Goodman Games

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:55 pm**

smathis wrote:My biggest beef with D&D levels is the breakage that begins around 12-15th level and then progressively gets worse. And that really only became apparent to me while playing 3e

<tangent>I think that's because the breakage didn't exist prior to 3e, assuming I'm thinking about the same breakage you're referring to:

Before 3e, as PCs increased in level, it generally became *easier* to resist an effect (spell, special ability) that came from a foe of equal level, because while PCs' saves improved, the foe's level didn't generally have an impact on how difficult the saving throw was. (There are exceptions to this, but it's generally true.)

With 3e, a foe's level essentially increases his spell/attack DCs just as fast as the rate a PC's "strong" saves improve (1 every 2 levels), and *faster* than the rate a PC's "weak" saves improve (1 every 3 levels). So the situation reverses itself: In 3e, as PCs increased in level, it generally became *harder* to resist an effect that came from a foe of equal level.

(Admittedly the myriad other small & large differences between 3e and pre-3e D&D also impact the feel of low-level vs. high-level play, and some of those differences tilt the balance back the other way. But my 3e group really noticed the effect of the saving throw difference in our 3e game after playing AD&D for years.)

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:27 pm**

muherd wrote:Since a dual wielding warrior will typically be rolling d16+d14, does that mean he'll crit on a max roll ("16" on d16, etc.) provided he hits?

Depends on his Agility score. Generally speaking, warriors with less than astounding Agility (i.e., 17 or less) will crit on "exactly" the hit roll needed. If the enemy's AC is 13, for example, the warrior will crit on exactly a 13. This isn't quite as elegant as I want yet but it's the best I've come up with so far.

Select classes will have improved two-weapon fighting ability (playing with that as a halfling ability now) where they'll crit on the natural 16 on a d16.

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:40 pm**

Fullerton wrote: I think that's because the breakage didn't exist prior to 3e, assuming I'm thinking about the same breakage you're referring to...

We're of a mind. The inflation of bonuses across the board was a house of cards that could not be mathematically supported at higher levels. 4e brings this out in spades with PCs simply being unable to hit opponents that are greater than X levels of their own. 3e started us down that path, IMO.

That's why my favorite method of playing 3e is Epic6. It draws a hard-stop to the increases in attack bonuses and saves and hit points out to the Event Horizon. I think drawing a line in the sand and saying "this is pretty much how powerful anybody can get" solves so many issues with 3e -- which is otherwise a fairly solid game, IMO.

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:44 pm**

goodmangames wrote:
muherd wrote:Since a dual wielding warrior will typically be rolling d16+d14, does that mean he'll crit on a max roll ("16" on d16, etc.) provided he hits?
Depends on his Agility score. Generally speaking, warriors with less than astounding Agility (i.e., 17 or less) will crit on "exactly" the hit roll needed. If the enemy's AC is 13, for example, the warrior will crit on exactly a 13. This isn't quite as elegant as I want yet but it's the best I've come up with so far. Select classes will have improved two-weapon fighting ability (playing with that as a halfling ability now) where they'll crit on the natural 16 on a d16.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, you start to skew the game if you do what you are talking about.

The chances of getting a crit on a d16 are higher than a d20. This even becomes much bigger once you start doing dual weapons.

example: d20 = 5% chance of a crit
d16 = 6.25%

Even if a dual weapon person uses a d16 and d14... their chance to crit per round would be:

6.25% + 7.15% = 13.4% chance of getting one crit per round... with a 1% chance of two crits. Much higher than a sword and board type fighter. (could be intentional design issue to balance damage production by giving higher chance to crit hit)

I like the idea that you threw out earlier about maybe a crit being an exact hit on the creatures AC. That could even work if the AC ranges that were discussed earlier are going to make the final version of DCC RPG (i.e. AC will not be astronomically high).

After rambling on for a bit now, I would like to throw out 2-3 thoughts for people to mull over:

1. Crit on matching AC --- high level characters will not crit people with low AC's as often, but that gives the 'softer' characters (i.e. wizards) a chance to survive the beating a tougher melee opponent can dish out. (Pro: survive melee longer without armor at higher levels.... Con: A dragon will probably not score a crit on you... so takes some of the danger out of the combat).

2. Crit is automatically scored on a 'Natural 20' or scoring 10 more than the AC on the dice roll. This keeps combat moving and lethal. It keeps AC important. And yes, neuters the dual weapon characters a bit... but then again, you get two chances each round. (Pro: Simple Cons: more critical hits scored)

3. Crit remains only on a natural 20. Give some advantage to the single weapon people.

4. Crit hit on max die roll (20,16,14,12,10). If the modified hit number is over the AC of the monster (i.e. it would hit normally), then you would roll on the to hit table. Otherwise it does just max damage.

On a side point...

In our group we encourage people to roll hit and damage dice together. If we start to throw in d3,d4,d6,d8, etc... as bonus dice. It could make things more confusing to the player. I think the idea that you have is cool, I am just pointing this out for the average joe gamer... Most people on this board are NOT average gamers.

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:10 pm**

Hamakto wrote:As I pointed out in an earlier thread, you start to skew the game if you do what you are talking about.

I could be wrong but I think he's meaning to skew it so classes with improved two-weapon fighting ability have a better chance of a crit, whereas fighters with 17 or less Agility have to roll the exact AC.

Posted: **Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:13 am**

geordie racer wrote:
Hamakto wrote:As I pointed out in an earlier thread, you start to skew the game if you do what you are talking about.
I could be wrong but I think he's meaning to skew it so classes with improved two-weapon fighting ability have a better chance of a crit, whereas fighters with 17 or less Agility have to roll the exact AC.

I do understand that, but look at the mathmatics behind the numbers.

lets assume we are working with a 4th level fighter... rolling a +d8 bonus.

If he is going sword and board... he rolls a d20+d8. (for a range of 2-28 with average of 15)

If he goes two weapon:
d16+d8 (2-24 average of 13)
d14+d8 (2-22 average of 12)

Please note that once you start to roll two dice, you start to get a bell curve going. You will very rarely hit the extreme numbers, but instead fall inside the fat portion of the bell curve.

For a combat roll of (d16+d8) w/out strength bonus... they would have a 1/16 chance of a critical to get a critical if the opponent had an AC from 9-17.

If they had an AC above 17, the % chance of a critical starts to drastically drop until there is a 1/128 chance to score a critical if they had an AC of 24 (max amount rolled). Plus, when rolling two dice you drastically limit the chances to roll the higher end of the range during combat which makes monsters outside your 'sweet spot' very difficult to hit.

Posted: **Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:19 am**

mntnjeff wrote:You know what always bugged me about feats in 3.x? It always seemed to be a list of things I would never be able to do. I saw it as restrictive... I'd get what, 6 to 10 feats off of a list of 40? Weak.

Agreed. This was always my main dislike for feats. It became a negative list rather than a positive one. New sourcebook? Hey, here's another two dozen things you can't do.

Posted: **Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:24 am**

Hamakto wrote:If they had an AC above 17, the % chance of a critical starts to drastically drop until there is a 1/128 chance to score a critical if they had an AC of 24 (max amount rolled). Plus, when rolling two dice you drastically limit the chances to roll the higher end of the range during combat which makes monsters outside your 'sweet spot' very difficult to hit.

Wasn't one of the systems mentioned a "critical if you exactly roll AC" one? It would be ironic if it was harder to crit against certain monsters when you advance in levels because as the bell curve adjusts the "sweet spot" moves.

Posted: **Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:19 am**

Hamakto wrote: 1. Crit on matching AC --- high level characters will not crit people with low AC's as often, but that gives the 'softer' characters (i.e. wizards) a chance to survive the beating a tougher melee opponent can dish out. (Pro: survive melee longer without armor at higher levels.... Con: A dragon will probably not score a crit on you... so takes some of the danger out of the combat).

2. Crit is automatically scored on a 'Natural 20' or scoring 10 more than the AC on the dice roll. This keeps combat moving and lethal. It keeps AC important. And yes, neuters the dual weapon characters a bit... but then again, you get two chances each round. (Pro: Simple Cons: more critical hits scored)

Of the options you've listed, I probably like these two the best. It's tricky when you've got two dice mixed into the equation. I could see it working but I'd have to play it to be sure.

Regarding the Two-Weapon issue, I've been using this house rule for a while now with decent success...

If you fight with Two-Weapons, you can choose to take either a +1 to your AC or roll damage for both weapons and take the best roll on a successful hit. If one weapon is lighter than the other, you can add a +1 to the damage die you choose.

Fighting with Two-Weapons doesn't give an extra attack in my games. And a character with "improved" two-weapon fighting wouldn't have to choose between those options. They'd get both by default.

This works pretty seamlessly in the games I've used it. Doesn't appear to "overpower" two-weapon fighters. And tends to give them a little something extra without messing up the rest of the game. In mechanical terms, it's like a shield that can optionally normalize damage output.

Posted: **Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:59 pm**

Criticals: The extra die should only be for BAB. The d20 should be the only die that determines a crit, and it should always be on 20. That works, and it works for a reason. It's the to-hit die, the other one is for modifiers. Why would the modifier die determine crit?

Also, the modifier die determines the Mighty Deeds of Arms activation. The d3 gives it on a 3; d4 does it on 4+. They they get a special move. This is not, however, a crit. Don't mix the two up.

I don't think characters who're rolling two different dice (ie: d16 and d14 for TWF) should get criticals in the same way as a d20 roller. As mentioned, it's easier for them to crit with all those attacks, and that is a power gamer magnet. Then we're less Appendix N, and more Drizzt Do'urden... aaaaah!

MIghty Deeds: My worry about these is that a player is going to pick cheap moves and spam them. Or they'll assume they're all instant-kills or disables (ie: blinding, crippling, etc.)

I wrote this and the internet ate it, so I'll sum up:

I think all special actions in 3e (Charge, Bull Rush, Trip, Disarm, etc.) should be available as a MDA. However, all the feats that characters should get in 3e should automatically be available. There's a whole list of them, and you can do them so long as you roll high enough. This could work just like the spells for Wizards (ie: roll high = extra effects), or it could work differently, whatever.
Anyway, let's say I roll a d3 and get a 3. That gives me a menu of basic special moves. Then, when I can roll a d16 for my bonus dice, I can get higher numbers, or I have just more options at higher levels for my special maneuvers.

I realize the point of MDAs are free-form combat moves. However, this would give people a reason to want to roll high: you can do cooler MDAs. There could be low-level moves (ie: trip, disarm, blind in one eye, hack off Luke's hand, etc.) and high level moves (ie: Xena warrior princess ridiculousness, like kicking everyone around you three times in a triple whirlwind attack). You could have a limit for each one (ie: you can't just maim everyone). It could even be random (ie: maybe you'll maim Luke, maybe not), or not (ie: grappling).

Keep in mind, just as the Feats list grew as the game progressed, the MDA list could grow. You could do a list of MDAs by weapon used: light swords (rapiers and sabers), longswords (bastard, broad, etc.), Bludgeons (hammers, flails, maces), ranged (bows), etc. Whips could have one having to do with entanglement.

No one needs a Feat for each of these, they just need to roll high enough.

Posted: **Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:59 pm**

fireinthedust wrote:MIghty Deeds: My worry about these is that a player is going to pick cheap moves and spam them. Or they'll assume they're all instant-kills or disables (ie: blinding, crippling, etc.)

A Mighty Deed of Arms is not a critical. It doesn't necessarily do extra damage (including "effects" like blinding). It just allows a cool move. Sometimes that could have other implications (hurling someone off a staircase) but that's situational. The rules include guidelines on what a disarm means if the warrior rolls a 3, a 4, a 5, etc. on his second die; what a blinding attack means in similar circumstances, what a bull rush means, and so on. A blinding attack with a 3 means you just throw sand in his eyes or smack him in the forehead or something else that gives him a hit penalty for a round...that sort of thing. Roll a 5, though (which is only possible at level 3 and above), and maybe you'll actually be poking some eyes out! Enough elements are subject to DM discretion that it doesn't get crazy.

I'm trying to keep MDA's (nice nickname, BTW) as anything BUT defined elements. There's a general guideline for a what a 3, 4, 5, etc. means on a blinding attack, but nothing really specific. Lots must be left up to DM discretion. I don't want to define it too much lest it become something too feat-ish. But if someone else figured out a good way and wanted to do it on a blog / 3PP / etc., that might be cool.

Posted: **Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:00 pm**

smathis wrote: If you fight with Two-Weapons, you can choose to take either a +1 to your AC or roll damage for both weapons and take the best roll on a successful hit. If one weapon is lighter than the other, you can add a +1 to the damage die you choose.

I like the idea of rolling twice and taking the best damage result as an outcome for two-weapon fighting. Cool idea.

Posted: **Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:07 pm**

Hamakto wrote:The chances of getting a crit on a d16 are higher than a d20. This even becomes much bigger once you start doing dual weapons.

example: d20 = 5% chance of a crit
d16 = 6.25%
etc.

Great points and great math. I should have clarified that normal characters with less-than-exception Agility don't even score crits when fighting with two-weapons. Only with one class (halflings, who I see as two-weapon kinda guys) is there a special rule that allows a decent chance of critting with two weapons. For all other classes, these are the rules as currently written (still subject to playtests and input, of course):

(Not sure if this will format properly; it's supposed to be a table...)

Code: Select all

Agility	Primary Hand	Off Hand	Critical Hits
7 or less	Cannot fight two-handed	Cannot fight two-handed	N/A
8-9	1d12	1d10	Cannot crit fighting two-handed
10-11	1d14	1d12	Cannot crit fighting two-handed
12-13	1d16	1d14	Primary hand crits on attack result of exactly 20*; off hand cannot crit
14-15	1d16	1d16	Primary hand crits on attack result of exactly 20*; off hand cannot crit
16-17	1d16	1d16	Both hands crit on attack result of exactly 20*
18+	1d20	1d20	As normal
* Warriors who can crit on 19-20 (or better) are still limited to attacks that exactly sum to 20.

I might go with "sums to exactly the AC" or something like that, as previously referenced; still playing.

Hamakto wrote:In our group we encourage people to roll hit and damage dice together. If we start to throw in d3,d4,d6,d8, etc... as bonus dice. It could make things more confusing to the player. I think the idea that you have is cool, I am just pointing this out for the average joe gamer... Most people on this board are NOT average gamers.

How many warriors in your group are rolling a d3, d4, d5, d6, or d7 for their damage die? Not many, I'm guessing.

That's the progression for the first 5 levels of the warrior class action die. Since warriors are invariably rolling 1d8, 1d10, or 1d12 for damage, so far the "roll damage dice + action dice + to-hit die all at once" practice has gone just fine in my games...it's easy to tell the dice functions apart.

Posted: **Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:50 pm**

goodmangames wrote:I like the idea of rolling twice and taking the best damage result as an outcome for two-weapon fighting. Cool idea.

Thanks. It's worked well from the standpoint of making two-weapon fighting in a B/X-based system relevant -- yet not overpowered in any sense. Roll one attack. Roll two damages. Take the best one. OR take a +1 to AC.

In that way, two-weapon fighting is like a shield with one extra option. So the sword-and-board guys aren't left behind.

Having had meager training in the florentine fighting style (fer realz, like blades -- no pads) I can say pretty definitively that the real advantage of a two-weapon fighting style is the ability to parry/defend and still get through the opponent's defenses with the other weapon. It functions IRL as a sort of shield on steroids, according to my experience with it. Not so much as a double-attack.

I mean, I never fought with a "dagger" and "sword" and attacked with both weapons at the same time. At least, not until I was to the point of finishing an opponent -- which (real blades) we didn't do. I guess maybe they might try that in the SCA or in a LARP or something. But when you're talking about real blades that can cut you, I don't think you'd want to leave yourself wide open to a counterattack. One blade (frequently the dagger) defends. The other blade tries to attack an opening.

So that rule made a lot of practical sense to me as well. Besides being very light. It also works for quarterstaff fighting. Which I found to be a very useful defense against the florentine style.

What can I say? I was a little crazy in my twenties and tried a lot of things that I shouldn't have.

Posted: **Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:03 pm**

MDA: meh, just initials of your idea. Someone would have started (may have already!)... but I'll take credit, sure!

goodmangames wrote:How many warriors in your group are rolling a d3, d4, d5, d6, or d7 for their damage die? Not many, I'm guessing. That's the progression for the first 5 levels of the warrior class action die. Since warriors are invariably rolling 1d8, 1d10, or 1d12 for damage, so far the "roll damage dice + action dice + to-hit die all at once" practice has gone just fine in my games...it's easy to tell the dice functions apart.

And dice of different colors and transparencies (not to mention sizes) will help distinguish when they *are* using d4s and d6s (falchions, greatswords, and other larger weapons; the spiked chain, etc.).

Which reminds me: what about power attack? It's gone, but will there be the option of lowering the Action Die used in order to add damage to an attack?

Also: how much of 3e will carry over? Are weapons going to be the same?

I think the MDAs will inform play-style if it's up to the GM. I may come up with a handy crib note list like I posted above just so I can keep impartial (I am *really* vulnerable to falling prey to moods when I'm hungry, for example).

Also: will certain actions depend on the ability of the target to resist? Tripping a high vs. low level foe, or an agile vs. clumsy character... maybe certain DCs must be met (like 10+agility+level, etc. to affect them; or a saving throw). Just thinking about PC in-fighting, or vs. particular villains.

Maybe a good idea as GM to design some terrain for certain fights to include MDAs, like Inns with chandeliers, castles with catwalks to nowhere, and long staircases up fortress walls. Every lair must have a bridge over a chasm! Seriously, though, dungeon dressing could be more important to DCC than other editions.

Posted: **Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:18 am**

fireinthedust wrote: I think the MDAs will inform play-style if it's up to the GM. I may come up with a handy crib note list like I posted above just so I can keep impartial (I am *really* vulnerable to falling prey to moods when I'm hungry, for example).

Also: will certain actions depend on the ability of the target to resist? Tripping a high vs. low level foe, or an agile vs. clumsy character... maybe certain DCs must be met (like 10+agility+level, etc. to affect them; or a saving throw). Just thinking about PC in-fighting, or vs. particular villains.

Maybe a good idea as GM to design some terrain for certain fights to include MDAs, like Inns with chandeliers, castles with catwalks to nowhere, and long staircases up fortress walls. Every lair must have a bridge over a chasm! Seriously, though, dungeon dressing could be more important to DCC than other editions.

Ok. MDA's are a good concept. But as I currently understand them, you get a 50/50 chance of pulling it off. Ok. I can live with that. But at some point are we all becoming superheros every other round? (50/50 chance)

There is where I put my Devils Advocate hat on... It is a very cool idea, but with the unpredictably of the success of it be detrimental to a more even adventure? (i.e. I grab the chandelier and wing across to swing at the wizard on the other side of the room). At first level... 50% chance of success. At 10th level, 50% chance of success. Yes... Zoro does that in a Hollywood... but I would love to see someone do that in full plate armor, while swinging a sword.

This is starting to feel more like 4e DnD to me... where everything is scales to be in the 50% chance of success range for a 'balanced encounter'.

There was a reference that Joesph made above about needed a 5 to 'blind someone'. Does that mean that MDA will have target #'s... so that the higher level you get (i.e. better extra dice), the better chance you have to pull off a MDA? That would make it better than a blind chance as you gain levels.

Posted: **Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:52 am**

Hamakto wrote: Ok. MDA's are a good concept. But as I currently understand them, you get a 50/50 chance of pulling it off.

No, I think you roll 3+ but the dice type changes as you level up: 3 on 1d3, 3-4 on 1d4 etc

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:51 pm**

Hamakto wrote:Ok. MDA's are a good concept. But as I currently understand them, you get a 50/50 chance of pulling it off. Ok. I can live with that. But at some point are we all becoming superheros every other round? (50/50 chance)

Odds of success are much less than 50/50. Let me clarify. A level 1 warrior attacks with a d20, plus a d3, plus his Str modifier. If the sum of these results exceeds the target's AC, he MIGHT be able to pull off a Mighty Deed. That is in turn determined by whether the d3 came up a 3. So at level 1, roughly 1/3 of attacks that hit will be Mighty Deeds. (In actual play, level 1 warriors usually get 1 or 2 Mighty Deeds per session, from my experience.)

Hamakto wrote:There was a reference that Joesph made above about needed a 5 to 'blind someone'. Does that mean that MDA will have target #'s... so that the higher level you get (i.e. better extra dice), the better chance you have to pull off a MDA? That would make it better than a blind chance as you gain levels.

The chance of success improves as you advance in level, because the secondary die increases. A warrior's BAB progression is not +1, +2, +3, etc. as in traditional D&D, but is +d3, +d4, +d5, etc. Any time an attack hits and that secondary die is 3 or better, a Mighty Deed is possible.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:52 pm**

smathis wrote:What can I say? I was a little crazy in my twenties and tried a lot of things that I shouldn't have.

Fighting with sharp objects is a pretty cool thing to have tried.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:58 pm**

fireinthedust wrote:Which reminds me: what about power attack? It's gone, but will there be the option of lowering the Action Die used in order to add damage to an attack?

No, I'm not defining anything like this in the combat rules. I'm really trying to keep it simple. Right now the unfinished manuscript, in MS Word form, is 288 pages long...and only 23 of those are combat. And out of that 23, 8 pages are crit tables! If anything, I want to shrink the chapter, not expand it.

fireinthedust wrote:Also: how much of 3e will carry over? Are weapons going to be the same?

Weapons are similar but not 100% the same. The core mechanics of 3e carry over in the sense that you roll a d20 a lot.

Not too much else.

fireinthedust wrote:I think the MDAs will inform play-style if it's up to the GM. I may come up with a handy crib note list like I posted above just so I can keep impartial (I am *really* vulnerable to falling prey to moods when I'm hungry, for example).

That's the idea. A basic guideline. There are tables in the book offering general advice on various MDAs, which you could cut out to use as your crib notes.

fireinthedust wrote:Also: will certain actions depend on the ability of the target to resist? Tripping a high vs. low level foe, or an agile vs. clumsy character... maybe certain DCs must be met (like 10+agility+level, etc. to affect them; or a saving throw). Just thinking about PC in-fighting, or vs. particular villains.

Yes, but I'm just covering general guidelines -- it's up to the DM to get specific. I'm really striving to avoid complexity and referencing the rules. There are guidelines, and in play I just call it situation by situation.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:09 pm**

Will other classes get some kind of attack bonus too? Can we increase the character's attributes at some levels?

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:03 am**

goodmangames wrote: Yes, but I'm just covering general guidelines -- it's up to the DM to get specific. I'm really striving to avoid complexity and referencing the rules. There are guidelines, and in play I just call it situation by situation.

Such a guideline book's gonna be the first needed expansion to the DCC RPG either by GG or a 3PP. Many of today's GMs are 3.x / Pathfinder / 4E gamers (i.e., used to having a rule at every turn, either in the book or online).

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:41 am**

goodmangames wrote:
Hamakto wrote:Ok. MDA's are a good concept. But as I currently understand them, you get a 50/50 chance of pulling it off. Ok. I can live with that. But at some point are we all becoming superheros every other round? (50/50 chance)
Odds of success are much less than 50/50. Let me clarify. A level 1 warrior attacks with a d20, plus a d3, plus his Str modifier. If the sum of these results exceeds the target's AC, he MIGHT be able to pull off a Mighty Deed. That is in turn determined by whether the d3 came up a 3. So at level 1, roughly 1/3 of attacks that hit will be Mighty Deeds. (In actual play, level 1 warriors usually get 1 or 2 Mighty Deeds per session, from my experience.)

Hamakto wrote:There was a reference that Joesph made above about needed a 5 to 'blind someone'. Does that mean that MDA will have target #'s... so that the higher level you get (i.e. better extra dice), the better chance you have to pull off a MDA? That would make it better than a blind chance as you gain levels.
The chance of success improves as you advance in level, because the secondary die increases. A warrior's BAB progression is not +1, +2, +3, etc. as in traditional D&D, but is +d3, +d4, +d5, etc. Any time an attack hits and that secondary die is 3 or better, a Mighty Deed is possible.

Wouldn't this lead to a high-level fighter always having a MDA when he hits an opponent? Once the bonus die is a d7 or higher the chances for an MDA are >70%. While this is great for the character, it seems that it would lessen the impact of MDA's at mid-high level play.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of MDA's, however it just seems that the 3+ roll on the bonus die for the d7 is overkill. Perhaps the % chance of an MDA should be fixed to something like 50% no matter the die rolled. Though now that I think of it, that will not work because of the odd-number-sided die. But I think my point stands.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:02 pm**

joela wrote:
goodmangames wrote: Yes, but I'm just covering general guidelines -- it's up to the DM to get specific. I'm really striving to avoid complexity and referencing the rules. There are guidelines, and in play I just call it situation by situation.
Such a guideline book's gonna be the first needed expansion to the DCC RPG either by GG or a 3PP. Many of today's GMs are 3.x / Pathfinder / 4E gamers (i.e., used to having a rule at every turn, either in the book or online).

Exactly, and I think that's where a lot of the conversation here is coming from.

Another thought: maybe space would be better served with more magic items and monsters than rules. Also spells (hoping that wizards can still collect spells on the fly, like in 3e, and add them to their books).

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:13 pm**

joela wrote:Such a guideline book's gonna be the first needed expansion to the DCC RPG either by GG or a 3PP. Many of today's GMs are 3.x / Pathfinder / 4E gamers (i.e., used to having a rule at every turn, either in the book or online).

I agree that many refs may be coming from a "rule for every circumstance" background, but I disagree that there would need to be a "rule for every circumstance" expansion for DCC RPG (despite any outcry for it).

A better solution IMO would be additional instructional material & advice that helps those refs get accustomed to a different refereeing style.

After all, if a 4E DM wants to run a game of Paranoia for his players, he shouldn't be directed toward a Paranoia expansion that adds support for minis, and gives at-will, encounter, and daily powers to the Troubleshooters.

Goodman Games

Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics

Re: Warrior mechanics