Goodman Games

The de facto 'what's possible' for ability scores is 3 to 18. The character creation chart has nothing higher than an 18. Comparing PCs with an ogre is imperfect, in part because monsters are handled differently than in many other game systems, flat out not going by the same rules as PCs.

I understand it would be helpful to have a 'true' answer from Mr. Goodman himself, but if it turns out you don't like his answer, do you then like the game less?

Part of the ethos of the game is that you define and run things how you want them for your campaign. You can change things up from one campaign to the next. Some folks like 'superhero' dungeon delvers, and some prefer 'merely mortal' delvers. The game lets both groups have their cake, and eat it, too.

Lot's of ideas have been bounced around; why not just go with what you feel is more fun to play: capped at starting value, capped at 18, no cap at all, cap at starting value unless magic is happening, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for the replies. I agree with your point that you can house rule to play Luck however you want. I just would like to know what the core rules intend is all.

I do not follow your leap of logic when you say that because starting characters have ability scores between 3-18, that some how the de-facto rule is that 18 is the cap. This notion is specifically refuted by spells that increase ability scores with no mention that there is a cap of 18 for these increases. You are adding a house rule that ability scores are capped at 18 (that or I missed a rule somewhere capping ability scores at 18). In other words, if you have rule XXX that says generate ability scores 3-18, and rule YYY stating that you can increase ability scores, why would you assume that rule XXX sets the maximum value when not explicitly stated.

I wasn't comparing PC's to ogres, I was trying to derive how ability score modifiers progress above 18 using other creatures as an example. Thus, *if* Luck is allowed to go above 18, what would be the modifier at 22, 26, 30 or 40.

If the author's intention is to just have each group of players create a Luck rule for their group (e.g. max initial, max 18, max unlimited) that is fine to state that. If, on the other hand, the author intended it to be max initial, max 18, etc., then my group would like to know that as well (and we would likely play by the intended rule).

I think I'm saying that 3-18 appears to be the possible range for the playable races in the book; that's what's 'normal'. Magic can raise it, but that's magic, and by definition a special case. Extreme uses of the Strength spell could conceivably get a character above an 18 Strength for example, but the built-in effort and risk offset the allure, I think. I believe I think that I would say that that 3-18 range is your guideline. That's what's possible, short of things like magic and divine intervention (that's where you walk into your living room and a bunch of gods you know are sitting there unexpectedly, and say, "We need to talk...").

I'm going to go out on a limb (and I hope Joseph will correct me if I'm wrong -- I really do), but I believe the intention is to play the way you want to play. Many things are vague in the rules, undefined and open-ended on purpose. I don't think Joe wants to tell you what to do -- he 'found' a bunch of fun rules and figures you'll have fun playing with them and fleshing them out...

Still, he may chime in and say how he'd handle it at his table. But that shouldn't stop any of us from doing what we'd like to do with it.

I think that, when thinking about this question, thieves and halflings must be considered.

If you allow PCs to increase their luck over their initial score, then thieves and halflings will be able to increase their luck scores significantly over time. As others may receive a luck increase that more or less balances burnt luck, halflings and thieves regenerate their luck daily, and receiving luck bonuses means their luck will rise to an important level, presumably reaching 18 in a few levels only.

This question was addressed in another thread somewhere. I don't think there was consensus on it and I can't remember seeing a clear solution to this problem myself.

Luck awards are generally doled out at the end of an adventure. Unless it's been a really easy adventure, the thieves and halflings are unlikely to be at their full Luck score after a hard day's dungeoneering. So the Luck award will most likely just shorten the number of days it takes them to regain their expended Luck.

This is a really good point, and one that didn't occur to me.

It seems there will be no official answer forthcoming. As a result, my group plans to play that Luck is capped at initial Luck. This interpretation avoids all potential abuse. It also fits well with our view of things that some people are just born Lucky or not just as others are born Strong, Intelligent, Personable, Agile or Staminous (?lol) or not. In our opinion, even allowing all to go Luck 18 would be abusive since you get to add +/-3 to so many dice rolls.

I think that's silly. +15% isn't "abusive" by any stretch of the imagination. "So many dice rolls"? Huh? That all depends on the Lucky Roll (and whether you stick with RAW which says that modifier never changes, or allow it to float with the Luck stat)... and it might be something completely useless (i.e. Thief skills, but char is a Wizard).

Beyond all that, it's also a question of likelihood. How probable is it that you're going to have a character reach 18 Luck and NOT be burning it? Taking that into account, it seems like you're only really talking about Thieves/Halflings, who regenerate their burned Luck, but even then, isn't it in the spirit of Appendix N to have those kinds of characters be, you know, extremely lucky? Because they're not powerful fighters or powerful spellcasters... they have to live by their wits and, drumroll please, Luck.

Anyway, I think this is much ado about nothing. +3 on a d20 is better than nothing, but it isn't all universe. You want to talk about a big bonus? Look at MDoA... a 5th level Warrior gets +d7 to his d20 attack roll... that's a 14.3% chance of adding +30% to the roll, and it's a 57.1% chance of getting a better result than the measly Luck +3 (assuming you were lucky enough to get 18 Luck, rolled one of the Lucky Rolls that adds to attack rolls, AND that you float the Lucky Roll modifier despite the RAW). Not gonna bother totaling up those probabilities, but suffice it to say, I think they're much more unlikely.

Given what I know of the power-curve of DCC, thieves and halflings starting a mid-to-high level session with an 18 Luck seems not at all inappropriate.

The party is (very likely) going to need it. If they don't burn it up, either the randomocity has gone wonky, or the GM is giving the party an easy run (perhaps to induce a false sense of security, mwa-ha-ha-ha).

Yes, I've read this suggestion on the other thread.

What I don't like about this is that luck is awarded at a very arbitrary moment of a PC's evolution. In my case, campaigns usually include more than one adventure intertwined with each other. While there are certainly points at which I could say "ok, you've reached a milestone in the campaign here" because the PCs have accomplished a goal, it remains very arbitrary nonetheless. So essentially, I would be awarding luck at one given point where the thief or halfling would already have spent luck points for... what reason exactly?

Also, this solution to the rule essentially implies that the judge make sure to award thieves and halflings bonuses to luck when they've partly depleted this resource, or else they'll cap out to 18. This is very metagamy and I don't like it.

And finally, when exactly is the luck awarded when "an adventure is complete"? Is it when you defeat the evil sorcerer? Or when you destroy his evil artifact? Or when you return the remnants of the sorcerer to the king? Or when you receive payment for your deeds? What if you defer going back to receive payment for a few days, to give you time to rest and recuperate? What if you defer destroying the artefact for a few days after having defeated the evil sorcerer? Or is is simply because an adventure booklet that you bought says that the adventure is over at this point.

As you can see, I'm not too fond of the idea of a punctual moment being arbitrarily dertermined by the judge (or the adventure designer).

I would have liked for Mr. Goodman to provide guidance on the intent of the rule:

1) it is possible to increase the luck score over the initial score?
2) if so, how do you handle thief and halfling luck scores that could increase towards 18?

I don't know what I'll do yet. I'll probably award permanent bonuses without capping the luck score at the initial score, and with the luck score affecting both your "current score" and your "max score". I.e. the player-friendly approach. If it becomes a problem, I might revisit. I'll probably be a bit more stingy on luck score increases however. I'll have to see how much luck burn my non-thief/halfling players actually do.

I think it is if you use the houserule that one poster above suggested, that all players get the halfling's luck bonus to all rolls all the time. Skills, attacks, damage, all. Every time they roll, they get the bonus. All PCs (except the halfling). That's what I was discussing when I was saying that this houserule was abusive.

Oh, I see, well then yes. But I don't think that "houserule" was really a fair reading of the RAW, heh. I wouldn't use it, anyway...

Yes, that would be nice. But in the meantime let me quote Mr. Goodman "Let the rules bend to you not the other way around."

In my game, Luck's maximum is 18. If thieves and halflings never use their Luck eventually it will max out. And that works the same with other characters who don't spend Luck, at the end of the adventure a reward is doled out and if Luck isn't being spent eventually it just goes up to 18.

Beermotor - I'm not sure you have a firm grasp of the rules in what things Luck effects. You say +15% is not abusive. Are you aware Luck is also used for Corruption, Mercurial Magic, Critical Hits (character), Critical Hits (monster) and Fumble checks to name a few? Since you like numbers, a +3 Luck modifier could result in ...

+30% benefit Corruption
up to +50% benefit for Critical hits (Player)
up to +100% reduction of monster Critical hits
up to 75% reduction (likely eliminating) Fumble checks

I'm just pointing out that you are way downplaying and over simplifying the argument when you say it's only a 15% to just a few rolls.

Well in this case it isn't the ability of Luck to get to 18 that's broken, it's the house rule where you are adding a halfling's Luck bonus to everyone's rolls! Egads. I don't think that's anything like the game designer intended. The lucky halfling trait is for burning Luck.

Just to make sure everyone is clear, I never described a house rule about using the halfling's Luck modifier for the whole party. I merely asked whether people thought that might be a legitimate interpretation of the wording of the rules, since the rules do in fact use the literal words, "Luck modifier." The overwhelming response to my question was "No!" and I even closed out the discussion with a quote from the designer that I thought sealed the deal on how unlikely it was that the rule was intended to be interpreted that way. And while I thought it was an interesting idea, I never said I intended to run a game that way.

It's kind of surprising to see my question dragged up again here and used as a means of making an argument. From my perspective, it's been asked and answered and is a dead issue.

You're right, I'm one of the guys with a stick beating up that dead horse, sorry 'bout that. Plus, your initial intent (to throw around the idea, no more) got lost to me at some point and my vague recollection was that you had houseruled it.

I'll try to be a bit more alert next time.

Cheers, and thanks for politely pointing this out. (No snark intended here, you were indeed quite polite about it.)

Sky

Not to worry. I can get overly sensitive sometimes, so I'm relieved that you didn't find me too whiny.

hmm, you were right, I hadn't realized it affected so many things. Oops. Gonna have to drill that into my players' heads at the session this week.

Still, I stand by my thesis, I don't think it's that big of a deal. The operative word in your sentence "Since you like numbers, ..." is "COULD." Not necessarily WILL, or ALWAYS, or whatever. Yeah it's nice for corruption but c'mon, if you've got an 18 Luck wizard, don't you deserve to be badass? (Also your math's a little off, spell level factors in there, too, so it's not a straight 30%. HEH HEH.) Ditto the unarmored warrior or thief on a fumble check... that's a play style that I'd want to encourage, anyway.

FWIW,
My own interpretation is that luck, like all the other scores can not exceed 18 by anything but Judge fiat (magic). I don't like the idea of capping the value at the starting score because through the campaign a character can gain more favor from gods/powers, thereby increasing luck.


Having said that, what should a Judge fiat do if a character has an 18 in a score and gets a point awarded? We need some values for ability scores above 18 for when such things occur. I guess "wing it" is the order of the day.

My view: Luck can be raised to any number, but Halfling and Thief Luck only "heals" to its original value.

Remember that in-game events can reduce as well as increase Luck. I assume that Halflings and Thieves can restore this lost Luck as well.

That seems sensible to me.

That's an original suggestion, however it means that any luck gained by halflings and thieves above their original score is a one-time luck burn, which makes it a poisoned present so to speak, in that they lose their improved luck bonus permanently (assuming they had one) once they decide to burn luck to their initial luck score or below. In other words, it's making the thieves and halflings "like ordinary folk" for that luck overhead they gained.

Hmm. This is certainly one of the better solutions I've seen yet however.

That's true for all classes, though. Bonus luck is always a one-time luck burn.

Thieves and Halflings just get a better return on the investment, and can still burn up their original luck as well (and get it back).

I'll go even further, though, and say that if the Thief or Halfling has already burned luck, the new luck simply heals him faster. In a well-paced game, that should work pretty well as (1) these characters are designed to have ups-and-downs (i.e., turns in luck), and (2) it encourages burning, rather than hoarding, luck....without encouraging going totally bonkers on burning luck.


RC

We've played once and in our first adventure I lost 6/8 characters.....at first none of our characters were burning any luck, but then as we rememberd about using it, we started to burn it for our rolls.......

From what I read out of the book (and, yes I know....can't let the book run your game)....
if you start with 14 luck you can burn up to 13 points of luck and any that you get back for awards or class regeneration CAN NOT take you above 14. Along with that, you initial bonus of +1 does not change as your luck changes. The theif and the halfling are always going to be using their luck. A day should not go by that a theif or halfling would not use at least one point of luck. Remember, DCC was stated that there is a HIGH level of death and that for a character to reach 5th level even would be 1 in 10,000 (using the NPC char guidlines).

Based on this, is why I think that the luck would be capped at your initial roll, UNLESS magical intervention of some type to increase that luck (item, spell, divine favor, etc). If the DM allows the Luck to go above the initial value, then things will start to become a cake walk (esp for theives) and not befitting of the current level for the PC.

Just my 2 cents