# "Fixing" d20 Modern - The Definitive Thread



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 19, 2010)

There have been a lot of threads on d20 Modern in the past. 
A lot of people have ideas and issues with the game system, but like other aspects, and I think there have been quite a few threads about it already..

I am currently playing in a d20 Modern online campaign set in a post-apocalyptic world. (If you're interested and understand German, the gamemaster has his own blog: TheClone | Das herzliche Rollenspielblog)

I like where the campaign is going, but nobody seems quite content with the game system itself. A lot of combats we had were basically exchanges of bullets with little more tactics and variety than moving between covers, and a lot of (bad) luck involved to actually come to an end. 

So, last weekend we were discussing alternatives, like Savage Worlds or Star Wars Saga. Another option was house-ruling d20 Modern. Well, I got a little carried away with it this weekend and ended up with a lot of material, which I am talking a little about in my own blog
(Note: I have talked about "4Eiizing" d20 Modern before. This is, mostly, not that take.)

But before getting carried away even further - what do you people think are d20 Modern biggest issues? Where does it need improvement? 

My take currently focuses mostly on a few things: 

- Talents are bland and boring. 
- Action Points are underused. 
- Combat Options are lacking or are very feat-intensive. 

Other things I observed: 
- Reputation seems to be mostly ignored.
- Wealth is often considered a good idea implemented badly.

So, what's your take? What would you add to the list? How would you expect it to change? How do you feel do (d20?) alternatives (Modern 20, True 20, Spycraft) do these things better - and where do they fail?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jan 19, 2010)

I agree with your lists and would add:
- NPCs are too good.  Mook gang-bangers that don't even get a name are as good or better than SWAT-trained PCs.  Largely this is because the Elite Array was applied to *everything*.
- Guns are too anemic.  They rarely, if ever, come close to dropping a foe in one attack; I'm okay with them rarely dropping a PC, but PCs are more likely to be dropped in one shot than the nameless mooks.
- Flying Kicks kill tanks.  ... That just makes my brain hurt.
- Not enough skill points.  It takes about 13 levels to become a well-rounded adventurer, and with that build you've got maybe one skill that's close to max ranks.
- Not enough feats.  Given the feat-intensive nature of the system, there are not enough feats (not even over 20 levels) to fulfill the base concept of a chracter _and _spend a few on additional proficiencies or combat options.
- Poor Class definition.  The classes are very poorly described and defined, which has lead to much player confusion.  Mapping them to problem-solving style (which they are), or archetype (which they are not), or combat style (which they are not) would go a long way towards fixing that.

There are other issues that I have but those are the ones that I always remember and haven't already been mentioned.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 19, 2010)

I would actually say the number of feats is okay, it's just that there are too many feats required to get some base ability. Firearms Proficiency could just be part of the general Simple Weapon Proficiency. Light Armor Proficiency could also be free (how much training do you really need to "use" a kevlar vest?) 

Some feats could be merged - Point Blank Shot + Precise Shot for example don't really need to be separate in my opinion. (Better use Precise Shot for something like a ranged power attack).


----------



## Greg K (Jan 19, 2010)

For Action Points, I would look at Mutants and Masterminds 2e Hero Points (and Complications).


----------



## Armadillo (Jan 20, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, last weekend we were discussing alternatives, like Savage Worlds or Star Wars Saga. Another option was house-ruling d20 Modern.




Star Wars Saga is what put an end to my house-ruling d20M, and Savage Worlds is now my go to game.



> - Talents are bland and boring.
> - Action Points are underused.
> - Combat Options are lacking or are very feat-intensive.
> 
> ...



I like the talent system, with additional talents from d20 Future and the d20M Companion.  Still, I like the talents from Star Wars Saga even better.

Yes as to action points.  This was the first thing that I house-ruled.  Star Wars Saga is again useful here.

I like the Wealth system, but the GM and players have to work to integrate it into the narrative of the game.

I think that the issue more one of too many core classes than two few skill points.  Well, that and too many skills.  [insert standard skill consolidation comment here]  One of the real problems with the skills is that the limited class skills available often require some odd builds so that you are able to qualify for an advanced class.  I favor a tighter list of classes, with more descriptive names:  Warrior [Strong], Rogue [Fast/Charismatic], Stalwart [Dedicated/Tough], Thinker [Smart].  

A shorter list of core classes will also help to avoid the +0 BAB problem, which occurs when a character multiclasses with three classes that all begin with +0 BAB.  The other way to deal with the +0 BAB problem is by tracking fractional BAB as described in Unearthed Arcana.

I also favor slimming down the number of feats, particularly ones that are mostly there as prereqs for other feats.

EDIT:  Oh, and add in Pathfinder's CMB/CMD.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 22, 2010)

These threads are hard for me, because my knee-jerk reaction is to point folks at Modern20, which I wrote to take d20 Modern (along with a more than generous dose of True20) to make a modern game I and my players found more satisfying. 

In general, I think d20 Modern suffers from trying to make guns "balanced". If you look at a lot of the useless feats they require folks to take to use firearms and be good at them, along with the base damage of guns, they made guns about as good as other options, and actually worse than some, such as the magic-user's spells and some of the martial artist abilities.

It's almost a textbook example of how trying to make all options equally valid can suck the life right out of a game. 

I think accepting the fact that any fun, modern game should make "cinematic" its default state, avoiding magic, and letting guns be what they should be (a really terrifying option that, in general, should be a part of any modern warrior's arsenal) you get a game that's more satisfying, to me anyway. 

Also, and I've said this numerous times before, modern combat should feel different than D&D. Folks should have a different experience playing d20 Modern than D&D, or what's the point.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 22, 2010)

I found it ridicilous how long it takes to really make guns an interesting option in combat. We are at level 6 in the aforementioned campaign and all we can do is basically shoot a single bullet at one opponent per round (well, one could try autofire, if we had automatic weapons). 
In D&D 3E, a Fighter could Power Attack and Cleave and Trip at that time (at least if he wanted - yet he would probably still complain about too little feats). In D&D 4, he would have 2-3 at-wills, 2 encounter attacks and 2 daily attacks. 

Just rolling to hit and rolling damage doesn't cut it, especially not if you have to do it over 10 rounds of combat.

Generally, d20 Modern takes too long to get you "interesting" abilities. And... there aren't really all that many of them, either. Again - the talents are mostly bland.


----------



## The Black Kestrel (Jan 22, 2010)

As an author of one of those what to fix in d20 Modern threads, I thought I'd chime in with a couple of thoughts.

Class system. While I like the six classes themed around the ability scores, they need some improvement. Which segues nicely into my next set of problems:

Skills/Skill Points. 4 per class level minimum. Skill consolidation is required as well.

BAB. Another good BAB class is needed (Tough Hero gets my vote). I also 
agree that the +0 BAB is an issue. I say fractional BAB is probably the best fix, but a more elegant way is needed to explain it.

Feats. More feats per level (every level ala Pathfinder works). Consolidation of some feats as well as more ranged feats that are weapon neutral (thinking of a couple of the PF ranges feats like Deadly Aim).

Talents. Talents are BLAND! SWSE set the new standard for talent design.

Occupations. Occupations need more feats. This would help solve some of the problems associated with starting characters not feeling heroic enough/not being able to accomplish what the player wants.


----------



## delericho (Jan 22, 2010)

d20 Modern could do well to learn a lot from SWSE (as SWSE no doubt learned from d20 Modern). I'd be inclined to reduce the number of classes to four (essentially drop Tough and Wise heroes), and expand all the classes to cover the full level range, as in SWSE.

I might well also consider dropping Alliegances and Occupations entirely - these seem a bit too fiddly for a bit too little gain. And I'd probably rewrite Wealth - either just use a 'real' monetary system, or even use the 'system' in "Monte Cook's World of Darkness" - characters get whatever gear the player and GM agree he 'should' have.

And I would definitely agree about consolidating skills, but that's now standard, isn't it?  I'm not so sure about boosting skill points across the board, though - if the skill list is about the same as SWSE, I might be inclined to give the Strong hero 3 per level, the Fast and Charismatic heroes 5, and the Smart hero 7.


----------



## ronin (Jan 22, 2010)

I like the D20 Modern game quite a bit but it could use a bit of an overhaul. I have read SWSE and it appears to have some good mechanics. I planned to use it for my next modern game until I read about this-

Game Design: "e20: System Evolved" Roleplaying Game — Kickstarter

The designer putting this project together was involved with SWSE for quite a long time and I like alot of what I see so far being discussed on the boards here-

GMSarli Games • Index page

Anyone interested should feel free to join the discussions. There is still just under 2 months to reach the $10,000 goal and it will be interesting to see how it develops.


----------



## Skytheen (Mar 10, 2011)

I know of a Patronage Pathfinder compatible Modern project that ended up not getting enough support. Any word of another attempt by someone else?


----------



## Nadaka (Mar 10, 2011)

I used to do a lot of extensive houserules for d20 modern.

But it was so hard to find a group to play regular modern, or even D&D that I stopped more or less a couple years ago. Of course I also stopped gaming as well.

I always wanted to add elements from the 3.5e Tome of Battle: Book of 9 swords, combined with a switch to a W/VP variant, making feats more interesting, etc.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 10, 2011)

My last real involvement with d20Modern was with Dawning Star, pretty much for reasons stated above. Actions Points are weak, Talents are bland and uneven, characters start with two few feats (the "fighters" often have to burn a feat for Personal Firearms Proficiency at 1st level!), and the classes don't provide clear distinctions. moving away from minutae (Pathfinderizing the skill list, and so forth) the big design priorities for me would be:

- Either reworking the base classes or jettisoning them for general but more archetypally focused ones (like Soldier could be a base class). Adventure! and Spycraft sort of show the way here if you wanted to move away from the basic 6
- Each Occupation and each base class should grant one more feat, that way you could play a US Marine or a ninja at 1st level. The typical D&D class gets the equivalent of about six starting feats, compared to about two to three for a d20 modern character.
- Consolidate less-used firearms options into fewer feats, or open them up as general combat options with feats granting Improved versions. Fantasy Craft and Spycraft have some good examples, as well as the Tactical Feats from Complete Warrior as a template.
- Designate an opponent tier below Ordinary that gets minimum hp, gets the non-elite array, and is limited in other respects (can't normally critically hit would be a good start)- D&D 4e and Fantasy Craft show the way here.
- d20 already has a defense bonus built into classes, but there should be some feats to beaf up unarmored AC. 
- Action Point reform - you could probably borrow the version from the Pathfinder APG. At least, they should be potent, renewable, and do more than fuel anemic class abilities and offer uninspiring bonuses on rolls.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 10, 2011)

I also think that the problems with d20 Modern were largely all fixed in _Star Wars: Saga Edition_. SW:SE is in almost every respect a vastly better system.

As between them, I would take SW:SE where SW:SE and d20Modern rules were in conflict.  

The universal condition track implemented in SW:SE is one of its best mechanics and I think it will work GREAT in a d20Modern/Future setting.

This is not a small point, as the cover rules and movement rules in SW:SE make for a significantly more dynamic game in terms of fire and movement and the effect of grenades in the game.  This is especially so where you have people flipping over tables and taking cover -- and can then use the target cover options in SW:SE to target the table the foes is behind to take out his cover -- then go after him.

And I agree with the suggestion to incorporate CMB/CMD from Pathfinder. A1. I'd be inclined to keep the Skill Challenge system presented in Galaxy of Intrigue, too -- though this may not be to everyone's liking or expectations.

However, I do foresee a problem with going with Action Points by hijacking the Force Point and, potentially, Destiny Point system from SW:SE for that purpose. 

"Force point" mechanics are probably okay to use for an Action Point system, but Destiny Points, on the other hand, can lead your gameplay into areas you simply may not want to visit.

Destiny points are an automatic hit or an automatic miss on essentially everything in the game. While they can be countered by Destiny Points available to a heroic villain, by using them, the inevitable result is that your game will become _*a LOT more cinematic*_ with Destincy Points than it will without it.

This may suit the expectations of the players and the GM completely. If so - GREAT. No problem.

But if someone is looking for a more grim n gritty d20 Modern game, then leaving the Force Point (possibly) and the Destiny Point mechanic (certainly) out of the game is probably best.

It all depends on the type of game you are looking for.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 10, 2011)

Skytheen said:


> I know of a Patronage Pathfinder compatible Modern project that ended up not getting enough support. Any word of another attempt by someone else?




Not so far.

I honestly hope Pathfinder would not be used to create a future game or modern setting. I think SW:SE's base ruleset is far better at achieving that sort of gameplay than Pathfinder is.

Now, if Owen K. Stephen's plan all along was to "Saga Editionize" Pathfinder for its d20Future/Modern version under the OGL -- then I take all that back. 

To date, however, that intention was never made expressly clear to me, and never has been. 

Gary Sarli's efforts, on the other hand, were clearly more aimed at renovating the SW:SE's mechanics into a more fulsome modern/future RPG system under the OGL.


----------



## Ghost2020 (Mar 10, 2011)

My own personal house rules...


Guns get the short end of the stick in d20 modern.
Why does it take so long to become proficient with a submachine gun? Any other game system this is not an issue.

I just made the firearms and advanced firearms the only two needed to do strafe and auto fire, etc.  Double Tap comes with basic firearms proficiency.
It just made more sense.
Otherwise it takes so long before one can use a gun effectively.

Plus the massive damage threshold rules are fun. Lots of crazy messed up gun fights. Seems to run pretty well too.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 11, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I also think that the problems with d20 Modern were largely all fixed in _Star Wars: Saga Edition_. SW:SE is in almost every respect a vastly better system.




I think both have their nuggets, and both are also severely flawed. Probably the best d20 modern game put out for a modern+ setting was Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook, although it too had some ugly quirks.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 11, 2011)

As someone who thinks Forbidden Kingdoms is a better d20 Modern than d20 Modern is, you can probably guess my next sentence, and I'll say it anyway. Get a Forbidden Kingdoms, both the hardcover and the PDF, and problem solved.

Burning feats to pull the trigger 2-3 times? Nope.
Burning feats to use autofire? Nope.
Skills to make you better with specific types of firearms? Yes. Sure it's +1 BAB/5 ranks, but still. There's also a similar skill for your unarmed attacks.

Know why? Because these _are functions of the gun_, not functions of your character.

Skill & Feats psionics.
Magic, while present, isn't an "it just works" deal.
"mini-feats" martial arts.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 11, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I think both have their nuggets, and both are also severely flawed. Probably the best d20 modern game put out for a modern+ setting was Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook, although it too had some ugly quirks.




Now I know you're just having a go at us.

RCR?  Eek.  It only works if you expect more than half of your starting party to never make it to the end of the campaign.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 11, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> RCR?  Eek.  It only works if you expect more than half of your starting party to never make it to the end of the campaign.




I'll take the power system and skill system over Saga any day. 

As for a d20 system for modern, I'll take True20.  However, d20Modern with

a. Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook replacing mental fx
b. EN Publishing's Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth replacing magic fx
c. RPGObject's Blood and Fists for Martial Arts
D. D&D Unearthed Arcana's  Death and Dying Rules 

also work pretty well for me (Talents still need some reworking).


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 11, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Now I know you're just having a go at us.
> 
> RCR?  Eek.  It only works if you expect more than half of your starting party to never make it to the end of the campaign.




Eh? We ran a campaign 1st to 12th, no deaths.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 11, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Eh? We ran a campaign 1st to 12th, no deaths.




Man - you dodged some bullets. (Get it?)

Basically, the way criticals work, and the way weapon damage rolls work, a large percentage of the party will die to one-shot critical hits before reaching 20th-level.  (Obviously, about half as many will die before reaching 12th.)

This does not include any deaths from running out of VP, spaceliner explosions, poor tactical planning, etc. - just the relatively unavoidable 1-shot-crit-to-WP deaths.



			
				Grek K said:
			
		

> I'll take the power system and skill system over Saga any day.




Really?  I always thought that Jedi essentially killing themselves to pull off somewhat minor tricks, and the tendency to pick one trick and do it repeatedly, failed to really capture the way the movies and the novels portrayed things.

Making each individual power its own skill also made it difficult to be able to do things with the Force and mundanely, so you ended up with Jedi as idiot-savants, which failed the movie test for me, as well.

I like Saga's Force Power suite much better for emulating movie, etc., fights.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 11, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Man - you dodged some bullets. (Get it?)
> 
> Basically, the way criticals work, and the way weapon damage rolls work, a large percentage of the party will die to one-shot critical hits before reaching 20th-level.  (Obviously, about half as many will die before reaching 12th.)




Since there are few level 20 characters in Star Wars, that works out really well. 



> Really?  I always thought that Jedi essentially killing themselves to pull off somewhat minor tricks, and the tendency to pick one trick and do it repeatedly, failed to really capture the way the movies and the novels portrayed things.




Really? Does Kenobi do anything other than Force Slam in Phantom Menace? What about Vader and his telekinesis? And Sidious... why does it always gotta be lightning?



> Making each individual power its own skill also made it difficult to be able to do things with the Force and mundanely, so you ended up with Jedi as idiot-savants, which failed the movie test for me, as well.




That only happened if the player stubbornly refused to sink a few ranks in useful skills here and there. The upshot is that other than the Force and one or two other areas of interest, the Jedi tend to leave other characters' skill niches alone. 

I think it worked pretty okay, except that some things didn't really rate their own skills.


----------



## delericho (Mar 12, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Really? Does Kenobi do anything other than Force Slam in Phantom Menace? What about Vader and his telekinesis? And Sidious... why does it always gotta be lightning?




There's a burst of speed on the Federation ship (which, curiously, he didn't use again when it would have been really useful, and would have saved Qui-Gon's life). There was a force jump when fighting Darth Maul (who had the higher ground...). He held his breath to avoid the poison gas.

And we also know he can do the standard Jedi mind trick - presumably he didn't use it in TPM because Qui-Gon was just better at it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 12, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Really? Does Kenobi do anything other than Force Slam in Phantom Menace?




Yes, really.  In any given fight, how many times does Obi-wan use Force Slam (or Force Jump, etc.)?

Once.   _Maaaaaaybe_ twice.

Contrast this with RCR Jedi, who pick one trick and then spam it until they run out of VP or until their targets fall down.


----------



## delericho (Mar 12, 2011)

A topic that has been much on my mind lately: they should probably recalibrate the skill system and/or DCs.

In d20 Modern, it's possible to build a 1st level character who can Jump better than our World Record holders. (Amusingly, the best way to do this seems to be using the Dedicated Hero: Skill emphasis for +3, Run feat and Acrobatic feat for +2 each, Athlete background to make Jump a class skill, and 4 ranks. That gives a +11 bonus _without_ any Str bonus at all.)

Now, the same feat can be achieved in any version of D&D post 3.0e, in any version of Star Wars, and so on. However, those are all clearly fantastical games. d20 Modern isn't quite the same beast, and it would _probably_ be better to put the limits of real-world human ability somewhere higher on the level range.

(It can be achieved two ways: either up the DCs, or reduce the ability to super-optimise characters. Either can work. My preference is _probably_ for the latter, in general, following the 4e/SWSE pattern of advancement in skills. But the designers should probably use the records to set the extreme DCs (30 is good), then decide at what level they want PCs to be able to match this, and then set the options up accordingly.)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Mar 12, 2011)

I think you should use another skill as an example. Jump is ridiculous. Any character with Strength 10, no feats or talents and no ranks in Jump at all can make a running 10 foot jump very easily. Then again, Jump was ridiculous in 3.x too.


----------



## Nadaka (Mar 12, 2011)

When implementing a W/VP system for d20 modern I didn't go with pure RCR.

1: firearm damage was only increased by 1 die step, instead of adding a 3rd die.
2: Armor provides both hardness and conversion to non lethal damage equal to its rating.
3: A character can spend action points to convert some lethal damage to non lethal damage when hit (non lethal damage still takes off vitality).

This makes a critical kill against a hero less likely, significantly so if they bother to invest in armor.


----------



## giant.robot (Mar 12, 2011)

For the most part I think Spycraft is a much better put together game than d20 Modern and has a lot of the features I would add to it.

In Spycraft armor provides a minimal bonus to defense and instead it's protection is in the form of DR. The concept of armor making it more difficult to do damage to someone makes sense when you're talking about melee combat. AC/defense is an abstraction of your character dodging or performing minor parries against attacks and some measure of protection your armor gives against a glancing blow actually causing damage. This doesn't make sense with modern soft body armor. Soft body armor doesn't help you "roll with the punch" but instead reduces the penetration damage of a bullet hitting you.

It also has a wound/vitality point system. I like this system better than straight hit points because characters face penalties when they're out of vitality points. They could end up unconscious (but alive) and at least end up with strength penalties showing that they are winded from absorbing damage and rolling with punches. Like the Star Wars RCRB supernatural powers in d20 Modern should be powered by vitality points. This would mean you use supernatural abilities at the risk of becoming vulnerable in combat.

In either game I would like to see firearms do a bit more damage in relation to the average number of WP/VP characters have. With a Con of 10 a character would have 10WP and 10VP. If they get hit square in the chest with a 9mm service pistol they'll only suffer at best 12 damage and on average 7. This means a 1st level character with no body armor can not only take a gunshot to the torso and keep going but suffers no ill effects. 

I don't know that guns should do more damage but maybe they should just have a much wider critical threat range. This lets higher level characters maintain their level dependent plot armor (vitality points) but face a real danger of a lucky shot by a mook doing significant damage to them. This will inspire characters to take cover when the guns come out.

As already mentioned I find the d20 Modern talent trees and existing classes to be lacking. I'd like to see V-shaped base classes and more interesting talent trees. I like the way occupations fit into the generic classes (like Lenses in GURPS) and expand the number of them. 

I'd also push more specific skills into talents or feats. This would cut the skill list down but then let characters have specialties. Two characters could have high Computer Use skills but one of them has Hacker feats/talents while the other is a historian with Research feats/talents. In general both can use computers well but the hacker character excels as hacking while the historian is better at data mining and research. Since their feat/talents wouldn't be tied to specific skills their Hacking or Research abilities could provided bonuses to different skill checks in situations where they were germane. Hacking could also provide a bonus to bluff checks when doing some social engineering or an insight check when looking for where the executive wrote down his password.


----------



## DanMcS (Mar 13, 2011)

giant.robot said:


> In either game I would like to see firearms do a bit more damage in relation to the average number of WP/VP characters have. With a Con of 10 a character would have 10WP and 10VP. If they get hit square in the chest with a 9mm service pistol they'll only suffer at best 12 damage and on average 7. This means a 1st level character with no body armor can not only take a gunshot to the torso and keep going but suffers no ill effects.




The answer is interpretation; if a guy was attacked but is fine, mechanically (just lost some hit points), then he obviously didn't "take a gunshot to the torso". He was clipped, or whatever. In-fiction description comes after we determine the mechanical result, because it's a game.

Conversely, if the fiction says definitively that he "took a gunshot to the torso", you don't treat it as an attack and damage roll, you just apply the result of that, the character is dead or severely wounded (and probably dying) at best. This is not something you do as part of gameplay, but as consensus of the group during non-"gamed" narration. Maybe they come upon a helpless foe and determine they want to dispatch him; they do, no invocation of game mechanics is necessary.


----------



## garrowolf (Mar 13, 2011)

Well I designed my Nexus D20 game to deal with these issues. I took a lot from Spycraft and SWSE but I went a bit farther. 

Guns are realistic and lethal from one shot. They are based on the idea of a character with no real skill or dex can kill a person with one shot from a light pistol. Heavier weapons are ever more lethal. 

HPs don't go up with level. You have about 20 + toughness as DR. 

Combat is extremely quick. You have one roll per action. No damage roll. No defense roll. No saves. One shot is one roll for the attacker and defender gets no rolls. No confirming criticals. 

Getting hit is bad. You take damage penalties to everything for each shot and one shot can stun, stagger or even kill you. Damage penalties apply to your defenses as well so you become an easier target even after one shot. 

Your margin of success increases the damage level so a good roll is a good roll. You can't have a good attack roll and a bad damage roll. 

There are a lot of feats and you get two per level. Each feat makes sense and has value. There is a feat list per skill. BAB, Saves, and Defenses are all a part of the skill system. The skill levels are easy to understand and make sense in the real world. They are alot faster to use as well. 

Every skill is Attrib + Skill Rank + Class Level Bonus. Skill Ranks are Basic (+0), Trained (+4). Focused (+8), and Mastery (+12). Class Level Bonus is your Class Level/2 rounded down. So if I have a 6th level character with Dex +2 that is trained with Ranged Weapons then I have 9 + 1d20. 

It's simple to use and fast to play and run. It's also designed for play in all eras. I'm working up an equipment and vehicle list for each tech level. So far I'm up to the Fusion Age which is after the Cyber Age (which is after the Modern Age).


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 13, 2011)

Greg K said:


> For Action Points, I would look at Mutants and Masterminds 2e Hero Points (and Complications).




I started a thread about updating modern and adding superpowers. It seems related to this thread. Please comment my ideas and solutions 

Designing OGL Supers for d20 modern


----------



## garrowolf (Mar 14, 2011)

One of the problems I had from D20 Modern as well as most RPG games was that there didn't seem to be a great reason to bother with cover. It gave ou a bonus but after a certain point you were just so good at defenses that you didn't bother with it. So people would just stand around, OK Corral style, in a firefight. 

What I did was introduce cascading defense. Each defensive action after the first is a -1. Any wound penalties apply to defense immediately. However your Defense couldn't go below 10 at range (8 at point blank). Your cover provided you with a flat bonus added to 10 at the minimum and didn't cascade. 

So if you have a defense of 18 and you are fighting from half cover (+4) you get a defense of 22 on the first attack, 21 on the second, then you take a moderate wound (-2) on the next attack so you are down to 18 defense. Your defense can't go below 14 because of the cover. If you drop prone as a free action then you can get full cover for the rest of the round and no more cascading defense. Your damage doesn't effect the cover based defense either. 

So basically players started finding cover fast in my games.


----------



## Locien (Mar 14, 2011)

Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to discard the classes as written for d20 modern and rewrite new classes? That could also be used to rebalance any weak points in the system and possibly any other problems that have come up.


----------



## giant.robot (Mar 14, 2011)

Locien said:


> Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to discard the classes as written for d20 modern and rewrite new classes? That could also be used to rebalance any weak points in the system and possibly any other problems that have come up.




For a space opera game I made some V-shaped classes that seemed to work well. I like the idea of a generic "class" but the idea of one tied to only a single ability score never made much sense to me. It seemed to me they had an idea for a couple of single ability classes and felt they had to make one for each ability. I think that's why so many of the talent trees are so boring.

I kept the classes fairly generic with occupations still giving the characters bonus feats and skills germane to those jobs. I mixed and matched talent trees from the printed base classes so I didn't need to go write whole new ones.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 14, 2011)

Locien said:


> Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to discard the classes as written for d20 modern and rewrite new classes? That could also be used to rebalance any weak points in the system and possibly any other problems that have come up.




The d20 SRD variant of the Amethyst had military modern classes based on the modern 20 classes. [SIZE=-1]Etherscope[/SIZE] even uses talents, but with new stting specific classes. And there is Spycraft...


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 14, 2011)

A lot of stuff in this thread, but I'll pick up just one of the OP's little quibbles:

Regarding the Wealth system, if you're playing a post-apocalyptic game, you should just ditch it and go with a cash or barter system. The Wealth system was really designed to mimic the modern world of finance and credit.

(I have some authority on this: I designed the Wealth system. And then I wrote a whole lot of d20 Apocalypse, including the rules for buying and bartering stuff.)


----------



## garrowolf (Mar 15, 2011)

Wow! Interesting running into the guy who designed the Wealth system on here. 

No offense but I really dislike the Wealth system. I'm sure you a re a nice guy so please don't take it personally. My problem with it is that it is trying to replicate an even more complex system of economics but it ends up pulling players out of the flow of the game as they try and get credit and loans. 

There is sort of a direct connection between those that want to gain money in a rpg and the loot and gear that they want. They get money to get loot. A major part of this is escapism. Your character has money and gear that you can never have. Then you take all that and end up with a dice roll judging your credit. It feels like you are back in reality again and being turned down for real loans. It's connected with a touchy spot that most people have these days and that is credit. 

Basically if you have "wealth" in a game then you should be able to spend it however you like and not hae to deal with a dice roll saying yes to one things and no to another. 

I understand that it was an attempt to simulate a complex economy but I think that most people would like to forget that during a game. 

Maybe it would have been better if it was an optional system instead. If you could run the game without it (ie had all the prices for everything normally as well) and only use it if you wanted to (ie the game wasn't focused on money as a motivator).


----------



## garrowolf (Mar 15, 2011)

giant.robot said:


> For a space opera game I made some V-shaped classes that seemed to work well.




What is a V-shaped class?


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 15, 2011)

garrowolf said:


> No offense but I really dislike the Wealth system. I'm sure you a re a nice guy so please don't take it personally. My problem with it is that it is trying to replicate an even more complex system of economics but it ends up pulling players out of the flow of the game as they try and get credit and loans.




No offense taken!

Funny you should say that, because the issues you express are exactly what the Wealth system is supposed to fix.

It's a tough nut to crack--most RPG purchasing systems are based on how much money you HAVE, whereas the modern world is based on how much money you MAKE. For better or worse, relying on the cash-based system in a modern game basically amounts to "you can buy a car, OR you can buy every single thing you can think of except a car."

The Wealth system is an abstraction, and so it'll never appeal to everyone--that's understood, and I'm not going to try to change your mind on it. (I also concede that it might not be the best possible execution--though it works for me.) But the sad truth is there's no easy answer to money in the modern world.


----------



## Ghost2020 (Mar 15, 2011)

I liked the Wealth system, because too often modern and far future games can turn into "Check Book the RPG".  I don't want to manage my PCs accounts. I don't. That's boring. If they need to buy/get equipment, it's an in game thing or we make some rolls and we're done with it.


----------



## garrowolf (Mar 16, 2011)

@ CharilesRyan I appreciate that you didn't take offense. 

What other systems did you work on?


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 16, 2011)

Thanks for asking! I don't want to hijack the thread (though it looks like I might be too late), so I'll just point you here: Charles a Whosit, Now?  The Fascinating World of Charles Ryan


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 16, 2011)

Wow, that's a nice thread necromancy here... 

I see there is still some enthusiasm left for a d20 Modern. Just reading the thread makes me want to tinker again.


----------



## Janx (Mar 16, 2011)

Interesting thread.  I am unencumbered by fact, having only skimmed the d20 modern SRD when it came out a long time ago.

I thought the classes by StatName to be stupid.  Either make real classes (soldier, doctor, etc), or switch to a skills based system.

If I was making a skills based system, I'd assume everybody got the same SP (no classes).

I'd turn a bunch of stuff into skills, like AC, a skill for each category of weapon (to represent BAB), even the saving throws would be skills.

Assuming we used the D&D thief as an example of a skills based PC, I reckon we'd need to use 10 or so, rather than 8 as the baseline.  Thus, if you got 10 + int (*4 for 1st level) skills, you'd spend them on:

AC (maybe call it Avoidance)
HP (5 per rank?)
Pistols 
Fortitude
Reflex
Willpower
plus other skills

I'd consider using the figher feat progression (or maybe the next slowest) for feats.

Presumably, a feat for each weapon category, with some weapons having prerequisites (assault rifles needing a more basic gun feat).

Relying on skills and feats to enable all the stuff would require careful design of the skill list (consolidation of some skills, breaking apart of others, to encourage support the probability that a PC has all skills at max ranks, and to make sure the basic fight or cast spells skills are available.

to design class-less with this idea, I'd test compare a PC to a D&D equivalent.  You should be able to build a comparable fighter, or a comparable mage.  Somebody who dips into magic, combat, and rogue skills should not be too powerful, nor suck.

Combat should be cinematic as somebody else suggested.  Real guns are real lethal.  Makes for frequent TPKs.  Therefore, like movies demonstrate, bad guys need to shoot like Storm Troopers, they miss a lot.

I intepret this to mean HP should be lower overall, and AC should be higher.  Thus, when a hit is scored, it's more likely to be "lethal"

I'm not saying this is an exact solution, just a design I'd consider.  And it may not even cover the larger concerns voiced here


----------



## garrowolf (Mar 17, 2011)

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] That sounds alot like my Nexus d20 game system. Check it out!


----------



## Nadaka (Mar 17, 2011)

I very much prefer the basic classes.

Not every modern game is about mercenaries, or super spies. So a class for every role would require a huge number of classes. Even then, a lot of modern characters do not fit roles. That was my biggest problem with spycraft, that every class was so strictly defined and rigidly placed within the spy genre.

And I don't like the idea of a pure skill based system either, classes just make the game and character creation easier.


----------



## Belen (Mar 17, 2011)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There have been a lot of threads on d20 Modern in the past.
> A lot of people have ideas and issues with the game system, but like other aspects, and I think there have been quite a few threads about it already..
> 
> I am currently playing in a d20 Modern online campaign set in a post-apocalyptic world. (If you're interested and understand German, the gamemaster has his own blog: TheClone | Das herzliche Rollenspielblog)
> ...




Star Wars Saga Edition was a great update of d20 Modern.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 3, 2013)

Just bumping this for reference.


----------



## Skytheen (Oct 29, 2013)

It seems Spycraft 3rd Edition is starting to make some tremors soon. It'll be interesting to see what ideas it will bring to this kind of discussion.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 29, 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an issue I took with modern was it looked like unless a campaign was going to go on for a LONG time, by the time a charater dedicated to magic got any the campaign would be half over. And the caster would be lucky to get anything significant before the final showdown. (Though maybe Campaigns tend to be shorter for my group)


----------



## dwayne (Nov 7, 2013)

I run a very modified version can post a link if you want.http://www.mediafire.com/folder/rc8htg4z9jy04/My_Modern_D20


----------

