.
myself I've been a lurker of these boards off and on for quite sometime. This poll was what really got me talking at all, on any serious level recently.
If they did it right I'd love a Saga based system. (Please make it so that there's more overt magical effects going on than what the Force often brings... though later supplements introduced more overt force powers such as Incinerate or whatever it was called) I would probably be disappointed somewhat that I didn't get my Modern Fantasy but I could easily live with a Saga and enjoy it.
If they made it a 4e based game, I'd probably be in heaven. Either direction Wizards takes this is a Win Win for me.
Now if Hell Froze Over, and they some how decided...[to go with 3e] I'd probably drop off the face of these boards until the next time they were going to revise it. I am -not- going backwards...
That is pretty much my feelings as well. Though, like some others here, I think the 4E will need some modification to work for a Modern game, which is why I voted for a Saga/4E hybrid system. But:
You know, in all honesty, the "we like 4e, therefor your opinion is invalid" attitude is just as annoying as the "we like 3e, therefor your opinion is invalid" one.
I like 4e, I LOVE 4e, but I also love 3e. I personally think of them as an apple and an orange. My group runs games with both editions because we like how one handles certain things over the other. And until I see something that proves me wrong, like hopefully NeuroSpasta, then I'm still on the fence about how 4e could really portray a non-FX, non-superheroic Modern game. (Which is the style I play the most) I mean, I have and have seen a lot of good ideas of how it COULD with modification, but I'm not ready to throw my hat into the "PLEASE MAKE A 4E MODERN" ring yet.
But on the other side of that, hasn't this board's entire purpose been about "making things work" since day 1?
Just my two cents.
Its not that anyone's opinion is invalid. Its that I personally dislike 3e enough to not want to purchase another 3e product. Playing 3e feels like a step backwards to me. The only 3e product I can still play (Monte Cook's WoD) is so heavily house ruled, it too is closer to Saga than it is to 3e. As for those who prefer 3e, their opinion is not invalid, but their opinion does seem to be in the minority. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with that preference. Everyone has the right to prefer whatever it is they genuinely prefer. 3e simply does not match up with my tastes. I hope my tastes are the majority, and am happy that they seem to be the majority according to the poll, because I hope for a new release of this game that matches my tastes.
All we want is to discuss how the inevitable migration of Modern towards to 4E mechanics will take shape
Then you should do that back at the general business version forum rather than here,
cause we here know full well we are not going to get any new version published by WoC in any reasonable time frame. You guys from the D&D side of the boards think WoC just puts out book after book for games, well, that aint how it happens for Modern. If you want to talk about what WoC might do for Modern2, do that somewhere else... we are talking about what we ARE doing for integrating things we like from thoer systems into Modern.... making ModernHR (modern HouseRuled)
If you wanted to talk about putting 4e stuff into Modern, heres a great thread you should have been taking part in 4e Modern Anime. Some of us are trying to integrate 4e stuff into a modern game, and some appear to be just bringing version war speculation to our board without actually trying to help guys play today.
oops
I forgot.... we are not supposed to bring up the 4e Anime thread that the OP abandoned when I stopped helping
Then you should do that back at the general business version forum rather than here,
cause we here know full well we are not going to get any new version published by WoC in any reasonable time frame. You guys from the D&D side of the boards think WoC just puts out book after book for games, well, that aint how it happens for Modern. If you want to talk about what WoC might do for Modern2, do that somewhere else... we are talking about what we ARE doing for integrating things we like from thoer systems into Modern.... making ModernHR (modern HouseRuled)
These are the d20 Modern forums, not the Backstabbist's d20 Modern forums. Any discussion about the d20 Modern brand belongs in these forums. However, these forums are ruled over by a code of conduct. This code of conduct is not written by you, but WotC. This code of conduct forbids people to act like bullies towards posters whose tastes don't match up with theirs. So, if you plan to be an elitist who tells other fans of d20 Modern not to post here, YOU should leave. Antakar has been nothing but polite in any of these threads. He has the right to discuss what a 4E Modern game released by WotC might look like, if he so desires, in these forums. You have no right to request that he remove his presence, because his presence is not breaking the code of conduct.
You guys from the D&D side of the boards think WoC...
That's the problem right there... I currently run a Future Modern (just restarted after a one year stall) game, a SAGA game AND a D&D 4E game.
You are trying to paint us into something we are not... There is no black & white here.
Hell I don't even agree with all Cyber-Dave says about the new Modern. Cherry picking of Powers gives me the gibbers. It completely defeats the purpose of classes. D20 is a class base game as opposed to
GURPS where you buy powers with points.
BTW using 4E as a plateform to Modern 2.0 is THE SAME as using 3.5 D&D to speculate on Modern 1.0 when WotC announced the project. Nothing backwards there.
These are the d20 Modern forums, not the Backstabbist's d20 Modern forums. Any discussion about the d20 Modern brand belongs in these forums. However, these forums are ruled over by a code of conduct. This code of conduct is not written by you, but WotC. This code of conduct forbids people to act like bullies towards posters whose tastes don't match up with theirs. So, if you plan to be an elitist who tells other fans of d20 Modern not to post here, YOU should leave. Antakar has been nothing but polite in any of these threads. He has the right to discuss what a 4E Modern game released by WotC might look like, if he so desires, in these forums. You have no right to request that he remove his presence, because his presence is not breaking the code of conduct.
;)
tksSo your theory is that the Modern board is the best place to speculate on a future release,
for the purpose of speculation on WoC product instead of helping Modern gamers now,
rather than posting speculations on future releases on the board called Future Releases
just what do you think they talk about over at the Future Releases board... lasagna recipes?
And they are not the CyberDaves 4e Modern board either
So your theory is that the Modern board is the best place to speculate on a future release,
for the purpose of speculation on WoC product instead of helping Modern gamers now,
rather than posting speculations on future releases on the board called Future Releases
just what do you think they talk about over at the Future Releases board... lasagna recipes?
Again you view things as TWO mutualy excluding options. There are not. I currently post about my vision of Modern 2.0 (the possible future) and I maintain a Modern 1.0 thread about my campaign «Rise of the Kinori» (the current edition of Modern).
No contradiction there its just how things are for the moment wheter you like it or not.
BTW using 4E as a plateform to Modern 2.0 is THE SAME as using 3.5 D&D to speculate on Modern 1.0 when WotC announced the project. Nothing backwards there.
Being a different game we can just pluck out the decent 20% of 4e from what D&D did with it,
throw out the rest,
and have Modern2 that is a different game than D&D4e.
I am willing to see some of 4e brought over.... I was working on that in some threads,
but CyberDaves camp is MyWay Or Highway... such as not letting folks choose noncombat, and his abandonment of allowing the modern world into anyones ability to play Modern
Being a different game we can just pluck out the decent 20% of 4e from what D&D did with it,
throw out the rest,
and have Modern2 that is a different game than D&D4e.
I am willing to see some of 4e brought over.... I was working on that in some threads, but CyberDaves camp is MyWay Or Highway... such as not letting folks choose noncombat, and his abandonment of allowing the modern world into anyones ability to play Modern
I chose not to read those MONSTER POSTS. Unfortunetly, I have no opinion on what happened.
And they are not the CyberDaves 4e Modern board either
No, they are not. That does not change a word of what I have just said to you.
So your theory is that the Modern board is the best place to speculate on a future release,
for the purpose of speculation on WoC product instead of helping Modern gamers now,
rather than posting speculations on future releases on the board called Future Releases
just what do you think they talk about over at the Future Releases board... lasagna recipes?
The Future Releases would be a perfect place to talk about the release of future products. Likewise, the d20 Modern forums are the perfect place to talk about anything to do with the Modern product brand. This entire thread is about what the community desires from a future release of d20 Modern. And yet here we are, in the d20 Modern forum. You have no right to ask anyone to leave, or to tell people what sort of threads and posts they may or may not post here. Don't presume to do so.
Being a different game we can just pluck out the decent 20% of 4e from what D&D did with it,
throw out the rest,
and have Modern2 that is a different game than D&D4e.
I am willing to see some of 4e brought over.... I was working on that in some threads,
but CyberDaves camp is MyWay Or Highway... such as not letting folks choose noncombat, and his abandonment of allowing the modern world into anyones ability to play Modern
But that is not what "we," as in those of us calling for a 4E Modern, want. What we want is a 4E game that is reorganized into a Modern game. The fact that you want a 3e platform with some 4e elements is fine. But, neither I, nor anyone who created the 4E Modern threads, is beholden to aquieste (spelling?) to your desires. That is not what we want. When you head into threads that state, from the outset, that they are a 4E based thread with an agenda to work on a 4E based d20 Modern game, and then try and push your 3e platform agenda, you are not helping the OP goals. Couple that with the anti-4E vitriol that you spewed with those very same posts, and you are, in fact, doing nothing but trolling. What you got told is exactly what you will get told, if you choose to perform that action, again. Either help with the original posters stated aims, or create your own thread with your own stated agenda.
And a lot of work....Hmmm, screw that.
As a fluffy side note to this, it WOULD be kinda interesting if we all worked together on a 3e sprinkled with 4e and a 4e sprinkled with 3e. At near-completion, then we'd have four different products to consider, from pure 3e to pure 4e. I think it'd be fantastic.
And a lot of work....Hmmm, screw that.
LOL... Not shure I want to «create» a game but don't mind giving my point of view on the 4.S* version. I would not interfere into the 3.4E** thread if it ever gets created since I have no interest in such a version. Simply not my style.
*4.S : 4E+SAGA
*3.4E : Modern + 4E elements.
LOL... Not shure I want to «create» a game but don't mind giving my point of view on the 4.S* version. I would not interfere into the 3.4E** thread if it ever gets created since I have no interest in such a version. Simply not my style.
*4.S : 4E+SAGA
*3.4E : Modern + 4E elements.
Same thoughts as mine.
oops
I forgot.... we are not supposed to bring up the 4e Anime thread that the OP abandoned when I stopped helping
I haven't abandoned my 4e anime project. I set it aside while writing my end-of-semester papers and studying for my finals. Now that they are done with, I have been putting serious effort towards it.
And just for the record Bs (which is a fitting way to shorten your name), I am an adult and will spend my time however I choose to. Not the way you would have me spend it.
I haven't abandoned my 4e anime project. I set it aside while writing my end-of-semester papers and studying for my finals. Now that they are done with, I have been putting serious effort towards it.
And just for the record Bs (which is a fitting way to shorten your name), I am an adult and will spend my time however I choose to. Not the way you would have me spend it.
:heeheeAnd just for the record Bs (which is a fitting way to shorten your name), I am an adult and will spend my time however I choose to. Not the way you would have me spend it.
I third that sentiment. I post in whatever forums I choose, not forums backstabbists chooses. I post, to let people know about a poll, where I want to post. I create threads to make the sort of games I want to make. When I participate in some other posters thread, I help them with their stated goals. I really don't understand where backstabbist gets off presuming to have the right to change any of that. My way or the highway? Damn straight. If I am working on house rules, I work on house rules to make MY sort of game. If a poster creates a thread to create a specific sort of game, people who post on that thread should be posting to help that poster create HIS sort of game. End of story. There is no, "well this poster wants this sort of game, and I want that sort of game, so the OP must meet me half-way to create a game other than what he/she wants to play."
I third that sentiment. I post in whatever forums I choose, not forums backstabbists chooses. I post, to let people know about a poll, where I want to post. I create threads to make the sort of games I want to make. When I participate in some other posters thread, I help them with their stated goals. I really don't understand where backstabbist gets off presuming to have the right to change any of that. My way or the highway? Damn straight. If I am working on house rules, I work on house rules to make MY sort of game. If a poster creates a thread to create a specific sort of game, people who post on that thread should be posting to help that poster create HIS sort of game. End of story. There is no, "well this poster wants this sort of game, and I want that sort of game, so the OP must meet me half-way to create a game other than what he/she wants to play."
I agree completely.
That said, I think it bears mentioning that this only applies to homebrews and posts. The actual published content of the game should, in fact, be something as functional and enjoyable as possible for as many people as possible. Content that WotC publishes should be something more of an inbetween when it comes to what people want, with exception to leaning more toward the majority, and above all else, functionality.
Like I said, I agree. I just don't want anyone to find a way to twist it around to support the idea that the very game itself should be only ONE way...notably THEIR way...whomever THEY are.
Like I said, I agree. I just don't want anyone to find a way to twist it around to support the idea that the very game itself should be only ONE way...notably THEIR way...whomever THEY are.
I disagree,
I want the game to be MY way,
and my way is so that everyone can play any way they choose to ;)
Dont make it a FantasyFightgame,
make it a Universal game that can be played as a FantasyFightgame or as a NonFX Modern game or any combination desired of thoughtfully integrated parts. That means the opposite of the broke joke d20Future.
And just for the record Bs (which is a fitting way to shorten your name), I am an adult and will spend my time however I choose to. Not the way you would have me spend it.
Hardly.
I demand you post here...... or else
I disagree,
I want the game to be MY way,
and my way is so that everyone can play any way they choose to ;)
Sorry, the way I want to play is not supported by the game done your way. I have no interest in purchasing, or working on house rules for, a game designed your way.
You want a sperate list of NonCombat powers to be gained alongside the combat powers, right? So the simple solution is to have the PowerLists have a "TypeC" or "TypeN" on the card to denote if it is a Combat or Noncombat power for Dave, and instead of the charcter picking any two powers each level, DaveGame characters get to pick "One TypeC and One TypeN"
Dave wants frontloaded HP and plenty of Healing Surges. Again, simple solution: When creating chars for DaveGames just x5 your 1st Level HP and x3 your Surges. Presto, front loaded HP for Dave
And we all know Dave really doesnt want to have any NonCombat Classes in his games... the simple solution is that in DaveGames he just doenst allow the noncombat classes that are denoted as such in the book. Just because it is in the book dont mean every one of your campaigns has to have it.
Now, I know Dave is gonna have a problem with having to lift a finger,
so we can easily flip it so he dosnt have to:
The classes can have gobs of HP & Surges, and simple instructions on how to /5 and /2 them.
There can be two separate powers list for Dave, Combat and Noncombat, and those of us that want can just freely "Pick Two freely from either"
And the fun part is where the book can have a section on the verbotten noncombat classes that are not to be played, and those of us outside of Daves reach can play them
What else are you wanting Dave?
I like the coniditon track from Saga, I think that the current multiclassing rules SHOULD NOT BE MESSED WITH.
I also think that if the guns are impropley stated some one on staff should be wounded iwth one of the guns that they messed up on.
I also think the basic classes should be put into such things as "strikers" etc...that to me feels like shoe horning your charcter into a role...
I want my princess type charcter to be a "Striker,defender,pulmber" or whatever she wants to be by HER OWN defeintion not what the book says...
What else are you wanting Dave?
A game that actually satisfies my needs. I have been pretty clear on what those are. None of your "suggestions" would do so. Your desired game does not satisfy my needs. I neither desire to work on house rules for your desired game, nor do I wish to purchase a game designed to your stated desired aims. That would not be the game I want to play. I think I have been pretty clear on that. And you know what, its my right to hold to that position. I don't need to have the same tastes as you.
the next version of modern I would like to see would automatically assume that the defualt isn't fantasy for the game,but it owuld have an FX chapter like it currently does explaining how to put varying degress of magic and other things like PSI etc...
I like the coniditon track from Saga, I think that the current multiclassing rules SHOULD NOT BE MESSED WITH.
I also think that if the guns are impropley stated some one on staff should be wounded iwth one of the guns that they messed up on.
I also think the basic classes should be put into such things as "strikers" etc...that to me feels like shoe horning your charcter into a role...
I want my princess type charcter to be a "Striker,defender,pulmber" or whatever she wants to be by HER OWN defeintion not what the book says...
Opening up powers would belittle the Role stuff in 4E, but slider, the roles aren't really set in stone even in 4E. They're suggestions for adventuring party planning. It's really just the classic "rogue, cleric, warrior, wizard" quartet expressed in, cough, MMO terms.
There's a whole few pages on NOT following the ideal quota, but the advantages/disadvantages said parties may face. d20 Modern was hardly any different (a team of 5 Smart Heroes would probably not do too well, likewise a team of 5 Strong Heroes is screwed once they need to hack Vista or die saving throw).
I have been pretty clear on what those are. None of your "suggestions" would do so.
yeah, I thought you wanted separate power lists for Combat & Noncombat powers.... dont you?
So by me putting the powers into two lists that doesnt satisfy your need for separate lists?
What more do you want for the two power lists that some folks will combine and some (you) wont?
What more do you want for the two power lists that some folks will combine and some (you) wont?
1) The idea of having separate power lists, but allowing characters, with the DM's permission, to trade out attack powers for utility powers was not your suggestion. It was mine. You can look earlier in this thread and see for yourself, and the 4E Modern Classes thread, and see for yourself.
2) Lots of stuff, the majority of which your "suggestions" would ruin. For example:
You want a sperate list of NonCombat powers to be gained alongside the combat powers, right? So the simple solution is to have the PowerLists have a "TypeC" or "TypeN" on the card to denote if it is a Combat or Noncombat power for Dave, and instead of the charcter picking any two powers each level, DaveGame characters get to pick "One TypeC and One TypeN"
This is pretty much what 4E did. You are not actually suggesting anything.
Dave wants frontloaded HP and plenty of Healing Surges. Again, simple solution: When creating chars for DaveGames just x5 your 1st Level HP and x3 your Surges. Presto, front loaded HP for Dave
Awesome. So, now we will have a game whose math is not actually carefully thought out, because the game will have two different numbers, none of which the overarching math is specifically designed to work well with. Numbers to satisfy my tastes. Numbers to satisfy yours. And a system that is not really built to work well with either, because its built to try and accommodate two different systems with one game. Or else the system will only work with one set of numbers, and the others will simply offer a broken solution to one of us. Great idea! No thanks.
And we all know Dave really doesnt want to have any NonCombat Classes in his games... the simple solution is that in DaveGames he just doenst allow the noncombat classes that are denoted as such in the book. Just because it is in the book dont mean every one of your campaigns has to have it.
Sorry. I like Smart Heroes. I like Charismatic Heroes. I want to be able to play combat capable Smart Heroes and Charismatic Heroes. I am ok with the option to build non-combat characters. I am not ok with any class existing specifically as a non-combat class. That does not satisfy my tastes. Not because you can't play what you want, but because I can't play what I want: a combat character who is a member of one of these proposed "non-combat" classes (which I do not agree are thematically designed to be non-combat in the RAW of d20 Modern).
Now, I know Dave is gonna have a problem with having to lift a finger,
so we can easily flip it so he dosnt have to:
The classes can have gobs of HP & Surges, and simple instructions on how to /5 and /2 them.
There can be two separate powers list for Dave, Combat and Noncombat, and those of us that want can just freely "Pick Two freely from either"
So, you want a rule book with virtually no rules in it. Just a bunch of stated powers, and the suggestion that we build our own game out of it? Somehow I don't imagine that working very well. It could work, but I don't imagine that it will. And, it also begs the question, why would I be purchasing that product? I can piece together my own game out of existing material already. What I want is a cohesive product, which works, and suites my tastes.
And the fun part is where the book can have a section on the verbotten noncombat classes that are not to be played, and those of us outside of Daves reach can play them
What about those of us who want to play one of these "non-combat classes" in a combat capable manner?
What else are you wanting Dave?
A well thought out, carefully crafted, game, whose math works, and which is designed to appeal to my tastes. That is what I want. And I can totally understand if what I want is not what you want, because we have different tastes. But stop pretending that your solution is the one that is best for everyone. It isn't. It doesn't even appeal to the majority. Your solution does not appeal to my tastes. I have no desire to work on house rules for that project, or to purchase a game designed under your philosophy of game design. I am not saying others should not desire that project, or wish to purchase it. But I don't. And, the votes here seem to suggest that the majority does not either.
After writing that post, yesterday, I made my first post on the Saga forums, outside of the Land of Nod thread, in many months. So, I don't know what forum you "know" I was chatting people up in, but your are either crazy or are lying, or have conveniently developed your own case of selective amnesia (by not checking the time stamp on my posts in order to date my participation) in order to twist the truth in order to try and slander me
looks like its back to just calling folks LIAR rather than finding out if they are telling the truth or not.... again.
So I wil AGAIN have to deal with Mr Personal Attack flasely calling me a liar
(get some new material Dave, or learn how to use this schtick correctly)
So, like I said, me personally, I am very unhappy with 3e. I find 4e does Fantasy better, Saga does Sci-fi and modern games better, and McWoD (heavily house ruled, mind you) does modern horror better.
Its amazing how I make no mention of timing,
yet Dave has to bring up my lack of timestamping his posts in StarWars board. I never said it happened this week, this month, or even this quarter.... you you get no points for claiming to shoot me down with timestamps
Dave, before you called me a liar for saying you posted about Modern in the Starwars area,
did you even bother to do a simple SEARCH for Cyber-Dave posts with 'modern' in the Starwars & Child Forums?
no, apparently you didnt
cause your posts are readily findable with the search function
yet you jump straight to accusing me of being a liar because I refered to them
Since you keep calling me a liar,
and I keep proving you wrong,
perhaps one of us is a liar for flasely calling the other one so many times
You again called me a liar, and again your accusation was a lie
oh, and lets hear that soundbite again
"I find 4e does Fantasy better, Saga does Sci-fi and modern games better, and...."
wow, Saga does modern better than 4e... hmmm
Sorry. I like Smart Heroes. I like Charismatic Heroes. I want to be able to play combat capable Smart Heroes and Charismatic Heroes. I am ok with the option to build non-combat characters. I am not ok with any class existing specifically as a non-combat class. That does not satisfy my tastes. Not because you can't play what you want, but because I can't play what I want: a combat character who is a member of one of these proposed "non-combat" classes (which I do not agree are thematically designed to be non-combat in the RAW of d20 Modern).
Who said you wont have your fighty style Smart up with the rest of the fighty classes,
and there will be the not fighty Brilliant class that you wont like down in the noncombat classes. I dont mind, you can have all 6 fight style classes including your fighty Smart, and below that we can have the classes you dont want to have... like Brilliant and Expert
you really are trying to just not accept that I am more than happy to let you play your way
as for the math involved,
now you are upset that I will just lower the HP and surges of the numbers you like in the book? You get the numbers you want, how exactly do you plan on prventing anyone from just dividing their HP and subracting X from all the monsters? This is what you are proposing, to somehow FORBID folks from lowering the numbers in the book across the board at their houses.... right?
looks like its back to just calling folks LIAR rather than finding out if they are telling the truth or not.... again.
Not folks. You. Because you are lying.
So I wil AGAIN have to deal with Mr Personal Attack flasely calling me a liar (get some new material Dave, or learn how to use this schtick correctly)
Did you or did you not claim that I intentionally did not post, to let people know about this poll, in the Saga forums, which I recently partook in a discussion about a 4e Modern game? Because, it seems to me that is what you were trying to infer when you posted this:
We know CyberDave was chatting it up on the Starwars board about Modern going 4e/Saga,
so he knew there were interested folks that like Saga there,
yet ye chose not te let them know, seemingly cause it fit his agenda to have selective amnesia
And that claim is a lie.
Its amazing how I make no mention of timing,
yet Dave has to bring up my lack of timestamping his posts in StarWars board. I never said it happened this week, this month, or even this quarter.... you you get no points for claiming to shoot me down with timestamps
Its not amazing at all. Your general style is to take things out of context in order to try and twist the truth. That is what you do. I have come to expect it of you. But hey, lets look at that time stamp: 09-17-08. So, roughly 7 and a half months ago. So, basically, when I said this:
After writing that post, yesterday, I made my first post on the Saga forums, outside of the Land of Nod thread, in many months. So, I don't know what forum you "know" I was chatting people up in, but your are either crazy or are lying, or have conveniently developed your own case of selective amnesia (by not checking the time stamp on my posts in order to date my participation) in order to twist the truth in order to try and slander me...
I was correct. You tried to twist the truth, because the truth is I have not chatted anyone up, in the Saga forums, especially about a potential for a new Modern game, in about 7 1/2 months (at least until my very recent resurgence in those forums, during which I did see a presence of one thread talking about d20 Modern, and this poll specifically, and I did tell people there to come and vote if they want to see a Saga Modern). Well before the 04-13-09, 05:49 AM time stamp of this threads creation. A thread that was created after I largely, as I said, became inactive on the Saga forums. Hence why I didn't let anyone know about this poll over in the Saga forums (until my resurgence of activity in the Saga forums). When I become prescient, I will be sure to let people know about threads that will not exist for a good half-year to come.
So what was that about you keep proving me wrong again? When was the last time you actually proved me wrong about anything? Because I don't remember an occasion. I do remember a couple occasions where I have proven you empirically wrong in this thread alone.
P.S. In regards to:
oh, and lets hear that soundbite again
"I find 4e does Fantasy better, Saga does Sci-fi and modern games better, and...."
wow, Saga does modern better than 4e... hmmm
The neat thing about opinions is that they sometimes change. After 7 1/2 months of me playing 4e, my opinion on its capability of running a Modern game has changed. But, that being said, 4e STILL does Fantasy better out of the box, and Saga STILL does sci-fi and modern games better out of the box. There is also no need for a Saga sci-fi/modern game to be released. The Saga rules can largely be used as written. All one needs to do in order to run a Modern game with the system is to write some stat blocks for vehicles and other modern equipment. Its not a hard task. I can do that myself. So, why do I want to purchase a game that I have already purchased again? I already bought Saga. In fact, I own every Saga book published to date, except for one (which I will buy soon). I would rather WotC release something I don't already own. Something like, say, 4e Modern.
Who said you wont have your fighty style Smart up with the rest of the fighty classes,
and there will be the not fighty Brilliant class that you wont like down in the noncombat classes. I dont mind, you can have all 6 fight style classes including your fighty Smart, and below that we can have the classes you dont want to have... like Brilliant and Expert
you really are trying to just not accept that I am more than happy to let you play your way
as for the math involved,
now you are upset that I will just lower the HP and surges of the numbers you like in the book? You get the numbers you want, how exactly do you plan on prventing anyone from just dividing their HP and subracting X from all the monsters? This is what you are proposing, to somehow FORBID folks from lowering the numbers in the book across the board at their houses.... right?
If you are basically suggesting that they will release the game I want to play, and then you will use house rules to "butcher/transform" (depending on ones perspective) that system into something I would not want to play, but you would want to play, I am totally cool with that.
If you are basically suggesting that they will release the game I want to play, and then you will use house rules to "butcher/transform" (depending on ones perspective) that system into something I would not want to play, but you would want to play, I am totally cool with that.
and if it were the other way around?
and if it were the other way around?
I am not ok with it. For obvious reasons. I won't buy the product.
That doesn not mean that the product should not be released, or that it would be inferior to my desires. But it would not cater to my desires and so I would not buy it. The real question, then, is: are my desires closer to those desired by the majority of WotCs customer base, or not? If they are closer, something closer to my desires should be released. If not, then it sucks to be me. I will just have to write my own Modern game (if I want it to exist). I contend that poll indicates that something closer to my desires is what is probably desired by the majority of WotCs customers.
The real question, then, is: are my desires closer to those desired by the majority of WotCs customer base, or not?
no, the question is
What form would you like to see d20 modern re-released in?
it is not asking what we speculate will be the most popular,
it is asking each of us what we want.
Some of us want a game everyone can play,
and some of us appear to be far less reasonable, making it intentionally restricted to just what they want
If you are basically suggesting that they will release the game I want to play, and then you will use house rules to "butcher/transform" (depending on ones perspective) that system into something I would not want to play, but you would want to play, I am totally cool with that
By houserule 'butcher/transform" you must mean 'use the other classes in section B of the classes chapter'.
so you wont mind getting your now 6 fighty-style classes in section A of the classes chapter (including fight balanced Smart and Cha), and just not reading section B that has the noncombat classes (like Brilliant and Expert) that you dont want in your game but some of us do?
If you get the classes you want in the book, can us noncombat folks get our classes too?
no, the question is
What form would you like to see d20 modern re-released in?
it is not asking what we speculate will be the most popular,
it is asking each of us what we want.
That is the question of this thread, not the "real question behind which sort of game should be released," which is what I was referring to when I said the "real question is." In the end, the type of game that should be released is the one that will be most popular, because that game will generate the most revenue. The purpose of this thread is only to discover what sort of options are appealing/popular to the WotC community.
Some of us want a game everyone can play,
and some of us appear to be far less reasonable, making it intentionally restricted to just what they want
No, all of us want a game that we can play. What you want, your so called "game that everyone can play," is not a game that I can play. It does not cater to my desires or needs. I would not purchase it. Based on what you have described, it is an example of something that I would subjectively call bad game design. So stop pretending that what you want is a game that "everyone can play." Its not.
By houserule 'butcher/transform" you must mean 'use the other classes in section B of the classes chapter'.
If there are any "non combat classes" in the game, its not a game I can play. I won't purchase it. Non combat options within a class I am fine with. Full out non-combat classes is an example of what I believe to be poor game design.
so you wont mind getting your now 6 fighty-style classes in section A of the classes chapter (including fight balanced Smart and Cha), and just not reading section B that has the noncombat classes (like Brilliant and Expert) that you dont want in your game but some of us do?
I don't understand why fully non-combat classes should exist at all. I don't understand why the capabilities of your "non-combat classes" should not be folded into the "combat classes" as options. Preferably as options which are purchased from a different pool of resources then the classes attack options, though as I have said before, I am ok with side-bar rules that describe the mechanics of trading out combat options in favor of non-combat options.
If you get the classes you want in the book, can us noncombat folks get our classes too?
I believe that the existence of classes purely dedicated to non-combat activities, in d20 games, is an example of a poor mechanic. Like I said, I don't mind non-combat options within a class, but creating classes completely dedicated to non-combat options ends up leading to a broken game; and players choosing the non-combat classes because they like the classes thematic, only to realize their mistake in game. I have witnessed this happen in a game before. I have no interest in it being a mechanic present in the next version of d20 Modern that I will purchase. All classes should have options which allow them to contribute to combat situations in a meaningful way.
By houserule 'butcher/transform" you must mean 'use the other classes in section B of the classes chapter'.
If there are any "non combat classes" in the game, its not a game I can play. I won't purchase it. Non combat options within a class I am fine with. Full out non-combat classes is an example of what I believe to be poor game design.
and that is what makes you unreasonable
you cant even allow stuff you dont want to use to be printed in the book.
Just because my gaming group plays no FX doesnt mean we have to rip the Shadow parts of the book out and spray paint all the Section7 pages black.
A reasonable person would see Chpt3 Classes: SectionB, Noncomat Classes
and simply not even read that part of the book if they dont want those classes in their campaigns.
I have no problems with the game having the classes you want in the book,
and you must forbid the classed you dont want to play from being printed
One of us is being reasonable
and that is what makes you unreasonable
you cant even allow stuff you dont want to use to be printed in the book.
Once again, as stated before, I don't need to aquieste to your desires. I will purchase a game that I believe to be an example of good game design. If I look through the book, and see things in the book that I feel are examples of bad game design, it will not appeal to my tastes and I will not purchase it. I don't feel beholden to purchase a product that contains what I believe to be bad game design just because you happen to disagree, and like that sort of design. I am ok with classes having non-combat options. Indeed, I feel the game requires it to be a good game (though I prefer it when these options are purchased from a separate pool of resources then the combat options, at least when one uses the standard rules). However, classes that are fully dedicated as "non-combat classes" have never existed in any d20 Game. Even in the RAW of d20 Modern they were not intended to exist. The majority of all classes powers were still related to combat. Some classes just happened to be much better then other classes. This was not a case of "non-combat" classes existing, it was a case of the game not being well balanced. For a variety of reasons, I believe the existence of dedicated non-combat classes will create problems in the overarching frame of the game. End of story.
If you feel that that makes me unreasonable, so be it. I can live with that accusation coming from you. But in the end, I purchase what I like. I don't like d20 games with dedicated non-combat classes. The d20 mechanics do not lend themselves well to equally including characters specifically designed to participate in only combat or non-combat activities. For this reason, ALL classes should have the option to be combat capable in a manner that is balanced with all other classes. I am, however, ok with build options that allow these classes to be built in a non-combat manner.
you are now defending your position by trying to declare that classes grouped as "noncombat" are now to be defined as 'classes that are fully dedicated as "non-combat classes" '
It has already been said that no class is 100% noncombat.
But you go on thinking that the classes with reduced combat ability are fully combat inept.
Dave, do you really want all of us to stop considering the d20Modern RAW Smart class to be a 'noncombat' class?
What do you mandate we call them?
Strong Togh & Fast are 'combat classes'
while Smart Ded & Cha are "The Other Combat Classes"?
You've both made your point, several times. There is no agreement to be found, here. This is just an educated guess, here, but it seems to me that you're only continuing to fight about it out of stubbornness and inertia. There comes a point where mature adults just find a way to live with the disagreement without restarting the fight, over and over again.
Ahhh, I see
you are now defending your position by trying to declare that classes grouped as "noncombat" are now to be defined as 'classes that are fully dedicated as "non-combat classes" '
It has already been said that no class is 100% noncombat.
But you go on thinking that the classes with reduced combat ability are fully combat inept.
I also stated that all classes should have the option to be, roughly, 100% balanced against each other in combat.
Dave, do you really want all of us to stop considering the d20Modern RAW Smart class to be a 'noncombat' class?
Absolutely. I do not consider the smart hero to be a noncombat class. Out of 5 talents, 3 of a smart-heroes talents are related to combat. 60% of the class is dedicated to combat. Over half of the classes talents grant mechanics dedicated to combat. The smart hero is a combat class. It is simply a poorly balanced combat class.
What do you mandate we call them?
Strong Togh & Fast are 'combat classes'
while Smart Ded & Cha are "The Other Combat Classes"?
Yes. I call all the RAW d20 Modern classes combat classes, because the majority of all of their mechanics are dedicated to use in combat. What I would like to see, in the next version of Modern, is a game where ALL characters (including the strong, tough, and fast) get a plethora of non-combat options, and ALL the characters (including the smart, dedicated, and charisma) are granted the options required to potentially make all of them equally viable and effective in combat (though not necessarily in the same way. I do, after all, want different combat roles to exist).
You know that you both are still describing subjective preferences, right? You just happen to be describing them in terms that sound faintly objective, as if you were saying "I like X. You should too."
Absolutely we are describing subjective preferences. And, I can give quotes from some of my last couple posts which implicitly (and now explicitly) state that we are talking about subjective preferences. I simply take issue with him telling me that his subjective preferences are "better, more reasonable, or more inclusive," then mine. Both of us have subjective preferences. Chances are, neither of us would like the same game. Both of us obviously like different aspects of the d20 mechanics. That is totally fine and fair. I am totally ok with the fact that he doesn't have the same preferences as me. I am not ok with him telling me that his preferences are "better, more reasonable, or more inclusive" then mine. When he does so it riles me up, and illicits an angry response. As does his regular use of my name to misrepresent my tastes or desires. My preferences would not create a game that includes his preferences. But his preferences would not create a game that includes mine either.
You know that you both are still describing subjective preferences, right? You just happen to be describing them in terms that sound faintly objective, as if you were saying "I like X. You should too."
not at all,
I am not mandating that Dave play or even 'like' the classes in Classes SectionB.
He is free to play with or without them.... and he has been very adamant about not wanting to play with them. Just separating them out from the regular classes isnt good enough for him though.
Maybe if I rename Classes SectionB to
Classes Section "Dave Dont Read these 7 pages"
If the book has everything Dave wants,
but then it also has a Classes SectionB that Dave wont use,
he is very clear that he will refuse to buy that book that has everything he wants due to a 7page section he can just skip over
I'm not trying to get Dave to like the not fighty classes,
but just to not have a fit if they are in the book at all
I'm not trying to get Dave to like the not fighty classes,
but just to not have a fit if they are in the book at all
You don't get it, I don't care about the specifics of classes. What I care about is the paradigm of the games design. That is what my preferences revolve around. I would prefer not to buy or play a game that includes dedicated non-combat classes, by which I mean classes that do not have the option to be built in a manner that is roughly balanced (in terms of useful participation) to all other characters in combat (in terms of using the combat mechanics). If your section of non-combat classes exists, then the game will have been designed around a paradigm that does not match my preferences. It will have divided up combat and non-combat capability between different classes. I do not want to play or buy a d20 game that does this. This has nothing about me wanting to play "fighty" classes. This has to do with me wanting the combat and non-combat capabilities, that revolve around the same narrative theme, to be present within one single class. This is my preference. It does not have to be yours. I understand and respect that it is not. But I have no desire to work on, or play, a game that does not match my preferences. I expect you to hold much the same position. That is fair.
If your section of non-combat classes exists, then the game will have been designed around a paradigm that does not match my preferences.
oh, now you are just making it too easy
What about a game book that has everything you want, stat'ed as you want it, designed to your paradigm,
and all the stuff I want is in
Appendix A: Noncombat Campaigns- Classes, Powers, Rules & Adjustments
.... would you buy the book if you had the guy at the bookstore rip the 18 pages that are AppendixA out of the book.... there by making it everything you want and only everything you want?
Is that all it takes?
The bookseller ripping the 18page Appendix out of the horrible awful book for you,
to make it an awesome terrific book that has everything you want?
oh, now you are just making it too easy
What about a game book that has everything you want, stat'ed as you want it, designed to your paradigm,
and all the stuff I want is in
Appendix A: Noncombat Campaigns- Classes, Powers, Rules & Adjustments
.... would you buy the book if you had the guy at the bookstore rip the 18 pages that are AppendixA out of the book.... there by making it everything you want and only everything you want?
Is that all it takes?
The bookseller ripping the 18page Appendix out of the horrible awful book for you,
to make it an awesome terrific book that has everything you want?
You don't seem to understand, the existence of non-combat classes is antithetical to my desired paradigm of game design. They can not, in any shape or form, coexist with my desired paradigm. The non-combat abilities of your non-combat classes, in my desired paradigm, should be cut up and divided (as options) amongst what you call the "fighty classes" (based on appropriate thematic location). Your suggestion, by definition, can not coexist with my desired paradigm.
lets try this one.
Go ahead and make the game book exactly as you want it,
with nothing I want in it at all.
THEN, AFTER you have it just the way you want it,
I ask WoC to whip up the noncombat Appendix and they tuck those 18pages in behind your perfect game book.
So, you have the book designed exactly the way you want it,
and there is an 18page AppendixA that you dont want, added after the fact to the game deigned to your No-NonCombat paradigm along with all your other wants.
so, yet again,
given the book is just as you want it,
and there is a retrofit noncombat AppendixA you wont use,
will you ask the bookstore to rip out the offensive AppendixA that was tacked onto to your dream book
and then buy it?
- Roles will remain.
- Multiclassing will not be altered.
- Powers maybe become "buffet-style" to an extent, but they were separated by class for a reason.
- d20 Modern is not important enough to get its own rules. (Ok, that's just an opinion, but I had to throw it in here. Besides, it's probably how the Devs feel.)
- 4e was designed to be a basic system that, with only slight mechanical alteration (if any), could be adapted to suit ANY fluff...in which case d20 Modern is really nothing more than another setting, at best.
- "FX" classes, and their associated items and foes, will be in a completely different book and will likely be no different from their "D&D counterparts".
I could very well be wrong about some or all of that. But considering the trouble they've gone to regarding 4e, they're not going to toss away important aspects of its mechanics to satisfy the heavily mistaken notion that d20 Modern is a different game. It's earth, in our era, with no magic. 4e supports that type of concept already. All that are technically needed are slight mechanical alterations to the martial classes to account for contemporary equipment that will have to be designed. EVERYTHING else is fluff, and nothing more. But, they'll probably throw a few bones, like going back to the "Strong, Tough, Fast, Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic Heroes" thing...just to satisfy people's sense of nostalgia.
"But d20 Modern worked just fine, leave it alone!" It did not work just fine, it was horrible as a system. Good as a game though. If it worked so well as a system, they'd never have wasted time and money developing 4e and would've simply fully converted all D&D rules over to d20 Modern's format. And the most important thing about Saga not being fully 4e, is that it was simply a test-bed to see if they could get away with not having to go "all the way" in creating entirely new rules. Saga proved to them that this was unfortunately not the case. Saga is much MUCH better than 3.5, but it's still a "play a jedi or suck horribly forever" game. Which is why they went with powers in 4e. Powers provide a means of equally quantifying all capabilities of any class across the board. Frankly, I don't think they applied the methodology broadly enough in 4e. They should've taken that format all the way to feats and more.
Let me ask you a question on playing a modern game:
Given a 8d8 explosion of radius 40',
should the guy 35' from the blast point
take the same damage as the guy that was standing on the bomb?
Or less cause explosions get weaker farther from the origin?
"But d20 Modern worked just fine, leave it alone!" It did not work just fine, it was horrible as a system. Good as a game though. If it worked so well as a system, they'd never have wasted time and money developing 4e and would've simply fully converted all D&D rules over to d20 Modern's format.
That is a spurious assumption. It could very well be that the reason that they changed the game is because they were reaching a saturation point with the 3E rules, and merely updating D&D to the D20 Modern paradigm would not have increased sales potential significantly because the systems as so similar. By revising the rules completely, they now renew their sales potential.
I am not saying that is what what justified the business decision. What I am saying is that you also have no way of knowing if your argument is what justified the decision. (Unless you happened to be in those business meetings. :P )
I think the arguments have already gone way beyond the tension point. Let's not make things worse by pointing at each other's favored game system and call it things like "horrible". Some people take it personally. :P
I also stated that all classes should have the option to be, roughly, 100% balanced against each other in combat.
I don't get it...why should the guy who sits at his computer never goes out to the firing range,never does any sort of outdoor activity in his whole life suddenly be able to hold his own aginst a guy whos done nothing but outdoor type stuff and lives at the fire range?
I wanna see folks responses to TS
I don't get it...why should the guy who sits at his computer never goes out to the firing range,never does any sort of outdoor activity in his whole life suddenly be able to hold his own aginst a guy whos done nothing but outdoor type stuff and lives at the fire range?
He shouldn't. But the guy who sits at his computer and never goes out to a firing range, or learns any other way of handling himself in combat, should not be a d20 heroic class.
Fact is, this class was not offered as a heroic class in d20 Modern RAW. Doesn't matter what class you chose to play, your BAB, saves, and hit points, went up when you leveled. Didn't matter which class you chose to play, the majority of your powers were combat oriented.
The same is true of Saga edition. Want to play a hacker? You have to play a scoundrel. The hacker talents are found amongst the same class that gets the sneak attack talents. The scoundrel is roughly balanced with all other classes. You will never be offered the option to play a hacker with zero combat ability, the hacker who sat at his computer every day and has no idea how to handle himself when trouble starts.
From my perspective, that character should not be offered as a class in the next iteration of d20 Modern. That isn't to say that there should not be a smart hero class that excels at using the computer. But that class does not represent the average human smart joe who sits at his computer and never partakes in fantastic/out of the ordinary situations, which often involve combat scenario's. This smart hero represents a heroic narrative character, capable both of amazing feats of computer hacking, and of turning their brains towards overcoming combat scenarios.
you really cant grasp me giving you everything your way.
Sure I can. I will be totally happy if they release a system where every class has options that can make that class roughly equally balanced (though not the same as) every other class in combat and non-combat situations. This does not mean that every class should be the same. Each class will be focused on being strong in a particular set of skills, and a particular different style of combat capability.
The second they offer a pamphlet with imbalanced classes they will have skewed the balance of the game, and partially ruined it (for me). If effort has gone into making some classes better then others in combat, and some classes better then others in non-combat, then they will have ruined the game for me. All classes should have non-combat options. All classes should have combat options. That is the paradigm of game design that appeals to me.
ok, I'll bite----
Just what on earth could possibly be stopping you from playing a d20Modern horror campaign?
crikey, they even already have "Investigator" class in the CRB & mSRD.
Have you tried to play a Medieval Horror campaign with DD4e rules?
What will 4e do for you that you dont get in a d20Modern horror?
Let me guess.... you make CombatOnly type specialized chars that feel left out of stuff other than combat, due to their choice to specialize in combat and not take other classes to broaden thier chars You want 4e to just make all your CombatOnly Specialized guy become great at skills too without taking any skill class levels. Simpler solution- if you want your chars to be multitasking, they need multiclassing, and d20Modern has freestyle multiclassing for a reason.... Modern classes are only 10 levels long- you HAVE TO multiclass per game design
Yes, a 4e modern with monsters would be horror,
I'm already horrified at the prospect of HP Frontloaded monsters and us with GimpedGuns
You have your own agenda to push here, so I won't distract from it too much. I'll just state my point of view.
My desire for 4E-based modern rules (especially for horror games) has nothing to do with playing the game, but rather running the game. I've run a couple different systems for horror games-- d20 modern, oWoD, nWoD, d20 Cthulhu, D&D 3.X, D&D 4E, HERO system, and GURPS 3E-- and of those, D&D 4E has worked the best. The reason it works best is because it does combat better than any other system. That's all I really need from a set of rules, anyway, other that rules systems to cover specific, complex non-combat situations (computer hacking, quick item creation, etc.) Creating combat encounters in the other systems I've mentioned has always been a crapshoot-- they are, for the most part, either a cakewalk or a TPK. 4E, on the other hand, allows me the freedom to be as vicious as I want and, as long as I follow the XP guidelines, I don't have to worry about killing the whole party. They feel like their characters may die, but they don't actually die. That's what many people (yourself included) miss about horror-- it's about the illusion of life-threatening consequences without ending the GM's story prematurely. D&D 4E has the math behind the game worked out well enough that I can just focus on the story elements of horror-- a luxury that I don't have in any other system I've tried. I simply want that same luxury in a modern setting.
I don't get it...why should the guy who sits at his computer never goes out to the firing range,never does any sort of outdoor activity in his whole life suddenly be able to hold his own aginst a guy whos done nothing but outdoor type stuff and lives at the fire range?
.
It's not about holding your own-- it's about a PC being able to contribute to the rest of the group when the lead starts flying. It's a metagame concept, true enough, but it is a game we're talking about here. I don't want an RPG to simulate Celebrity Deathmatch: Bill Gates vs. Ted Nugent-- I want something that supports me and 3-4 friends having fun for a couple hours a week.
Besides, the game doesn't need to simulate real life. It needs to simulate the protagonists from books and movies. Those are the inspirations for RPGs, not a documentary on IT professionals.
I disagree,
I want the game to be MY way,
and my way is so that everyone can play any way they choose to ;)
If your way actually resulted in everyone being able to play the way they chose to, it would be very different than the concept as posted by you.
Dont make it a FantasyFightgame,
make it a Universal game that can be played as a FantasyFightgame or as a NonFX Modern game or any combination desired of thoughtfully integrated parts.
I agree that it should be able to fill all those roles, and more. I think the best way to accomplish this is to design and balance the game with all the options (including fx) in place, then pluck out the optional material and put them in separate chapters.
This is the important part though. When you pluck out the optional stuff, everything else needs to go unchanged. If you do this, the game will still be balanced when some GMs want to drop it back in.
Backstabbist would like a selection of classes that includes those whose primary class features (to use the 3e term) are not combat-related. They would be intellectual, technical, or interpersonal. Cyber Dave seems to believe that the existence of such classes in the system would throw off game balance between the primarily combat-oriented classes and those that are not combat oriented. Backstabbist proposes that the non-combat classes could simply be included as optional, but as far as I can tell, that really just makes the point that all classes are ultimately "optional" because we can house-rule these games any way we like.
If that is all correct (and please tell me if it isn't), then I personally would side with Backstabbist. But the real point seems to be that you two (and I) disagree on a fundamental point of game-design philosophy. It's been a few days now, though, and it doesn't look like you're going to come to any point of agreement. So I'm left with one question: why in the nine hells are we still arguing about it? You've established your opinions. You're not going to agree. Continuing to fight over it seems like a waste of energy.
It seems to me that the point of disagreement du jour seems clear:
Backstabbist would like a selection of classes that includes those whose primary class features (to use the 3e term) are not combat-related. They would be intellectual, technical, or interpersonal. Cyber Dave seems to believe that the existence of such classes in the system would throw off game balance between the primarily combat-oriented classes and those that are not combat oriented. Backstabbist proposes that the non-combat classes could simply be included as optional, but as far as I can tell, that really just makes the point that all classes are ultimately "optional" because we can house-rule these games any way we like.
If that is all correct (and please tell me if it isn't), then I personally would side with Backstabbist. But the real point seems to be that you two (and I) disagree on a fundamental point of game-design philosophy. It's been a few days now, though, and it doesn't look like you're going to come to any point of agreement. So I'm left with one question: why in the nine hells are we still arguing about it? You've established your opinions. You're not going to agree. Continuing to fight over it seems like a waste of energy.
My understanding of the point of contention is that Dave (and myself, honestly) would like for the "non-combat" classes to be capable of contributing equally in combat; but in a way that fits the flavor of their class. This doesn't mean they need to be shooting or blowing stuff up. They certainly could, but it would not be required.
I believe that neither he, or I, are taking the point that they should have assault powers as a gunslinger or special ops person would. They just need to be able to contribute in a meaningful way, so that everyone can participate fully in the game; instead of going on a snack run cuz the rest of the group is fighting and you can't hit anything anyway.
If I have misrepresented your views Dave, please let me know and I will edit appropriately.
But RealOrion is right. What it boils down is ones philosophy of game design. Me and backstabbist (and likely me and RealOrion) will never agree on the subject. We want a different game. So why am I arguing? Because backstabbists claim that his game would satisfy my needs, because his desires are "better, more rational, or more inclusive," pisses me off. Fact is, backstabbists desires would not satisfy my needs, are not more rational, and are not more inclusive. What we want exists at different ends of the spectrum. Our desires are antithetical. One of us is going to be disappointed if they ever release a new edition of d20 Modern.
That is the beginning and the end of the story. After that, its just our personal desire that the other person be disappointed, because obviously we would rather see a product published that satisfies our desires. I hope backstabbist will be disappointed by the next edition of d20 Modern, because to be honest, it seems that it is becoming clear that anything that satisfies his desires will by definition not satisfy mine. I could be wrong. I would much prefer it if some happy medium that satisfies both of us is found. But, this "happy medium" must actually satisfy my desires. Because I am not willing to sacrifice my desires for someone else. Either WotC will release a product I like, or I will not purchase it.
So after that, its just a question of which product most customers will purchase.
So I'm left with one question: why in the nine hells are we still arguing about it? You've established your opinions. You're not going to agree. Continuing to fight over it seems like a waste of energy.
ok, I'm done trying to accomodate him in this thread
he can have his MyWayOnly game,
this whole thread became a waste back when you know who did you know what,
and I aint even gonna go over that anymore
this whole thread became a waste back when you know who did you know what,
and I aint even gonna go over that anymore
Sorry, but attention to this thread has been brought to all three corners of the WotC community. There are posts letting people know about this thread in the Saga, 4e, and 3e rich spots frequented by d20 Modern fans. This thread is now about as accurate as any internet poll could ever possibly be. You just happen to not like what the votes on this thread seem to indicate.
This thread is now about as accurate as any internet poll could ever possibly be.
Dave Dave Dave...you're making it too easy.[HTML][/HTML]
The fact remains that if Wizards puts out Modern 4e (which is what they'll do if there is any more Modern at all) and it includes classes that can't contribute to combat, then you don't have to use them. They're not ruining game balance if you, as GM, say that they can't be played in your game. There is a perfectly usable game for you in that (hypothetical) book, but because of the presence of extra material, you say you're not going to buy it.
However, by contrast, the game that you want has a distinct lack of options if, like me and Backstabbist, you're interested in games that include non/low-combat classes. So if you're looking for a compromise position, one that satisfies everyone, then it's the one that Backstabbist has offered. With his proposal, everyone gets what they want. All you need to do, Cyber Dave, is remove some classes. Hell, we'll call them optional classes if you like. That way, everyone's happy. The reasons you offer for why this is unacceptable to you are, to my mind, unconvincing. It seems like a stand on a principle despite the presence of a practical solution staring us in the face. Which is my long-winded way of saying, I just don't think your objection makes any practical sense.
However, it's really important that we all remember that this argument doesn't bloody-well matter a tinker's damn because Wizards will ignore this thread and do whatever the hells they want to, and we'll all be in the same boat anyway: house-ruling the crap out of it to make it fit our personal tastes. That's the glory, and the downfall, of table-top RPGs.
Dave,I don't agree with your assertion, but I respect your position (if that makes sense), but I have say that your (apparent) insistence that the very presence of classes that don't fit your "contribute equally to combat and interpersonal" model would somehow ruin your notion of game balance is actually the point of contention.
The fact remains that if Wizards puts out Modern 4e (which is what they'll do if there is any more Modern at all) and it includes classes that can't contribute to combat, then you don't have to use them. They're not ruining game balance if you, as GM, say that they can't be played in your game. There is a perfectly usable game for you in that (hypothetical) book, but because of the presence of extra material, you say you're not going to buy it.
However, by contrast, the game that you want has a distinct lack of options if, like me and Backstabbist, you're interested in games that include non/low-combat classes. So if you're looking for a compromise position, one that satisfies everyone, then it's the one that Backstabbist has offered. With his proposal, everyone gets what they want. All you need to do, Cyber Dave, is remove some classes. Hell, we'll call them optional classes if you like. That way, everyone's happy. The reasons you offer for why this is unacceptable to you are, to my mind, unconvincing. It seems like a stand on a principle despite the presence of a practical solution staring us in the face. Which is my long-winded way of saying, I just don't think your objection makes any practical sense.
See, it goes like this:
If the game contains "non-combat classes," even if these classes are optional, in order to make them interesting they will have to be able to do something that the other classes can not.
Since they are not combat classes, whatever it is that they can do will be based around non-combat encounter resolution.
These classes will therefore be superior at non-combat encounter resolution. Not just superior in the sense that they gain more non-combat abilities, but in the sense that they get non-combat abilities that other classes simply can not gain access to.
In order to include fully robust non-combat encounters that really make use of the system's non-combat resolution mechanics one will have to include these non-combat classes. If one doesn't, one ignores the non-combat abilities (and thus potential avenues of resolution) available only to these classes.
Now, the other classes, who don't have as robust a set of non-combat encounter powers, suddenly become combat classes. Even if they were given some non-combat resolution powers, in comparison to the powers of the "non-combat" classes the regular classes just won't compare. The result is that the regular classes stop being regular classes, and become combat classes.
Now as someone who has just purchased this game I have three choices. I can either run a primarily combat oriented game, and allow only the combat classes. I can run a primarily non-combat oriented game, and allow only the non-combat classes. I can run a game that dips into both areas of the game mechanics, but in order to really make full use of the systems non-combat and combat mechanics I have to allow both classes. But, once I allow both classes, I run into the same problem as I did in 3e: the game will be divided up into two specialist groups of players, the combat focused characters, and the non-combat focused characters. At any given time, one of these groups of players will sit back, essentially being forced to temporarily leave the game. There might be equal participation, but there will not be simultaneous participation. Of course I can make attempts to mix combat and non-combat encounters into a single encounter. But not every encounter can be a combat/skill-challenge mix. It just doesn't always work with the story. So, at some point in time, somebody is going to have to sit out.
That is EXACTLY what is against my preferred paradigm. That is what is antithetical to my desires. And, if you include "non-combat classes," there is NO way to avoid this scenario. Well, there is one way. The ONLY way to avoid this scenario is if the "non-combat" classes do not gain any non-combat options that are not afforded to the regular classes. They are simply the regular classes with the combat elements removed. Perhaps they might gain more non-combat powers, but they won't gain any non-combat powers which a regular class did not already have access to. Of course, that would mean that there is almost no reason for a person to ever play one of these classes (as they will gain very little benefit for the loss of their combat prowess) unless the DM is simply disallowing all combat classes period. But, I get the feeling that is not what you are backstabbist is requesting. You are requesting non-combat classes that get not only more, but newer, better, different, non-combat options at the expense of their combat prowess. And, such classes can not be included in the game without ruining it for me. I want access to what those classes can do without being forced to transform any given group into a group of specialists that can not simultaneously participate in most encounters.
Which is why earlier in the thread I gave a much better option for a compromise position:
Build only regular classes.
Take the effort that would have gone into making "non-combat classes" and give every regular class a full suit of robust and interesting utility powers designed for use in non-combat encounter resolution mechanics.
Divvy up the powers gained from any class into two separate pools of resources, attack powers and utility powers.
BUT: Include a side-bar of optional rules that allow characters to give up their attack powers in favor of taking more non-combat utility powers.
By this means, with DM permission, fully non-combat characters can be built. However, those of us who want to make sure that all characters can participate in all types of encounters, and who don't want to give up any aspect of the system (because we desire to make full use of the systems combat and non-combat encounter resolution mechanics), can do so.
Just let it go. There are people in the universe who don't hold the same opinion as you. So what? What the hell do you care?
The fact remains that if Wizards puts out Modern 4e (which is what they'll do if there is any more Modern at all) and it includes classes that can't contribute to combat, then you don't have to use them. They're not ruining game balance if you, as GM, say that they can't be played in your game.
I explained a little more clearly why from my perspective they would ruin game balance, even if I have the option to say that they cannot be used. It is not a fact that if Wizards puts out a 4e Modern game, and includes classes that can't contribute to combat, that they won't ruin game balance just because I can choose not to use them. They would, in fact, via their very existence, ruin various aspects of the game's balance for me. At least, that is assuming that these classes that cannot contribute to combat are given some sort of manner of contributing to non-combat encounters that the other classes do not have access to.
You can of course disagree. But the fact that you disagree would not induce me to purchase the product if it is released with such classes. And that is not an unreasonable position. Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. Backstabbists claim, and sort of yours (by claiming that it is a fact that if those classes were released I would not have to use them, and thus they would not negatively affect the balance of the game for me), can only be judged as true or not by your opposition. The statement is essentially that backstabbists "solution" of including non-combat classes that everyone else can ignore is a solution to your opposition's desires. But, as your opposition has clearly stated, it is not. Whether you believe that it should be a solution or not is irrelevant. For it to actually be a solution to your opposition's desires, your opposition must agree that it is in fact a happy middle ground. We do not. The proposed solution would not make me, or those with like tastes, happy. If WotC were to attempt that "solution" then they may as well have just folded those "optional" classes into the core list of classes, because that aspect of the game will already not be marketed to me or those who have tastes like mine. There is no point to attempt to give a half-hearted nod at pleasing people with tastes such as mine, because the inclusion of those non-combat classes in any shape or form will be one of the potential reasons to not purchase the system, whether they are in an "optional" chapter or not.
It is quite possible we will never agree on a manner of game design that will please both of us. Sometimes someone must be disappointed.
But I ask you, for you, why must the game contain non-combat classes? Why is the option to build non-combat characters not enough? What you want to be able to do is play a non-combat character, right? I offered a viable method of allowing that. So the question is, why must you have actual dedicated non-combat classes? Because honestly, the majority of the population, based on this poll, would probably not want to purchase this product if it includes such classes. It is obvious that the majority of the population, based on this poll, prefers games that do not contain such classes in their paradigm. Thus, including such classes is probably bad for business. Is the compromise of replacing the existence of dedicated non-combat classes with an option to build dedicated non-combat characters out of the general use classes not enough for you? If so, why not? I want to understand... If you can take the smart hero, and with your DMs permission substitute all your smart hero attack powers for extra smart hero utility powers, how has your desire for non-combat characters not been fulfilled?
The real question is: why in the world are any of you still having this pointless, circular, wankathon of a conversation? We've all made our cases and nobody has been swayed by them. It's time to just let it go. Just let it go. Don't post with more questions. Don't repeat the same argument, over and over again. Just let it go. Seriously. I'm begging.
Dave, we know what your position is. You've made it perfectly, abundantly clear. We just don't agree. No amount of repeating yourself is going to change that. Why are you both so bent on repeating the same arguments over and over again? Do you actually think the other will be convinced on the 37th trip through the argument, even though it's basically the same as the 36th?
Just let it go. There are people in the universe who don't hold the same opinion as you. So what? What the hell do you care?
Except that judging by your last post before this, your misinterpretation of his position seems to indicate that he has in fact, NOT made his position clear enough.
Dave wants:
- Classes that specialize according along lines like that of roles, rather than the choice of combat vs non-combat.
- Because of that, he specifically wants a collection of both combat AND non-combat rules and abilities that apply to ALL classes equally at ALL times.
- He believes that to do otherwise creates instances where a game is FORCED to become either all non-combat, all combat, or that various party members must end up sitting out certain encounters because they do not possess any viable means of assisting outside their combat/non-combat specialty.
Backstabbist wants:
- A group of classes that are nearly (if not completely) strictly non-combat, and a separate group of classes that are nearly (if not completely) strictly combat oriented.
- Multiclassing a la carte to mitigate this inherent lack of balance.
- He believes that to do otherwise denies many both mechanical and story character options to players.
-
4e would, in fact, mechanically support the type of game backstabbist wants. But the design philosophy behind 4e would not at all. "Never split the party" They also don't want to force players to take or avoid certain options. In backstabbist's type of game, either the party is split for nearly EVERY encounter, OR they MUST multiclass to avoid splitting in that fashion. It would also require extensive rebalancing of what adversaries can do both in and out of combat, since overall the party will be only little more than half as effective in either situation. Backstabbist claims that multiclassing would be the choice of the player, but it's really a non-choice. "Be better than average roughly have the time, or be mediocre all of the time." That's not a reasonable choice at all in a game meant for the overall fun of the group shared equally.
Dave is right, however. The only possible way backstabbist's game concept could possibly satisfy Dave is if he allowed non-com to combat gestalt classing, and removed multiclassing. He cannot simply "remove the non-combat classes" because he WANTS non-combat encounters that are equally as fun for all and as important to the story as combat encounters. In the type of game backstabbist wants, that would not be possible.
Removing the non-combat classes means the game has become strictly combat only, which Dave does not want. But gestalting or otherwise "forced" multiclassing is also something he doesn't want to do. The gestalting would be especially problematic as it would require rebalancing yet again of all adversaries in the game, which were originally geared for a half-effective party.
Forced multiclassing is pointless because if everyone's going to do both anyway, why bother separating them in the first place? To get combinations of specific non-com or combat abilities that may not be part of the base classes? That may be possible in other ways, and all combinations might be accounted for in the first place...who knows.
Now, if people can't get each other's points clearly out of that, there's just no hope for any of ya. Odds are, I'm likely to get flamed for "misrepresenting a position" or some equally silly and untrue thing. Oh well, that's the way it is. Anything after this is merely arguing to be an asshat. I voted, so my opinion is locked in anyway. I'm out.
I also think Backstabbist and I have both explained why we don't like the solution that you propose. I will not insult your intelligence by repeating that, either.
Really? Would you please mind posting a link. Because honestly, I can not for the life of me fathom why you would possibly have anything against the concept of building a completely non-combat character, without a single combat attack power, using powers that grant only skill boosting related abilities. This seems to be exactly what you are requesting. I can not for the life of me understand why, if the rules allow this sort of character to be built out of general use classes, dedicated non-combat classes must still exist (in your paradigm). I must have missed the post that explained that. And I would like to know.
- Because of that, he specifically wants a collection of both combat AND non-combat rules and abilities that apply to ALL classes equally at ALL times.
Not necessarily at all times for all groups though. Like I said, I am ok with an optional rule set that allows general classes to be used to create non-combat characters. Its fine with me if under this ruleset a Smart Hero can choose to take all (skill related) utility powers and no attack powers. As long as both the non-combat and attack powers that are thematically related to the same type of activity exist within the same type of class, and the game provides me with rules for having my players choose the attack powers and non-combat powers from a different set of resources in my games, I am happy.
So if that's no longer the case, I personally would find your solution nominally acceptable, but it still marginalises the very idea of an interpersonal/technical hero. I'd still prefer if there were actual interpersonal/technical classes, because they'd have a much more real presence in the game, and I think Backstabbist's solution of having whole optional classes is actually much more of a realistic compromise, especially given that he's allowing that they would be labelled "Optional" and put in an appendix.
See, what we're arguing over now is the degree to which interpersonal/technical classes are present in the game, not whether they're in the game or not, which I suppose is a painful, tortured kind of progress. Personally, I'd like that kind of character to be a clear, viable option, and not something that you have to cobble together out of a "generalist" class. That's a matter of, as the marketers say, "optics."
Okay, my apologies. I understood your previous assertion--that you wanted the combat and interpersonal/technical abilities to come from two always separate pools--but not this new one, that you would only insist on that in your games (you'll forgive me for not having enough hours in the day to wade through yet another monster post).
Actually, this has always been my position. Check out post number 171. In it I already stated that an optional rule that allows characters to trade out attack powers for utility powers should be present, effectively allowing people to build non-combat characters. We are now at post number 343. Nothing is new about my position. However, some people seem not to understand what my position is. Hence why I keep repeating myself.
So if that's no longer the case, I personally would find your solution nominally acceptable, but it still marginalises the very idea of an interpersonal/technical hero. I'd still prefer if there were actual interpersonal/technical classes, because they'd have a much more real presence in the game, and I think Backstabbist's solution of having whole optional classes is actually much more of a realistic compromise, especially given that he's allowing that they would be labelled "Optional" and put in an appendix.
But its not a realistic compromise at all. The presence of "non-combat classes" is exactly what breaks the game for players with my sort of tastes. Its not because we don't like non-combat activities. Its because the second you create a class that has more, better, unique non combat options, and another class that has more, better, unique combat options, you create the problem I outlined above. It doesn't matter if its an "optional" class in an appendix. Effort went into creating a class that sets the bar for non-combat effectiveness. Two breeds of classes effectively exist. I could disallow those classes, but that's not what I want to do. I want to utilize the system, to its maximum potential, in the areas of both combat and non-combat resolution. I don't want to ignore written down non-combat encounter resolution mechanics. A GM that wants to see the system utilize both its combat and non-combat potential encounter resolution mechanics to its maximum degree will have to allow both classes. The second he allows both classes, though, he creates two categories of characters that do not play together, simultaneously, very well. That is not a compromise. That is the antithesis of your oppositions desires.
See, what we're arguing over now is the degree to which interpersonal/technical classes are present in the game, not whether they're in the game or not, which I suppose is a painful, tortured kind of progress. Personally, I'd like that kind of character to be a clear, viable option, and not something that you have to cobble together out of a "generalist" class. That's a matter of, as the marketers say, "optics."
No, we are not. I don't want non-combat classes to exist at all. I am totally ok if the game offers the option of creating fully non-combat characters. What I want is the effort that went into creating those classes to be put into creating a full suit of robust non-combat encounter resolution mechanics/powers for ALL classes in the game. There is no need to cobble together your non-combat character out of a generalist class. Backstabbist proposes that the book will have its "combat smart hero" and its "non combat smart hero" classes. I proposes that all the powers that would have existed in either of those two classes will exist as optional talents/powers chosen from one single smart hero class. Then there can be two sets of rules, one outlines how to run the game with the various different powers being chosen from two separate pools of resources (which will satisfy me), and one that outlines how to run the game with various different powers being chosen from the same pool of resources.
A non combat character doesn't need to be cobbled together. Any class in the game could be used to either create a combat, or non combat, version of itself. There will be non-combat strong heroes that excel at athletic ability. There will be combat strong heroes that excel at beating people down. There will be general strong heroes with a mix of both abilities. And the same for every class in the game. And there will be a set of rules that ensure that every character be built as a mix of both abilities. Hell, the rules on how to ensure that every character in the game be built as a mix of both abilities could even be the optional rules. It makes no difference which set of rules get labeled as optional or not, as long as the infrastructure ensures that the system will work well when played in the manner that I prefer I am happy. Creating two separate sets of classes, combat and non-combat, however, creates an infrastructure that ensures that the system will not work well when one attempts to use it in the manner that I prefer. Whether one of these sets of classes is optional or not does not change that.
I don't say that to be dismissive, but I have no idea how we got from combat/non-combat classes to the modular/classless game design that you really seem to be proposing, and I don't have the inclination to try to figure it out.
Who said anything about there being a classless system? There would still be classes, just like there are classes in Saga and 4e. However, each class is actually a package of talents/powers. This is the direction Modern already headed with the talent system, which composed all the six basic classes. You are not forced to take any single given power. You choose whatever talent/power you feel best fits your character, and each class has enough of them that no character could ever hope to take all the talents/powers. Only a fraction of them will be chosen for any given character. There are no two separate smart hero classes, one which is a combat character, one which is a non-combat character. There is only the smart hero class, which has a plethora of both combat and non-combat talents/powers. Then there could be two separate systems of power acquisition: one which forces characters to pick combat/non-combat powers from two separate pools of resources, and one which allows characters to pick all powers from the same pool of resources. GMs and Players would have to choose which system of acquisition they want to use. That is the compromise which would make me happy. It would still offer me what I want, while offering you and backstabbist what the two of you want. It would also not be a classless system. Packages of talents/powers are still divided up amongst "class groupings." Choosing powers outside of your class grouping would be a form of multiclassing. Characters would have to gain some form of benefit for using powers from their class grouping... for example, maybe smart heroes would get an extra +1 to hit, damage, and skill checks, when using smart hero powers.
That is sort of how I envision a Saga/Modern 4e Hybrid system working.
bunch of stuff
I'm gonna have to disargee....I don't want my mutliclassing to be a list of powers from each class.. because to me theres no point in even having classes with that.
I like the way its currently,you want something from a level of another class you work your way up in that class via mutliclassing i want my character to be a 2nd level smart/ 1st level fast not just group a and little of group b and then some of group c. I just don't like the idea of "class groupings"....
I'm gonna have to disargee....I don't want my mutliclassing to be a list of powers from each class.. because to me theres no point in even having classes with that.
I like the way its currently,you want something from a level of another class you work your way up in that class via mutliclassing i want my character to be a 2nd level smart/ 1st level fast not just group a and little of group b and then some of group c. I just don't like the idea of "class groupings"....
I hated the "you have to work your way up into the class" multiclassing. At least, if what you mean by that is a fixed ability at any given level, and if you want a particular level ability you had to take that many levels worth of fixed abilities in a specific class. I loved the way the "type heroes" (smart, charismatic, etc) were designed, with talent choices, despite hating how imbalanced they were against each other. I hated the way the advanced classes worked. I like that in Saga all classes get a talent choice at every second level, and a feat choice on every other level. I like the fact that you are never forced to have a specific class ability, but rather that you get to pick which talent you want. I can live with some of the "forced abilities" found in the Saga prestige classes, but only because they still offer you a choice of at least 5/10 levels worth of class abilities. I like the way 4e works under a similar premise. I think the paragon path mechanic is a nice middle ground between the fixed "forced ability" and open power choice mechanics. It forces you to receive two powers at two particular levels, but its two powers out of 10, and a forced choice on only 2 levels out of 30. The advanced class mechanic, with fixed abilities at fixed levels, really turned me off. That was one of my least favorite aspects of 3e. I like choice.
From my perspective, Saga and 4e already largely use "groupings of class abilities." You don't have to take specific abilities when you play a Jedi Knight, you instead get to choose talents from three different talent trees, each of which has about double the number of talents any single Jedi Knight will actually receive. I just want a mechanic that works along the same lines. Fair enough if you don't want that, but I do. That is part of why I voted a Saga/4e hybrid.
The 4e power pool mechanic would, in my opinion, be ideal. With advanced/paragon paths to add a little definition of course. After all, what is multiclassing if not gaining a power from another class? That is exactly the point of multiclassing.
I just had an idea,
We gather up a plethora of both combat and non-combat talents/powers. Then there could be two separate classes: one which forces characters to pick combat/non-combat powers from two separate pools of resources (Smart), and one which allows characters to pick all powers from the same pool of resources(appendix Brilliant).
I don't get it...why should the guy who sits at his computer never goes out to the firing range,never does any sort of outdoor activity in his whole life suddenly be able to hold his own aginst a guy whos done nothing but outdoor type stuff and lives at the fire range?
Because those aren't PCs.
Those are what we like to call Npcs.
Because those aren't PCs.
Those are what we like to call Npcs.
That does hit on a fuindamental shift in 4e's design philosophy.
In 3e, it was reasonable to design an NPC using the core "PC" classes, because everyone was essentially on the same set of ground rules, PC and NPC alike. 4e has openly gone against that convention; NPCs no longer are built using the same rules as the heroes.
The 3e conventions require that it be possible to build that desk jockey using the same rules that are used to build Throk the barbarian. 4e just says he has 1 hp and non-interesting ability scores and basic melee attack if cornered.
This is actually a huge change in 4e, and it is one of the biggies, in my opinion. It's not really practical to resolve this "warrior" PC vs "specialist" PC debate properly until we've decided how NPCs should be built.
(fwiw, I prefer 3e's approach to NPC creation, but this forum has become a bit too heated for me).
That does hit on a fuindamental shift in 4e's design philosophy.
In 3e, it was reasonable to design an NPC using the core "PC" classes, because everyone was essentially on the same set of ground rules, PC and NPC alike. 4e has openly gone against that convention; NPCs no longer are built using the same rules as the heroes.
The 3e conventions require that it be possible to build that desk jockey using the same rules that are used to build Throk the barbarian. 4e just says he has 1 hp and non-interesting ability scores and basic melee attack if cornered.
This is actually a huge change in 4e, and it is one of the biggies, in my opinion. It's not really practical to resolve this "warrior" PC vs "specialist" PC debate properly until we've decided how NPCs should be built.
(fwiw, I prefer 3e's approach to NPC creation, but this forum has become a bit too heated for me).
Rhialto has a point. The 4E departure for NPC creation rule is unsettling for me. Mechanically it makes sens because creatures have more HP to compensate for the fact that they have less powers than a PCs. But its just the strangest thing I've seen when you have to build human foe with monster creation rules...
Rhialto has a point. The 4E departure for NPC creation rule is unsettling for me. Mechanically it makes sens because creatures have more HP to compensate for the fact that they have less powers than a PCs. But its just the strangest thing I've seen when you have to build human foe with monster creation rules...
It's because frankly it's not worth blowing an hour or more statting out an NPC when he's going to die in less than 20 minutes of actual encounter.
Everything that he does involving the plot he doesn't actually need stats at all for. (because frankly he's not going to fail his Arcana check so to speak nor fail to properly appraise whatever you are hauking off on him, unless you are trying to bluff him)
The important bits focus on what you are actually going to use, which means they are being honest in that he's only good for 20 minutes tops. (less than that in game time!) I can do alot more with the current design setup, such as focusing on the campaign than I could where basically most of the time was previously spent on npc design.
Characters who aren't suited for going in commando style with the other Specialists. (which is what PCs are, are more or less Special Forces) aren't going to be on the front lines at all or even with the party. A game system that has "Combat" and "Non Combat" classes is best handled as splitting the party up into two different parties and having them each doing something that they specialize at, during the same time. This is unfair to the Dm first and foremost because it puts a much higher work load upon him (because he's designing basically two encounters to run at the same time, lest he relegate people to "Just go play Xbox or something"), and it's unfair to the players should the "Combat Specialists" need to do something like hack a computer or what have you and the "non coms" aren't even present because frankly they make themselves far too high of a liability to be present in an infiltration or battle type situation.
Free form multiclassing does not address this problem either because of the fact you are hindering your over all effectiveness to pretty much be "okay" at best (and by Okay I mean if you have a real specialist in the party next to you, you won't die) in either field. And not be good enough to measure up in either, or even come close. Which is why it is simply better to design classes to be capable of doing Combat and non Combat simultaneously.
Micha, you do realise that under the design philosophy you are promoting, something such as Call of Cthulhu would be utterly impossibel to build? I'm not even sure Paranoia would be a workable game concept, which is equally something that Modern ought to be able to duplicate.
Horror? That's pretty easy to do under the 4e Chassis. Are you one of those people that think Resident Evil games are scary because you can't move and shoot at the same time?
Modern D20 really doesn't suit this sort of thing as it is either. After a certain point characters just become too good. Unless you literally said "level cap!".
Personally I don't see what would be so hard to accomplish here. Heck I've already brought a form of Taint and Insanity to my games. It helps create the atmosphere very well.
Rules can't create a horror game by themselves. Really they can't even promote it without stepping on -someone- out there's creative flare. There's just a point where it becomes rules for rules sake which I felt that Modern D20 and 3e went way past that line in how they functioned. They were doing it "for realism" (which is an absurd notion in of itself. Given how Skill Ranks are not realistic, nor is bab, level, hp, Ac and so many others I can't be bothered to list even half of them) when really it just got in the way.
They can make for horrible gameplay, but they will never do what a good Dm/St/Gm/Whatever can do with a decent vocabulary and understanding of how to create the right atmosphere. Atmosphere is paramount to running a game like Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu. (which is something Capcom also failed to grasp with RE5. It's not the least bit scary, nor suspensful. Because the atmosphere is all wrong, and the gameplay just reminds you of how much better games have gotten since that decrypt control scheme of "NO MOVE AND SHOOT")
Now, one thing I know about CoC is that it was designed around realistic-ability humans. And as that infamous article on teh Alexandrian site notes, that ends at about 6th level or so. Up until that points, the skills system is actually quite realistic as a model of real-world behaviour (diplomacy skill being the obvious exception).
Beyond 6th level, I have no problem with the idea that superhumasn are being portrayed. The game works well for different game styles at different character levels, and i consider this to be a feature that should be preserved. Play at low levels should feel different from high levels, and not just in the selection of bad guys to fight.
When you said skill ranks are not realistic, I read that as a sure sign that you have little idea of game calibration and what level of power a character has at each character level.
In any case, this all stems from the idea of how NPCs should be functionable/built in the game rules. And that is a game concept so fundamental to the game that, as long as we disagree, we just have to agree to disagree and accept that we will be playing different games.
When you said skill ranks are not realistic, I read that as a sure sign that you have little idea of game calibration and what level of power a character has at each character level.
.
I'll bite. I won't take offense to that slap to the face.
Skill points not realistic because of Skill Point Dump alone. (where you drop a crap ton of points into a skill out of the blue) That's not counting the stupidly impossible stuff you do with skill ranks getting higher. The sudden jump from no clue what so ever what you are doing to being Awesome, is stupid to put it mildly. Especially if you haven't even really used that skill in the first place during the course of that level up.
Edition Wars: Because people need to start conforming to my subjective tastes because my opinion is better than yours.
+1
Edition Wars: Because people need to start conforming to my subjective tastes because my opinion is better than yours.
if i had room in my sig....
Sorry, but attention to this thread has been brought to all three corners of the WotC community. There are posts letting people know about this thread in the Saga, 4e, and 3e rich spots frequented by d20 Modern fans. This thread is now about as accurate as any internet poll could ever possibly be. You just happen to not like what the votes on this thread seem to indicate.
yea internet polls are worthless, because the same people can vote multiple times, especially here on the WoTC forums.
Edition Wars: Because people need to start conforming to my subjective tastes because my opinion is better than yours.
Our local version
Edition Wars : That's my opinion and everyone is entitled to have my opinion...
yea internet polls are worthless, because the same people can vote multiple times, especially here on the WoTC forums.
Just food for thought, the "pro4" or "4vengers" aren't the ones that ran around sock puppeteering to make themselves and their opinions seem "more popular".
Just food for thought, the "pro4" or "4vengers" aren't the ones that ran around sock puppeteering to make themselves and their opinions seem "more popular".
That does not change the fact that the poll is flawed, but who is to say that now the 4E crowd has not adopted the same tactics?
No poll ever made is without flaws. Hell nothing made is without flaws. However it's a pretty clear cut and dry poll results wise with little ambiguity in the choices.
It's also pretty clear as to what people want in the next modern d20.
It's also pretty clear as to what people want in the next modern d20.
The only thing that seems clear-cut to me on this issue is that the gaming community is split deeply on this issue. In fact, that division is quite clearly cut.
The only thing that seems clear-cut to me on this issue is that the gaming community is split deeply on this issue. In fact, that division is quite clearly cut.
Between what four posters?
Really you want to use this thread and the four posters that are on this board as an indicator of the larger community?
I see no 3e votes, no "other" votes, and no "3e and Saga" votes. Those categories combined just barely tally up past the "saga based" and don't even come close to the 4e votes. Nor the Saga 4e votes.
Which the margin between the votes is so high that frankly even if there were people sockpuppeting (and why haven't we seen them in this thread then? That is the whole point of doing it you know), doesn't skew the results enough to falsify the poll.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that just like 3e vs 4e the Silent Majority has already spoken quite clearly on this matter.
Which the margin between the votes is so high that frankly even if there were people sockpuppeting (and why haven't we seen them in this thread then? That is the whole point of doing it you know), doesn't skew the results enough to falsify the poll.
because "sockpuppeting" the poll does not require you to say anything, just vote and move on, you do not have to post anything to this thread. I would also hazard a guess that many non-4E people are not posting or moved off these forums, why would they want to stay? WoTC has made it clear their voices at this point mean nothing.
I can't help but this impression that you'd all be swearing up and down this poll was legit if the two outdated systems were winning this. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you get to discredit them.
I can't help but this impression that you'd all be swearing up and down this poll was legit if the two outdated systems were winning this. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you get to discredit them.
The poll is flawed not because of the results but because of the method of polling. It allows for multiple votes by the same person, this will skew the results. I personally think a combination of 4E and Saga would work very well, but because i agree or disagree with the poll has no bearing on its validity. I could say that the reason you are so ardently defending it is because you like the results. If the results where 3.5 all the way you might be here complaining about the sockpuppets.
stupid Wizards)That's why polls have error margins quite commonly. Which I'm assuming this one will too if the designers, marketing team looks at this poll at all.
I'd say their best bet is a blend of Saga/4e based on the poll.
In terms of votes on that poll, it would appear to be in favour of 4e by a significant margin. But teh various forum uphreavals have caused a huge number of former regulars to move to new homes. A large number of people who would have voted for a 3.5e based system are simply not here to vote anymore. So the vote certainly doesn't reflect the overal online community. WotC's active encouragement for 4e (something which i don't fault them for) has meant that an increasingly large percentage of teh regulars on this site primarily play 4e. It should come as no surprise to anyone that on the official "4e" forum site, a 4e based system would be the favourite among voters. This isn't even touching on the potential for vote stacking and "rocking teh vote" among favoured voting segments. And of course, the vote is in no way at all a reflection of the wider gaming community. The tehoretical market isn't just "people who visit this website".
All this is why I regard the vote as meaningless.
yea internet polls are worthless [as empirical evidence], because the same people can vote multiple times, especially here on the WoTC forums.
With the little addendum that I added to your post, I am aware of what you were trying to say. That is why I wrote:
Sorry, but attention to this thread has been brought to all three corners of the WotC community. There are posts letting people know about this thread in the Saga, 4e, and 3e rich spots frequented by d20 Modern fans. This thread is now about as accurate as any internet poll could ever possibly be. You just happen to not like what the votes on this thread seem to indicate.
However, I still contend that regardless of the fact that the percentages can not be used to claim empirical proof of anything, and the fact that some of the numbers may be slightly skewed, I do not believe that the polls are worthless as an indication of general tastes (and not proof of general tastes).
Rhialto has a point. The 4E departure for NPC creation rule is unsettling for me. Mechanically it makes sens because creatures have more HP to compensate for the fact that they have less powers than a PCs. But its just the strangest thing I've seen when you have to build human foe with monster creation rules...
I am a little torn on this.
On one hand, I like the way in Saga all characters are built using the same creation rules. This makes everyone seem like they take part in the same world. However, this really does create a lot of unnecessary work for the GM.
Which leads me to 4e: the narrative encounter design system makes a GMs life a WHOLE lot easier. And, if you stop thinking of the system as simulating real life, and start thinking of the system as an attempt to create a narrative/simulate a narrative, then they make a whole lot of sense.
I would be happy either way. I think the 4e version would make a GMs life a lot easier though.
That does hit on a fuindamental shift in 4e's design philosophy.
In 3e, it was reasonable to design an NPC using the core "PC" classes, because everyone was essentially on the same set of ground rules, PC and NPC alike. 4e has openly gone against that convention; NPCs no longer are built using the same rules as the heroes.
The 3e conventions require that it be possible to build that desk jockey using the same rules that are used to build Throk the barbarian. 4e just says he has 1 hp and non-interesting ability scores and basic melee attack if cornered.
This is actually a huge change in 4e, and it is one of the biggies, in my opinion. It's not really practical to resolve this "warrior" PC vs "specialist" PC debate properly until we've decided how NPCs should be built.
(fwiw, I prefer 3e's approach to NPC creation, but this forum has become a bit too heated for me).
Not just a shift...but a hands-down improvement, period.
Option A
Waste hours creating one or more NPCs that can do everything a PC can, but will actually only do one of those things, once, for a handful of moments at best. And this must be done regardless of whether the encounter is actually important to the story, or combat or non-com oriented.
-Or-
Option B
Just pick an appropriate mook out of the MM and slap on a very simple template or two if necessary...assuming the encounter even involves more than, "You find a Fence to sell your loot, he tries to cheat you, you end up with a fair price...now back to the story, moving right along." An approach which offers infinitely more flexibility in encounter development, while saving time and effort for the DM.
Um, yeah, I'm gonna have to say I take option B...seeing as how option A is completely moronic.
-
Since it was eventually mentioned. Lovecraft was a no-talent hack whose literary inspiration was drawn from his own inability to cope with minor inconveniences in his life. Having said that, people may feel compelled to attack my name. For the record, I think Nietzsche was a moron. I simply like that mentioning him offends some people.
Not just a shift...but a hands-down improvement, period.
That is a subjective opinion.
Lovecraft was a no-talent hack whose literary inspiration was drawn from his own inability to cope with minor inconveniences in his life. Having said that, people may feel compelled to attack my name. For the record, I think Nietzsche was a moron. I simply like that mentioning him offends some people.
That is a subjective opinion that hurts my brain. Nietzsche a moron? Like his work or hate it, he has left a permanent impression on the literary field. That is not something that morons do. The same is true of Lovecraft, though his impression has been left more in the area of popular culture then in philosophical studies. In either case, your statements are highly contentious.
Its one thing to state that you believe that something is an improvement. Its another to state that it is empirically an improvement despite the fact that others do not share your tastes. The first is understandable. The second is rude. Please don't do that.
My reason for this is that it has been stated by a developer that there will be no 4.5 or 5.0 version of D&D. While such a statement must always be taken with a grain of salt, It seems clear that a new Modern will likely use much if not all of the existing 4e rules infrastructure.
Certainly there is room for tweaks and changes. Even 4e acknowledges this by adding new rules (and some alterations to existing rules) in the additional PHBs, and DMGs they release.
In all likelyhood, it seems to me that the first modern book will have few or no magic users or psionicists. It will likely have a followup book that adds arcane, psionic, and other power sources to the non-fx martial heroes in the main book.
But that is just how it appears to me, based on the current model of 4e sales and the past model of Modern and Urban Arcana.
That is a subjective opinion that hurts my brain. Nietzsche a moron? Like his work or hate it, he has left a permanent impression on the literary field. That is not something that morons do. The same is true of Lovecraft, though his impression has been left more in the area of popular culture then in philosophical studies. In either case, your statements are highly contentious.
I don't know much about Nietzsche, haven't studied philosophy yet. All I know is that he said god was dead (if he's the guy I'm thinking about). I do love the Andromeda race inspired in his name though.
I don't know much about Nietzsche, haven't studied philosophy yet. All I know is that he said god was dead (if he's the guy I'm thinking about). I do love the Andromeda race inspired in his name though.
He is famous for his conception of the