Goodman Games

The Mighty Deed system is one of the most elegant approach of combat manoeuvres I have seen so far in fantasy role-playing. I have one single problem with it, however, that it does not cover similar attempts made by non-Warriors. What if a member of another class tries to do something similar? Is there an "official" answer to that question?

Maybe their deed die is 1d2 and they have to burn luck to pull it off.

Just remember: they can't combine the attempt with a damage dealing attack.

At least, I wouldn't let them, unless there were some heavy mitigating circumstances. What makes Deeds cool is pulling off stunts and dealing damage to a target as well, at the same time.

They can't. They have to be lucky to pull of such stunts - which leads us to the critical tables.

Maybe we are reading the OP differently.

Certainly, adding some 'bonus' event to an attack comes down to critical hits for non-Warriors. But, pushing the demon back through the portal should be something anyone can try -- they just can't combine it with damage dealing the way a Warrior can.

I haven't been able to actually play this game much, so I can't say I've road tested this situation, but I'd suppose that at minimum the target should get some kind of resistance roll (Save or Ability check).

When I was introduced to DCC RPG first hand at a play test, the example of a Deed that Joseph gave us was a guy jumping on the back of a large huddled foe to gain altitude in order to hit a hovering foe (an example he culled from an earlier play test). That to me is the baseline of what a Deed can potentially do... Anybody could try to jump on that squat foe's back to gain altitude (to grab a ledge or vine, perhaps), but only the Warrior could make an attack in the same action.

Way back in the early days of RPGs, another name for Warrior was "Hero". I think this is a clue as to the kind of person Warriors are, and leads to the reasons why I'm of the opinion that Deeds being for Warriors only should be an ironclad rule.

Heroism is a sucker's game. Wizards are too smart to try a crazy stunt in the middle of a brutal clash of arms. Clerics consider themselves too important, too vital to the safety of the realm to risk their lives in attempting unpredictable maneuvers. Thieves are too aware of how thin their leathers and padding are, and how easily their skin is pierced by demon claws - besides where's the financial gain in such a stunt??

No, only Warriors (anyone from Thrud to Li Mu Bai) are crazy, headstrong, and selfless enough to attempt a Mighty Deed. Players that want their soft, pudgy priests or nearsighted magicians to leap off ledges flailing axes or bum-rush a four-legged ice devil on a precipice... must have made an error when choosing their class. I'd give them as much hope as if the Barbarian-type wanted to cast a spell straight out of a thousand-year lich's diary. (If Nerval the Illusionarian is really the last desperate hope of the forces of Law, then I'd say he has to roll a natural 20 or even 30 to succeed.)

I think the class of Warrior doesn't just describe the abilities of a fighting man, but also includes the attitude, willpower and recklessness of a true Hero. (Appendix N urges us to combine or meld the psychology or motivation of the character with his official "Class" more than the other games do, I think.) If you want healing or fireballing or sneaking instead... you're giving up a lot in DCC RPG compared to other games. I love the idea that this is a game where it's possible that everyone at the table will want to be a Warrior, because they are so badass, flexible, creative and fun to roleplay. Keeping Deeds off-limits to non-Warriors is a big part of that.

There are a couple philosophies on this. Some folks feel that to allow other characters any opportunity to do these sorts of things steps too much on the Warrior's turf. Others (like me) think that occasionally the obvious thing to do is to try to shove the other guy over the edge of the cliff, whether you are a warrior or not. These views are fundamentally irreconcilable, so you'll get differing opinions on how to handle this.

My preference is that I allow non-warriors to attempt simple actions that might be part of a Warriors Mighty Deed attempt. Examples would include pushing someone back, tripping them, grappling them, trying to smack a weapon out of their grasp or grab something large and obvious off them. I wouldn't allow more specialized actions such as attempting to sunder a weapon, skewer them to the wall or other 'called shot' type of actions.

For attempts that I do allow, generally I'll have them roll an attack as normal. The result, if high enough, causes the target to attempt a 'saving throw' action, typically against the attack roll as DC to avoid the effect. If this fails as well the attempt by the player has something like the intended effect (pushing someone back, slowing them down, knocking their weapon away, etc). I never allow these alternate actions to also cause damage at the same time, that is the Warriors sole purview in my games.

I actually developed this approach because of the frequency with which level 0 characters in my games wanted to attempt these sorts of things. Once I allowed level 0s to attempt something like pushing an opponent over a wall it seems silly to say that a level 1 adventurer of any class can't try the same.

I don't think they are fundamentally irreconcilable - being as I am in the camp of "don't give everybody Deeds - that's like giving everybody Spells or Backstab", and yet I firmly believe that other classes should have a way to perform some Deed-like things.

Everyone can try to wrestle a weapon free of their enemy's grasp, everyone can try to bowl an enemy over and run past them, everyone can try to shove an enemy into some terrain feature - but only Warriors (& Dwarves) get to do that with great chance of success and while also attacking for HP damage.

I have adapted the grappling rules of DCC to cover all those situations, though sometimes involving ability scores other than just a choice of Strength and Agility. It gives everyone the chance to try, everyone a chance to succeed without burning luck, and keeps Deeds firmly "niche protected."

Thank your for your answers! I have not yet decided how I am going to approach this issue, but I will certainly post about it. Thanks again!

You could also think of it in the context -- can a chubby cleric do acrobatic move X, could a skinny wizard trip a Minotaur, and so on. Where as, a trained, athletic warrior could probably at least make a meaningful attempt at doing them.

I was 100% the other way on this subject until I read this post. Great job on selling this opinion!

This is great stuff guys. I like the different opinions expressed here, good ideas to keep in our bag for resolving future issues.

I may be mistaken, but I think you're saying I'm wrong.

You have a well-considered opinion, and I respect it. But if I were playing a Wizard and his options were getting narrower and narrower for avoiding a certain death, I'd hope my GM would allow me to attempt something crazy with some chance of success if it was the only way I could see to save his skin.

I'm certainly not saying anybody else in the game should have Deeds. But I firmly believe there are some actions that could qualify as Deeds that could also be attempted by others -- but those attempts won't be as easy, won't be done with the extra Deed die (but by some other means of resolution) and won't be combined with an attack. To be clear, I'm not thinking about 'bonus' effects to an attack, such as sundering a foe's weapon, etc., but more things in the realm of 'adventuring stunts' like chandelier swinging, and the like. Any character could attempt to throw sand in the face of an enemy and 'blind' them for a round, but only a Deed could blind them long-term.

Okay, your turn.

This might have been rehashed a few times, but it's worth repeating. Separate the mechanics from the narrative. The mechanics are what make the rules rules. So when everyone sits at the table to play a game, it's usually taken for granted that everyone is agreeing to the same set of rules. Rules for spells in D&D are different than they are for GURPS as they are for Mage.

In DCC RPG Wizard's spell rules are the mechanics that describes the effectiveness (or lack-of) of their spells, it's a spell check roll that's compared to a specific spell table. But the narrative is whatever the player & judge decide, that fits within the framework of the rules mechanics. So a flaming ball of fire that explodes might be narrated identically in all those games, but the functional mechanics are completely different.

So let's apply this separation of mechanics & narrative to a Thief's Back-stab. A thief gets a bonus "to hit" when their target is "unaware" of the thief. If the thief hits, the thief get's the benefit of a free "crit". That's the basic mechanic of the Backstab, pretty simple. So let's say the player makes a successful sneak-check, and get behind his quarry. Then he gets his attack, at whatever bonus for his level. Let's say he hits, so it's automatically a crit. Let's say the crit was "Foe dazed by a ferocious attack, half movement...". Let's say that the attack actually killed the target. Narratively speaking, it could have been described as, "The Grey Mouser ducks into the shadows behind some trash in the alley, then sneaks behind some thug that's pointing his saber at Fahfrd. Mouse creeps up to the thug and taps him on the shoulder. The startled thug turns around, only to find two daggers embedded in his eye sockets. Killing him instantly." Ok, say the same exact rolls were made by Mouser's PC, but the thug was considerably tougher. Then narrative would actually played out more like this, "The thug turns around, and for a split second sees the Mouser cut him across the face, filling his eyes with blood." Effectively a "Blinding Attack" for a Warrior, but a Backstab for a thief. Narratively plays the same, mechanically different in every way.

Hope that helps.

I don't think you and I are that far away from agreement. I did mention in my post that I would allow a non-warrior a chance to roll a die in a last-ditch crazy attempt, but it would only have a 1-in-20 chance of success. Some classes should be able to easily achieve great physical acts of daring (or derring?) and some shouldn't. To me, Warriors are the only ones who can climb a rope in metal armour, leap across a bottomless pit without thinking, and swing an 18-pound hammer hard enough to break someone's shield. Wizards, Clerics and Thieves are the civilized and highly-skilled specialists whose lust for gold or ancient secrets have gotten them in way over their heads in this godforsaken pit miles underground. (Yes, Thieves are civilized - thieves without a city are just bandits. I'm not sure where brawny Thugs and nimble Assassins could fit into this mental picture of mine, but let's get back to my main point.)

Maybe that's just how I imagine the characters: the Warriors are the confident and athletic scouts, adventurers and brawlers. Wizards (and some Clerics) are pudgy, absent-minded and refined men of knowledge and lore. Possibly middle-aged, almost certainly lacking muscle tone. They might know how to swing a staff or mace, but not while simultaneously shoulder-rolling under the fire arrow trap and singing the only aria that keeps the Slumbering Sphinx from waking up. I just don't see them in any shape to act decisively when struggling with venomous jaws, inches from their neck. Sure, in Pathfinder you've got lithe, tumbling magic-users who can split an apple with a crossbow or flung dagger at 80 paces... but I get caught up in the atmosphere of App. N, and start thinking that class roles should be much more segregated in DCC. The counter-argument is that there is some overlap between a Thief who likes to fight and a Warrior who likes to steal... but if your instinct in battle is NOT to run away with the loot, then you probably shouldn't choose the Thief class.

From a storytelling point of view, If you're a MENSA-type genius Wizard able to conjure a rain of frogs each of whom can translate a different language for you, or otherwise alter the very laws of nature... then how did you ever let things get to this desperate state where a bookworm needs to do the adventuring stunts? Yes, a "Hero's" solution is a crazy somersault over the lava and aiming a spear at the living statue's hidden weak point, but the Wizard should have had eighteen contingency plans to prevent its reanimation or nine henchmen to protect him after it does. Considering the cost of bandages, leeches, healing spells, replacing those little fabric stars off your hat... nine henchmen are cheap at any price. It's a business expense, anyway.

Having said all that, I know that players shouldn't be shackled if it would spoil the fun. If we were playing and your Wizard had a magical stunt that he wanted to try in order to save the day at the last second... using a spell for a customized effect, or coercing some kind of "final strike" blast out of a Wand of Slipper Repair, then that stunt's wholly appropriate and more likely to succeed than some combat maneuver. Not an automatic success, but I always think creativity should be rewarded. Finding a solution to a challenge that fits your Wizard character's aptitude and class will have much greater probability than cross-class actions like attacking, grappling or dirty tricks.

As for swinging from chandeliers, I would call that a straight DEX roll (I mean Agility, sorry). When you get down to plain vanilla mechanics of the game, I think any class can attempt similar stunts (considering their natural ability scores). In desperate circumstances, does the DM let you attempt your life-saving maneuver as a basic ability check or will he rule that it's a highly-unlikely "natural 20"-type action ill-suited to your character? Do you now regret your skilled roleplaying portrayal of a sickly hourglass-eyed wizard with a wet hacking cough? If I were DM, I'd say in desperate circumstances any priest, sage or safecracker can try to leap over the horde of swamplings and pull the lever to block the tipping vat of acid-moss. But only a Hero can convert his momentum enough to subsequently rip the lever off barehanded and swing it like a club, batting swampling heads at the EHP like so many pulpy green golf balls.

So no, I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just a matter of perspective. Maybe I see a sharper distinction between run of the mill acts of bravery/feats of strength that anyone can attempt and the awe-inspiring (and frankly implausible) Mighty Deeds of Arms.

Thanks for the reply -- yeah, I don't see that we're too far off.

But I am getting the impression that I have a slightly different take on Deeds than other forum posters in general. It seems that most people are using/seeing them as something that soups up an attack beyond negative HP delivery, a la "Not only did I hurt him, but I removed his weapon arm!". This is certainly what Deeds can do. But it also falls in line with concern from the Beta-era: people on the forums and at playtests that had heard what Deeds were like became concerned that, as described in the Beta, Deeds were 'reduced' to 3e style combat maneuvers. There was fear that perhaps more inventive uses of Deeds would get lost, never to be improvised again...

...And those are the kinds of things I'd let anybody try. If your class has the Deed feature, you can do them a heck of a lot easier, and also make an attack at the same time along the way. Whether or not others trying such things would have only a 5% change (as you suggest) or more, is going to depend (at my table) on circumstances, how the stunt is described and the aptitudes of the character -- but should almost never* be easier than the chance a Warrior would have to do the same thing (unless my math fails me in the heat of the moment ).

The chandelier swinging example may have been overly simple -- but it's still something that a Deed die could cover without any Agility check needed from the Warrior (or Dwarf [beware Dwarves on chandeliers...!]).

Oh, and forgive me if I'm wrong in my (mis)quote of your words; perhaps you could pull off a Deed -- but I know I can't...

* I'm not good at saying 'never'. I can't think of a potential case, but who knows? Maybe something lanky Elf wants to do would be easier for him than it would be for a muscle-bound Dwarf, even if the Dwarf just needs a 3 or better on his d8 Deed die...