Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Takes on Modern Magic

This month's edition of Unearthed Arcana from WotC's Dan Helmick takes on the topic of Modern Magic! Following on from an earlier column about d20 Modern items using 5E rules, this article "presents new rules for expanding the repertoire of spellcasting characters in a modern setting."

"A few months ago, Daniel Helmick described his adaptation for d20 Modern in a Behind the Screens article. He expanded on the rules for using firearms and explosives in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Now, what if we extended the D&D rules to cover a campaign not only touched by, but actually set in a modern era? The newest iteration of D&D features various archetypes, traditions, domains, and other options for the base classes, all of which present opportunities for customization. With that in mind, this article presents new rules for expanding the repertoire of spellcasting characters in a modern setting."

Find it here!

SaveSave​

 

[Yaarel]

Settings belong in Setting Guides. Keep core rules open-ended.

D&D is a game whose only limit is your imagination.

A game of canon fundamentalism is something else.

 

[Remathilis]

@Remathilis. I want you to be able to enjoy D&D.

At the same time, your advice tends to be unhelpful because I often dislike what you like.

My point is generic systems don't work as well as systems tailor-made for their genre.

Look at d20 Modern; a system that tried desperately to be generic. It was supposed to handle modern fantasy (Urban Arcana), Sci-fi (d20 Future), urban fantasy (DarkMatter), recent history (d20 Past) and superheroes (the unreleased d20 Supers). It didn't do any of those exceptionally well; certainly not to the level of a custom made system or variant does. d20 Future couldn't hold a candle to Star Wars d20 or Shadowrun in terms of Sci-fi; DarkMatter (while brilliant) was inferior to Dresden Files, and d20 Supers would in no way be able to compete against Mutants & Masterminds. WotC tried to cram too much into one system, and each part felt the lesser for it.

Moreover, WotC is skeletal at this point; I don't think they could produce the kind of support needed to make such a game work. An OGL would help here, but IIRC, d20 Modern was OGL and that didn't save it. I'd rather seem them focus tightly around one thing and make it good than try to take on several different things and do it adequately.

 

[Yaarel]

I understand your point.

My point is, ‘systems tailor-made’ are antithetical to imagination.

There needs to be balance.

There needs to be concrete suggestions to *inspire*. At the same time, it is important to avoid suffocating.

‘Core’ rules need to be open-ended.

‘Setting Guides’ can indulge in specifics.

Details are only great when you like them. They suck when you dislike them.

 

[Remathilis]

Settings belong in Setting Guides. Keep core rules open-ended.

D&D is a game whose only limit is your imagination.

A game of canon fundamentalism is something else.

I won't repeat what I just said about genericism, but I'll point out that D&D has NEVER been generic. It can't be without losing all meaning. Take for example that in my world gnomes are 20 feet tall. I can't use the PHB as is. Is WotC obligated to make me a gnome that is size huge? What if gnomes aren't tinkerers but elemental beings; should I demand WotC remove the Rock Gnome features? What if my world lacks demons; there goes tieflings and warlocks. What if I lack fey; no elves? At what point is the setting too generic?

D&D can't be d20 Generic Fantasy for the reason you say; its limit is your imagination. It can't take into account yours, mine, or anyone else.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D 1e is generic. It *requires* homebrew to even make sense of the game.

D&D 3e OGL SRD is generic.

You might guess, these are my favorite versions of D&D.

I want rules that facilitate *our* imagination at *our* table.



Wait, there are aspects of 4e that I also love. It understood and emphasized mechanical balance, and it made available at-will spells. 5e also inherits these aspects to some degree.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I won't repeat what I just said about genericism, but I'll point out that D&D has NEVER been generic. It can't be without losing all meaning. Take for example that in my world gnomes are 20 feet tall. I can't use the PHB as is. Is WotC obligated to make me a gnome that is size huge? What if gnomes aren't tinkerers but elemental beings; should I demand WotC remove the Rock Gnome features? What if my world lacks demons; there goes tieflings and warlocks. What if I lack fey; no elves? At what point is the setting too generic?

D&D can't be d20 Generic Fantasy for the reason you say; its limit is your imagination. It can't take into account yours, mine, or anyone else.

I agree.., heck I had 1 world with no gnomes at all (the spirt known as the gnome lead the earth elementals) but had a race of dragonmen.... I also have a setting where gnomes had a whole empire built on steam punk techno magic... it fell 200 years ago, in that one there are nothing dragonborn like... I want D&D that can run both campaings...

 

[Yaarel]

If D&D is counting on the gods to save D&D - they cant.

 

[Remathilis]

If D&D is counting on the gods to save D&D - they cant.

Considering they've lost exactly one sale do to it, I don't think they're worried.

 

[Yaarel]

I feel Modern needs to rename the ‘Cleric’ class as the ‘Healer’ class.

A Healer can include spiritual leaders. It can also include bioscientists. In a Modern context, the name Healer welcomes all of them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I feel Modern needs to rename the ‘Cleric’ class as the ‘Healer’ class.

A Healer can include spiritual leaders. It can also include bioscientists. In a Modern context, the name Healer welcomes all of them.

D20 modern had it's own style of classes, one for each attribute...
Strong hero
Fast hero
Heathly hero
Smart hero
WIse hero
Charasmatic hero...