Goodman Games

Is there any drawback to attempting a deed with every attack? That is, if the attack lands and the warriors attack die is too low for the deed to succeed - resolve the damage as normal right?

No, and it bothers me too. But I haven't figured out how to limit it.

Maybe, you can perform any number of MDoAs on each individual opponent as you want. But once you fail, that opponent is "immune" to them for the rest of the current battle. He sees the way you try to set him up and can easily counter it. So you can go in swinging and hoping to trip everyone in sight or you can reserve them for a special attack when the situation warrants it then spring one on an opponent.

Alternatively, the attack die (class die?) could suffer a -1 penalty each time you miss a MDoA during a battle. This could be too severe though.

I love it. I think the intent is for players to be a bit more graphic and descriptive with their attacks to get an occasional reward for doing so. Which is absolutely a GOOD THING.

Instead of saying, "I attack" (yawn) over and over. You are encouraged to say, "I try to hold them at bay with my sword & board!" (an attempt at a defensive maneuver), "I go for his eyes with Scapel" (Blinding), etc.

This is the kind of play you want to encourage.

Presently, no, there is no penalty for trying.

MDoA are interesting and subtle. In the hands of the right player, they can make the warrior the most creative of the classes, ranking even above the wizard. But too often, players don't quite grok the ability and default to a variable to hit and damage bonus. Given the chance, I'd play a warrior every time.

//H

I'm definitely playing a warrior!

Yes, I don't care for the fact that there is no penalty, either. As a Warrior, why not make a Defensive Maneuver every round? If I hit and the Mighty Deed fails, I still do normal damage. If both are successful, I hit and it give me (and possibly others) a bonus to AC. Unless I have some other Mighty Deed in mind, why wouldn't I do this (or a similar Deed) every time I attacked? If there is no reason not to do them, no risk overcome, then they cease to be special and creative.

I don't have a specific solution to propose. Maybe a penalty to hit or damage? A consequence if the action die comes up a 1?

I think you mean a consequence if the attack die comes up a 1. (As there are already fumbles if the d20 action die comes up a 1).

I really like this idea. I think the consequence should be minor, but enough to discourage excessive use of Deeds. Something as simple as throwing yourself off-balance for a -1 penalty on your next attack.

Except that a penalty with on that dice is penalizing the warrior's base attack bonus. The mdoa are a bonus to the bonus die and shouldn't therefore be penalized.

I've never been a fan of fumbles, automatically missing on a 1 is bad enough. Sharp things being constantly pointed at adventurers, add traps and spells, characters already have odds against them. The 5% chance to fumble added on top of that just makes things even worst, if not silly. I've read plenty of bad decisions that lead to even worst situations, but I don't remember Fafred fumbling 5% of the time. Increasing those odds just don't seem fun, even for a GM like me who has a history of TPKing. This is why I have reservations of fumbling on Attack dice smaller than a d20.

The reason to do this is that always being defensive prolongs the fight thus giving your opponent more chance to win. MDoA do not cease to be special and creative, the player does - and if he always does the same thing - expect the DM to pick up on this and react accordingly

MDoA are there to flip the situation in your favour, remember the warrior is the chief damage dealer in melee. If you're acting defensive, you'd best hope the other characters are able to take out the foe. That's not a tactic you can always rely upon.

I really, really dislike MDoD. I foresee encounters strewn with blinded, tripped, and disarmed people all over the place. Instead of fast and furious combat, we have people fumbling for weapons, getting up from prone, and flailing blindly about. Not really my idea of fun combat. Throwing sand in someone's eyes for an advantage is fun once, but as a standard procedure, it will get old fast. I've been looking forward to the DCCRPG for a long time, but the MDoD as is is a dealbreaker for my rpg group. We hates it, my precious. Question: will it break anything if I just toss MDoD out completely? Will that make warriors extinct in a campaign?

Have you play-tested it yet? Try it before you knock it. You might find that it comes up "just enough", i.e. in once in a while. Plus, yes, it'd break it Warriors/Dwarves. It's what they do to keep them "special". At 1st level it will work 33% of the time out of whatever odds it would take to hit in the first place, and no one is blinded, just a -2 for a round. At 2nd level, again, no one is blinded, just a short -4 penalty, and that only occurs 25% of the time, etc. Only at higher levels do they get serious, but the odds are even harder.

It's also very specific in saying that the Judge has discretion, and there are examples.

They're no better/worst than some feats in 3x/4e.

One out of three is a pretty high percentage. And yes, it only gives a penalty - at first level, the game doesn't end there. By 3rd level, there's a 3 in 5 chance, and a 20% chance of blinding your opponent for 1-4 rounds. All this with absolutely no penalty for attempting it. I'm not just picki9ng on the blinding effects. A lot of the other deeds have similar effects that are just too much crap to keep up with imo. Perhaps a compromise would be to forego the bonus of your action die when performing a MDoD? Also, why not downsize your attack die when blinded, etc instead of applying a penalty to your roll?



That's exactly what I'm afraid of.

The Judge has discretion whether to allow a MDoA, period. Some MDoAs also have saving throws and opposed checks. After staring at the effects for a while I can see how someone can always "go for the eyes" or "disarm", over and over. If you lump those attacks with "precision" attacks, and possibly "trips", they are effectively "called shots". So, at worst, I would probably instill a penalty (to the Action die); probably -2 and -1 for trips. Any other mechanical penalties, formal or otherwise, would just make things complicated.

It's an interesting mechanic, and the best "free-form" combat maneuver mechanic since Stunts in Dragon Age. It's also one of the few mechanics that separate it from Pre-3x D&D. Boring fighters have always been a good "entry" level class, but it's also just that--boring. The better OSR games solve the problem by giving Fighters considerably better attack bonuses, while DCC goes a step further, but not the extent that Feats, Ability Trees or Powers (ugh!)

No, he means the "action die". Classes give each character 1 action die at first level. It is usually a d20. When the die is a 1 a mishap of some form happens. The "attack die" is specific to Warriors and Dwarves, is a d3 at first level, and is what drives the MDoA subsystem. In other threads it has been suggested that this die be renamed the "class die" and be used for other things based on class.

I have not fully cracked the system yet and this statement may be premature but if you feel that it needs to be limited then just limit the number of times it can be done. Something like "level times per encounter", failures do not use up the attempt. Obviously you would still roll to add in the figher bonus even when not attempting a deed.

I'm fine with them the way they are. DCC's big draw for me lie in the differences - how the game takes the 3.x baseline and morphs it into a brand new play experience. Regular and frequent use of MDoAs are very much part of that. I like that Warriors can change and adapt to the circumstances of combat on a round by round basis. Besides, doesn't an attempted MDoA mean sacrificing the bonus die's damage? If so that's a pretty significant cost right there.

For the record: I haven't played this yet, but I've been studying hard so as to run a beta test on Free RPG day. I've had 27 years of gaming experience, mostly as the DM, and I think the MDoA system is outstanding! I must confess to a bit of trepidation because if left as is I think it could become disruptive for a game that is blessed/cursed with creative players.

My solution is: every attempt (successful or not) is followed by a DC 9 Fort save verses Fatigue, with a cumulative -1 penalty and offset by the PC's Stamina bonus... Dwarves start their saves at DC 7.

Even Hercules needed to sleep sometimes.

It does? How? If my warrior uses a Defensive Maneuver Mighty Deed, and he hits, he gains at least a +1 to his AC and does damage as normal. Again, I ask, why wouldn't I do this every single time I attack, unless I would rather blind my opponent, or trip him, or something? If this is the designer's intent, then I can accept that, although I don't personally like it. But it doesn't prolong the fight.



Ok, fine, the PLAYER ceases to be creative. Whatever, the end result is the same. It would be nice if the rules that allow you to make a Defensive Maneuver, or a Blinding Maneuver, included rules to keep them from becoming the de facto attack method for a character. Telling me that the DM should step in and make something up on the fly isn't very useful advice. Using that logic, why not just throw the Mighty Deed of Arms rules out the window and let the players and the DM both make stuff up whenever it comes up?



Um, again, the Defensive Manuever does full damage AND gives me an AC bonus. This is certainly a tactic I can rely on.

Not to win the battle by eliminating/disabling/disarming the opposition before they deal damage. Even more so when dealing with creatures with a variety of attacks or area attacks.

Maybe I'm missing your point, my friend. Are you saying that I might not want to fight defensively because it would be a better option to disarm them? Didn't I address this point above? The Defensive was just an example. It's not going to be any slower to eliminate/disable the opposition than standing there hitting them with my lumpy metal thing, except it gives me a bonus to my AC AND does damage.

Am I missing something or are we just not communicating? As it stands, there is no reason for a warrior to ever use a standard attack. He'd might as well attempt a mighty deed with every swing of his sword. If that's what the designers want, cool, but I think there should be a potential negative consequence. That would give the player a choice in combat; does he take the standard attack with a better chance to hit, or run a risk of failing and try to blind the enemy (or disarm it, or whatever)?

I feel like I'm missing something here. Help me out, man.

I did mean that, yes. Those terms are too similar. It makes them confusing.

Since only fighters and dwarves can attempt Mighty Deeds, why not have some negative effect occur if their attack die comes up a natural one. Something minor but kind of annoying. Since the attack die increases with level, the odds of a natural 1 occurring lessens over time, but it's always present.



Hmm...I see why you might think that, but the rules don't explicitly state this. If that's the case then, yes, there is some negative consequence to attempting a Deed. I'm not sure if its enough to change my mind on the issue, but it's something. Thanks for pointing this out, Bronn. It will be nice to get an official ruling.

EDIT: In reading the examples, I see that Bronn is correct. If you attempt a Mighty Deed, your Attack Die does not add to the damage for the attack. Note to the editors, this is not clear in the rule text, only in the examples.

I read your intial post again, and yes, I've only really responded to the 'why not try a defensive manouvre every round' and you meant more than that - I went off on a tangent (because I just favour taking out the enemy without depleting the party's resources through round upon round of attrition. Against spell-casting enemies or new monsters in particular, you can't rely on AC. You don't know what kind of attack that new monster is gonna try next, best not to let it get the chance. Will enemy reinforcements turn up if you drag out the combat? It does depend upon the situation though. I just believe it isn't automatically always the best action - you may have to pull off Precision Shot or Disarm etc instead) and MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY

Anyway I agree, if I play a warrior I'm going for a cool MDoA every time - why not? - leave the boring -'I swing my sword' attacking to spell-shy wizards and luck-burnt-out thieves. The warrior specialises in combat - MDoAs show the application of this expertise as much as his chance to hit. Let the player revel in it - away all these years of nerfed fighters it's about time!

No worries, mate.

No probs.

Apropos of nothing, I also like how MDoAs spur Judges to devise creative challenges for canny and pereceptive warriors. A golem, impervious to normal weapons save the pair of pained human eyes darting in its skull, for example.