Goodman Games

Does DCC inflate AC and Hit Points in the same way that 3e and 4e do?

The reason I ask is because this is one of the things that annoys me about 3e and later.

Consider that you have a monster of significant level or hit dice that it has a 33 AC. The regular schmoe has to roll a 20 just to hit it. And then, likely, that 20 is a crit! So joe schmoe could only crit the creature. And if joe schmoe was a low level fighter, we go from swinging wildly, never landing a solid blow to impaling that creature's spleen to the wall. Hence the introduction of the maligned critical threat die.

One of the things I felt Lamentations of the Flame Princess did right was limiting the ACs. ACs fall within a range of 12 to low twenties. Leather is 14 AC, Chain is 16, yadda yadda.

Hit Points were also mitigated a bit, with Con bonuses only counting towards hit point totals up to level 10 and then just a straight plus after that.

I also know that 3e introduced the inflated attribute bonuses, which subsequently pulled us into the era of needing an 18 in a "prime attribute" to be considered "viable" as a character. As well as things like Armor Penalties, so that characters with a Dex of 20 didn't run around with an Armor Class bonus of +10 on virtue of them being super-agile in an inflated bonus to differentiate Scale Mail from Chain.

Does DCC mitigate this as well?

I mean, I think the good of the old-school attribute bonuses (-2/-1/0/+1/+2) was that it circumvented an attribute arms race. 18 was a nice to have. No doubt. But the character was substantially better by how you played it, less so by inflated attribute scores.

Further, increased Hit Points and escalating ACs led us to the grind of both 3e and 4e. I think it really started with 3e. Where you had creatures with 40 AC and 350 hit points. Sure, 2e and AD&D drifted slowly in that direction with negative AC. But I think pulling in the reins a bit is only a good thing where Hit Points and AC are concerned.

Sure, Cthulhu can have an AC of 33. Whatevs. But with AC and Hit Points and Attribute Bonuses inflated to 3e levels... And with how they're all pretty intricately entwined...

I'm wondering how DCC will address this issue. How it's going to avoid "the grind" that was the bane of high-level combat in 3e (and even low-level play in 4e). And how it will avoid issues like mid-level Fighters with a ridiculous 24 strength. And situations where certain monsters are completely out of the league of a group because their bonuses are simply not high enough to even hit it.

This much I felt Lamentations of the Flame Princess got right. I had a party of first level adventurers who decided to go take on an 18 HD monster. But even at 18 HD, the creature's AC was only in the 16-17 range. So he was "hittable" -- just out of the party's league by virtue of the damage it dealt and the amount of damage it could withstand -- which was still a relatively meager 90 hit points, much less even than a 10th level Barbarian in 3e.

Whereas in 4e or even 3e, the creature would've likely had an AC in the mid-twenties or higher. Making it virtually untouchable until the party were at a specific "level" -- which leads inevitably to discussions of "balanced encounters". In my experience, balanced encounters are much less important if the characters can feel (somehow) like they have a chance. I mean, if a party can hit a creature but soon realize they aren't going to win the War of Hit Point Attrition, I've found it's much easier to accept that than if they're rolling 17s and 19s and still not landing a blow.

What are DCC's plans in this area?

I read it has 3e scale attributes, which concerns me a bit because I see that as perhaps the root of the problem spoiling the whole tree as it were.

But are we looking at 3.5 and 4e levels of hit points and AC? Or closer to B/X and OD&D? Considering the goal is kind of OD&D through the lens/time-capsule of 3e.

With very rare exceptions, I prefer monsters to have armor classes that are no better than the armor class of a man with plate mail and shield. What sort of critter has a tougher hide than plates of steel?

I tend to agree here. Which is one of the reasons I wanted to raise the topic.

In 3rd edition, quite a few monsters have tougher hides than steel. I mean, a Nightmare is an 8HD creature that has a 26 AC according to d20srd. An Ogre can have 17 or 19 AC.

And we have loads of creatures with natural bonuses of +7 or above to AC. Putting them on par with Plate Armor and not counting Dexterity bonuses (nor hampering them). And I'm not even getting into Dragons, Tarrasques or some of the other "big bads".

I think, as in the above post, a lot of this has to do with attribute bonuses inflating the target numbers.

If we're talking about an 18 giving a +4 bonus, that's 5-10% better than if that 18 gives a +3 or 18 gives a +2. Which only inflates further when we eek into the twenties -- where most of the monsters are.

I think it's worth discussing because I feel the progression of attribute bonuses in 3e was a mistake, overall.

A mistake that led to inflation in other areas like Armor Class and To-Hit Bonuses and even Hit Points. It's given us mid-level monsters with 19 AC and 4d8+19 hit points. Whereas before, we be looking at something with a 16-17 AC and hit points in the mid-twenties or low thirties.

I think there's a recipe for grind hidden in there.

In playtesting the game only once, I can't 100% say that this won't be a problem.
However, DCC RPG uses 3D6 straight attribute rolls in order. In our playtest you were lucky to have a 10 or 11 in an attribute. And the 1 or maybe 2 characters with 1 attribute of 16 or better, had several at 8 or less.
The skill tests have a foundation in D20, in that the GM sets a DC, BUT you may not be able to make a skill test if it doesn't fit your class or background & there are no additional skill ranks. Your making a straight attribute check, so often your modifier is a negative one. I noticed most DC's we faced were 10.

I don't recall Joseph discussing your particular concerns, but keep in mind that the DCC RPG is more about "roll back the clock" instead of "blow up the balloon."

What I mean is that what we hear about from playtests are things like:

• Roll 3d6 in order (not much stat inflation here)
• Playing zero level characters (not much level inflation, either)
• Each magic item is special (no "monty haul" piles of treasure left unguarded

and so on.

I can't recall any statements from Joseph or any playtesters where they said "you can't believe how high my *** is/are...." and this helps lead me to believe that you'll have no worries about inflated numbers in DCC.

___________
*** insert "level" or "stat" or "hit points" or whatever in place of the symbol.

I remember reading on Jeff Rients's blog that his DCC character had 1 hit point.

Let me try to think of a way to answer this succinctly.

First, on the subject of maxing out characters or achieving very high ability scores to be considered "viable": "Viable" in DCC RPG means you survived a zero-level adventure and now get the chance to earn level 1. The game works on what I have come to call the "character funnel." First, everyone rolls three PCs per player. Their ability scores are 3d6 straight down the line, they're all 0-level with minimal equipment, and they have 1d4 hit points each. 1 or 2 (or sometimes all 3) of these PCs are killed in the first adventure, leaving each player with 1 or maybe 2 PCs at the end. Then, from this pathetic bunch of anti-heroes, classes are chosen based on what the survivors' ability scores and Luck rolls best suit them toward. I rarely see a character who rolls an 18 on anything -- and it is rarer still that such a PC survives level 0. (I actually played in a game two weeks ago where only one out of 21 0-level PCs rolled an 18 Strength. He was a hero! With +4 to hit he was always in the front lines stabbing away with his pitchfork. Unfortunately, heroes die fast in this game. He never made it to level 1. On the other hand, the pathetic farmers in the rear ranks did survive...with their Str scores in the 8-11 range...)

This is the "character funnel" and it is how I ensure there is no min-maxing or power gaming. All chargen is randomized and every character has to "run the gauntlet" at 0-level simply to survive.

Second, regarding monster construction, 3E had this elaborate process for the correlations between monster HD, AC, ability scores, skill points, and so on. Remember how it would take forever to build a monster in 3E? (Side note: I had to actually hire stat editors under 3E to specifically check all the math on the published stat blocks -- too many interconnected complexities!) This annoyed me not just for the time expenditure but because it has absolutely no impact on game play. Little-publicized fact regarding my attitude toward stat blocks: yes, I hired stat editors to proof them because there is a segment of the gaming public that demands accurate stat blocks, but wow, does it really matter?? At all?? If you forget the synergy bonus on Climb in the orc warlord's stat block, will it EVER come up in game play? No!! Rules that do not affect game play should simply not exist. Rules that the players will never encounter should simply never be published. There was far too much complexity in 3E which simply had no impact on game play. I could run a game where the orc had the exact right stat block, and run another one where I slapped something together that was more-or-less right, and to the players those two games felt the same. So why spend all that time on the monster stat blocks?? If a rule doesn't impact the players, don't waste the pages to print it. This is why we have 400-page rule books nowadays, when the game took 64 pages to explain in 1982...

Okay, rant mode off, but you see my point. In DCC RPG the monster creation system is much more free-form. As such there will be plenty of examples for monsters to use as examples, and the judge is encouraged to create many of his own monsters, too. There are plenty of examples in literature of creatures that have legitimately 20-plus armor classes (the iron statues faced by Conan in Iron Shadows of the Moon immediately come to mind) but there is no system mandating that "a 10 HD creature must have a +7 armor class bonus", so there will be no direct correlation between HD and AC unless the judge so wills it.

As for the "combat slog," again, opposite circumstance. Combat ends quickly. PCs still die way too fast. Working on it.

I guess the simplest way to answer is to say: I really like the core mechanic of 3E, which is to "roll d20, add something, and try to score high enough to beat a target value." That doesn't mean I like feats, skill points, attacks of opportunity, miniatures, combat grids, the monster stat system, prestige classes, or certain other things that add complexity...

Hope that helps. Bit of a rant but I hope it makes sense.

The 12 dead pc's in my last game would tend to agree with you on this. The binary conditions of totally ok at any positive hp number and dead at zero has never really felt right. My favorite solution to the high death rate is from wfrp. When you hit zero hp, roll on the crit table to see what happened. You might just have been knocked out or maybe your weapon arm was disabled. Or your head might just have flew 1d6 feet in a random direction. Of course, wfrp also has fate points which help you survive but dcc has the whole multiple 0 level pc thing which kind of amounts to the same thing.

Now there is a "Game Publisher's Manifesto" if I ever heard one!

(applause!)

Great post. Thanks, Joseph. And it makes total sense.

I hadn't thought about the side effects of randomization (3d6 in order) or the removal of feats and the skills system. I think it's probably less of a concern if the bonuses from things like skill synergy and the extra +4s and such that come from feats are gone. Which I'd remembered reading but whose impact I hadn't considered.

I mean, it makes Will more of a Wisdom/Luck/Whatever bonus plus whatever from a character's level. No Iron Will to consider in the math potentially boosting what would have been a +3 save to a +7 and such.

The "decoupling" of monster stats definitely addresses the other side of the equation, IMO. I agree that some creatures such as Dragons or Iron Golems or Living Statues and whatnot qualify for higher ACs. But it's refreshing to note that nothing in DCC will "break" if Ogres have, say, a 16 AC instead of a 19. I mean, considering Ogres are Large and get an AC penalty from that... Their 3e default 17 AC *actually* translates to a 21. Maybe a 22 or 23 if one considers the Dex penalty they get. If we remove Hide armor from that equation, then an Ogre's bare skin is slightly less resilient than steel plating. Wha?! I'm hoping DCC never makes me want to have to think of things like that ever again. It's one of the reasons the mere mention of 3e can give me an ice cream headache (sans ice cream) to this day. Although I agree that the core mechanic is solid. I only wish there were a codified system of "degrees of success" built-in. Easy enough to tack on, IMO. But still... Jonathan Tweet couldn't have thought of that? I feel cheated!

I do like the notion of *most* monsters falling between 12 and 20, as well as most PCs. Do PCs get attribute increases in DCC? I must say, I am not a big fan of those. So if those go away, it addresses this issue even further, IMO. I viewed attribute increases as another bonus that just contributed to the problem (and as one of the reasons why creatures had ever-inflating ACs to compensate). I mean, when you've got a Str of 20 at 8th level, a +8 to hit and assorted feats and whatnot, you're looking at +15 Attack Bonus (or above) by 8th level. Meaning anything with an AC of less than 25 is not going to be challenging. That ain't kicking it Old School!

I also felt the Racial attribute (see? I can spell that correctly!) bonuses were a contributing factor as well. It was one of the ways that I witnessed power-gamers "gaming the system", easily allowing them to start with a 17 or 18 in almost any stat they wanted. I'm assuming those are gone with the race-as-class approach? I hope so. I may be in the minority but race-as-class makes so much sense to me, especially considering Appendix N. And I view those racial attribute bonuses as the gateway to min-maxing. Who reportedly hate DCC? I feel like I'm living in an infomercial. There's GOT to be a catch!

I suppose the root of my concern (Ground Zero of this diatribe) was that 3e monsters and NPCs were the bane of my existence as a DM. Spending 6-8 hours prepping an adventure was one of the reasons I swore off 3e in the first place. A more free-form approach suits me fine. I'm happy to hear DCC is leaning in that direction. Unfortunately, I had some human calculators in my old 3e game, so it was difficult to *not* come to the table with an NPC or creature that wasn't 100% legit. I saw the foundation of the problem in the intricate relationships between high stats being pushed ever higher and requiring high opponent stats to challenge those sorts of characters, ushering in the concepts of "level appropriate" and "balanced encounter". And of course the dogged determination to mirror the same rigorous techniques of character creation with the creation of antagonists.

Sure, I'm not the kind of guy that's going to throw 4 Wraiths at a 1st level party. But still, the party's assumption shouldn't be that Wraiths will just avoid them until they're big enough to hit back. That's the problem with my current group, many of them 4e-philes. It's also the reason why they thought they could go hunting for an 18HD monster as a 1st level party in the B/X-based game I ran. I've just found that, since 3e and up, players tend to assume they'll survive, they're integral to "the plot" (whatever that is) and they're destined to best anything they encounter. So this DCC thing (funky dice and all!) sounds like a return to sanity for me. Thanks for putting it together.

Now the last question I have is: How did I misspell "Attribute" in the title? I swear I checked that. What the hey?

Thanks for addressing my concern(s). It would have been easy to write off this thread based on that goof in the title. I'll try to get it right next time. Sorry this post went off on a tangent. When the open playtest occurs, I'd like to kick the tires on high level play. I used the Epic6 approach towards the latter days of 3e. Mainly because 3e was just unmanageable for me in the higher levels. Epic6 was solid and was the best 3e D&D gaming I ever had, especially not having to worry about Orcs being left behind as viable opponents or all those messy prestige classes. So I'd be interested in seeing how DCC runs at 15th level or higher.

I like the concept of "balance through randomization". I get it with Magic. The Magic in DCC looks like a total thrill ride. I'm just wondering how that translates for the sword-and-board characters. I would think they'd be less and less likely to come across the same dire sorts of setbacks as Magic-Users when they get higher level. I could be wrong.

Sorry to go so stream-of-consciousness here. Thanks for reading. Can't wait for this game! Most anticipated RPG of 2011 for me.

Here's another experience I'd like share: DCC RPG, completely felt like playing a Sword & Sorcery story. I thought once Mongoose fixed their Conan game to the Atlantean Edition, they did a pretty good job of using D20 to emulate the genre. But DCC RPG cuts even closer. I'm truly looking forward to playing it again.

I've been told that Thief skill allocations are based on Alignment. I can't wait to see how THAT works!

Don't be, I found it interesting !

Thanks, geordie!

That's encouraging. I'm still getting that infomercial feel.

But what's the catch?!

(You'll have to wait 'til November?)





Mind blown.

Glad I pre-ordered. I don't think I could fill out the form at this point.

That sounds transcendentally awesome. I would've never thought of that. Yet I can imagine how it fits perfectly.

Its crazy & completely sane at the same time, right?

BTW, I don't mean to sound like an infomercial. Our playtest just left me wanting MORE.

That's nice to hear, since I agree that Mongoose's Conan setting was one of the closest I've ever seen to actually get the feel of Conan right.

Well, cleric powers are often based on diety chosen so I can see where certain thief skills might fit one alignment better than another. For example, a good thief might not have a back attack because it's not honorable...

Completely. And I didn't mean to imply that you sounded like an infomercial.

I meant that since I stumbled across DCC my whole LIFE has been an infomercial.

Everything I hear just makes me say "But wait! What's the catch?!" and "There's more?!" Just like the creepy audiences on those commercials.

Yeah, that's what I've become. Curse you, DCC! Why aren't you out yet!!!

You hit the nail on the head smathis! I could never figure out what that was all about. The continual ramping-up of character attributes just never made sense to me. Ever.

And as many of you have already mentioned, the amount of foot-work required to build an encounter was ludicrous.

But in the end, it wasn't only the Attribute, AC and HP inflation that killed my interest in that system, but the sheer amount of material (and how quickly it was released) that was being pumped out. I felt as if I was falling further and further behind every time we gathered to play a game. Guys would come to the table w/ the newest and greatest releases from WotC. Most of the time I'd say, "let me read it first". But after a while I had a stack of tomes (Other people's, I wasn't about to go out and purchase $300 worth of stuff, of which I'd use a paragraph of in my game.) to read. Which of course took my attention away from the part of DMing that I REALLY enjoy, the creativity.

All those fiddly numbers, stats, classes, feats, skills etc, just ate into what I considered to be the meat of an FRPG: Creativity. And like a few of you had already mentioned, I had players at my table who were rules lawyers and number crunchers by nature, when I fudged, they noticed.

I'm going to get a chance to play the game here in Denver Friday after next, and I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to it. I'll come to the table w/ an open mind and a willingness to "believe" this thing can be "THAT" game. You know, the one we've been looking for since the release of 3.0.

Great posts by the way smathis.

Yeah. It marked a shift in focus, in my opinion, from what a character did to what kind of bonuses a character had. I think this only got worse in 4e. It doesn't sound like DCC follows in that vein. Thankfully.



Yeah. I tried keeping up with 4e for a while. After the release of Essentials, I'd decided that we were looking at 4.5 and, whether it was an improvement or not, I knew my 4e books were being marginalized even further. So I sold pretty much every 4e book I owned except Underdark and Open Grave, which both have fluff in them that I like quite a bit.

I just want a game that's just a couple of books that I can bring to the table and play. Where I don't have to memorize a collection of encyclopedias just to keep up. Granted even for the most stripped down game I have supplements and stuff that I use (like Realms of Crawling Chaos, that thing is brilliant) or Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands. But that's stuff I want to use. Not stuff that's being hoisted onto me at canon-point.



Lucky you! Please let us know how it goes. I, too, am hoping this can be that game for me. We'll see. I'm sure it won't be perfect. But it looks like it mirrors my tastes better than anything else out there and, goshdarnit, it sounds FUN.

Scott