Goodman Games

I have been digesting the DCC RPG rulebook for a view days now and I mostly like what I see. Only things I really miss is an outright option for unarmored warriors to be as viable as their armored king (I mentioned this elsewhere) and...

Mighty Deeds Of Arms. While an unique and AMAZING concept it kinda breaks immersion and game-world reality for me. I understand warriors can perform these task in routine fashion but what about other characters. Say if a thief wants to throw a dagger in the sword arm of an orc? Or a cleric wants to smash a charging ogre's kneecap with his trusty warhammer before the ogre lays the smack down on the wizard?*

How would such attacks/action be handled in DCC? How would you handle them?

* And invariably put the wizard straight onto jabroni drive!

I'd separate the mechanical advantage from the narrative. If you start to give other classes "martial powers" you take away the only thing that makes Warriors special. Everyone can fight, and everyone has an attack bonus as they gain levels. Clerics fight better than Wizards, and Thieves get Backstab. All significant when it comes to a fight. But MDoA the only thing a Warrior can do, and its their job, and it's supported by having extra HP and access to more weapons and armor. Clerics can roll a 20 and smash that kneecap with a crit, a Thief can attack from the shadows and sever that arm with a back-stab + Crit. So those classes can effectively do those things on occasion, but it's not their job or expertise. Warriors do it routinely, other classes do "mighty things" when they crit.

_________________
Reverend Dakota Jesus Ultimak, S.S.M.o.t.S.M.S., D.M.

(Dungeon) Master In Chief of Crawl! fanzine. - http://www.crawlfanzine.com/

"[...] there is no doubt that Dungeons and Dragons and its imitators are right out of the pit of hell." - William Schnoebelen, Straight talk on Dungeons & Dragons

This actually came up recently for me. I didn't want to nerf creative thinking, but I didn't want the odds to be better than a 1st level Warrior's 1 in 3. So I chose 1 in 10 chance of succeeding if you hit for 0-lvl characters, 1 in 6 otherwise. Depending upon how that works, I might decrease the chance; I have no intention of increasing it (because doing so would damage the Warrior core concept IMHO).

_________________
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.

I like this. It's kind of dry and boring using the old method where you usually apply penalties to hit and such.

I may even go so far as to apply a base modifer of -2 to hit on all such rolls (helps discourage over-use as well). For more difficult deeds or against tougher oppoents I may increase the penalty even further. I'd likely increase their odds to 1 in 4 for non-warriors and 1 in 6 for 0-level characters though to balance it.

I give non-warriors an either/or attack choice. The advantage of Mighty Deeds of Arms is that you can hit and do good damage plus get a cool additional effect (which happens to coincide with the high extra damage from the high deed die roll). For non-warriors I let them attempt the same sort of effects, but it is instead of their regular attack. So, you can hit and knock the opponent prone, or hit and do damage, but only a warrior hits and knocks the opponent prone while doing a boatload of damage at the same time.

This actually came up when I was running a level 0 funnel and several characters wanted to disarm, bullrush and shove the enemy warlord over a ledge respectively. I let them do all of this, just without doing hit point damage as well.

I'll let a hit do a 'base' level of MDoA effectiveness and then up it a step for every 3 or so above the required target number that they roll. On a critical I let them do damage plus their 'special effect' instead of rolling on the crit chart.

They way I have been handling this is a bit... well, I don't actually know the word for it, but there is one...

If you are a player that wants to get into all the detail of your actions, disarms, pinning maneuvers, and all that jazz... play a Warrior, period.

If there is some reason you want to be a Thief that does all that stuff, you have two options: 1) Play a Warrior and lean toward acting like a Thief - you can even use Thief skills, since anyone can try any skill roll by rolling a d10 (made evident, in my opinion, by every class being able to cast spells from scrolls with at least a d10). or 2) Play a Thief and acknowledge that going for a backstab and getting an automatic critical if you hit is a "fair trade" for not getting to do anything Deed-like.

I view it as being a large dedication to training in the arts of combat in order to manage even the 1 in 3 chance of a Deed being successful - and that other classes dedicate the time that could have been spent training towards Deed proficiency on other tasks (fine-tuning Thief skill techniques, praying to their God and demonstrating their faith and loyal service, researching arcane knowledge and bargaining with the supernatural, and so on) and so should not be any more proficient in Deeds than a Warrior is at calling upon the power of a god.

Not to pick on this particular response, but it does represent a general trend I see in the attitudes about how DCC should be run. I'm definitely in support of the game not giving players success on a silver platter. Risk of failure should ever be present. Likewise, no character should be able to encroach onto the domain of their trained companion.

At the same time, I think it is important that GMs when running DCC embrace to some extent the notion of "Yes, but" or Yes, and" which has become a staple of many modern role playing systems. That doesn't mean that characters should have training to make skill checks, or should be able to cast spells, etc. But, I think it does mean that if a player wants to try something creative that is within the physical abilities of the character they should have a chance, however slim, at the attempt. Epic stories are about succeeding despite the odds, not constantly being forced back because the individual didn't select the right character type to move forward.

My favourite character ever was a thief-acrobat in 2nd edition. I must have drove the GM nuts with all my crazy stunts, swinging from chandeliers, attempting flying leaps and tumbles and what-not. I would hate to tell a character he can't leap off a balcony and try to land a knock-out blow on the orc captain with the well-placed heel of his boot, just because he didn't choose to be a warrior. I may make it very unlikely but there's a chance...

I would totally let a Thief do that with a simple ability check, then finish it off with a backstab. Same results with narrative flair. A flying leap off a balcony? Why not, don't even bother rolling, you don't need rules for that. Knock-out blow with the heal of a boot. Simple, Non-lethal crit damage after successful "backstab" attack.

Seriously, nothing can't be done by a non-Warrior class that a natural 20 wouldn't cover, or the thief's back-stab.

Remember that this isn't 3e, much-less 4e, where every move is spelled out for you. You don't need hard rules to add flair to DCC RPG combat. Remember that the combat is abstract. What really matters is if they hit, and how much damage. There could be as many back-flips, round-house kicks, tongues in cheeks and sparkling teeth as you want. It could be in bullet-time and blood could splatter, or not. It's abstract combat in 10-second rounds (it used to be 1-minute rounds in AD&D.) There could be any number of parries and sly exchanges of dialog. Cartoon violence or bloody gore. It doesn't matter. The bad-guy is OUT when he's out of HP. I let my players describe in as much detail as they want.

This is what I mean when I say separate the mechanics from the narrative. Describe your intent, and then roll the dice, and explain what "really" happens after you get the results. That's how I've always done it until I started playing 4e. DCC RPG returns to the good old days of abstract combat.

_________________
Reverend Dakota Jesus Ultimak, S.S.M.o.t.S.M.S., D.M.

(Dungeon) Master In Chief of Crawl! fanzine. - http://www.crawlfanzine.com/

"[...] there is no doubt that Dungeons and Dragons and its imitators are right out of the pit of hell." - William Schnoebelen, Straight talk on Dungeons & Dragons

reverenddak:
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. I was responding to TheNobleDrake who seemed to be implying that he wouldn't let thieves attempt "deeds". Maybe that's not what he intended to imply but I was simply suggesting I would never stop such a thing just because a player wasn't a warrior. In the past I have always handled it as you've suggested, though using a version of the warriors "deeds" mechanic for non-warriors is tempting.

Here is what I am getting at: What I see described above is not a Mighty Deed of Arms - what I see described are ways that the Thief has established ability to backstab, and a description of a particular critical result.

Thieves don't "need' Deeds because they have Backstab, which is sometimes actually better, especially because every hit on a valid enemy is a critical.

I agree with letting characters try anything to which they have the physical capability... I just disagree that any character without Mighty Deeds of Arms has the physical capability of accomplishing a disarm, bullrush, etc. (deed activity) independent of reducing a foe to 0 hp or scoring a critical hit - so there are no added mechanics needed to represent anything.

And I disagree with letting characters go ahead and do things they have obviously been given compensation for not being good at... I guess I just feel like giving a Thief any capability at all with Deeds that is worth me actually using Deeds would be making them better at being Warriors than Warriors are - such as having a 1 in 6 chance (or even 1 in 10) that my deed works while also attacking with extra to-hit bonuses and a guaranteed critical upon hitting and a one-handed weapon that does two-handed weapon damage thanks to backstab.

You'll like the "Redeemable" class in TA/TG then. Just sayin'.

Cool can't wait to check it out.