Goodman Games

I was really bummed about no Orc option for players.

Until I made one.

I still think they are quite squishy - a judge can easily one-shot a level 1. I dealt 26 points of damage with a well rolled magic missile vs a player with 20 hp (Warrior with Sta bonus). But that's cool though, I mean it is what it is right?

What I do to off-set this is to allow players their array of 0-level PC's even though they have level 1's.

The rationalle for not having so many non-standard races is simply that traditional Appendix N literature doesn't tend to go there. And the intent was to keep the core game both simple and universal, with the assumption that folks would expand into niche areas as desired.

Right, but that's the point of Vag's post. It's like the inverse of being damned by weak praise ... (Being exalted by weak critiques? There must be a better phrasing.)

"X didn't work for me. *Poof* See how easily I fixed it?"

I read it as him demonstrating the principle at work. The DCC you play is *your* DCC. The system begs for people to screw with it.

//H

Squishy, certainly - but an odd kind of squishy that is pretty darned hard to kill!

I wasn't meaning that hitting level 1 is all it takes to keep your character's face out of the dirt and muck... just that when (not if) you get laid out there are measures set in place to give you a pretty good chance of surviving it anyway.

I've seen characters get "killed" 8 and 9 times before it actually stuck... even though those same characters only take the one solid hit to put face-down in a pool of their own blood.

Exactly this. My critique was very tongue in cheek, and more of an advertisement for the class I designed.

DCC is by far the most enjoyable D20 game to homebrew stuff for I've ever played.

Sorry. Sometimes I miss the obvious.

I do like your orc write-up!

Assuming you're referring to either the cleric saving them at the last minute or the party stumbling over the "dead" body later on and finding the guy still alive? I guess the odds are against you in the long run, but yeah, that character's got some pretty epic luck. And if he'd had any sense, after the first 4 near death experiences you'd think he woulda retired.

No worries. No one can hear snark over the internet.

TA/TG combines "Bleeding Out" and "Recovering the Body" under one simple rule that's been working well in play. It alternately makes it harder for characters to experience the final death but also keeps a serious bite to being dropped to 0 hit points such that players will still be concerned when their characters are hurt.

It's one of the items in the supplement that is genre-independent that Joseph suggested I promote as such. It's a useful mechanic that has functioned well in play thus far.

Yeah... I don't "let" DCC characters retire while they still can adventure - it'd feel like giving the player a freebie re-roll just because he didn't like his stats, and I'd have to form some arbitration of when a character can or can't be retired that would probably end up feeling unfair to someone... so to be perfectly fair, my rule is "Until death (or other permanent and unmanageable debility) do you part."

...as for the character's sense: He should have, after the first 6 near-death experiences happened in one day and left him with numerous broken bones that just won't heal right (lots of lost agility), gone on a quest for some mitigation of those drastic penalties instead of simply whining about it while plodding along through more of the cave system that most assuredly would still be there upon the party's return... but the player is the sort that would view that as some kind of "stupid distraction," like when he got upset that the party agreed to go on a 4-week quest so that their Elf friend could deliver a perfect pond Lilly to an ally of the Elf King so said King would return said Elf his shadow (and missing vitality).

Put simply - some players in my group, mostly just this one, really don't "get" DCC quite yet.

I hear ya. It takes time, I think.

Has anyone experimented with using HP for spell burning (instead of stats)?

Using Hit Points makes it too easy for them to recover. Burn a few HP, Cleric heals, spells goes wild, burn a few points, Cleric heals, spell goes wild etc.

+1. One of the most interesting things about the system is its use of stat "burn" and gain. No other iteration that I've played (haven't played 4E, just watched once and found it awful) has that. The cool thing about it is that it also makes it much easier to play average stats, or even below average stats, in this game, because you can "quest" to get increases.

For example, I have a player who has a very nice 0 level Squire... 15ish Str and Luck, I think a 14 Int. He could make a great warrior of the battlefield general type. But he has a 5 Agi. So his AC, even in armor, is wretched... heh. I mentioned to the player that he ought to make the character weigh like 300+ pounds, so he's just this morbidly obese dude, and said he could quest to lose weight (i.e., work out and go on a diet for a month for +1 Agi).

Yes, but as the opening post notes: "...rule that only natural healing can bring those lost points back..."

And also, as stated in the 'Healing spellburn damage' rules (page 108), regarding clerics healing spellburn is "...inherently contradictory activities."

You're still changing the dynamics in a way that makes it hard for low level Wizards to ever succeed at casting a spell.

The second quote is only an optional rule. It doesn't say you can't do it, but that Judge's should consider the implications before letting them just blindly heal away.

There's also the other issue: how do you track hit points lost from spellburn and hit points lost from damage? Does it reduce your maximum? The average Wizard is going to have something in the realm of 5 HP. That's not a whole lot of wiggle room either way and it will either lead to Wizards who woefully fragile (even moreso) that seldom pull off a spell or more bookkeeping than the current system.

Your point on fragile wizards is well taken. Thanks.

IMHO, my misgivings about reduced stats causing excess paperwork still hold true: reduced stats cause all kinds of 'tumble down' effects: reduced melee/ranged attack bonus, melee damage bonus, HP bonus, Fort/Ref saves, skills, etc. And while DCC RPG has minimized the crunch (unlike some other 3.5e games....) on 'tumble down' effects, it still amounts to some extra paperwork.

Unless you decide it doesn't.

You could, for instance, rule that spellburn doesn't affect ability modifiers at all - but still imparts the double damage from poison and disease or inability to use weapon and shield at the same time rules from Stamina and Strength because those don't require book-keeping at all.

I'm actually considering that myself, since while I don't feel there is too much paperwork involved currently, my opinion might change over time.

Do you keep the initial value of any given stat written down somewhere? Is it useful? For example, say the PC lost agility or strength, then somehow finds a way to recover the lost attribute points, would you return his stat to his former value? Or would you simply increase his stat of a given value, say +2?

Things I'm house ruling:

1. Critical Hit Tables - These don't happen that often so I'm not concerned so much about having to roll dice and look up the result on a table, but I am really not a fan of the blood & gore and graphic descriptions of dismemberment. That's just totally unnecessary in my opinion and it's the first thing to go. We plan to use Max Damage or Double Damage for a Crit.

2. Spellburn - The idea that wielding magic means you have to deal with demonic forces is over the top for me. I'm not precisely eliminating this from the rules, but I am making it clear that Lawful characters wouldn't submit to this no matter the cost. I run a group that must consist of good characters or neutral in some circumstances. I believe players should have characters that want to perform heroic deeds and are not just out for personal gain. And I believe that they should know the cost of dealing in magic in this way and that they would want to avoid it even if it meant the party was going to die. Now, if they did choose to go this route in some instance, then I might provide some way for them to atone for their "sin" and make restitution with a lawful patron or whatnot. I mean, why do all forces that deal in magic have to be dark and demonic? In LotR, you had Sarumon and Gandalf, with Sarumon falling to corruption and Gandalf not. The Valar are supposedly angelic forces not demonic. I think a future revision of the rules should provide both ends of the spectrum whereby chaotic characters have to abide by the rules as-is, but lawful ones would have completely different tables. Maybe chaotic characters can wield more powerful magic, but it's at a steep price. This could be a nice rules supplement.

3. Mercurial Magic - I like this concept, but some of it is into that realm of blood and gore again and that's just not necessary in my opinion. So, I might keep this rule, but create a modified table that tones down or replaces the offensive effects. I certainly think there should be some bad effects here, but it can be done without the graphic detail in my opinion.

Some folks are gathering funds to publish a patrons book, and some of the patrons will be angels.

Sounds like a good idea. I look forward to seeing how that turns out.

People generally look at magic / sorcery / witchcraft as dangerous, unpredictable, corrupting, or unnatural / evil (cf Bible, Shakespear, DragonLance... even LotR). That's what's written into DCC, I think.

Look at it this way:

One guy makes a tool that shoots a missile at a high rate of speed, which will pierce flesh and most, if not all, armor, causing injury and very likely death. It's a crossbow. Nobody looks sideways at the user/inventor, because everybody understands what's going on with it... it's a mechanical effect. Even if it breaks, you can tell why.

Other guy summons forces that are not readily apparent to throw a missile which might cause similar injury, or it might blow up in a fireball incinerating everything in a 10' radius, or it might open a doorway to an alternate dimension full of tentacled horrors and the screams of the hungry mindless hordes of ... you get the idea.

W/r/t your LotR example, Saruman fell to corruption because he used too much magic (the Palantir, in particular). IIRC, Gandalf only uses magic like once in the Hobbit, in an emergency, and although he's portrayed in the movies as using magic here and there, particularly in defending against the Balrog, I'm not so sure that was the way it was in the book... point being, shortcutting reality is risky and it probably ought to be that way.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, sure, but if you don't know what you're doing, exactly... maybe that warm canister you're using to heat your sleeping bag turns out to be a tac-nuke and blows your whole village sky high. Oops.

Myself, I only keep track of the initial (rather, current maximum) value of an Ability score that is going to recover naturally - so Strength, Stamina, and Agility for wizard types and Luck for thief types.

If a Warrior lost any points of Ability score, I'd have them just change the value (and modifiers) because that is permanent - it's not that likely to keep changing in either direction.
If that same Warrior went on a quest to "regain" what he had lost, he would do so by gaining whatever I felt was appropriate to the quest and it would likely have next to nothing to do with his actual original Ability score (he might lose 2 and find 4, or he might loose 6 and only find 2 - depends on what he went through to get there).