| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1finalascentAug 13, 2009 15:26:33 | This part of the discussion seems to be starting up regarding the d20 Modern revamp that was promised. Whether you are of the belief that d20 Modern won't be revisited or you sternly believe it will be, just state what you would like to see or not see in a d20 revamp. Now mind you they are likely to toss in stuff from 4e, as there are a lot of great things in the system that weren't in 3.5. However, just like any game system, there are also things in 4e that make some want to groan. (But you could also discuss stuff from other RPG's you like.) For example, it was mentioned that at-will powers would turn d20 Modern into a supers game. I fully agree. I think most of us would agree that anything that makes your character practically immortal or look like they're exercising superpowers is just not in the flavor of d20 Modern. On the other hand, the bloodied mechanic is a nice mechanic that would be useful. And I'm sure that Talents will remain, as they are a beloved part of both d20 Modern and Star Wars: Saga. Again, this is if they come out with a revamp. (WOTC seem to be a bit disorganized regarding their promises. So we can't be sure one way or the other.) This discussion is not about whether they will or won't. Please just focus on what would be good for d20 Modern. If a new edition comes out, the game is going to get changed, whether people like it or not, and it will include 4e elements whether people like 4e or not. So the question is what would you want to see or don't want to see in a d20 Modern revamp? (We're talking specific mechanics.) Please keep it civil. |
| #2narukagamiAug 13, 2009 15:33:52 | Don't take offense to this: I know you haven't been around long, but this has proven to be a very volatile subject around here in the past. Nearly every thread on it has been locked or deleted because they all devolve into an edition war. |
| #3finalascentAug 13, 2009 15:50:53 | Thanks for the warning. Unfortunately, the thread is already started. Also, I'm not new. I just had to create a new account is all. Don't ask me who, because there are certain ones on the web (not yet with WOTC) who I don't want to stalk me any further, so I needed a name change. Creating a new account was easier than going through customer service to change my account name, which they might or might not do. |
| #4narukagamiAug 13, 2009 16:06:49 | Ah, I see. Web stalkers... creepy stuff man. |
| #5finalascentAug 13, 2009 16:15:23 | To help get back on point... I never liked skill ranks, so I hope they continue in the trend of removing them. I like 4e's control on game balance through level matching of party level to monster group level with templates, but I'm not sure the whole slotting characters in a specific group structure is in the flavor of d20 Modern (e.g., healer, striker, etc.); though it works well with 4e. But I think a similar, but different mechanic customized to d20 Modern might be helpful. Group organization seems to be very useful for game balance as well as understanding roles. But 4e's mechanic seems a little too ridgid for d20 Modern group dynamics and limits character choice. Perhaps if it somehow keyed off of the overall effectiveness of the character. Perhaps the groupings would be more suited to "brains", "charismatic", "fixer", etc., but not to the point that you have to have a "brains" or have to have a "fixer" in your party in order for the party to be successful, but that their defined role helps you understand how they fit into and balance the party (By balance, I refer to the dynamic of one character to another, as one character should not be more effective than others of its level, but that all should have equal ability to shine in their respective roles). I also like minions (1hp monsters). They just seem so appropriate to such things as a Time Lord, Shadows, Bughunter, and Wasteland/Apocalypse campaigns. |
| #6TheRealOrionAug 13, 2009 17:03:00 | Generic Guns: e.g., "heavy pistol" or "light rifle." Simplified Skills: cross-class max ranks are 1/2 of normal max ranks, 1 rank = +4 to the skill (and reduce skill points accordingly!), multi-classed characters have class access to all their skills. Also, find a way to make skill synergies scale without making them a pain in the ass to calculate. Generic Expansion Packs: no more past/present/future, but instead d20 Sci-Fi, d20 Cops and Robbers, d20 Superheroes, d20 Pulp Fantasy, d20 Soldiers, etc. (not a rule thing but an organisational thing) |
| #7dbayAug 13, 2009 23:13:46 | I like the specific firearms, I have weapons locker because of it. I like how you can pick the exact right gun for your character. I hope they keep that. For the skill system, I like skill ranks but would also like if they were a little simpler- some skills should be merged, like how Phoenix and Pathfinder do it. I hope they keep multiclassing, D20 modern's mix-and-match class system is nice- it might be even better if they dropped classes entirely, and you had a pool of abilities you could pick from, with recommendations for which you should pick for which sort of character. I like the optional magic rules, they make for some very interesting campaigns. I would like it if they had even more example NPCs, it saves a lot of time making them. Large battles get very clunky very fast, some way of streamlining hordes of monsters would be appreciated. my two cents |
| #8backstabbistAug 13, 2009 23:30:21 | Wants & Dontwants? I want GSL & 4e junk kept out of Modern I dont want any 4e junk put in. "Please keep it civil." your optimism is misplaced, civility & |
| #9TheRealOrionAug 14, 2009 0:54:25 | I like the specific firearms, I have weapons locker because of it. I like how you can pick the exact right gun for your character. I hope they keep that. Mind if I ask you why? If you had a way to "tweak" the stats for a given generic gun (adjusting range by 5 or 10 feat, increasing number of bullets, whatever) and then just call what you'd come up with a "Ruger 9mm" (or whatever) would that not be exactly the same? It seems to me that it's way less work to make generic guns and a way to alter them slightly, than it is to write a whole book of stats for every gun known to human kind. Just wanted to hear your thinking, so I thought I'd share mine. |
| #10narukagamiAug 14, 2009 2:12:06 | How about a compromise instead of excluding one or the other. Damage by caliber, and have various weapon qualities set up in some sort of customization system thats geared to be as generic or specific as you want (within reason). Of course there should be a chart for generic weapons and example specific weapons. It'd be kind of like what Call of Cthulhu did but with the addition of customization rules. I would like a skill and feat based magic system, instead of, or at least in addition to, casting classes. Just a personal preference. |
| #11dbayAug 14, 2009 2:29:36 | That is a very good idea, the customizable guns. I figured with the generic firearms, there would be say 10 choices, and that's it. But if there are just a few but you can tweak them, that sounds great. How about sort of a gadget system from d20future, except toned down- some should be mutually exclusive, there should be a max, etc.. Basically take as much broken and impossible out (you can't size a gun down more than one step, say) or the like. I like this plan. |
| #12atanakarAug 14, 2009 4:49:10 | Wants & Dontwants? WARNING : THIS THREAD HAS BEEN INFESTED. ASCENT DON'T TAKE THE BAIT.... |
| #13TheRealOrionAug 14, 2009 11:53:46 | How about a compromise instead of excluding one or the other. Damage by caliber, and have various weapon qualities set up in some sort of customization system thats geared to be as generic or specific as you want (within reason). Of course there should be a chart for generic weapons and example specific weapons. It'd be kind of like what Call of Cthulhu did but with the addition of customization rules. Yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to get at. A customisation system that lets you build what you want and then call it whatever you like. I would like a skill and feat based magic system, instead of, or at least in addition to, casting classes. Just a personal preference. How you figure this would work? To my mind, nobody gets enough feats to spend that they could justify spell-casting. So you'd end up with someone who could cast a handful of orizons and nothing else. |
| #14finalascentAug 14, 2009 12:47:17 | WARNING : THIS THREAD HAS BEEN INFESTED. ASCENT DON'T TAKE THE BAIT.... Not to worry. This is just a bunch of people stating ideas and preferences. Some may contribute spam, and others may contribute something useful. I'll just work to keep it focused on useful. I would like a skill and feat based magic system, instead of, or at least in addition to, casting classes. Just a personal preference. Star Wars: Saga handles Force powers through skills (setting you up for Force powers), feats, talents, and powers. You might take a look there for inspiration. Spell casting could just as easily take place that way. I hope they keep multiclassing, D20 modern's mix-and-match class system is nice- it might be even better if they dropped classes entirely, and you had a pool of abilities you could pick from, with recommendations for which you should pick for which sort of character WOTC would likely view a skills-based (non-classed) system as too far divergent from WOTC products and require tracking essentially what would be an entirely different system. It also wouldn't be filling the gap between Star Wars and D&D, but would instead be competing wholesale with them, and in the process losing many of the class-loving fan base. However, I personally love skill-based systems, but I'm not sure it's in the flavor of d20 Modern. It would be an odd change. Since class-based isn't a failure, and in fact has proven more popular, it would prove unwise to switch arbitrarily. However, I like traditional multi-classing. To me, 4e accomplishes only class-altering, instead of multi-classing. However, the problem with traditional multi-classing is that it is the core reason for out-of-control power playing. To get power playing under control, the 4e crew seemed to feel it could only be controlled through their new class-altering feature. As I think I mentioned, some kind of algorithm for gauging the power of any class ability, talent, feat, and skill to determine the power variables in mixing them and then design language to keep too powerful of combos from occuring. It would likely have to be done through a logic code, thus a lot of work, but it sure would be a boon to the industry if they figured something like that out. How about sort of a gadget system from d20future, except toned down- some should be mutually exclusive, there should be a max, etc.. Basically take as much broken and impossible out (you can't size a gun down more than one step, say) or the like. I like the gadget system, and I think it would be the perfect way to handle the variable weapons and equipment. But yes, there needs to be limits. Perhaps allow the variance between sizes and powers based on the age you're in. |
| #15TheRealOrionAug 14, 2009 13:05:12 | However, the problem with traditional multi-classing is that it is the core reason for out-of-control power playing. With respect, power players are the core reason for out-of-control power playing. As long as the culture of gaming remains focused on making the most powerful character (as determined by combat abilities, of course), then I don't think it matters how allegedly air-tight you make the system. Some enterprising player will find a way to spug it. The real solution to power-gaming (by whatever name you want to call it, there are many) is to play with people who don't power-game. I like the gadget system, and I think it would be the perfect way to handle the variable weapons and equipment. But yes, there needs to be limits. Perhaps allow the variance between sizes and powers based on the age you're in. I think you just have to keep the options very limited: -alter ranges by a percentage of standard (say 20%?) -alter bullet capacity by up to 50% -alter size one category only -alter weight by a percentage of standard -alter ammo type (barrel, magazine, internal) That should be it! If you want Mad Bonuses, you'll have to buy Mastercraft. If you want F/X, you'll have to buy magic/supertech. As long as the customisation stuff is limited to a few specific tweaks, then it shouldn't be too bad. The goal is not to make a system that allows you to build a "super-gun." The goal is to allow you to build a gun that resembles the 10mm Big Metal Phallus (or whatever your favourite firearm actually is). |
| #16finalascentAug 14, 2009 15:22:03 | A way to control gadgets is to give them built-in drawbacks. They introduced a drawback mechanic for gadgets, called "flaws", in the Future Tech supplement, and I doubt it gets used as much as it should. It's a good fix for a system that failed to introduce flaws in the first place, but I think the drawbacks should actually be built-in with and customized to the gadget description itself. Also, the Future Tech flaws weren't extensive enough, but they give you a base from which to develop other flaws. However, in a revamp of d20 Modern, they should definitely be built-in. EDIT- Balance was the real issue with the old system, in my opinion, and I don't just mean being able to create uber characters. As where there is uber, there is also goober. If you are not purposefully trying to power play, you may accidentally end up with a powerful character or accidentally end up with a crap character. So RPG's must naturally progress towards accounting for the discrepancy by seeking to create a game that has ever more natural balance (broadening the area of balance between uber and goober, so that it is harder to make either and easier to achieve balance). Yes, people will still be able to break it (as Monte Cook said, no RPG is unbreakable), but when looking at the non-power players, fewer accidents can happen and more balance can be achieved. It just takes forethought and perhaps some amount of sacrifice of beloved (or at least familiar) grails. The only way to think outside the box is to think in ways that aren't arbitrarily confined by those grails. |
| #17MechaPilotAug 14, 2009 16:56:53 | I would like to second the desire for a feat/talent/skill based fx system. I think the force powers system of Saga could very easily be used to convey magic or psionics. Add to that, I would also like them to modify the Urban Arcana incantaions to be more in line with 4e's ritual magic. I know not everyone likes games that include ritual magic; but if you're gonna play in a game that is similar to tv's Supernatural, you're gonna need a way for exorcisms, and other things to work. I also like the the idea about a custom firearms system, in particular un-breaking the existing gadget system. I don't personally have anything against buying a suppliment that is just an armory book, but you can bet it will probably be the last one on my wishlist. New classes, talents, and feats (as well as fx stuff) taking higher priority for me personally than an armory book. I would also like to agree about removing skill ranks. I think the skill system used in Saga handled this well (as did 4e which is mostly a copy of the Saga skill system). The trained/untrained concept worked well to denote the difference beween knowledgable amateur & skilled professional; and it allowed certains skill uses (like surgery) to remain the sole purview of the trained professionals. I would like them to change the wealth system. Switching whole-hog over to a cash system might alienate some fans, so I'd at least like to see them clean it up. There was a thread here that had a lot of good ideas for that, and I believe many people would be happy to stop finding bags of "+1 wealth bonus". I know this'll make some people groan, but I'd also like minitures. I'm not saying they should be mandatory to play. That would be stupid. But i'm getting awfully sick of using hot wheels and hero-clix to better illustrate positioning in combat. I want them to keep chase scale, for encounters between vehicles (or for supers who run/swim/fly as fast as a vehicle travels). And while I'm on the subject of chasing, I'd like to see a clean system for chasing people down on foot. I would like to see them keep the Saga system of adding character level to damage. It is one of the finest examples of how an experienced person is more deadly with a given weapon than an inexperienced one is. If they want to limit this to weapons one is proficient with (i don't recall if it already is; it's been a while since I checked), I see that as perfectly acceptable. I also find it fully acceptable if they want to limit the bonus damage so it doesn't apply to area-effect weapons. I know there are people who like very deadly games and bring a handful of back-up characters to play. That's not my thing. I'd like to see optional rules that allows action points to be useful for negating/recovering from damage. Maybe you can spend the point to take half damage, or spend a couple of points to take minimum damage. Or maybe you can take the hit, get hurt, then realise the attack was more painful than damaging (an option to heal some of the damage but it must be done on your next turn). Or an option to be rendered unconcsious or incapactitated instead of dead. |
| #18DwarfFighterAug 14, 2009 18:45:08 | Mind if I ask you why? If you had a way to "tweak" the stats for a given generic gun ... and then just call what you'd come up with a "Ruger 9mm" (or whatever) would that not be exactly the same? Imagine the chaos that would break out if two players took the same generic gun and one called it a Colt 1911 and the other called it an FN 5-7! PANDEMONIUM! -DF |
| #19narukagamiAug 14, 2009 19:34:50 | It would be nice instead of choosing one style of play and running with it, the core rules were tailored to be mixed and matched for different styles. Maybe take a cue from older game systems like Fuzion and have three core "tiers" of play. For Modern they could be Gritty, Heroic, and Cinematic. Write the book assuming Heroic as the baseline, then have optional rules built off them that can be used to turn the game into a Gritty or Cinematic style. |
| #20Cyber-DaveAug 14, 2009 20:44:24 | I just want something that takes the best of the innovations introduced by Saga and 4e, and uses them to create a new game. Not Star Wars Saga on earth, because if they are going to do that I just want them to release a "Modern Earth Campaign Setting" for the Star Wars Saga product line. Not 4e in Modern day times, because that would also be a little boring. But a new game with 6 classes named "Strong, Fast, Tough, Dedicated, Smart, Charismatic, that uses something that feels like the 4e power system/Saga talent system, the Saga/4e skill system, feats, and technology that can be used with equal effectiveness from level 1 to endgame. I would also like something akin to the Saga condition track. That's what I want. |
| #21DwarfFighterAug 15, 2009 5:40:53 | For Modern they could be Gritty, Heroic, and Cinematic. Write the book assuming Heroic as the baseline, then have optional rules built off them that can be used to turn the game into a Gritty or Cinematic style. The current rule-set offers us three tiers: realistic, heroic and super-heroic, his only addresses two aspects of the game (points allowance for starting ability scores and damage threshold). This is interesting in that it tiers the characters within the framework, effectively building a "difficulty level" into the character rather than requiring that we adjust each individual character-environment interaction to the appropriate tier. The lower/higher ability scores stick with the characters through-out the campaign. Even if a realistic character just has a -1 to his rolls comared to a heroic character, it's going to have an effect on the game. But that just deals with difficulty level. It seems rather that what people here are looking for is a tiering of complexity. I see a lot of focus on firearms: some want generic weapons that the players can modify to suit their needs, while others want a wide range of detailed weapons with rules that conform to their expectations for how these really perform. Are there any other areas you feel a tiering of realism/complexity is desired? -DF |
| #22DwarfFighterAug 15, 2009 5:41:31 | Oh! I'd really like to see simpler rules for grappling! -DF |
| #23RagitsuAug 15, 2009 6:07:41 | Wants & Dontwants? If I was three years younger... :D Anyhow, this is pretty much impossible, but a point buy based d20 Modern would be interesting. |
| #24finalascentAug 15, 2009 11:26:20 | It's not impossible. Point buy rules are simple enough to tack on as a character creation option in the introduction. Point buy systems aren't that hard to come up with. |
| #25TheRealOrionAug 15, 2009 12:00:05 | It's not impossible. Point buy rules are simple enough to tack on as a character creation option in the introduction. Point buy systems aren't that hard to come up with. point-buy system: see my sig |
| #26finalascentAug 15, 2009 12:26:52 | If I was three years younger... Well there you go. TheRealOrion's Pheonix Project, starting at the bottom right of pg 2. |
| #27dbayAug 15, 2009 13:25:13 | I've noticed in games that my characters start to feel invincible pretty quickly. Assuming we rule out crazy weaponry and rocket launchers and tanks, by level 10 or so I can wade through bullets like they are made of air... while playing a charismatic hero. However, I don't want my character to die every encounter- so some sort of balance between combat being dangerous and survivable? In the movies, when someone gets shot, it's usually a fairly big deal. They are virtually incapacitated or whatnot for at least a scene or two (until someone puts bandages on them, then they are miraculously better...). I want to be afraid of bullets but I don't want to die helplessly. There has to be some way for that to happen. |
| #28narukagamiAug 15, 2009 13:34:09 | Some kind of condition track/wounds system works to make combat dangerous and survivable. (ACTUAL wounds, not "HP called something else") Legends of the Five Rings has a wounds system where its usually not that easy to die (at least in the newer edition) but one wrong move in combat will take you out of the fight. I agree that combat SHOULD be dangerous, but to counter this they could also add a plethora of new defensive options. |
| #29TheRealOrionAug 15, 2009 14:35:39 | Never mind! Forgot what the forum topic was... |
| #30RagitsuAug 15, 2009 15:39:01 | Well there you go. TheRealOrion's Pheonix Project, starting at the bottom right of pg 2. That's not d20 Modern 2.0, that's a bunch of houserules that work with gamers open minded and experienced enough to work with point buy. It seems to me the majority of D&D/d20 Modern's market are used to the idea of class/level based play's simplicity. I want to be afraid of bullets but I don't want to die helplessly. There has to be some way for that to happen. Ultimately, this is up to the GM to manage. It is true that some systems handle it easier than the rest, but it is never completely a rules based issue. |
| #31nobodez_hereAug 15, 2009 21:42:06 | The thing is, bullets are deadly. That's why we stopped using bows and crossbows. That's why we spend thousands of dollars per soldier protecting them with camouflage cloth wrapped ceramic full plate. That's why police officers wear protective armor and hide behind cop cars as cover. That's why we use electricity as a less-lethal weapon system. When something is deadly enough that thousands of volts of electricity is the less-lethal weapon, it's fraking deadly. As to what I'd want in the future d20 revamp? The expanded talent system introduced in SWSE. The weapons system (generic weapons, carbines, AoOs, etc.) of SWSE. The condition track of SWSE (makes combat less lethal while still penalizing the players for acting stupid and getting in the way of bullets). The defense system of SWSE. The armor as DR of earlier verisions of Star Wars d20. The skill system of the Pathfinder Alpha, 4e, and SWSE. The rituals of 4e. The ability to use as granular a weapons system (specific weapons, special abilities, etc.) instead of generic like Spycraft 1.0. The vehicle system of SWSE. The computer rules of SWSE. The bastard child of SWSE, 4e, Pathfinder, Spycraft 1.0, and d20 Modern. |
| #32TheRealOrionAug 15, 2009 21:56:58 | The thing is, bullets are deadly. That's why we stopped using bows and crossbows. But bows and crossbows are cool, and characters who can take down multiple gun-totin' attackers with their bare hands are badass. If you want to simulate reality, that's one gaming choice (and a totally valid one!), but if you want to simulate action movies, then that's another. d20M, in whatever form, shouldn't feel beholden to reality. It should contain options for either realistic or fantastic gaming. |
| #33RagitsuAug 15, 2009 22:16:33 | Yeah. It ultimately depends on what baseline of reality the RPG starts at. |
| #34finalascentAug 15, 2009 22:49:26 | So scalable up or down seems to be the popular desire. It's a generic system, why not? It sounds like a template system would be needed. The Cyberscape supplement has an example of scalable templates, at least for cybernetics, by providing separate sets of key rules. There would also have to be weapon templates that increase or decrease the effect of weapons on player characters, whether altering the weapons, character creation rules, or damage rules. |
| #35TheRealOrionAug 16, 2009 0:22:01 | I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, with respect. I think the better way to go is to alter some of the core rules such that some things are more dangerous, more difficult, etc. Tinkering with the way that characters take damage is one major element of that, for example. Hit Points are very very different than a Condition Monitor. Once you have those kinds of options in place, you don't need to find a way to make every individual kind of damage scale up or down. |
| #36finalascentAug 16, 2009 13:01:39 | It seems to me that a condition track could only scale reactions. So it can only do more dangerous, rather than more deadly, unless you alter the system shock survival rules. The reason is that while some may be satisfied with simply more dangerous (which I agree that a condition track would be ideal for scaling on), others may prefer more deadly (which a condition track doesn't handle unless you say that to be sent to the bottom 10% or 20% of your remaining HP would end up in death, but that's not really scaled. That's actually an additional rule). Of course, I think the real flaw in the d20 system is that you gain so much HP so quickly and never stop gaining HP. I personally would set it so that the classes don't earn as much HP per level and put a cap on how much they earn. While you can still play the traditional way or gain even more HP more quickly for a supers game. Also, I think that HP should be generated primarily from the Character's Constitution with only a class bonus, instead of the other way around. But changing that might be considered too divergent from D&D tradition. |
| #37TheRealOrionAug 16, 2009 13:32:37 | The Shadowrun "condition monitor" actually addressed that problem in an interesting way. You had ten "boxes" of damage (one track was mental, one was physical, but that's a side point). For each box of damage, you took a cumulative penalty to pretty much everything. In Shadowrun it was a -2. That number might need to change for d20. What that meant was that as you took damage, you got less effective as a character. As a result, there was a lot of in-game incentive to "get shot less." Now, that was also integrated into a whole system where you had the ability to roll down incoming damage. Whenever you were hit for damage, you had a chance to resist it, either in whole or in part. You had a Resistance roll and you pitted that against the damage. If you rolled over the damage, you took none. So you never get more HPs in that game, but your ability to resist damage does go up a little based on protective gear, ability scores, etc. My point is, I wouldn't want to import a condition monitor like that straight into d20M, but it does present some interesting ideas about how to represent/track damage. The Shadowrun condition monitor always struck me as more realistic in the sense that if you get hurt, you don't just keep chugging along until that one HP of damage that outright kills you. Summary: An optional condition-track system would be one, over-all way to tweak d20M MkII to be more gritty. |
| #38Master_VegaAug 16, 2009 13:53:46 | But bows and crossbows are cool, and characters who can take down multiple gun-totin' attackers with their bare hands are badass. Is it still badass when anyone can use a sword/bow/crossbow to demolish a gun-totin' attacker? The reason it's badass in the movies is that it's understood how huge of a disadvantage the 'badass' is taking to fight with an inferior weapon. Is the SEAL awesome because his knife is better than the mook's AK47? No. It's because the SEAL is so cool he can beat the guy with machinegun using only a frickin' knife! Just my observation. If you want to simulate reality, that's one gaming choice (and a totally valid one!), but if you want to simulate action movies, then that's another. d20M, in whatever form, shouldn't feel beholden to reality. It should contain options for either realistic or fantastic gaming. What about action movies like The Matrix, where guns ruin the day of whoever's on the wrong end? I agree with the idea of allowing options for realistic or stylized games, but I don't think guns should automatically be useless in stylized campaigns. If you want to play Kenjutsu Master Akio, and make him able to take on guys with guns, build him so that he can. HE should be the reason he can take on such opponents with only a melee weapon, not the other way around. |
| #39narukagamiAug 16, 2009 14:06:55 | I still think that a wider array of defensive options would also go a long way to balance the cinematic with the realistic. This way a character can survive on pure skill instead of just gobs of HP, and still keep getting shot a dangerous thing. You could even scale the options for actions you can take depending on the campaign style. So, for example, in more realistic campaigns you could roll to be able to dive for cover in the middle of an enemies attack to avoid or take less damage, and on your turn you'd be considered in cover. In a more cinematic campaign maybe you can frontflip OVER the enemies bullets and land in your melee threat range. Or if you really want to get crazy-cool you can catch bullets or cut them in half mid-air with a sword. |
| #40finalascentAug 16, 2009 14:25:20 | I still think that a wider array of defensive options would also go a long way to balance the cinematic with the realistic. This way a character can survive on pure skill instead of just gobs of HP, and still keep getting shot a dangerous thing. Yes, defensive options should be available to combat classes with traditionally defensive fighting skills, such as a Fast Hero or a kung-fu master, but not to non-combat classes or combat classes that are solely known as offensive, such as a Smart Hero, Strong Hero, or foot soldier. A Tough Hero, of course, should be the only type to be given particularly higher HP and HP gain, but should not receive any special defensive options. |
| #41TheRealOrionAug 16, 2009 14:26:10 | Just my observation. Oh don't do that. It's not "just" an observation. You're waging an argument and I respect that. Stand behind your words, man. My ideal "fantastic action movie" is one where guns aren't necessarily any better than any other combat choice. In that kind of game, one person can be a gunslinger, another can be a martial artist, another can be a knife-fighter, etc. They can't be exactly parallel, of course, but around about the same level of effectiveness would be nice. Think of the final battle between Spike and his nemesis in Cowboy Bebop. They're both martial artists, but Spike has a gun and the other guy has a katana. That fight is awesome. What's badass about it is exactly what you describe: the people wielding the weapons are that good. What I don't want is for guns to be loaded with so many mechanical advantages that other options become pointless, but if we were to build a "realistic" game (I have issues with the concept of "realism," but that's a side issue), I think we'd have to go that way. As you say, there's a reason that modern armies don't train to wield broadswords any more. So one "setting" for the game would be "all weapons have more or less equal effectiveness" and another would be "guns are really where it's at." Then, everybody's happy. From other conversations, it seems like the way to tweak that in the existing system is attacks of opportunity. d20M out of the box is very much an "all weapons are about the same" game (or at least, that's the intention behind it, I think). To change that to a gun-heavy game, grant firearms-in-hand attacks of opportunity and remove the rule that says they provoke attacks of opportunity. Kablam, you just made guns the uber-weapon. I still think that a wider array of defensive options would also go a long way to balance the cinematic with the realistic. This way a character can survive on pure skill instead of just gobs of HP, and still keep getting shot a dangerous thing. Or as GM, you can just tell the players that in your game, HPs represent your character's growing ability to avoid damage and therefore the players can describe that avoidance any way they like. The numbers are just there to support the storytelling, after all. |
| #42narukagamiAug 16, 2009 14:27:56 | Yes, defensive options should be available to combat classes with traditionally defensive fighting skills, such as a Fast Hero or a kung-fu master, but not to non-combat classes or combat classes that are solely known as offensive, such as a Smart Hero, Strong Hero, or foot soldier. A Tough Hero, of course, should be the only type to be given particularly higher HP and HP gain, but should not receive any special defensive options. Why should defensive options be completely barred to anyone? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Certain options I can see, like maybe some of the more off the wall ones being fast hero talents or something. But saying "if you're a strong, smart, or charismatic hero, you have to stand there and get shot" is just, forgive me for being rude, stupid. |
| #43narukagamiAug 16, 2009 14:33:30 | Or as GM, you can just tell the players that in your game, HPs represent your character's growing ability to avoid damage and therefore the players can describe that avoidance any way they like. The numbers are just there to support the storytelling, after all. Its more fun to have actual representation of these actions in-game, and players tend to feel more involved when they have more options than just the DM making up a description when they get hit anyway. Which sounds more fun to you, avoiding damage by ninja flipping over it, or the DM telling you you ninja flipped when you took 10 damage anyway? |
| #44finalascentAug 16, 2009 14:36:48 | Why should defensive options be completely barred to anyone? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Certain options I can see, like maybe some of the more off the wall ones being fast hero talents or something. But saying "if you're a strong, smart, or charismatic hero, you have to stand there and get shot" is just, forgive me for being rude, stupid. The point is that they wouldn't just "stand there and fight". A person without defensive skills should be taking shelter behind something. If you ever noticed, heroes take a lot of cover in the movies no matter how cool and tough they are. Only the martial artists ever take on gun toters directly. So to be truly cinematic doesn't mean that everyone can stand their ground and not expect to get killed. In most hero movies, the heroes use alternate means to defeat the badguys. Yes, they know when to haul butt when a grenade is being launched in their direction or a massive object is getting ready to fall on them, but running out in the open under gunfire isn't their usual tactic. |
| #45finalascentAug 16, 2009 14:39:42 | Or as GM, you can just tell the players that in your game, HPs represent your character's growing ability to avoid damage and therefore the players can describe that avoidance any way they like. The numbers are just there to support the storytelling, after all. People don't do this because it's anti-intuitive. Hit Points represent the damage taken. All terminology applied in combat that reduce your HP have to do with taking actual damage to the body. In fact, the very term "hit points" refers to how much and how badly you get hit. So HP is not proper to use to represent how well one dodges. The whole terminology and mechanics just works against apprehending it as representing defensive actions. |
| #46narukagamiAug 16, 2009 14:40:20 | Well, to use my "dive for cover, land in cover" example, there should be a baseline of simple actions that anyone has access to. Be it just innate, or with skills and feats. Then, the more off the wall actions like ninja flipping or cutting bullets mid-air could be AdC class features or talents for the defensive-focused class. And to compromise with TheRealOrion, you could make the whole Defensive Maneuvers system optional anyway. |
| #47TheRealOrionAug 16, 2009 15:01:13 | Which sounds more fun to you, avoiding damage by ninja flipping over it, or the DM telling you you ninja flipped when you took 10 damage anyway? I said the player would describe it, which I think makes a difference. to be truly cinematic doesn't mean that everyone can stand their ground and not expect to get killed This is a very good point. The HP mechanic really encourages people to just stand there and take damage, especially in games with magical healing. The whole terminology and mechanics just works against apprehending it as representing defensive actions. Yeah, you're right. That's very convincing. In the interest of keeping the mechanic easy to convert, I wonder if we could just rename "HPs" as your "Dodge Pool"? You can use it to counter in-coming damage of most types, but to do so you must, I don't know, shift position by a square or two or something like that...? Just off the top of my head. See, what I don't want to do is replace a very simple mechanic (subtract damage from HPs and you're done) with an elaborate, complicated system that involves defensive rolls and facing and yadda yadda. That's where I fear this kind of conversation could go. Well, to use my "dive for cover, land in cover" example, there should be a baseline of simple actions that anyone has access to. Be it just innate, or with skills and feats. Then, the more off the wall actions like ninja flipping or cutting bullets mid-air could be AdC class features or talents for the defensive-focused class. Again, I would say that you could just grant the ability to ignore in-coming damage and then describe it any way you like. There could be some accompanying text that says "reducing damage by 1 - 5hp is just dodging, but reducing 30 - 40hp represents some serious kung-fu jedi ****." And to compromise with TheRealOrion, you could make the whole Defensive Maneuvers system optional anyway. Thank you. I appreciate the consideration. It's not that I looove HPs. I'm just leery of making major changes to a core mechanic without really thinking the consequences through. A lot of d20 mechanics are related to HPs. I don't think you can just dump them that easily. |
| #48narukagamiAug 16, 2009 15:23:16 | Thank you. I appreciate the consideration. It's not that I looove HPs. I'm just leery of making major changes to a core mechanic without really thinking the consequences through. A lot of d20 mechanics are related to HPs. I don't think you can just dump them that easily. Well, like I said earlier and probably wasn't completely clear on, any optional rules should be tailored to mesh instead of change. Defensive Maneuvers, condition tracking, wound penalties, dangerous combat, ect should all add on to the core rules instead of change them. This would actually make them easier to implement and mix and match. Like Fuzion and its various "plug-ins." |
| #49finalascentAug 16, 2009 16:13:02 | I said the player would describe it, which I think makes a difference. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't saying to dump the HP mechanic or to add a bunch of rules. I personally can't stand crunchy RPG's. That's why I don't like Skill Ranks. It's more crunchy than it needs to be. HP is fine as is, but there needs to be a check on it. As for defenses, it is easy enough to handle defenses with the means that already exist. In fact, there is no need to increase defenses. As is, there are already plenty of options for hiking up one's defenses. However, I don't think a brainiac should be just as effective in battle as the soldier. It doesn't make sense. The brainiac should be using his brains for other things or defeating the opponent in ingenious ways that don't have anything to do with frontal assaults. Cinema makes the distinction, so why shouldn't a cinematic game? Not even James Bond, one of the baddest dudes in cinema, performs frontal assaults. He does a whole heck of a lot of hiding behind objects when bullets are flying or running for dear life. |
| #50TheRealOrionAug 16, 2009 16:20:12 | Narukagami: agreed, wholeheartedly. FinalAscent: I do agree that lots of dodging/defensive options exist, and I'm actually okay with HPs as they are, although I'm interested in discussing other possibilities. I do though see the point that with HPs in the game, there isn't as much motivation to dodge, get behind cover, etc. Of course, in Modern, there's no healing, so "getting shot less" is a bigger deal than in D&D. So... hell, I don't know. This is why I like options. |
| #51finalascentAug 16, 2009 16:23:13 | To me, action isn't about the battle. It's about the efforts made to survive the battle. And if there's no incentive to make efforts to survive the battle, then there is actually less action, less story, and less challenge to resolve the story through original and ingenious means. But let me remind you that my argument is simply for a means of scaling from deadly to superheroic. |
| #52narukagamiAug 16, 2009 16:37:21 | I don't see why the brain classes should have no defensive options instead of just less defensive options than the brawn classes. If the character is supposed to be defeating his foes with his smarts, then why should it be impossible for him to be smart enough to be able to dive for cover? That does not make any sense. |
| #53finalascentAug 16, 2009 16:41:42 | That assumes that every smart person is smart enough to know how to make their body move well enough to dodge bullets. My I.Q. 143 (Not bragging, just saying), and yet I have no idea how to survive a situation in which bullets are flying without ducking for cover. Neither do I have the dexterity for it. You see, it doesn't make sense to assume that because someone is smart that they know how to dodge bullets or even swords. It requires bodily training to be able to perform physical feats. Without that bodily training, there's no way to do it. |
| #54narukagamiAug 16, 2009 16:43:17 | You see, it doesn't make sense to assume that because someone is smart that they know how to dodge bullets or even swords. Ducking for cover is exactly one of the "universal options" I'm talking about. It doesn't require much physical training to hit the deck when shots are going off. Thats why you make the options available via feats or talents, depending on the tier of heroism the campaign is going for. To bar them completely from ever learning it because they're the "smart guys" is just ridiculous. |
| #55finalascentAug 16, 2009 16:46:07 | I didn't say bar them. That's what multi-classing is for. If you can't do something with one class, you multi-class into another so that you can do it. It should not be assumed that a hacker knows anything about combat. |
| #56narukagamiAug 16, 2009 16:48:38 | And I'm saying the smart people should still have the option to learn basics even without multiclassing, but the things the "physical" classes can do should just be plain better. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they can never learn physical activity. Thats just a negative stereotype. :P |
| #57finalascentAug 16, 2009 16:55:18 | I think the problem here is that you and I see the classes differently. To me a class is a stereotype. If someone remains true to that class, then they are the epitomy of the stereotype. If they multi-class into other classes, then they create something new that is not standard for the one stereotype. Combat has nothing to do with hacking and therefore the hacker should not have the least ability to do so without multi-classing into a class with the ability. A geek that spends all his time playing with computers has no need of combat. A geek that spends most of his time dealing with computers and other times fighting side-by-side with fellow soldiers, isn't strictly a geek, but is a geek AND a soldier. In fact "Fast hero", "tough hero", and "smart hero" are very stereotypical terms, so d20 Modern is based on stereotyping. Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, are very specific terms conjuring very specific, stereotypical images, so D&D, from its inception, is based on stereotyping. |
| #58DwarfFighterAug 16, 2009 17:16:40 | That's why I don't like Skill Ranks. It's more crunchy than it needs to be. Skill points. They take all the fun out of statting up NPCs properly. Feats and stuff I can deal with. Skill points? Bo-ring! |
| #59TheRealOrionAug 16, 2009 17:51:13 | To me, action isn't about the battle. It's about the efforts made to survive the battle. And if there's no incentive to make efforts to survive the battle, then there is actually less action, less story, and less challenge to resolve the story through original and ingenious means. I entirely agree with you, and thanks for the reminder. I think I also agree with your take on classes. I mean, they are very specific archetypes (which are different than stereotypes). That said, all classes get a little bit of everything. The question is degree of focus. As of 3.5e, very few things are just-plain barred (we could probably name the few things that are off the tops of our heads). So I think that Brain classes can quite easily have some access to the "getting out of the way of bullets" abilities, just as they have some access to the "womping people over the head" abilities (i.e., BAB). I'd also point out, though, that d20M already has that mechanic built in: the class-based Defence bonus. So to my mind, the question isn't should there be a 'taking cover' ability in d20M?. Instead it's, how would this 'taking cover' ability replace and differ from the class-based Defence bonus? That make sense? |
| #60finalascentAug 16, 2009 18:05:26 | Yeah, that is certainly a proper compromise. Most people, especially heroes, know how to duck when bullets are flying. I would simply argue against their ability to do so anywhere near the means of a combat specialist without the proper and specific training. Otherwise, what distinguishes the combat specialist? Likewise, most combat specialists should know how to use a computer, but they should not know anything about how to hack one without specialized training. EDIT: Grr. Starting to lose my train of thought. |
| #61ultimatecaliburAug 16, 2009 18:23:19 | Here are some of the things I would like to see in a d20 modern revival:
For example, it was mentioned that at-will powers would turn d20 Modern into a supers game. I fully agree. Could you please explain this to me? I don't see how the at-wills that martial characters get would turn modern into a supers game. |
| #62narukagamiAug 16, 2009 19:24:45 | Orion and FinalAscent, this runaround about defensive maneuvers is why I also proposed the different tiers and (to borrow a term from Fuzion) rule plug-ins. Just for example: Orion could choose not to use the rules, Ascent could choose to use the rules with the "limited availability" option, and I could use the rules with the "wide availability" option, and the plug-in should be able to work as all three of us want without having to tweak the rest of the core mechanics to compensate. See what I mean? On the up side of a plug-and-play game system, it gives Wizards and third-party writers more options for splat book material, DMs more options to customize their campaigns, and us forum-goers more things to create. On the down side, it has the potential to get really bloated and confusing if not handled carefully. Especially with rules options that don't mesh with each-other and end up breaking the game entirely (something that happened a lot with 3E D&D books anyway :P). |
| #63finalascentAug 16, 2009 21:24:30 | That's what I was saying with templates. WOTC staff would just have to determine how best to handle the rules templating. I think we can agree that templating/plugins would be a desireable thing for the game and would help make it more popular as long as it's kept simple. |
| #64nobodez_hereAug 17, 2009 2:13:01 | Here are some of the things I would like to see in a d20 modern revival: Well, this gave me an idea. Why not use the idea of VP/WP from back in the day, and integrate it with the idea of Bloodied from 4e? Your HP are in a single pool but represent two sections. Above half (or whatever you decide is the bloodied threshold), and it's just vitality, no actual "damage" has been done. Once you get bloodied, you're actually, well, bloodied, and have taken actual "damage". This "bloodied" area could even be a reason to have the Con + class hp model. The class bonus represents your vitality, training, etc. The Con represents your actual physical body and how much damage it can take. Make the level increases like 3 to 5 (3 smart, dedicated, charismatic; 4 fast, strong; 5 tough), but multi-classing actually allows you to change this bonus. (have the bonus be half the hit die for other classes) Starting HP: Con + class Level HP: +class. So a 1st level smart hero (Con 12) would have 15 hp (12 bloodied), while in a few levels, when he's a smart 2/fast 3 (Con 13), he'd have 31 hp (13 bloodied). Using the old system (and assuming a 3/4, round down method), he'd have 33 hp. So this method would increase early survivability, but flatten the hp curve. At most a 20th level hero would have 75 hp more than he had at 1st level (if all his classes were 1d10 classes), and all of it would be vitality hp, which represents small cuts, scratches, near misses, etc. Getting actually shot still hurts like hell, and you can't survive a firing squad actually hitting you, but you're darned lucky until then. As for another 4e/MMO/quantification aspect, roles. Tough is a defender. Strong and Fast are strikers (melee and ranged respectively). Smart is a controller. Dedicated and Charismatic are leaders. |
| #65backstabbistAug 17, 2009 9:57:52 | I keep forgetting, what is the "Role" of a Cat Burgler (2ndStoryGal) that carrys no weapons and flees from eganging combat? |
| #66finalascentAug 17, 2009 11:02:19 | Extremist literalism - the other fight meat.So a 1st level smart hero (Con 12) would have 15 hp (12 bloodied), while in a few levels, when he's a smart 2/fast 3 (Con 13), he'd have 31 hp (13 bloodied). Using the old system (and assuming a 3/4, round down method), he'd have 33 hp. So this method would increase early survivability, but flatten the hp curve. At most a 20th level hero would have 75 hp more than he had at 1st level (if all his classes were 1d10 classes), and all of it would be vitality hp, which represents small cuts, scratches, near misses, etc. Getting actually shot still hurts like hell, and you can't survive a firing squad actually hitting you, but you're darned lucky until then. I still think they should incorporate or provide an option for a more stringent limit on HP. Every time I see something like "75 HP", I wince. Only superheroes have unlimited HP potential. In the real world, even in cinema, if you strapped them down to a table and tortured them, "tough heroes" are typically only two to three times harder to kill than a 98 lb. weakling, and a 98 lb. weakling is just as easy to kill no matter how good or bad he is at cracking computers. And no matter how tough or weak they are, they'll all succumb to a bullet in the brain pan. However, they should all have abilities that help them survive effectively, instead of immense HP. But again, it can be scaled/templated. Could you please explain this to me? I don't see how the at-wills that martial characters get would turn modern into a supers game. Exploits (attack powers) were introduced to help the other classes balance with the Wizard. I've been thinking about it, and the more I think about it, the more I think exploits, even at-will exploits, would work well in d20 Modern and are good for balance. I also think they could be rolled into feats. However, there needs to be a check on their usage. By rolling them into feats, you would still get the same small number of feats, but have opportunity to make effective attacks with them. Or you could have an alternate rule for realism that says you trade a feat for exploits instead of having exploits on top of feats, while in a higher powered game, you use the exploits in addition to feats as per 4e. In other words, I think it could be controlled in a template fashion. |
| #67narukagamiAug 17, 2009 12:42:19 | Using the 4e 50/50 saving throw method, at least massive damage saves will be relevant all the way to the end game, finally. :P |
| #68trappedsliderAug 17, 2009 14:25:06 | I would not like Roles,because as BAck has pointed out what exactly is the role if the charcter's plan is to be a theif who runs at the frist sign of combat? The role Idea from what I can tell doens't give the answer for it. I owuld love to use Saga's force power system in use for the PSI stuff.... |
| #69finalascentAug 17, 2009 16:01:07 | For the record, I never meant that the person only knows one task. If that were the case, they would only get one skill. A burglar is a crook. Of course he's going to have a weapons skill and of course he's going to be agile enough to dodge attacks. I'm not really understanding why I have to clarify that. I'd prefer not to have to legitimize a non-argument into a serious argument. That's why I ignored it in the first place. Returning to the real conversation: Well, this gave me an idea. Why not use the idea of VP/WP from back in the day, and integrate it with the idea of Bloodied from 4e? Your HP are in a single pool but represent two sections. Above half (or whatever you decide is the bloodied threshold), and it's just vitality, no actual "damage" has been done. Once you get bloodied, you're actually, well, bloodied, and have taken actual "damage". VP is redundant. You have a constitution score and saving throws. You don't need a third mechanic to deal with the same thing. Bloodied or the condition track have clearly defined levels of consciousness and impairment, VP is just a gradual energy decline with very little meaning. |
| #70trappedsliderAug 17, 2009 16:16:19 | For the record, I never meant that the person only knows one task. If that were the case, they would only get one skill. A burglar is a crook. Of course he's going to have a weapons skill and of course he's going to be agile enough to dodge attacks. But your assuming that the PC has chosen to have weapon skill,which in the case given he dosen't, I'm not saying that roles aren't bad but i'm not saying they are good either.. For example in GURPS its entirely possible to make a non combat charcter whos a theif,who has no combat or dodge skills what so ever, whos main thing is run and hide,while stealing stuff, so my question is what role owuld that person have in a d20 mdoern with Roles besides dead:P? EDIT: In fact in one game i ran last year,I had a player who refused to take weapon skills because his charcter idea was to be a pacifist,and he oddly also chose to ignore picking up any dodge stuff,becuase he's charcter's plan during combat was to run and hide. |
| #71finalascentAug 17, 2009 16:36:31 | But your assuming that the PC has chosen to have weapon skill,which in the case given he dosen't, I'm not saying that roles aren't bad but i'm not saying they are good either.. I think you answered your own question. He chose not to acquire the skill. But as for the non-violent classes, they serve other uses. A roboticist can program a robot to protect him. You don't need to be a gunslinger to know how to add a weapons program. A hacker could remote hack weapons systems to target the offenders or operate an automated gun platform without need of weapons skills. Geeks would be inclined to invest in protection where they lack combat skills. There are a lot of geeks in this world who survive just fine in dangerous situations without fighting skills, and are the masterminds behind high-tech crimes and battlefield tech. I would say they have plenty of survivability. My thing is that if you make it more real in character creation, the choices made become more believable and more exciting. Now granted, in Star Wars, everybody knows something about everything, but that's what the Saga system is for. You could still accomplish that through multi-classing, which I think everyone does anyway, so it's a moot point to argue against more well defined archetypes. In the end, it's whatever people like in playtesting. But I'm not going to argue the point forever. It's just my personal preference. |
| #72finalascentAug 17, 2009 17:01:42 | By the way, starting occupations provide plenty of chance for a character to acquire a weapons skill in addition to their weapons-deficient class. Also, I didn't think about it before, but starting occupations are essentially like the multi-class options in 4e. |
| #73trappedsliderAug 17, 2009 17:09:46 | i just don't feel comfortable going from the very very lossly defiend roles to what to me feels restricted.... and right now,this just feels like a setting book for D&D for 2012 isntead of itw own core rule book with its own settings. |
| #74narukagamiAug 17, 2009 17:19:31 | Thats the one thing I don't want above all else. If a new Modern turns out to just be D&D with cars and guns then I'll have nothing to do with it. |
| #75finalascentAug 17, 2009 17:21:25 | i just don't feel comfortable going from the very very lossly defiend roles to what to me feels restricted.... I don't think suggesting taking out "simple weapons feat" from the smart hero really qualifies as "restricted." By the way, you all need to let go of 3.5 if you're going to embrace a Modern revamp. 3.5 represents the past. Pathfinder is the official inheritor of it. I suggest going to Paizo if that's what you want. The days of 3.5 at WOTC are gone. |
| #76trappedsliderAug 17, 2009 17:25:34 | I don't think suggesting taking out "simple weapons feat" from the smart hero really qualifies as "restricted." whats wrong with a 3.5/SE hybrid? |
| #77finalascentAug 17, 2009 17:27:40 | SE was born from 3.5 and moved forward on the way to 4e. It is already WOTC's 3.75. To create a hybrid is stepping backward. I mean, personally, I just say stick with the SE system, but customize it for Modern. Because there is nothing that SE left behind that I would care to go back to in a revamp. In fact, most everyone on the SE boards, I think, would agree. |
| #78trappedsliderAug 17, 2009 17:31:59 | SE was born from 3.5 and moved forward on the way to 4e. It is already WOTC's 3.75. To create a hybrid is stepping backward. Only for oyu and a number of others, there are those who have expressed a wish to keep d20 mdoern away from becoming a simple sub set of the 4e rules,Theres still good stuff in the 3.5 that should be kept for the next edition of d20 modern which could be combined iwth SE to make a game that they,myself in lncluded would be willing to buy and play. |
| #79finalascentAug 17, 2009 17:33:15 | Like what stuff? |
| #80narukagamiAug 17, 2009 17:45:36 | The unfortunate fact is as far as Wizards is concerned anything 3.x related is dead. There is no going back. Realistically Saga edition is the best we can hope for at this point in time for something thats not completely 4e based. You'd honestly be fooling yourself if you really think Wizards will hybrid anything with 3.5. |
| #81trappedsliderAug 17, 2009 17:50:15 | The unfortunate fact is as far as Wizards is concerned anything 3.x related is dead. There is no going back. Realistically Saga edition is the best we can hope for at this point in time for something thats not completely 4e based. i know but still... I just want very little from 4e to come in to the next D20 modern CRB and settings |
| #82finalascentAug 17, 2009 18:05:05 | By the way, my bringing up the comparison between occupations and 4e multiclass feats was meant to show that using it alone without true multiclassing would detract from the game. d20 Modern had both multiclasses and also what amounts to 4e's multiclass feats. So if you say drop those, then it's changing the game as you know it. I wasn't saying to drop multiclassing. I like multiclassing, as I said before. I just think it needs better control. The best way to do that is to control the classes themselves. |
| #83finalascentAug 17, 2009 18:13:07 | Here is what it looks like to multiclass with traditional multiclass rules: ........../\......../\ ......../....\..../....\ ....../........\/........\ ..../........./|\.........\ ../........./||||\.........\ /........./|||||||\.........\ Where it crosses over, the character's effectiveness is magnified. But the way classes should act to provide balance when multiclassing would be this way: ........../\......../\ ......../....\..../....\ ....../........\/........\ ..../...........|..........\ ../.............|............\ /...............|..............\ Thus no amount of out of control advancement occurs. |
| #84trappedsliderAug 17, 2009 18:18:01 | By the way, my bringing up the comparison between occupations and 4e multiclass feats was meant to show that using it alone without true multiclassing would detract from the game. d20 Modern had both multiclasses and also what amounts to 4e's multiclass feats. So if you say drop those, then it's changing the game as you know it. I wasn't saying to drop multiclassing. I like multiclassing, as I said before. I just think it needs better control. The best way to do that is to control the classes themselves. I've never seen out of control mulitlcassing in d20 modern.....never even heard of it before either... |
| #85finalascentAug 17, 2009 18:32:14 | You're right, "out of control" is the wrong term. I meant only to reflect the unpredictable nature of multi-classing. The mixing of skills and feats that are used to create the best possible combinations do get out of control to the point of making a super-character or simply so strong as to be preferred simply for effectiveness instead of classing preference. But, of course, that can happen within a single class, but it doesn't happen as frequently within a single class that I'm aware of (I'm not a power gamer. I speak with some amount of ignorance on such issues, but I speak based upon the power gamer discussions I've witnessed.) |
| #86nobodez_hereAug 17, 2009 20:37:36 | I still think they should incorporate or provide an option for a more stringent limit on HP. Every time I see something like "75 HP", I wince. Only superheroes have unlimited HP potential. In the real world, even in cinema, if you strapped them down to a table and tortured them, "tough heroes" are typically only two to three times harder to kill than a 98 lb. weakling, and a 98 lb. weakling is just as easy to kill no matter how good or bad he is at cracking computers. And no matter how tough or weak they are, they'll all succumb to a bullet in the brain pan. However, they should all have abilities that help them survive effectively, instead of immense HP. But again, it can be scaled/templated. I was going to put together a full screed on the subject, but decided against it. You didn't read my post, even the part you quoted. That's all right. Everybody has different concepts of how they want to handle injury, energy, and the interaction thereof. Some people prefer a single pool of elements that represents how much total "damage" (from exhaustion and injury) you can take, while others prefer to split the injury from the energy. The split is more complicated, but more realistic. By the way, those "75 hp" weren't actual lay down on a table and take more cuts hp, they were near-miss, turning a gashing strike into a mere scraping strike hp. A character with 13 Con, in my example, would still be just as hurt by a knife to the gut at 1st or 20th level. It's just that at 20th level he's competent enough to turn and move with the knife, so it doesn't actually cut him. But, I'm just going to bow out of further hp discussions. |
| #87backstabbistAug 17, 2009 21:23:43 | You're right, "out of control" is the wrong term. I meant only to reflect the unpredictable nature of multi-classing. The mixing of skills and feats that are used to create the best possible combinations do get out of control to the point of making a super-character or simply so strong as to be preferred simply for effectiveness instead of classing preference. are you sure you are talking ablout d20 Modern... the one by WoC? Perhaps if you gave an example of this 'out of control' multiclassing abuse.... show us the MultiClass Abusive way to make a Rifle Marksman combatant (good tohit with Rifle) unreasonable character. NOT his equipment, not his ability scores, but the abuses of d20 Modern MultiClassing. The problem you want to solve is a D&D class structure abuse problem, not Modern. You are applying a D&D fix to a game that dont have that D&D abuse. |
| #88TheRealOrionAug 17, 2009 21:34:38 | I think Backstabbist is right, actually. I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion, FinalAscent, given that a lot of the standard ways to "break" D&D had to do with multi-classing, but d20M has so few classes that it's not really an issue in that game. Modern isn't inherently more stable (I don't think so, anyway). It's just a matter of not having access to hundreds of alternative classes, many of which inflated in power over time. So to turn that into a request for an updated Modern game: please don't produce so many damn alternative classes that such problems arise! Instead, provide alternative Talent and Feat trees and maybe the Advanced classes (or equivalents) flexible enough that we can get what we need out of them. |
| #89finalascentAug 17, 2009 21:55:23 | I was going to put together a full screed on the subject, but decided against it. You didn't read my post, even the part you quoted. That's all right. I read and understood the first time. I still don't agree. It is my personal opinion (statements like "I think" should indicate that I'm not dictating anything, so no one should get upset) that high VP/HP does not adequately express any amount of realism or even cinematic effect. The actual act of dodging bullets (that is, a dodge/duck/profile reduction/dive/perry/deflect mechanic) does. That's what action is. Neither HP nor VP represent action, it doesn't even properly allow narrative action in contemporary d20 games. Back when D&D didn't have feats (and now exploits) to express these things, yes, narrative was all we had, but it lacked the expression of the character's actual skill. But in a system that gives you opportunity to express the character's expertise in precise terms, then using narrative to explain HP or VP just doesn't fit. The knife you mentioned does "just as much damage", but it doesn't actually. Because the character has a higher HP score, it is a significant bit less damage, percentage-wise. But a more experienced character should be actually dodging, blocking, or parrying the blow with skill, not with HP or VP. HP is what you deduct after the blow has landed. VP is what you deduct to determine level of consciousness (4e does this with just the bloodied mechanic). If a bowie knife with 1d6 damage capability does the full 6 damage, that should be that its blade actually sank in. If the character wielding the blade has skill with a knife, then he could find a more vital point and exploit a weakness so that his +6 bonus hikes the damage up to 12. This expresses that the knife went in deep at a more vital point or stuck it down to the hilt. If he got a critical hit, then according to d20 Modern, the damage is now 24. But a character with 75 HP is going to laugh off such a blow. Oh look, the knife went all the way into his liver and sliced on its way out, but it means nothing to my character. He goes chugging right along because he's apparently tougher than...well...anyone. But if he actually has the skill to reduce the effectiveness of the blow, then he can apply a -8 modifier to the damage, demonstrating his ability to reduce the damage, bringing that 24 down to 16, expressing that it didn't slice through the liver successfully. You don't need to respond. I'm just stating my view. You and I can agree to disagree. Anyway, it has little to do with what I can realistically expect. In my perfect world, WOTC would give good consideration to that HP is part of the overpowered problem and that it would be good to truly rely upon the character's class abilities to protect the character. |
| #90finalascentAug 17, 2009 22:06:21 | are you sure you are talking ablout d20 Modern... the one by WoC? I think Backstabbist is right, actually. I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion, FinalAscent, given that a lot of the standard ways to "break" D&D had to do with multi-classing, but d20M has so few classes that it's not really an issue in that game. Modern isn't inherently more stable (I don't think so, anyway). It's just a matter of not having access to hundreds of alternative classes, many of which inflated in power over time. Perhaps you all are right. But mind you, there are a whole lot of classes from d20 Modern to d20 Future, not just the 6 in the d20 Modern book. Those can be mixed and matched. But again, I don't have experience with optimizing character builds. In all the RPG's I play, I tend to build the concept I want (or a close approximation without concern for what is more awesome). |
| #91TheRealOrionAug 17, 2009 22:18:19 | I'm the same way, actually. I hear about optimisation a lot, and how "broken" this or that game is. And then I play it and it's about as much fun to play a "broken" game as a "fixed" game, so it actually doesn't bug me all that much. I mean, if you want to play an optimiser's game, then find some optimisers and have fun. That style of play does not in the slightest impinge on my playing the game differently, across town or across the continent. Anyway, you are right that there are more than just the ones in Core, but there's nowhere near as many as in D&D and they didn't have nearly as many years of power-creep. I think it's something to bear in mind for future design, but not something to be overly worried about. I suspect that this is exactly why the 4e design team(s) are working their way through the classes so slowly, although I cannot vouch for the results one way or the other. |
| #92finalascentAug 17, 2009 22:26:46 | Yeah, I got ya. I suppose it is because I hear about it so much, and not so much witness it. In SE, there are several easy-to-produce breaks, that I suppose that has also colored my vision a little. Really, considering the things I would like to see from that added into d20 Modern, there comes a greater concern for considering ways to control the balance. |
| #93backstabbistAug 17, 2009 22:34:09 | D&D had to make lots & lots of "new" classes and feats so they can sell lots and lots of splats containing the new stuff. Why did everyone want the newest stuff? Power creep. Modern classes give chars a method to do their jobs, not define what their job ( the word ROLE comes to mind) is. A Modern librarian doesnt have to take levels in Librarian, nor do folks that snipe have to have levels in Siper Class. You should look at Modern claases as just that, classes you take at the University of Life. You want to shoot better, take a class that teaches you that. You want to file the DeweyDecimal faster, take a class that improves your Lirarianship. You still missing a lot with that 45? Take another semester of that shooting class. Lose your keys frequently? Take a class that teaches you Lockpicking. If any punk NPC trys to tell your librarian that they cant learn to pick locs because it is not in the librarian "Role", demonstrate some of that 45shootin you learned on his but. I'm the same way, actually. I hear about optimisation a lot, and how "broken" this or that game is. And then I play it and it's about as much fun to play a "broken" game as a "fixed" game, We had a great time playing stuff like Toon and Paranoia. |
| #94masail19Aug 27, 2009 21:27:53 | From reading the issue of hit points and weapon damage, some ideas have occured to me. First, I remember an example of a character who was gutted at 60 hit points. My answer is that it is a statistical impossibility -- the target would have to be in serious trouble before a character could even get a hit like that on him. To my thinking, the point of hit points is to measure how hard it is to seriously injure you, but hit points don't save you if you can't defend yourself. If you're unconscious or helpless, you're at your enemy's mercy. Second, I think guns deserve more attention in terms of what they can do to a character besides lowering hit points. If you're shot, at the very least you end up with the bleed condition losing hit points until you save, but really powerful firearms should potentially drop you to the dying condition no matter how many hit points you have. I'm sure these aren't the only forms of damaging conditions that a ballistic weapon could impose, but the stats should attempt to simulate action movie scenarios without completely destroying the bad-ass element some players like. Thirdly, I think power sources and class roles are a good idea for d20 Modern 2.0, but I want to see them adapted to this game, and not everything fantasy-wise should carry over. If the game still has the same basic classes I want to see them get fewer powers than a D&D martial character gets, and I'd like to see them called 'tactics' instead of 'exploits' with the implication that action heroes are more human than fantasy heroes. Here's an example of what I think a new level table would look like for adding tactics, with other effects of experience ignored. Level---Powers and Features 1st-------Gain 3 at-will attack tactics 2nd------Gain 1 encounter attack tactic 3rd-------Gain 1 utility tactic 4th----- 5th-------Gain 1 daily attack tactic 6th-------Gain 1 utility tactic 7th-------Gain 1 encounter attack tactic 8th----- 9th-------Gain 1 utility tactic 10th------Gain 1 daily attack tactic I'm assuming a 2-tier model, with a 3rd tier only being accessible in superheroic games. I'm also assuming that class features would only be expandable with feats, not a separate advancement for talents like the old model. Multiclassing is hard to imagine if 4E rules are adapted as that model isn't flexible enough to be done without feats. But all this assumes 4E is the model the rules are based off of. It certainly is possible that the new edition of d20 Modern will take a parallel route, using D&D rules for basic features and moving away from it in other areas including class advancement. That certainly is the way the previous edition seemed to work, as it didn't quite match 3E or the Revised Edition.
|
| #95finalascentAug 28, 2009 14:10:13 | Good post, Masail. Backstabbist makes a good point regarding the classes, and it did occur to me that defining more specific roles would perhaps change the flavor of the original d20 Modern. The advanced classes, on the other hand, were well defined for d20 Modern, while remaining generic. However, in other supplements, such as d20 Apocalypse, d20 Future, d20 Past, and much of the rest of the non-WOTC d20 Modern literature, advanced classes take on further definition, more AD&Dish, Prestige class definitions. As indicated, I prefer the advanced class definitions from d20 Modern. However, I prefer that there not be a distinction between starting classes and advanced classes. I never liked the starting class/Advanced class distinction. Advanced/Prestige classes didn't seem to do much in balancing the flow of character development. Nothing more than what could be done with a single class. Removing the distinction would also make multi-classing easier, as in the days of 1st edtion AD&D. There are other ways to balance and diversify a character's progression. Also, while I see the benefit of Feats, I think they're far too numerous. And some just don't make any sense of feats, but some would work better as floating (non-class-specific) talents, while others would work better rolled up into specific classes. Feats shouldn't be things you learn in a class or wisdom gained from an instructor. Feats should be your character's special defining characteristic actions. For instance, Aircraft Operation isn't a feat in the modern world. It's a learned skill. Archaic Weapons Proficiancy falls under the definition of a talent, and would work well as a general talent. Burst Fire isn't a feat, it's a talent, and would be a good class-specific talent. Brawling too. A feat is like Cleave, Endurance, and Focused. Feats should represent your character's special aptitudes beyond what is simply learned, but what is conditioned, bringing them above the common character in that area. |