Inspired by this thread here ( http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=41514
), I decided to create a separate thread to discuss the things we don't like about DCC. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love this game. It's about as near perfect to my dream system as I ever imagined would be published. If I could own just one RPG the rest of my life I would choose DCC. That said there are some things I don't like and will be looking to house rule. No system can be perfect and even if I created one myself, I would probably always tinker with it so this is not a diss of the game. For the most part my complaints revolve around my distaste for the 3rd edition/d20 rules base and my belief that even though this game is fairly simple, it didn't go far enough in places. Some of my dislikes:
1. The cleric
- The patron system would have been a perfect base and I can't figure out why it wasn't utilized here. I find most of the disapproval results somewhat bland and even annoying from a gameplay stance. I can't help but feel this class was rushed for release.
2. Thief skills
- There are too many skills. Seriously, do we really need a forge document skill? Mainly I am disappointed that a new thief skill system wasn't created from scratch. Can't really fault the game for that but I think this could be improved.
3. D20 DC system
- I hate this system for a variety of reasons that I won't go in to here. The unfortunate part is the DC system is all over the rules so it's not a simple fix.
- I like the simplicity of the three save system but I think saves should be more mysterious, not a simple avoidance test. Really why do we need a reflex save when we have agility tests? I would prefer a Spell save, a Physical Effects save (for poison/disease) and maybe a Death save (a last chance roll to save your character).
5. Monster stat blocks too large
- They have lots of minor bonuses that only complicate things for minimal rewards. Examples:
(a) Initiative modifiers everywhere - Why even list initiative modifiers of +1, -1 or 0? Heck even +2 modifiers are barely worth the complication. For those rare monsters that a large bonus (4+), list it as a special note.
(b) Action dice - Almost all monsters use a d20. Again why not just list this as a special note for those few that do?
(c) Differing attack bonuses - If a monster is +8 in melee and +6 at range, would it be so bad to grant them a +7 for simplicity? If they are significantly better at something, sure list it, but again it should be a special note.
6. Multiple Actions per round
- Love these for monsters, hate them for players. I think it adds a needless complication and basically balances out in the end: as players rise in levels they get more attacks but so do the monsters. It also means higher level characters are actually fumbling more often (every few rounds) which is just silly. I suppose it is a good way to boost non-spell caster damage at higher levels but I am not sure that is an issue in this game (or could be handled other ways).
7. Spell burning
- I don't like the book-keeping that the current system creates. Hit points already abstractly measure a "weakening" character and should have been used here, along with a table for side effects to make it more interesting (and a rule that only natural healing can bring those lost points back)Bonus minor nitpick:Occupations table
- This is an easy fix but I don't know if the results are as grim as I would expect in a Sword and Sorcery novel. I wouldn't normally mention this except this game is supposed to give off a certain vibe. I think it needs more runaway slaves, barbarian tribesmen, dock hands, town drunk, escaped convicts and such. Nothing wrong with cheesemakers and such in the list, I just think the table needs to be re-worked.
Note: I realize my thread title is misleading, I just wanted to be consistent with the other thread