Goodman Games

Hi everyone,

I've been making quite a few changes to the DCC RPG manuscript based on all the great feedback to the beta rules. Over the next couple weeks I'll be posting some snippets to get additional feedback on some of the revisions. Here is one of the first such updates: the cleric class! If you click the link below you should get an MS Word document with an updated cleric description. A quick overview:

* When the cleric fails a spell check, he no longer takes a -1 to his next spell check. Instead he expands the range of auto-failure and disapproval. This starts on a natural 1. After the first failed spell check, any roll of natural 1-2 fails and incurs disapproval. After the second failed spell check, the ranges grows to 1-3. And so on.
* There's an expanded disapproval table. When disapproval occurs, the cleric rolls 1d4 for every point of "natural failure"; i.e., if they incur disapproval by rolling a natural 3, they'd roll 3d4 on the table.
* As before, a cleric can offer sacrifices to offset some of this penalty.
* Healing is still linked to alignment and the spell check, but now heals a number of dice, based on the target character's class die; i.e., a warrior would heal 1d12's and a wizard would heal 1d4's.

I think those are the high points. Having played this build some, I do like it and am leaning toward something along these lines. Please take a look and let me know what you think!

Download link: http://www.goodman-games.com/downloads/ ... 81311.docx

Thanks to everybody for their feedback so far on the beta rules, and Harley, Steven, and Andy in particular for some great discussions on the cleric.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong; but I've tried every option my computer has to offer, and I can't get the file to download properly. What is .docx format? Would it be possible to offer the file in other formats?

****

From the points listed, I like everything except the healing... it only makes sense (to me) in the context of: each deity gets to choose which classes they will favor. Ex: Gorhan the Valiant would probably favor warriors with more powerful healing over wizards and thieves; but Amun Tor the Riddlemaster might consider wizards superior to a bunch of muscled up morons in armor and grant 1d12 for healing checks for wizards and 1d4 for warriors. And Myna (the Goddess of Luck), she obviously favors thieves already considering they get the most out of their renewable Luck score so they obviously deserve 1d12 healing as well. This path might add some role play hooks, but it could get cumbersome with a large pantheon or character group.

Respectfully, adjusting for alignment makes sense, but subdividing by class as well seems overly punitive. This system already gives warriors more advantages than other classes, they don't need any more help. If the system requires that there be more healing available than the "lay on hands" of clerics can provide, then perhaps some healing spells may serve better.

Tortog wrote:What is .docx format? Would it be possible to offer the file in other formats?

Ah yes. The infamous .docx format. That is MicroSoft's latest attempt at planned obsolescence.

Mr. Goodman, would you re-post this document with a .doc ending?

I HATE planned obsolescence.

I'm the same way. My school computer has a really recent version of Word and loves docx files, but my home computer doesn't.

I have the latest edition of Word and when I click the link I get a zip file with a bunch of XML files and no Word document.

Try this - a zipped document containing both .doc and .docx formats:

http://www.goodman-games.com/downloads/Cleric.zip

Thanks, Joseph. I really like it. I also think tacking failures on to "disapproval" not only fits the nature of the class but will also mitigate the snowball effect of a Cleric's player rolling poorly in the beta rules.

I also like how healing is set up and also how it's tied into conditions.

Sadly, this will require a re-write of some of the classes I'd been working on. But I think these are changes for the better.

Thanks!

One thing I noticed.

Once a cleric begins accumulating negative modifiers, he can remove them by offering sacrifices to his deity. See below for more information.

The "accumulating negative modifiers" bit should probably be edited to reflect the new rules.

smathis wrote:Thanks, Joseph. I really like it. I also think tacking failures on to "disapproval" not only fits the nature of the class but will also mitigate the snowball effect of a Cleric's player rolling poorly in the beta rules.

Agreed. I like the way this feels.

Tortog wrote:Respectfully, adjusting for alignment makes sense, but subdividing by class as well seems overly punitive. This system already gives warriors more advantages than other classes, they don't need any more help. If the system requires that there be more healing available than the "lay on hands" of clerics can provide, then perhaps some healing spells may serve better.

It heals each class the same proportion of their hit points. Healing a wizard with d12s is essentially the same as saying "you are at full hp" while healing a warrior with d4s leaves him wary of battle.

Definitely an improvement. Good stuff. As smathis noted, the section on "offsetting penalties with sacrifices" needs to be rewritten in light of the changes to:

The risk of disapproval can be offset by sacrifices. The range of disapproval can be offset by sacrifices, though never below 1. Once a cleric's range of disapproval begins to increase, he can reduce it by offering sacrifices to his deity. See below for more information.

cheers!
Colin

Like the update Mr G! Not quite what I expected but well worth playing out!

But seriously guys.. You have never heard of Open Office? Sun has been making sure we can open do anything MS can do for free for How many years now....?

C'mon you were all just kidding about DocX wern't you....!

Ducaster wrote:But seriously guys.. You have never heard of Open Office? Sun has been making sure we can open do anything MS can do for free for How many years now....?

Sun was bought by Oracle and has not done a thing to make MS stuff "open" in a couple years.
Within days The Open Source movement forked Open Office as Libre Office out of fear the traditionally proprietary Oracle would destroy Open Office.
Several months later, Oracle decided they didn't want to maintain Open Office and they gave it away to the Apache Foundation to maintain as an Apache project.

So be sure to thank the Apache foundation, not Sun.

Regardless, I also use Open Office at home. And it opens any stray MS documents I receive just fine.

I really like the new mechanic for spell casting, and I really like the ability of clerics to do more with their healing touch; but I still stand by my previous assessment of the “class die” for healing. I don't like it, and I think it will make it even more difficult to keep a wizard character alive. Especially since a 1st level wizard only has a 19-33% chance of getting the magic shield spell.

Question: do Clerics get to add level to the results of the healing check? it says CL= caster level at the bottom of the chart... some kind of typo?

i.e. 12-13 2d+CL/ 1d+CL/ 1d+CL

I'm keen to know as my players will be leveling up in the next game, and at least two of them what clerics.

Tortog wrote:Question: do Clerics get to add level to the results of the healing check? it says CL= caster level at the bottom of the chart... some kind of typo?

Good catch - that's a typo.

So far the new healing mechanic hasn't seemed to result in more wizard deaths...at least from my experience. Try it out in your games and let me know.

jmucchiello wrote:
So be sure to thank the Apache foundation, not Sun.

Regardless, I also use Open Office at home. And it opens any stray MS documents I receive just fine.

I stand corrected sir!

Sorry for the mis info I have been using open office for so long now I hardly look at the splash screens/follow the news. I was Kinda shocked that anyone had trouble with the DocX business. Still as Mr G is now issuing pdf versions of any class updates everyone should be happy...!

Ok first impressions on the Cleric 2.0

I like the expansion of the lay on of hands to include the curing of other effects. Cuts down the need for added spells that will only get used in specific circumstances. Using the targets own hit point dice as the basic curative dice. Genius! Well done that man!!

I am unsure of expanding the disapproval range to compensate but as this is mitigated by the use of multi d4's to check as to WHAT is disapproved of I can see that it should self compensate.

I am slightly annoyed that again we have more references to Poisons & Diseases and now how to cure them but with no hard guidelines that I can see HOW these effects damage a character in the official rules still!

I have been playing that both cause temp (some perm in bad cases) attribute damage. Does the cleric newly defined ability to cure them wipe this out or does it simply purge the effect from causing more damage or....? Basically what happens here please? See my thread on the subject for some of the thoughts aired thus far.

Also as it is not mentioned in the document is it definite to assume that a cleric cannot heal attribute damage caused say by spell burn... I assume so, otherwise I can see every mage getting a second character of a cleric to.. oh well you get the idea.

Ducaster wrote: I have been playing that both cause temp (some perm in bad cases) attribute damage. Does the cleric newly defined ability to cure them wipe this out or does it simply purge the effect from causing more damage or....? Basically what happens here please? See my thread on the subject for some of the thoughts aired thus far.

Also as it is not mentioned in the document is it definite to assume that a cleric cannot heal attribute damage caused say by spell burn... I assume so, otherwise I can see every mage getting a second character of a cleric to.. oh well you get the idea.

Please note that Joseph is of course the final arbitrator.

The intention when the Cleric 2.0 was designed is that Spell Burn damage cannot be recovered via the cleric. Spell burn is a sacrifice to a power by the Wizard for a bonus. That power will resist any attempts to 'magically' heal the spell burn.

As to ability score damage with poison or disease, it all depends on how that will work in the game. I like the idea that poison and disease causes continual HP or ability damage over the course of the poison/disease. A cleric should be able to 'nullify' or 'heal' the symptoms of the disease, but in my opinion it is only temporary relieve unless you can fully cancel the disease.

Plus a poison or disease could have a healing die rating on how many healing dice it would take to heal the poison or disease.

goodmangames wrote: So far the new healing mechanic hasn't seemed to result in more wizard deaths...at least from my experience. Try it out in your games and let me know.

I like the concept...for the perspective of the characters, clerics used to heal wizards far more effectively than warriors. Now all classes are healed more equally.

I checked in before my game today to see the verdict on the caster level thing, but didn't have time to comment. I ran the numbers again and with CL wizards are no longer disadvantaged, so I'm much more confident in this new structure.

mythfish wrote: ... clerics used to heal wizards far more effectively than warriors. Now all classes are healed more equally.

Exactly! I'm worried that getting rid of this 1 tiny advantage will will have an impact on game play and longevity for wizards. Only time will tell. For what it's worth; when we were going over the rules for classes today for promoting their 0's to 1st level, the players didn't seem to bothered about the "class dice for healing."

Hamakto wrote: Please note that Joseph is of course the final arbitrator.

The intention when the Cleric 2.0 was designed is that Spell Burn damage cannot be recovered via the cleric. Spell burn is a sacrifice to a power by the Wizard for a bonus. That power will resist any attempts to 'magically' heal the spell burn.

This is my devout hope and belief also sir! Spellburn is a deliberate draining of ones vital energy to what is often 'unholy' purposes. It should never be healed by anything other than time I feel.

Hamakto wrote:As to ability score damage with poison or disease, it all depends on how that will work in the game. I like the idea that poison and disease causes continual HP or ability damage over the course of the poison/disease. A cleric should be able to 'nullify' or 'heal' the symptoms of the disease, but in my opinion it is only temporary relieve unless you can fully cancel the disease.

Plus a poison or disease could have a healing die rating on how many healing dice it would take to heal the poison or disease.

If a cleric L-o-H only stops a poison or diseases progression I shall cheer. If it gives back a small amount of attribute damage as well I am fine with that too. But Only time ought to heal the long term effects of either I feel otherwise they are no threat.

But I am going off topic for this thread. I apologise and shall stop.

Ok after playing a new style cleric for a couple of sessions I have been asked (by my player clerics) to pass on a couple of things.

1) overall a big thumbs up for the class.

But....

2) They all say:- "Why on Aerith" does a Failure cause a an add to dissaproval! Surely it should be the other way around. If your spell fails at a critical moment that's penalty enough but if it succeeds then that is reason for the Deity to be relectant to help you twice (or more) in a given day. IE the more you bother them/it the more reluctant the Deity is to help again, as evidenced by growing penalties on the dissaproval roll.


Also:-

Divine aid: As a devout worshipper, a cleric is entitled to beseech his deity for divine aid. Beneficent followers are already rewarded with spells and the ability to turn the unholy, so it must be recognized that requesting direct intervention is an extraordinary act. To request divine aid, the cleric makes a spell check at the same modifier that would apply were he casting a spell (A first level spell I assume since Mr G changed the penalty rules yes??) . This extraordinary act imparts a cumulative +10 penalty to future disapproval range. Based on the result of the spell check, the judge will describe the result. Simple requests (e.g., light a candle) are DC 10 and extraordinary requests (e.g., summon and control a living column of flame) are DC 18 or higher. (My emphasis added)

Erm so this means calling for divine aid for example means a Cleric will lose access their LOWEST level (and thus presumably easier for the Deity) spells before any higher level spells...! Say what?

If your disapproval rating exceeds the minimum success for a low level spell, as the current document says, isn't it a bit odd that the low level spells should be relegated to only their next highest ratings being able to be effected?
IE the first level spells become auto disapproval OR work at their next tier of results only.
But the Higher level spells still have there full spectrum of effects still? Surely the more annoyed your god gets with you the more powerful spells you have get wing clipped first in any sort of logic I can see?

Might I suggest that once a Cleric gets MORE than 11 points of disapproval they suffer a -1 on the highest level of spells they can cast for the balance of that day? So a 5th level cleric at 12 points of disapproval you would lose access to your 3rd level spells. At 13 points your 2nd etc. Under this subsystem I think the Disapproval range should max out at 11 actual factors so that for first level spells if you do not succeed you are disapproved of, but the charming lower level effects stay exactly where they are on the spell tables and are not eclipsed by the growing pile of disapproval points as we seem to have now.

That ought to get them sacrificing gold etc to lower the penalties so they can have their spells back! Also having Clerics actually lose the ability to cast like this mirrors the Mage's penalty for buggering up a spell which is fair I think.
Note I wasn't planning on adding Lay on of Hands or Turn UnHoly to this. You can keep trying these for as long as your willing to risk ever more potent disapproval. Your gods annoyed with your importuning not disowning you outright!

Ducaster wrote: ...
2) They all say:- "Why on Aerith" does a Failure cause a an add to dissaproval! Surely it should be the other way around. If your spell fails at a critical moment that's penalty enough but if it succeeds then that is reason for the Deity to be relectant to help you twice (or more) in a given day. IE the more you bother them/it the more reluctant the Deity is to help again, as evidenced by growing penalties on the dissaproval roll.
...

I've been wondering about the logic of this one ever since I read through the 1st version of cleric. If a cleric character is the living embodiment of their deity on Aereth, then they (IMO) have obligations to the deities faithful worshipers. As such they should be able to call upon the clerics of their faith for aide and it just doesn't make sense that the cleric would be penalized for using the power of their deity in such a fashion.

I've been tempted to house rule in that if the Cleric is actually using the magic to directly further the agenda of their God(dess) then no penalty should be incurred at all. I'm calling it the Instant Deity Approval System, otherwise the only time a cleric ever hears from their boss is when they are getting spanked. Yes, I realize that this radically increases the power of a cleric: and that is as it should be, they are the embodiment of a deity after all. Otherwise a deity ends up with its best "sales-reps" being penalized for doing their jobs well... the revision just makes the process a little faster.

Tortog wrote: ....Yes, I realize that this radically increases the power of a cleric: and that is as it should be, they are the embodiment of a deity after all. Otherwise a deity ends up with its best "sales-reps" being penalized for doing their jobs well... the revision just makes the process a little faster.

Yaay for this! Wasn't the fact that the cleric seemed underpowered a major complaint on these forums prior to Mr G's generally excellent retooling of the class? Yaay and Yaay again!

As for the sale rep point ROFLMAO! Spot on Sir!

Ducaster wrote: ... ROFLMAO!...

I'm not up to speed on these types of communication.... I see it all the time on threads (here and elsewhere) Please oh wise , kind, sir...WTF does it mean?

Ah! forgive It took me a loong time to get this new Acronymic (is that a word??!!) moden patois as well. To the best of my knowledge it means:-

Rolls-On-Floor-Laughing-My-Ass-Off

It is an expression of intense humorous appreciation at the statement or idea. At least that was MY intended usage of it in the preceding post.

Ducaster wrote:...Acronymic (is that a word??!!) ...

If not... it is now.... Shakespeare would be proud

Rolls-On-Floor-Laughing-My-Ass-Off

It is an expression of intense humorous appreciation at the statement or idea. At least that was MY intended usage of it in the preceding post.

Ah.... thank you sensei; both for the instruction and the complements.