Will we see the next updated draft?

[Colin]

Couldn't see it mentioned anywhere, so was wondering if the next draft/revision of DCC would be publicly tested again, or if it was a case of revisions being made then straight to press?

Colin

[Abchiptop]

I forget where, but I believe joseph said there won't be a revision

[Colin]

Okay, so we won't know what tweaks/changes have been made to the beta due to playtesting and feedback until the final game is released. Fair enough.

Colin

[GnomeBoy]

Okay, so we won't know what tweaks/changes have been made to the beta due to playtesting and feedback until the final game is released. Fair enough.

It's conceivable that one (or more) Designer's Diary's could cover some or all of that info -- but from what's been said, we won't be seeing a further draft or final draft of the rules until they are released and in our hands in book-form.

[Abchiptop]

Well some things will be clarified here, just not into an updated pdf, like thief skills are going to d20.
Gonna be interesting without a final playtest though.
Understandable, though, why else would we buy the final?

[Colin]

It goes without saying that we wouldn't see the final pdf, but I was basically wondering if there'd be another round of playtesting (and the answer is obviously no then). I didn't make myself clear enough though (you can blame my 5-month son for that).

Colin

[finarvyn]

Joseph has told me that he has some updated files, and I suspect he'll send those to a few select playtesters in the same way that the Alpha rules were done. Whether or not we'll get design update posts or not, I'm not sure. I'll ask him, however, to see if we can get anything posted.

[ragboy]

Updated Thief and Cleric class writeups were posted by Joseph in the Characters forum.

[goodmangames]

There won't be an overall "updated draft" but I will be posting excerpts with some of the more-discussed portions. As noted above, the revised thief and cleric classes are now posted here on the boards. Next up will be some sample spells. I'm revising the spell tables in a couple ways:

* Replace "as above" descriptions with more thorough explanations (i.e., each entry is self-contained so no need to skim above entries)
* Including spell-specific misfires in each spell table
* Including spell-specific corruption results in each spell table
* Perhaps most importantly, limiting occurrence of corruption. There are two elements here. First, a spell check roll of a natural 1 no longer results in guaranteed corruption. If you roll a natural 1, there is then a d6 roll, modified by the wizard's Luck. Depending on the result, there is a misfire (typically on a 4+ on the d6 or 50% of the time), corruption or patron taint, or, if you roll really badly (0 or less), corruption + misfire. I'm playing with changes to these percentages according to the spell...some of the more vile or necromantic spells may have a higher chance of corruption, for example, while something like a cantrip should have an extremely low chance of corruption and a much higher chance of misfire. Still in progress but that's the idea. Second, the wizard can burn a point of Luck to nullify any corruption that does occur.
* Finally, I'm playing with the "failure rates." Level 1 spells fail and are lost on a roll of 1-11. Level 2 spells used to fail and be lost on 1-13. I'm playing with level 2 spells suffering only a failure (no spell loss) on 12-13. There is currently a disincentive for wizards to cast higher-level spells due to the higher failure chance (spell check goes up by +1 at every level but check DCs go up by +2, so some players conclude they're better off casting lots of level 1 spells and achieving higher check results than ever even attempting the level 2 spells). This revised range of lost+failure and "just lost" seems to solve some of that.

I think that's everything on the spells right now, unless I'm forgetting something. It's taking a while to update them all but as I have something solid I'll post for more feedback.

Thanks,
Joseph

[Ducaster]

* Finally, I'm playing with the "failure rates." Level 1 spells fail and are lost on a roll of 1-11. Level 2 spells used to fail and be lost on 1-13. I'm playing with level 2 spells suffering only a failure (no spell loss) on 12-13. There is currently a disincentive for wizards to cast higher-level spells due to the higher failure chance (spell check goes up by +1 at every level but check DCs go up by +2, so some players conclude they're better off casting lots of level 1 spells and achieving higher check results than ever even attempting the level 2 spells). This revised range of lost+failure and "just lost" seems to solve some of that.

I havn't got any players to L3 Wiz yet Joseph but I HAD seen that on the horizon and wondered if anyone would significantly use 2nd+ Level spells as a result. Glad to see you caught this potential bottle neck. I mean there is some case for Wizards being MORE cautious the more powerful the magic they attempt but...!

[meinvt]

* Replace "as above" descriptions with more thorough explanations (i.e., each entry is self-contained so no need to skim above entries)

Woot!

* Including spell-specific misfires in each spell table

Woot!

* Including spell-specific corruption results in each spell table

Woot! Woot!

* Perhaps most importantly, limiting occurrence of corruption. There are two elements here. First, a spell check roll of a natural 1 no longer results in guaranteed corruption. If you roll a natural 1, there is then a d6 roll, modified by the wizard's Luck. Depending on the result, there is a misfire (typically on a 4+ on the d6 or 50% of the time), corruption or patron taint, or, if you roll really badly (0 or less), corruption + misfire. I'm playing with changes to these percentages according to the spell...some of the more vile or necromantic spells may have a higher chance of corruption, for example, while something like a cantrip should have an extremely low chance of corruption and a much higher chance of misfire. Still in progress but that's the idea. Second, the wizard can burn a point of Luck to nullify any corruption that does occur.

This is awesome. I like the idea of changed percentages according to the spell. I'm not sure you need the single luck point burn to nullify any corruption. Luck points are pretty effective on a d6 roll, so just make that "luckable".

* Finally, I'm playing with the "failure rates." Level 1 spells fail and are lost on a roll of 1-11. Level 2 spells used to fail and be lost on 1-13. I'm playing with level 2 spells suffering only a failure (no spell loss) on 12-13. There is currently a disincentive for wizards to cast higher-level spells due to the higher failure chance (spell check goes up by +1 at every level but check DCs go up by +2, so some players conclude they're better off casting lots of level 1 spells and achieving higher check results than ever even attempting the level 2 spells). This revised range of lost+failure and "just lost" seems to solve some of that.

I think this, combined with higher level spells being more effective at the same numerical result, will address the issue. A level 2 spell takes a bit more prowess to pull off, but if the result is better on any value of 15 or above than if I'd cast a first level spell it removes that issue.

We haven't seen, but I'm assuming you have a bit more guidance for DMs regarding scrolls, spell books, possibly wands, and how players may search out and learn new spells. The current more limited number of spells known makes me wonder if there are expectations that wizards voluntarily "forget" old spells to learn new ones, and how that works. Or, whether scrolls are the way to expand your base knowledge and many high level spells might only be available in that way (another restriction on their casting).

Finally, I'd love to see using a wand be more like reading a scroll. Perhaps it has a spell built into it that can be cast "x" times, but also you still need to make a spell check to do so, like reading a scroll. Perhaps the casting would not be lost on a non-corrupting/non-misfire result. Then I could let thieves attempt to use wands as well as scrolls...

[Ducaster]

Finally, I'd love to see using a wand be more like reading a scroll. Perhaps it has a spell built into it that can be cast "x" times, but also you still need to make a spell check to do so, like reading a scroll. Perhaps the casting would not be lost on a non-corrupting/non-misfire result. Then I could let thieves attempt to use wands as well as scrolls...

+d24 for that idea! Way I see a DCC wand is it has a LOW amount of charges but they are only expended when the spell fail / loss result comes up. So anyone could TRY and use it (non wizards on a d10, Thieves on a d12 or higher, Wizards using their regular d20's) But the untrained will burn through its power reserve a whole lot faster than the trained...


Also while I think of it. Lets have a guideline on HOW spells cast from scrolls work. Do they burn off the scroll regardless. Do they erase only on a fail (mirroring the Wizards own fail/loss) Do they definitely have the mercurial magic of whoever inscribed them... etc etc

[dunbruha]

* Replace "as above" descriptions with more thorough explanations (i.e., each entry is self-contained so no need to skim above entries)
* Including spell-specific misfires in each spell table
* Including spell-specific corruption results in each spell table
* Perhaps most importantly, limiting occurrence of corruption. There are two elements here. First, a spell check roll of a natural 1 no longer results in guaranteed corruption. If you roll a natural 1, there is then a d6 roll, modified by the wizard's Luck. Depending on the result, there is a misfire (typically on a 4+ on the d6 or 50% of the time), corruption or patron taint, or, if you roll really badly (0 or less), corruption + misfire. I'm playing with changes to these percentages according to the spell...some of the more vile or necromantic spells may have a higher chance of corruption, for example, while something like a cantrip should have an extremely low chance of corruption and a much higher chance of misfire. Still in progress but that's the idea. Second, the wizard can burn a point of Luck to nullify any corruption that does occur.

Outstanding! This seals the deal for me. <heads over to the pre-order page...>

[finarvyn]

Outstanding! This seals the deal for me. <heads over to the pre-order page...>

What? You didn't do this months ago like the rest of us? Slacker!

[dunbruha]

Outstanding! This seals the deal for me. <heads over to the pre-order page...>

What? You didn't do this months ago like the rest of us? Slacker!

Nope. The whole "wizard magic is evil--all wizards are selfish--corruption happens even to neutral or good casters" thing really turned me off. I love playing wizards, and if a game forces me to play a selfish, ultimately evil one, then I just won't play it. These changes look very promising to me (especially spell-specific corruption). I LOVE the idea that magic is unpredictable and dangerous, just not in the "evil sorcerer" way for every caster.

[geordie racer]

Lovin' the revisions

[reverenddak]

Nope. The whole "wizard magic is evil--all wizards are selfish--corruption happens even to neutral or good casters" thing really turned me off. I love playing wizards, and if a game forces me to play a selfish, ultimately evil one, then I just won't play it. These changes look very promising to me (especially spell-specific corruption). I LOVE the idea that magic is unpredictable and dangerous, just not in the "evil sorcerer" way for every caster.

You obviously haven't read Jack Vance's Dying Earth! All Wizards are greedy, selfish, secretive and conniving, because you HAVE TO BE when you're one of the few that can harness a rare, powerful and dangerous thing like Magic--it doesn't mean you have to be evil. DCC plays to that type of wizard to amazing effect. My group are mostly 1st level now, and the wizard is amazingly scary, funny and just nuts. You have to be a nut to be a wizard. He singed all his hair trying to cast Detect Magic, it was awesome. But he also manifests little demons when he casts spider climb, super cool.

Can we get a sample of the minor, major & greater corruptions? or how can I modify the existing corruption chart to emulate this.

[dunbruha]

You obviously haven't read Jack Vance's Dying Earth! All Wizards are greedy, selfish, secretive and conniving, because you HAVE TO BE when you're one of the few that can harness a rare, powerful and dangerous thing like Magic--it doesn't mean you have to be evil. DCC plays to that type of wizard to amazing effect. My group are mostly 1st level now, and the wizard is amazingly scary, funny and just nuts. You have to be a nut to be a wizard. He singed all his hair trying to cast Detect Magic, it was awesome. But he also manifests little demons when he casts spider climb, super cool.

I love Vance's stories, but I wouldn't want to PLAY in a campaign where all wizards had to be that way (although it's certainly one way that wizards COULD be).

And if you think ALL wizards are greedy, selfish, secretive, and conniving, you obviously haven't read The Lord of the Rings...

[Tortog]

...


{#4}* ... Second, the wizard can burn a point of Luck to nullify any corruption that does occur.
{#5}* Finally, I'm playing with the "failure rates." Level 1 spells fail and are lost on a roll of 1-11. Level 2 spells used to fail and be lost on 1-13. I'm playing with level 2 spells suffering only a failure (no spell loss) on 12-13. There is currently a disincentive for wizards to cast higher-level spells due to the higher failure chance (spell check goes up by +1 at every level but check DCs go up by +2, so some players conclude they're better off casting lots of level 1 spells and achieving higher check results than ever even attempting the level 2 spells). This revised range of lost+failure and "just lost" seems to solve some of that.

I think that's everything on the spells right now, unless I'm forgetting something. It's taking a while to update them all but as I have something solid I'll post for more feedback.

Thanks,
Joseph

No, Thank you Mr G for listening to the community input!

{for reference I label the points 1 - 5}

I like what I see on points 1 -3.

On pint #4- If offering the stat burn to offset corruption = RP fun. (something I totally agree with)
then opening it up to include all stats as possible source for burn = more fun!! Right? Give the Wizard's player a chance to burn off all their "non-essential" stats first as the other-worldly energies ravage their bodies... because it's still better than the alternative <queue the evil DM laughter here>

On point #5- I 'm not sure I understand the new mechanic? I will summarize my understanding, and hope that someone will correct me if I'm in error.

under the new model:
L1 only successfully casts on a 12+
L2 successfully casts on 13+; but allows a modified success on 12?
L3 successfully casts on 14+; but allows a modified success on 13?
L4 successfully casts on 15+; but allows a modified success on 14?
L5 successfully casts on 16+; but allows a modified success on 15?

From the stand point of balancing things out against L1 spell power, I get what is being done here; but, if we're still using table 1-1 as written, then I feel that these thresholds are too high. Especially when you start adding up any situational modifiers to DC. If the Stat bonuses on table 1-1 have been increased, then this should work just fine; though I'd house rule in an "11" modified success for L1.

Has anyone considered simply shaving 1 off each category?
L1 successfully casts on a 11+; but allows a modified success on 10?
L2 successfully casts on 12+; but allows a modified success on 11?
L3 successfully casts on 13+; but allows a modified success on 12?
L4 successfully casts on 14+; but allows a modified success on 13?
L5 successfully casts on 15+; but allows a modified success on 14?

Under this second proposal, a wizard with an INT of 5 can be viable (dangerous to themselves and others maybe) but they could still successfully cast with a roll of 12 {+1lvl, but -2INT; 12 = 11= success} ... if that character managed to get a decent luck roll... suddenly an INT of 6 - 8 doesn't look so bad. A "10" result for a 4th or 5th level wizard is plausible, even they can have a "bad hat day." For me the result of 1 less than needed should = 1/2 result of successful cast & you lose the spell for the day.

I could be misunderstanding things, so I await any corrections or comments.