Goodman Games

I'm fairly comfortable with the idea of juding mighty deeds or arms, but I'm curious for some feedback from experienced judges and players. Two questions for you:

1) Do you resolve Deeds on a binary basis, i.e. it works or it doesn't? Or do you resolve Deeds taking into account the warrior's level, or how much over the threshold (3) the deed die fell (in essence allowing mostly higher level warriors to shine)? In other words, if a warrior rolls a 7 or a 3 on his deed die, does he succeed more in the first case?

2) Also, what if the warrior says: "I wish to skewer my enemy with my spear and then, putting my foot on his chest, remove my weapon with his still beating heart impaled on its tip"? (Ok, I chose the extreme here, haha .) I.e. a called shot that will incapacitate the enemy or kill him. What do you do then?

Thanks,

Sky

I think it depends on what the Warrior intends to do and I would cross-reference that with the examples provided in the book. For example, skewering an enemy with a spear seems like a Precision deed. The examples for Precision deed results indicate an extra 1d4 points of damage from a '3' to an extra 1d8 points of damage on a 7+. A low result could mean they don't quite hit a major organ/artery (partial success).

1) My player's that are playing Warrior characters have a printed out summary of the example Deeds and effects from the book in front of them while playing. Those mechanics serve as the default results of Deeds, with alteration where needed to fit what the character is actually trying to accomplish.

Because of that, any attempted Deed has 5 levels of graduated success (3, 4, 5, 6, and 7+ on the Deed die).

2) If a player wants to incapacitate or kill an opponent, then he had better reduce their HP to 0. I would tell a player stating the Deed you suggest in the way you suggest the following: "Describe your attempt or state your intention, never dictate a result before a die is rolled because that forces a situation loaded with variables into a binary view of either working or not working and only leads to your disappointment at your own success."

More specifically, a Deed I would accept is "I try to slide my spear up under his rib cage and pierce his heart" and would treat it as a precision attack (granting a bonus damage die if successful against an opponent that has and needs a heart in the location mentioned).

If the attack reduced the enemy to 0 HP, I'd add in some flavor or allow the player to do so - meaning kicking a dead foe from your spear to find his pierced heart still gripping the point is a real possibility, but not one you just get to declare whenever you feel like it.

I judge them pretty much like TheNobleDrake. So, I do use an informal graduated success scale. If you exceed the necessary roll then the effectiveness increases. We had some pretty fun stuff happen in some of the games I ran. I try to encourage the descriptive Mighty Deed, so I attempt to say yes and allow more spectacular results if the player is rolling really well.

As for the heart question, pretty much just as TND describes. Since the blow might not kill the character I can't always let the heart get ripped out. So I might encourage some adjustment to the description and then go from there. If the character takes the enemy to 0 though, then by all means, vital organs can get ripped out!

+1d here.

Oh, so I did read that in the book, heh. I thought I had seen someone post this, but now that you refer to the book I realize I must have read it there.

What do you mean +1d? Increase damage die of 1 size is what you grant? Or is that simply that you agree with the other posters, through an abbreviation that I do not understand?

Also, I realize in reading everyone's response that I had forgotten that there was a graduated table in the book altogether. That's what you get for reading a whole rulebook in a week's time, some stuff sticks and some doesn't. Maybe reading the book again would be helpful

Thanks for the responses!

What threw me into this questioning was the discussion going on in the "mighty deeds and non warrior" thread where one poster said "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." So there I was, thinking: well, a blind opponent is pretty much disabled for an entire fight, or close enough. That's a pretty drastic conclusion to a deed. What I take from this thread and the reference to the graduated deed-example table in the book is that blinding an opponent for the long term is perhaps too much for a deed, even on the higher scale of the die.

Since we're here, talking, (well, we're not here per se... nor talking... and I'm pretty much alone writing in this thread presently... Damn!) what would you allow for trying to blind someone with sand in the face? If that's in the book too, I apologize in advance.

And... How about taking in the opponent's strength to consider the result? Say the PCs are fighting a 1 hit die opponent and the warrior throws sand in his face, hoping to blind him and succeeds on his deed die, perhaps that could work and the critter is blind for a couple of rounds; but if the warrior throws sand in the face of the 15 hit die dragon, perhaps it doesn't work as well?

The 7+ result example actually includes the possibility of being permanently blinded (24 hours of blindess followed by a Fort save against the attack the Deed landed with).

With a Deed, I might grant the character a +2 or +1d to his attack roll for having sand to throw in the target's face... but the attack would deal no damage.

Without a Deed, I might use an opposed Agility Check (monster using his HD as his bonus to the roll) to see if the character could pull off the sand in the eyes trick.

Other than the above mention of me using a critter's HD as their "ability modifier" for most opposed rolls, I don't like the idea of using HD to represent a lot of things about a critter... just being a big, tough, or well trained sort of thing/person doesn't make your eyes any less susceptible to painful irritation by coarse, gritty particles.

Now, as the book suggest, you might adjust the usefulness of a blinding attack either up or down the scale relative to the number of eyes or sight-organs a monster has (i.e. cyclopes are out of luck when it comes to eye jabs, but a roiling ball-like creature with a thousand eyes is nigh-impossible to blind).

Oh? But then, a big, tough or well trained creature is less susceptible to a sword stroke per the rules since it has a lot of hit points, why not to a sand in the eyes attack? In other words, it's as much logical to explain how a sword stroke doesn't kill someone with a lot of hit points as it is to explain that sand in the eyes doesn't blind someone with a lot of hit points, in my opinion. I can accept the rules working differently, I'm just saying it seems like an arbitrary rules decision. Blinding is a binary result, whereas hitting someone scales with damage.

It is arbitrary, that is true... but I just feel it out and go with what feels right. In the case we are discussing, I feel that Hit Dice of a creature already figure into their resistance against all Deeds including blinding attacks by carrying along a typically higher AC, making them less likely to get sand in their eyes in first place since the Deed requires an attack roll.

Then, I feel that their increased hit points already represent added ability to avoid/resist the bad things that are going to happen while they are blinded by sand - including that a successful attack against a blind enemy that doesn't reduce it to 0 hit points can be described as a very, very close call that ended up missing entirely but left the creature extremely open for attack (since their now lowered HP are more likely to be reduced to 0 by following attack).

So I feel like adding in further resistance to the effects of sand in the eye, at the point of "yes, there is certainly sand in his eyes," that is based on Hit Dice is going overboard with Hit Dice being the end-all and be-all of a monster's capabilities.

It is okay if others feel differently, of course. I love to hear opinions differing from my own - it's the only way I can continue to learn and grow.

I tend to agree with you I think TND. One of the things DCC RPG has done is give creative room back to the judge and to the players. Sometimes the judge just needs to make a decision on how something will play out and run with it. The rules don't need to make everything super binary as in the end binary ends up restricting things, making them black and white which stifles creativity or the ability to just make decisions on things at the table and run with it.

It can be a bit unnerving to a judge not used to not having rules backing up every in game action, but it pays such dividends. The dividends are obvious when the players are exclaiming at the success of their most recent crazy idea in combat. I have had some great fun arise out of creative players really getting into their mighty deeds action and doing things that simply aren't covered in d20 rules. DCC RPG gave me just enough framework for these warriors to do some fun things!