Goodman Games

I was trying out some funky dice mass combat ideas and thought about Morale and leadership, then it struck me, how about a General/King/Chieftain being able to burn Personality to inspire his men, effecting a decisive roll.

.....and Bards - working their audience, maybe they get to burn Personality ?

Instead of Corruption, for Bards it's Reputation/Renown.

Not that I want to add any classes - but I think the tools are there!

If I get the gnome off the ground, I'll think about a bard/skald. Burning personality (and I assume it returning like a thief's luck) does seem interesting.

Agreed. And it opens up some interesting design options. What if a person could burn strength in order to accomplish some heroic strength action like lifting a metal grate? Or burn Agility to make a walk across a tightrope.

I like everything said so far.

I'm of the mind that this entire fiction-inspired-game genre -- and DCC's Appendix N focus in particular -- is really about just two adventuring classes (meaning PCs inspired by the protagonists of novels and short stories): Sword/Warriors and Sorcery/Wizards. Every other class is differing parts of each of these two.

Allowing any character to burn any ability to accomplish any feat is one way to go. Another would be only allowing Warriors to burn Strength for example, as an expansion of the Thief/Luck rules as already written. Each of the four main classes might get this treatment in its own way.

I think this might create a little OVER-ruling in the book. I'd like to keep that at the minimum. The thing i loved first of DCC is getting rid of complicated rules, and just having to roll on a table to see what happens. I'm ok with burning luck, as it makes the game different from other games. But I wouldn't like this idea to spread stat-burning and make other things unnecessarily complicated.

I will already have a hard time explaining to my players the Warrior's Attack Dice thing

Great idea! I think this makes for all sorts of interesting possibilities

I agree. In fact, I'm of the opinion that Luck should be it's own thing and not a 'stat' at all. Sure, you could roll 3d6 to determine "starting Luck". But it's so different in play that I've found having it alongside the other stats is just obtrusive. It isn't like Strength or Intelligence. It's something really, really different. Putting it in the stat array is confusing.

Now, moving it lends itself to being burned for different things for different classes. Similar to what people are talking about with Strength and Personality burn.

But I can't, in good faith, advocate burning Strength or Personality for the Warrior or Bard (respectively). It isn't like the Thief's Luckburn at all. Luck isn't a primary attribute for the Thief. If a Thief burns Luck, he doesn't become WORSE at the things he's supposed to do BEST.

In comparison, if a Warrior burns Strength, he becomes worse at fighting and dealing damage -- even if over a short period of time. Same with the Bard. The Bard would become worse at casting spells and aiding the party.

Completely unlike the Thief -- whose main functions tie more closely to Agility, than Luck.

This is just one example of how I think having Luck listed as a "stat" (even though it really isn't) can confuse people in a big way. It's really a pool of hero points. Not a stat. If the Lucky Roll really does get moved to a straight +1, this separation of function will become even greater. Right now (besides Listening) the Lucky Roll is the only tie that Luck has to its tenuous and (IMO, false) claim to being a first-class ability.



It's not that bad. Within a couple of rounds of combat, that Attack Die was the most coveted item on the table. It's really awesome. Like really, really awesome.

For a character of any class to be burning a stat in the first place is because their luck just ran out while they were on a tight rope (Agility check), or singing that song (Personality check). To me it makes sense to burn Luck.

Also: if a warrior burns Str to get a bonus and fails; can he then burn his luck or the the Halfling's Luck-share? Seems over-the-top to me.

On this we'd have to disagree. I like Luck to be a Stat, I don't like it to be a pool of points. I'm doing my best, especially in the funnel 0-level adventure, to give Luck an important role. For example, I use Luck for a chance of finding a hidden door, or noticing a trap that the PCs were'nt even searching. Obviously, only the first character will get that chance, before the trap will spring (and he'll probably be dead, at 0-level). This led my Players to check Luck right after Strength and Intelligence (and AC, and HPs, of course) when choosing which PC to send first down the corridor. They freeze when i ask them to roll luck: they know that probably it's the last chance to avoid something bad. They still have to burn any luck, but I will remind them that there is that option. I will roll luck everytime i have to represent something upon which te character has no control: like, if the mushroom he found is poisounous (if he has no background knowledge on that), or if inside the deserted goblin armory he can find a crossbow in working condition that was left behind.

That's a great use of Luck. Advice to that effect should be in the Judge's section. But at what point do Luck checks encroach on Saving Throws?

I'm using Luck for active things a character might do or notice, while saving throws are to avoid something that is already happening to them. I'll admit it is a fine distinction and sometimes you may just make a judgment call, but:

Put a chicken on the log to see if it gets attacked: Luck. Avoid falling off the log when attacked: Save.
Notice a trap just before you trip it: Luck. Dodge out of the way of the trap: Save.
Avoid stepping on the thin ice while crossing a frozen river: Luck. Hold breath long enough for companions to pull you out: Save.

Counter-example that still makes sense to me (where luck is the inactive and save is the active):

Happen to be looking the other way when Medusa comes in the room: Luck. Avoid looking her way in combat: Save.

Just my opinion.

This:
On this we'd have to disagree. I like Luck to be a Stat, I don't like it to be a pool of points. I'm doing my best, especially in the funnel 0-level adventure, to give Luck an important role. For example, I use Luck for a chance of finding a hidden door, or noticing a trap that the PCs were'nt even searching. Obviously, only the first character will get that chance, before the trap will spring (and he'll probably be dead, at 0-level). This led my Players to check Luck right after Strength and Intelligence (and AC, and HPs, of course) when choosing which PC to send first down the corridor. They freeze when i ask them to roll luck: they know that probably it's the last chance to avoid something bad. They still have to burn any luck, but I will remind them that there is that option. I will roll luck everytime i have to represent something upon which te character has no control: like, if the mushroom he found is poisounous (if he has no background knowledge on that), or if inside the deserted goblin armory he can find a crossbow in working condition that was left behind.

And this:
I'm using Luck for active things a character might do or notice, while saving throws are to avoid something that is already happening to them. I'll admit it is a fine distinction and sometimes you may just make a judgment call, but:

Put a chicken on the log to see if it gets attacked: Luck. Avoid falling off the log when attacked: Save.
Notice a trap just before you trip it: Luck. Dodge out of the way of the trap: Save.
Avoid stepping on the thin ice while crossing a frozen river: Luck. Hold breath long enough for companions to pull you out: Save.

Counter-example that still makes sense to me (where luck is the inactive and save is the active):

Happen to be looking the other way when Medusa comes in the room: Luck. Avoid looking her way in combat: Save.

Those are excellent. Thanks guys. Consider them combined and yoinked.

The instance I bolded is one where I'd consider Luck to be giving the character a "double-save". Sort of like if the thin ice example had read... "Avoid stepping on the thin ice while crossing a frozen river: Luck. Grab hold of edge of broken ice to keep from falling in: Reflex save".

Because they're all saying the same thing, except there's two rolls using two different modifiers. Two checks to avoid the same ill effect. Not like the "find a trap by accident or save to avoid its effect" distinction. But instead, roll Luck to avoid looking at the Medusa. Roll Save to avoid looking at Medusa.

I don't know if that's good or bad. I haven't formed an opinion on it. If it works for you, that's cool. But a good Luck score could make saves obsolete. At which point I'd question why we have saving throws.

By the way, I forgot to mention, I'd use Luck Checks also to determine things that maybe the player forgot to specify.
example:
DM:Suddenly, the wall crumbles and you risk getting caught under the rocks.
John: Wait, I didn't say which wall I was searching first! I'd say.. the other one!
DM: Hmm, I'd say... ... Roll LUCK.
John: <roll... 4>
DM:



I don't think that Luck makes Saves redundant. For example, back to "meeting Medusa", I'd also use Luck and Saves to avoid her gaze as it has been explained. What I think you missed, and I think Meinvt assumed, is that if you fail the Luck check to "happen to be looking the other way", you don't get your save. You're done, stone-boy.

It's like : 1st chance: LUCK, following chances SAVES.

This way even a rubbish PC whose only double digit ability is Luck has a way of surviving out of sheer luck. Sooner or later thogh, it will all come down to his crappy Saves.
I know this may not satisfy everyone, but it's a way for giving importance to Luck and avoiding its reckless burning. You burn luck to hit a foe, you have a debt with Fate. Next time you'll need to be lucky, maybe you won't be (ie:failing that first "LUCK save", despite your great Saves, and getting petrified by Medusa).

Thanks everyone for the positive feedback on , well i should say "our" interpretation of luck. I completely agree with Meinvt examples.

That's a neat use of Luck. Something like that should be in the Judge's Advice section or something. Luck could use it.



OOOOOHHHHHHHH. Sorry. Slow on the uptake today. I get it now. That's neat.

The only problem I can see is having a character with a high Luck modifier whose Luck roll is better than his Save. Also, with Luck fluctuating via GM fiat, it could get a little strange. But, whatevs. It sounds fun. And only a minor imbalance, if any. It could help with the mortality rate, that's for sure. And I think that's something that was on Joseph's list of concerns.

I gave my interpretation of this in the above post. This way a character with horrible saves could survive a couple of times, just because he's so lucky. Sooner or later though, his luck will fail him... and then it will all down to his Fortitude Save at -2!

Two examples:

Maybe Rok the Paladin has exceptional saves, but he's just plain unlucky. Maybe he dropped his knife and sprung that trap in a cascade effect (Final Destination like) even before he could react to dodge it.

Maybe that stupid halfling, with -2 to all saves, is quite lucky. So lucky, that when he was about to walk into that trap, he stopped to pick up a silver coin he dropped. That's when, kneeled on the ground, he noticed the pressure plate he was about to step on. Good for him that he didn't have to dodge an arrow with his -3 Ref Save!

Yup. I get that. The concern is that Luck fluctuates. Talk on the forums has been that, with GM awards and daily healing, most Halfling and Thieves are going to max out on Luck at some point. So I think the Halfling example is more likely than the Fighter one.

The saving grace is that there is pressure in the game that drives Luck down too. The nice thing about your suggestion is that it gives Luck value outside of a being a pool of Hero Points. So it gives incentive to *not* spend Luck. Which DCC doesn't really have in its present form. I mean, Lucky Roll... yeah. But whatever. I haven't seen anyone decide to not spend Luck so their Lucky Roll modifier wouldn't go down. Those are too situational to be a driving incentive.

I like your suggestion. Don't misinterpret me. But I think it's a valid concern that the Halfling with an 18 Luck might traipse through all sorts of danger. He's effectively getting a 5th level save at his best save bonus (as a class) followed by a normal save.

I also think it puts added pressure on the DM to make sure he's awarding Luck sanely. So that half the party don't wind up with +2 or +3 "pre-saves" and start skipping through the Tomb of Horrors without a care in the world.

Great suggestion. Just a couple of caveats I'd like thrown in there so that everyone's clear on when sober adjudication is needed.

+d14

I think that balance in the end relies in the DM's hands. If a character has 18 Luck for quite a while, you might pose him in a danger or two where he has to burn luck to survive. That way you'll bring it back to a reasonable 13-14 in no time. Besides, it's a player's choice: if you'd rather have a dead 18 Luck character, go for it. I know most would rather have a less lucky, but alive, PC

An 18 Luck Character going through Tomb of Horrors unscathed is a rare, even if possible, event. Think of it as Mr.Magoo vs Tomb of Horrors

I really wanted that to be a link to something.

LOL

Wasn't burning other stats discussed before the Beta came along? Was it called 'skillburn'?

I know I liked the idea of using a "stat burn" to add to a skill check -- like if a character is jumping a section of crumbled-away floor, and the check doesn't quite succeed, they could burn strength or agility to make up the difference. It would represent the fact that they succeeded in the jump, but they strained something on the way over...

Now that I'm reminded of it, I'm tempted to just add that option to any d20 games I run.