Mighty Deeds for other classes

[geordie racer]

Assign a difficulty (called shot difficulty of -8 is a good base for most deeds, -4 to -12 is a good range) and allow a save/ability check by the opponent to prevent it. This latter part is the key to the whole thing as no matter what the thief does with burning luck for instance, it is still not sure bet as the opponent might prevent it. With a warrior they don't get that save. That is his power...

Best idea yet

[jmucchiello]

I just think the other classes don't need a deed die at all. Assign a difficulty (called shot difficulty of -8 is a good base for most deeds, -4 to -12 is a good range) and allow a save/ability check by the opponent to prevent it. This latter part is the key to the whole thing as no matter what the thief does with burning luck to ensure he hits for instance, it is still not a sure bet as the opponent might prevent it with a save/ability check. With a warrior they don't get that save.

This is no more valid than the other way we are discussing. The current discussion is that the Beta has NO rule for this. I don't care what the mechanic is. The flaw right now is that there is no mechanic. So it is nice that we have lots of different solutions. Does Joseph have a solution in his rules? That is what we need to hope. The point of this thread is to get Joseph to make sure something gets into the final book.

[jmucchiello]

Using luck as a power point pool, just like thieves already do in DCCRPG, reminds you of 4th edition daily powers???? Does not compute.

Well the difference is that normally if a thief runs out of luck points he can still attempt the same things as when he had the points, he is just more likely to fail at them.

This is still the same, his chance of failure just rises to 100%.

However if the Deed mechanic requires they spend points to attempt them, then it becomes an on/off (available/used) type of situation like 4th edition. ie. "Sorry you can't push the wizard out of the window, you are out of luck points". This is no different to me than 4e where you have situations like: "Sorry you can't use your leap attack on the wizard, you already used it today on that orc".

No, in 4th edition it is ILLEGAL to try to use a daily power a second time. In this case you can attempt the action. It is just 100% that it will fail to happen. There's a big difference. In 4th edition, for some reason, you can shout "Look alive people" and grant a healing surge to the whole party once. The second time you shout out "Look alive people" it doesn't grant everyone a healing surge. That's illogical.

"I swing my sword hoping to knock the guy over." You can say that all day. But only when you spend the luck, is it possible to knock the guy over. Just because you know the chance drops to 0% when you don't spend the luck (via metagaming) does not mean you can't TRY the maneuver.

Is this any different?
Player: "I attack the lycanthrope with my steel sword. I hit AC 30. How much damage do I do?"
DM: "Zero, it's not a silver weapon."

His chance of success remain 0%. But there's nothing stopping him from making the attack again.

These are not spells or powers or something you can explain away as having only one use a day. These are just actions, repeatable actions that anyone could do more than once a day, even a non-adventurer like myself....

I think you are hung up on the flaws with 4th ed. These are still actions you can repeat all day. They just will fail. It is only the metagame knowledge that you are out of luck that tells you up front it will fail. It's not like 4th ed where you aren't even allowed to try again.

[bholmes4]

An experienced GM won't require rules for this sort of thing but I can see why you might want him to write a paragraph to explain to new GMs how to deal with situations like this that aren't covered in the book. I am sure he will have a section on this, every RPG does.

That said I really hope this stuff is kept to a minimum. Despite their intent, rules bloat actually makes a game feel less realistic (imo) and is more than anything, unnecessary and unfun. Let all these extra rules come out in add-ons or 3rd party publishing so players like myself can ignore them. Please, please, please just make a good base game.

No, in 4th edition it is ILLEGAL to try to use a daily power a second time. In this case you can attempt the action. It is just 100% that it will fail to happen. There's a big difference. In 4th edition, for some reason, you can shout "Look alive people" and grant a healing surge to the whole party once. The second time you shout out "Look alive people" it doesn't grant everyone a healing surge. That's illogical.

"I swing my sword hoping to knock the guy over." You can say that all day. But only when you spend the luck, is it possible to knock the guy over. Just because you know the chance drops to 0% when you don't spend the luck (via metagaming) does not mean you can't TRY the maneuver.

If the chance is zero then no PC will try it unless they are roleplaying it out for some reason. Basically you are creating an available/unavailable (on/off) situation by making the attempt a "non-option". You can state that the player is able to attempt it but it's misleading if the player knows his chance of doing it is zero and simply won't ever decide to try. That may be different to you but to me it's not.

And why couldn't a player in 4th edition shout "Luck alive people" a second time? It just wouldn't do anything or count as a second wind. Likewise why couldn't he attempt his "Whirling leap attack of the Tiger" and the GM would tell him he falls flat. I understand where you are coming from but I don't see it as all that different in the end.

[GnomeBoy]

...No, in 4th edition it is ILLEGAL to try to use a daily power a second time. In this case you can attempt the action. It is just 100% that it will fail to happen. There's a big difference. In 4th edition, for some reason, you can shout "Look alive people" and grant a healing surge to the whole party once. The second time you shout out "Look alive people" it doesn't grant everyone a healing surge. That's illogical.

Second pep talks generate less pep.

[meinvt]

Brief digression that I promise quickly gets back to the point. I recently had occasion to ask my players the question "What would you say is my biggest flaw as a GM?" (Inspired by the RPG Geek Question of the Day thread.)

A telling response was:

...you lean towards sticking close to the RAW, that focus can result... and we understand it's unintended, for you to be more prone to saying "no" to players. That is, someone wants to do something wild and awesome, and you'll then look to the rules, which in 3.5 parlance means lots of restrictive keyword cascading and/or modifiers that generally aren't meant to encourage stunts. Thus, by following the rules closely, it can result in the rules shutting down what could be a really cool moment.

But system does matter. 3.5 was fairly constraining, whereas with DCC it is a bit more open and contains mechancis that encourage more free form stunting. The end result is that you seem a bit "looser" with DCC.

I think a perfect example of this was when I dealt with players wanting to do something like a Mighty Deed while still level 0. Instead I let them make a regular attack in order to attempt the effect described. Instead of doing damage to the opponent they instead, on a hit, forced a saving throw against their attack effectiveness to avoid being tripped, disarmed or pushed (in our particular case different characters were trying all three). I gave modifiers based on situation.

The outcome was pretty satisfying. It is rare enough that a player wants to give up damage potential for tactical advantage that this won't be overused, but the simplicity of a regular check vs. AC is also appropriate. For something like a called shot to cut a rope with a crossbow I'd just choose a high AC (probably 20), for most effects however, blinding, immobilizing, pushing, disarming, etc. is interesting enough even if you don't knock their hp total any lower.

edit: I'd never allow doing extra damage as a called shot. So the "shoot him in the eye" called shot would be an option to try partially blinding your opponent, but no damage. Yes it belies logic, but hit points are abstract anyway. It may still be worthwhile against the colossus!

Bottom line however, is that I'd much prefer broad guidance and encouragement of several ways to allow it, and not specific rules (like the burn luck example) on this. As noted above, I do tend to prefer playing RAW. If I don't like the rules I'll just find a different RPG to play, with thousands of options these days I'm not interested in heavily house ruling things. I'll drop a few rules I don't want to deal with, but I'd rather the game emphasize this "loose" style of play.

[abk108]

edit: I'd never allow doing extra damage as a called shot. So the "shoot him in the eye" called shot would be an option to try partially blinding your opponent, but no damage. Yes it belies logic, but hit points are abstract anyway. It may still be worthwhile against the colossus!

I would just say roll for a normal attack. If you CRIT, you also accomplished your result ("Well done! Your bolt goes straight through the cyclop's eye!")

UNLESS you are a warrior (in which case, use MDoA)

Note that 15 0-lvls should manage in a couple of rounds (probability wise) to actually CRIT the cyclop and blind it. Then they could even manage to kill it (wouldn't a cyclop be a much more satisfying prey than a few goblins, ESPECIALLY at level 0??)

[Tortog]

Hypothetically, if every class was given a Deed die the next argument would be -
'Hey, everyone get's better at doing stuff, so Deed die's for non-warriors should scale up with level'

So what happens is someone suggests 'wizards advance in Deed die size every 3 levels, thieves every 2 levels' and by higher levels - wizards still become combat machines because they have more options than anyone in combat to start with anyway. Thieves Burn Luck on those rolls and auto-succeed each time.

This is one of the suggestions I was going to make... I see no logical reason why MDoA is restricted to Warriors and Dwarves. I think it should be available to all, the warriors should simply be better at it than the rest.

So that would invalidate Conan, in an rpg based on Appendix N, because combat would be totally pwned by Anime-Ninja-Gandalf.

I have no problem with this idea, because I've never bought into the stereotype that wizards are weaklings. I also don't think a wizard is "too important" to do something as mundane as toss an orc off a bridge. (unless the player is role playing things this way on purpose) Especially since the wizard is smart enough (or should be) to recognize that the staff or spear in his/her hand could be a very effective "lever" that should greatly enhance their odds of success. Combat is a pragmatic environment were you do what is needed to survive... the glory is derived afterwards by the winners and their Bards. Wizards are supposed to be smart people, so the idea that they wouldn't or couldn't take advantage of their enemy being conveniently close to an open window... doesn't compute.

In terms of game mechanics there is an easy fix for this: a warrior adds their level to their saves. Fighters always had the best saves anyways in 1e and 2e. In 3e & 3.5 fighter saves got nerfed in the name of "balance." The solution could also be that the wizard has virtually no hope of casting during a combat situation: pulling out the ingredients, and tossing them about with strange gestures, whilst chanting tongue-twisters; is difficult at the best of times, let alone when a warrior (or anything else) is attempting to turn the wizards guts into garters. Spellcasters take a -5 penalty on all casting attempts during melee combat.

***

Assuming no one can change the authors mind on the warriors only MDoA, here is an alternate mechanic I've been considering:

non-warrior classes wishing to perform the MDoA, choose the chart and then describe the MdoA they wish to perform (just like a warrior would) then they make there attack roll with a -2 on attack. If they hit the target, then look at the difference between what was rolled and the AC of the target. If that number is = or greater than the MDoA number then it is a success.

EX: Fizzypop the Wizard finds himself to be the last member of the party to be conscious and able to act, and is fighting the last of the enemy orcs. Fizzypop realizes that the orc way out matches him in a stand up fight, so he decides to use his staff to disarm the orc to make it harder for the orc to kill anyone. The orc has Hide Armor and 13 AGIL for an AC of 14, but armor isn't going to help Vs disarming, so the the target AC for the wizard starts at 11. To succeed on the MDoA he must get a 16 on the attack roll. Had Fizzypop instead decided to trip the orc, then he would only need a 14 on the attack roll to succeed. {stave's are still +2 on trip checks in my game because a 5.5' to 6' "lever" is good at that sort of thing" } Furthermore, if he rolled higher then he could get better results on the MDoA chart.

The reason I included the Armor in the example was so I could ask the following question: does the physical check penalty apply in attempts to resist trips, pushes, throws, etc? In the above example it would drop the "trip check" for the wizard to 11... if the orc was wearing full plate then it would be even easier (6+) to trip the "steel can." I'd say yes, what do the rest of you think? or has this been covered somewhere else?

[Hamakto]

Assuming no one can change the authors mind on the warriors only MDoA, here is an alternate mechanic I've been considering:

non-warrior classes wishing to perform the MDoA, choose the chart and then describe the MdoA they wish to perform (just like a warrior would) then they make there attack roll with a -2 on attack. If they hit the target, then look at the difference between what was rolled and the AC of the target. If that number is = or greater than the MDoA number then it is a success.

I would suggest not using the difference between AC and the roll as the determining factor to see how effective the MDoA is like. That will greatly empower thieves with their abilities to boost their d20 roll.

I know people think it is silly that DCC does not do this or that for other classes, but there are some reasons for it. 1) keeps warriors unique 2) game balance (yes it is not 100% balanced, but there are strong attempt made where possible).

But if you feel you need to do this mechanic for other classes, then I would suggest the following adjustments to your sample rules:

1. Maximum MDoA result = your character level. Yes... you will not be able to do a MDoA until 3rd level.
2. MDoA attempts do not do damage - You either get to do the MDoA or swing for damage. Warriors get both.
3. You take a negative to hit modifier = your attempted maneuver (minimum of -3)
4. If you hit and exceed the target number by the attempted maneuver, the result happens.

*NOTE: Luck cannot be used to modify the d20 roll. Would grant too much power to thieves*

The problem with this is we have started to create a complex sub-system for something that (in a class based RPG) is the province of another class. Warriors do not cast spells... Wizards should not be doing MDoA type maneuvers.

My real suggestion is to take some of the other ideas for Combat Maneuvers (earlier in the thread) and do something like this:

You can trip, disarm, bull rush, etc... look at the basic combat maneuvers in the 3e PHB. You treat it as an attack roll with a -X modifier (where X = target HD or level of the character). Modify for size, etc on the fly and roll with the basic results.

Reserve the cool/heroic combat moves to the Warriors and keep them exciting!

[Tortog]

Wow, so many places to disagree... where do I start?

I would suggest not using the difference between AC and the roll as the determining factor to see how effective the MDoA is like. That will greatly empower thieves with their abilities to boost their d20 roll.

True, but IMO allowing the players to burn stats to "thumb their nose at fate" is a terrible mechanic. Especially since one of the stated design principles is (in the design blogs and on the threads): game balance through randomization. {Translation for those not fluent in DM-speak: "Everyone got screwed, so quit your b!tching."}

I know people think it is silly that DCC does not do this or that for other classes, but there are some reasons for it. 1) keeps warriors unique 2) game balance (yes it is not 100% balanced, but there are strong attempt made where possible).

I think there is some confusion about the word "unique." If this idea that MDoA is to be for warrior's only is so important: then why replicate the Warrior Class with the Dwarf class? Especially since the Dwarf Class has no hope of performing as well at fighting as the Warrior class (which tells me that there is something seriously broken in the game design). The "uniqueness" is further muddied by the fact that the DCCRPG warrior is wearing "too many helmets" (to borrow a phrase). In the DCC system the warrior must be: warrior, ranger, barbarian, as well as town/temple guards, etc.. The other combat classes need to be separated from the warrior in order to gain any sense of uniqueness.

My experience over the last few decades has taught me that the Fighter/Warrior class is what people play when the stats won't support anything more interesting. Fighters/Warriors are not unique in any sense: historically, or in the fantasy literature: they are ubiquitous. Stamped out out of a "dime-a-dozen" mold somewhere and put into ranks to form armies: 99.99% of which are fated to become nothing more than a stain on a battle-field.

But if you feel you need to do this mechanic for other classes, then I would suggest the following adjustments to your sample rules:

1. Maximum MDoA result = your character level. Yes... you will not be able to do a MDoA until 3rd level.

This could work... some hope for your character is better than none.

2. MDoA attempts do not do damage - You either get to do the MDoA or swing for damage. Warriors get both.

This is a bad idea... it means that I can hit something in the eye with a weapon sufficiently to cause blindness, but not damage the target meaningfully? I thought we were aiming for a "gritty reality" feel for the game.

3. You take a negative to hit modifier = your attempted maneuver (minimum of -3)

did that... sorry I was insufficiently punitive towards the PC with the crappy stats.

4. If you hit and exceed the target number by the attempted maneuver, the result happens.

Um... that's one of the things I suggested... beat the AC + modifiers and the Deed succeeds. You're taking me to task on my idea and then paraphrasing it back at me? Poor form Hamakto.

*NOTE: Luck cannot be used to modify the d20 roll. Would grant too much power to thieves*

{paraphrasing one of my players at the last game...}
*NOTE: We are rolling dice to simulate a fantasy reality... adding a luck mechanic is superfluous.

The problem with this is we have started to create a complex sub-system for something that (in a class based RPG) is the province of another class. Warriors do not cast spells... Wizards should not be doing MDoA type maneuvers.

While it is true that too many complex sub-systems can be a problem, it is also possible to oversimplify a system to the point of being ridiculous. I think DCCRPG is in danger of falling into the second category.

My real suggestion is to take some of the other ideas for Combat Maneuvers (earlier in the thread) and do something like this:

You can trip, disarm, bull rush, etc... look at the basic combat maneuvers in the 3e PHB. You treat it as an attack roll with a -X modifier (where X = target HD or level of the character). Modify for size, etc on the fly and roll with the basic results.

Wait a second! Your solution to a flaw in the DCC mechanic is to rip off something from another game rather than come up with DCC specific mechanic? I guess your desire for uniqueness doesn't extend to include the whole system being unique from others...

Reserve the cool/heroic combat moves to the Warriors and keep them exciting!

hack, slash... kill...loot...drink til your poor again... *yawn*

[bholmes4]

My experience over the last few decades has taught me that the Fighter/Warrior class is what people play when the stats won't support anything more interesting. Fighters/Warriors are not unique in any sense: historically, or in the fantasy literature: they are ubiquitous. Stamped out out of a "dime-a-dozen" mold somewhere and put into ranks to form armies: 99.99% of which are fated to become nothing more than a stain on a battle-field.

Finally warriors get a cool mechanic that made them semi-fun to play. For once they could feel like Conan and you want to take that away from them? I always loved the idea of playing fighter classes but their mechanics were always boring and monotonous. I can see why they players often picked them only as a last resort, it's not that the idea of playing a warrior was boring, it was because the actual game mechanics of a warrior were boring.

Now I have no problems with rules like you are suggesting coming up as optional packages or something for players that want them, but if the game caves to this sort of mentality I want my pre-order money back.

[Tortog]

Finally warriors get a cool mechanic that made them semi-fun to play. For once they could feel like Conan and you want to take that away from them?

In all pre 3e versions of D&D any character could attempt anything that is now on the MDoA list! All they had to do was come up with a brilliant idea: like shooting the rope to make the escaping bad-guy fall from the cliff, pushing the enemy wizard out the convenient window, deliver a passionate plea for bravery, etc. then the player and DM figured out how/what to roll. It led to a lot of arguments and play interruptions, but this was tolerated in order to preserve the creativity factor.
The thrice damned Coastal Necromancers put an end to all this with "the Third age... the Rise of the Rules Lawyers."

The DCCRPG (whether accidentally or purposely) has restricted such behaviors and actions to the warrior class in an attempt to make it interesting. At the very least the core system should provide a mechanic to deal with this issue.

... , but if the game caves to this sort of mentality I want my pre-order money back.

Funny, I'm in the opposite camp... I'm glad I haven't pre-ordered and am hoping that one of the game shops around here will have one on the shelf for me to peruse before purchasing. I've already shelled out 25$ for badly made, hard to read dice in order to properly test the game.

[JediOre]

The DCCRPG (whether accidentally or purposely) has restricted such behaviors and actions to the warrior class in an attempt to make it interesting.

Tortog, I think your statement is true. That is why I started this thread to begin with. How do we keep the warrior class interesting while allowing the fighting cleric and others a shot at doing a few daring deeds?

To be honest, when I get the opportunity to be a player instead of a DM, I relish the fighting cleric or paladin class. The idea of the Knight Templar fighting against the infidel is inviting to me. My cleric rarely casts spells in combat, but instead lay waste to evil with a blow from his mace. I would find it frustrating that my friend with Thug the Warrior disarming and knocking down foes yet my Knight Templar has no more skill with the mace than to simply bash.

[Hamakto]

True, but IMO allowing the players to burn stats to "thumb their nose at fate" is a terrible mechanic. Especially since one of the stated design principles is (in the design blogs and on the threads): game balance through randomization. {Translation for those not fluent in DM-speak: "Everyone got screwed, so quit your b!tching."}

In a long term campaign you cannot thumb your fate all the time. The luck score does not recover at one point per day but over time. So the use of luck for non thief classes will be few and far between. The thief class is the one that throws the whole luck thing into a mechanic that is very disruptive.

I think there is some confusion about the word "unique." If this idea that MDoA is to be for warrior's only is so important: then why replicate the Warrior Class with the Dwarf class? Especially since the Dwarf Class has no hope of performing as well at fighting as the Warrior class (which tells me that there is something seriously broken in the game design). The "uniqueness" is further muddied by the fact that the DCCRPG warrior is wearing "too many helmets" (to borrow a phrase). In the DCC system the warrior must be: warrior, ranger, barbarian, as well as town/temple guards, etc.. The other combat classes need to be separated from the warrior in order to gain any sense of uniqueness.

My experience over the last few decades has taught me that the Fighter/Warrior class is what people play when the stats won't support anything more interesting. Fighters/Warriors are not unique in any sense: historically, or in the fantasy literature: they are ubiquitous. Stamped out out of a "dime-a-dozen" mold somewhere and put into ranks to form armies: 99.99% of which are fated to become nothing more than a stain on a battle-field.

It all depends on what you want to play. We have players that prefer warrior types. I myself have played a warrior type when I wanted to RP more than PG. In 3e at higher levels (with spell casters), you spend more time figuring out what is the best spell or ability to use. So I like to play fighters because of more limited actions and I can actually RP more.

DCCRPG takes the second tact because of limited options for all except the Cleric (who has a huge spell selection).

About your Dwarf = Warrior comment not keeping Warriors unique. I am not a 100% fan of the race = class, but that is part of the game (and not part of this discussion). But I have no problem with Dwarf getting Warrior abilities. Because that is the 'class' ability. They are NOT getting spells or thief skills and MDoA's. They are just another version of a Warrior class called Dwarf.

This is a bad idea... it means that I can hit something in the eye with a weapon sufficiently to cause blindness, but not damage the target meaningfully? I thought we were aiming for a "gritty reality" feel for the game.

Necessary with the current rule set and the way that Thieves function. Without this function, thieves would be more powerful than warriors.

3. You take a negative to hit modifier = your attempted maneuver (minimum of -3)

did that... sorry I was insufficiently punitive towards the PC with the crappy stats.

4. If you hit and exceed the target number by the attempted maneuver, the result happens.

Um... that's one of the things I suggested... beat the AC + modifiers and the Deed succeeds. You're taking me to task on my idea and then paraphrasing it back at me? Poor form Hamakto.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? I was putting together a complete set of points that would be workable with what you indicated. This would prevent someone from having to scroll back and re-read your original post. It also took your paragraph and put it in a simpler 4 step form. But I digress...

The reason for the higher penalties is not to penalize those with 'crappy' stats. It is to provide a proper balance for the MDoA abilities for a non-warrior. Note that it is really a double penalty. -X to hit... and +x for it to be successful.

Because of the double penalty, I could see allowing weapon damage on hit... and effect on to hit +x.

The changes were subtle but I think very important to prevent other classes from overwhelming a warrior. Because as you wrote them, the other classes were potentially more powerful than a warriors MDoA because a warrior has to hit AND roll higher than a number on their class die. Your non-warrior character just has it hit above a certain number. This idea becomes a very important as characters level up and your non-warrior acquires a magical weapon. They potentially have more reliable access to MDoA's than warriors.

{paraphrasing one of my players at the last game...}
*NOTE: We are rolling dice to simulate a fantasy reality... adding a luck mechanic is superfluous.

As stated earlier, LUCK does not come into play very often for non-thief characters. So I think it has the proper flavor to allow someone to overcome one or two important dice rolls (i.e. saves). It accumulates so slow, that it is a character choice on if you want to burn it for something that is not 100% critical.

The problem with this is we have started to create a complex sub-system for something that (in a class based RPG) is the province of another class. Warriors do not cast spells... Wizards should not be doing MDoA type maneuvers.

While it is true that too many complex sub-systems can be a problem, it is also possible to oversimplify a system to the point of being ridiculous. I think DCCRPG is in danger of falling into the second category.

Some would say that is the beauty of DCC RPG. Simplicity. If you want a character that can do everything, then DCC RPG is not your game. Do we have a mechanic to give a warrior a chance to pick a lock? To cast a spell? No. It is not in the class sphere of influence.

Wait a second! Your solution to a flaw in the DCC mechanic is to rip off something from another game rather than come up with DCC specific mechanic? I guess your desire for uniqueness doesn't extend to include the whole system being unique from others...

LOL. I never said DCC was 100% unique from another game. It is based on the d20 game system at it heart. I free free to beg/borrow/steal from other d20 OGL rules to get something that works. But see I am different than you, I do not consider this a flaw at all that a Wizard cannot accomplish a MDoA. They can do a combat maneuver (i.e. 3e basic combat type maneuvers) but they should not get access to the enhanced MDoA charts. It is that simple. Is it 100% realistic, no... but it keeps things simple and class based.

Reserve the cool/heroic combat moves to the Warriors and keep them exciting!

hack, slash... kill...loot...drink til your poor again... *yawn*

[/quote]

Once again, YOUR opinion. I think you are missing out on the warrior/fighter classes.

[Hamakto]

The DCCRPG (whether accidentally or purposely) has restricted such behaviors and actions to the warrior class in an attempt to make it interesting.

Tortog, I think your statement is true. That is why I started this thread to begin with. How do we keep the warrior class interesting while allowing the fighting cleric and others a shot at doing a few daring deeds?

To be honest, when I get the opportunity to be a player instead of a DM, I relish the fighting cleric or paladin class. The idea of the Knight Templar fighting against the infidel is inviting to me. My cleric rarely casts spells in combat, but instead lay waste to evil with a blow from his mace. I would find it frustrating that my friend with Thug the Warrior disarming and knocking down foes yet my Knight Templar has no more skill with the mace than to simply bash.

There is a good point here. In my opinion, the Cleric as presented in DCC RPG is not a serviceable combatant. The cleric as designed should not be able to kick a** and take names in melee combat. If it can it do reliably, then what sort of need for the Warrior class is there? If it cannot do it reliably, then I think the player will be so frustrated that they will be annoyed playing the class.

In the first release of the game, will you have all of those 'tweener' type classes that have grown up over the years? If you look at a 3e cleric, they are NOT top notch combatants. 2e clerics were even worse combatants. They could not accumulate the feats (or later maneuvers) that made them killing machines like you described above. They used spells, multi-classing, and ill-conceived (as very few were balanced) prestige classes to accomplish your desire.

But the core PHB had none of what you are asking for in the core DCC RPG.

It is my belief that there will be more classes added to the DCC RPG to cover some of these cross over classes. Adding good combat ability to a cleric w/out taking away some other class ability just re-creates some of the disaster that was 3e. Where Clerics became the most powerful standard class to play. You may get some of your wish in the future, but do I think all of that belongs in the core? No.

On day one, you want to play a Knight Templar or Paladin. You can just RP him as religious warrior. Especially since you never cast spells in combat. But if you want spells in addition, what are you going to take away to balance it off? To prevent the cleric power creep that occurred in 3e.

I am not trying to be annoying here, but trying to provide a prospective from a game design view point.

[JediOre]

I am not trying to be annoying here, but trying to provide a prospective from a game design view point.

Andy, I'm not annoyed at all. But let me clarify. I've never expected my cleric to be able to deal damage or hit as well as a fighter. I was "raised" on AD&D where the cleric is firmly a second tier fighting class, not a first tier as the fighter, ranger, and paladin. Recall the cleric never got more than one melee attack per round, unlike the fighter and its sub-classes.

I would use the cleric's spell casting abilities for mainly healing, warding, and divination. This, coupled with the classes second-tier fighting status was what made the cleric a favored class of mine.

I would not expect the cleric to be able to go toe-to-toe with a warrior of the same level. My only concern is to give the player some sort of option to perform a called shot without impinging upon the warriors mighty deed ability.

[bholmes4]

In all pre 3e versions of D&D any character could attempt anything that is now on the MDoA list! All they had to do was come up with a brilliant idea: like shooting the rope to make the escaping bad-guy fall from the cliff, pushing the enemy wizard out the convenient window, deliver a passionate plea for bravery, etc. then the player and DM figured out how/what to roll. It led to a lot of arguments and play interruptions, but this was tolerated in order to preserve the creativity factor.

The DCCRPG (whether accidentally or purposely) has restricted such behaviors and actions to the warrior class in an attempt to make it interesting. At the very least the core system should provide a mechanic to deal with this issue.

On one hand I don't agree that it restricts the behaviour to warriors, it just uses a special mechanic for them while seemingly at this time doesn't have a mechanic to be used other classes. I am actually fine with that, afterall there was no mechanic in OD&D for this and I don't remember one in AD&D or Basic but we all managed, we just fubbed it and went with it for the most part and it worked just fine. On the other hand I worry this has a subtle change to players mindsets where other classes stop attempting them (Deeds are a fighter ability, not a clerics), kind of like what happened with thief skills.

Honestly I don't know what to think on that issue. It could take months, years of playing before you notice the difference in your gaming group and you may never realize why it happened. That's something I need to see play out I guess.

Anyway I am fine with providing guidelines for a mechanic to be used, I just don't want think you can use the same mechanic as the warrior or you probably have to change the way Deeds work. Letting other classes pull this off even on a 2+ on d3 is crazy. You would have to apply a negative to hit and/or allow a save and at that point you may as well just use the old system (give them a negative to hit and allow a save/check by the opponent).

[bholmes4]

My only concern is to give the player some sort of option to perform a called shot without impinging upon the warriors mighty deed ability.

I am just not getting this I guess. This game uses a modified d20 system as it's base, there are rules for this sort of thing out there already. If it isn't in the released rules (we don't know what is in there yet remember) it's easy to house rule yourself or reference the d20 rules for these situations if you want. Personally I go back further to older editions of D&D but that's personal preference.

I don't understand the concern.

[JediOre]

I don't understand the concern.

Bholmes4, I can easily house rule this. However, I believe this will be something Goodman Games will need to address and I'm interested in seeing how others plan on accommodating the innovative combat moves by players of halflings, clerics, thieves, elves, and wizards.

[meinvt]

After seeing all the back and forth I'm pretty happy with how I've ruled things.

In general, give up a damaging attack to try for a different result (trip, grapple, shove, etc.)
In specific cases, give possibility of a "called" outcome if an attack happens to be a crit rather than rolling on the crit table.

[Tortog]

The DCCRPG (whether accidentally or purposely) has restricted such behaviors and actions to the warrior class in an attempt to make it interesting.

Tortog, I think your statement is true. That is why I started this thread to begin with. How do we keep the warrior class interesting while allowing the fighting cleric and others a shot at doing a few daring deeds?

... My cleric rarely casts spells in combat, but instead lay waste to evil with a blow from his mace. I would find it frustrating that my friend with Thug the Warrior disarming and knocking down foes yet my Knight Templar has no more skill with the mace than to simply bash.

+d30 for starting the thread These are serious game issues that need to be addressed IMO props for getting the discussion started... again.

IMO- we are not really discussing "mighty deeds" we are in fact discussing "tactical play," but thanks to the D&D 3e days; that sort of creativity has been consistently labeled as "Power Gaming."

...
It all depends on what you want to play. We have players that prefer warrior types. I myself have played a warrior type when I wanted to RP more than PG. In 3e at higher levels (with spell casters), you spend more time figuring out what is the best spell or ability to use. So I like to play fighters because of more limited actions and I can actually RP more.

I'm assuming PG= "power gamer"... I reject your implication that not wanting to "hack'n'slash" my way through a game = power gaming. Some of us prefer to think our way through a game rather than carving up opponents like a humanoid blender.

I am not a 100% fan of the race = class, but that is part of the game (and not part of this discussion). But I have no problem with Dwarf getting Warrior abilities. Because that is the 'class' ability. They are NOT getting spells or thief skills and MDoA's. They are just another version of a Warrior class called Dwarf.

Class as race can work, the D&D3.5 rules have the mechanics for it... but as written into the beta...the concept fails. Because as you point out: each race is just a weaker version of one of the other classes.
This concept is quite germane to the discussion considering the thread premise is "MDoA for other classes." Understanding the logic of Dwarf=warrior decision could glean more information to aid our understanding of the problem.

...

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? I was putting together a complete set of points that would be workable with what you indicated.

No, actually. Just annoyed because the essence of what you were saying was: "Yah, it could work, but you need to tighten the thumb screws on the players a bit more for this to be an acceptable idea." I feel that the "crappy stats+lower stat bonuses" is such a negative in the DCCRPG system that it is my duty as a DM, to to be nice to the players once in a while... Re-empowering the non-warrior players to unleash their tactical brilliance is an easy fix.

The changes were subtle but I think very important to prevent other classes from overwhelming a warrior. Because as you wrote them, the other classes were potentially more powerful than a warriors MDoA because a warrior has to hit AND roll higher than a number on their class die. Your non-warrior character just has it hit above a certain number. This idea becomes a very important as characters level up and your non-warrior acquires a magical weapon. They potentially have more reliable access to MDoA's than warriors.

As to the emphasized portion of the quote: I think there is some confusion based on lack of clarity on my part in my original posting. I'm not arguing to give variable attack die to all classes. I want a streamlined mechanic that allows all players access to the MDoA tables.

From the beta-warrior description: "If the action die is a 2 or less, or the overall attack fails, the Deed fails as well."

Based on this I can see your argument about my proposal being more powerful than warriors ability. In my games I haven't been holding to this anyway in an attempt to prompt the players into using the feature. I have found that the players are more interested in survival (which means choosing to do damage) rather than in being mighty. If a warrior declares a Deed and then rolls a 2 on the attack die, they can still do damage if they rolled high enough to hit.

My proposed mechanic states that a non-warrior will need to roll a MINIMUM of 5 higher than their opponent's AC on their attack roll...so the successful attack is part of the successful MDoA just like warriors. The only difference is that non-warriors have the -2 penalty, which guarantees that they won't get the top level MDoA results unless they have lots of magic or they are kicking puppies; and, they only use 1 die for the attack. The better trained 1st lvl warrior (with their 2 attack die formula) is effectively rolling a minimum of 1d23 for each attack that guarantees more hits more often with higher results on the MDoA chart. Seems balanced to me... especially if you consider that in this paradigm the first level warrior would probably be starting their Variable Attack Die (VAD) progression with 1d4 and ending with 1d8. I would leave the tables as written, which would then mean the warriors are more mighty than anyone else

As for the rest of your statement... lets turn that argument inside out shall we? I'm not that good at computers. If someone else can find the thread and post a link it that would be great; but, there was a discussion a few weeks ago that was postulating what the MDoA tables would look like for levels 6-10. By the time folks got to their descriptions for level 7+ MDoA they had given the Warrior class default magic spells that were more reliable, and have no risk of corruption. So stick that in your game balance argument and watch it fall to pieces...

I like "simple" too, but oversimplification can cause its own issues; the way DCCRPG treats non- humans is a perfect example (that needs its own thread). If, as you say, the oversimplification is a design strength then the designers are limited to either opening the MDoA for all classes (with warriors being superior in this regard); or, get rid of it and we all return to "winging it" like in the pre- 3e days. Creating a separate mechanic for non-warriors is not an option as it violates the simplicity meme by creating a sub-system in the attack rules.

[abk108]

I like "simple" too, but oversimplification can cause its own issues; the way DCCRPG treats non- humans is a perfect example (that needs its own thread). If, as you say, the oversimplification is a design strength then the designers are limited to either opening the MDoA for all classes (with warriors being superior in this regard); or, get rid of it and we all return to "winging it" like in the pre- 3e days. Creating a separate mechanic for non-warriors is not an option as it violates the simplicity meme by creating a sub-system in the attack rules.

I'm for keeping MDoAs a prerogative of Warriors and Dwarves; if, under specific circumstances, a non-warrior wants to do something like a MDoA, just wing it. Otherwise it's like in 3E, where the warriors are just a lil better than other classes at doing something everybody can do. A 3E 5th level wizard can go toe-to-toe in combat with a 1st level warrior, while a 20th warrior can't cast even the simpler of spells EVER (but nobody moans about THAT...).
So just give Warriors their own "special candy"

Note: under specific circumstances could be:

• [TRIP/PUSH] the battle is on a thin bridge without barriers
• [DISARM] the character is holding a whip or similar weapon
• [INSPIRE] a wizard trying to inspire a group of wizards (makes sense!)
• etc

this way, Warriors would be BETTER at MDoA and they could pull it even not under specific circumstances. They can trip you or disarm you because of their superior combat training, not because of favourable environmental conditions.

[jmucchiello]

I don't understand the comparisons to 3E. 3E allows any character to attempt all the things covered by MDoAs. There are rules for all of them and even Fighters probably will not have the feats that make it "safe" to trip or disarm an opponent. The Combat rules for 3E are 25 pages long and they do in fact cover just about all "cool" fighting maneuvers. In fact, 3E makes it less likely people will do "cool" things only because the failure rates are so high.

As written, the DCC beta makes it impossible to trip an opponent. Personally, the method where the non-warrior does not do damage when attempting MDoA maneuvers seems the most balanced. What I like about this method is plays closer to the rule of cool: when the DM is asked "can I try to do this cool thing?" The answer should be "YES" most of the time. Really, who wants to play a game where you are told "No, you cannot attempt that perfectly logical action, because you aren't 3rd level (or whatever meta-game excuse you like)."

I'd still like to know what Joseph does in his playtests for this. I can't imagine after all this time no 0-level character hasn't tried to do something cool.

[bholmes4]

As written, the DCC beta makes it impossible to trip an opponent. ....

Why is it impossible?

Because there is no rule or guideline on it? Technically they shouldn't be able to sleep or eat or even walk then. Afterall how do I know if he successfully walks, what if he trips? What if he chokes on his food and only a heimlich maneuver can save him? How will we ever know what happened.

Ok being a jerk because I couldn't help myself. I agree with some of what you say, and I think you have the right sentiment (trying to encourage these actions) I just don't know how hard coded these need to be. A 1 or 2 paragraph guideline that offers tips for new GMs when situations aren't covered would be nice and is probably necessary. I just can't agree that not having trip Deed rules for the other classes makes them impossible though. The less rules the better with this sort of stuff, as soon as you say "here is the mechanic to trip" that is what many players will resort to. No need to think things through, to describe them. It's in the rules how it is done and they robotically resort to it.

Player: "I want to trip him, so that's a d20 -4"
*rolls*
Player: "Success! He's tripped and prone, -4 AC"

So dry and boring, it's like an accounting contest. It basically runs itself. I prefer this:

Player: "I want to trip him, umm what do I do?"
GM: "Well how are you trying to trip him?"
Player: "I want to roll between the ogre's legs and grab his belt from behind,then I will try to buckle his knee with a kick as I drag down on his belt to the floor"
GM "Ok roll a dex check to pull off the tumble, and if you succeed you can make a grab attack but let's see if you pass the dex check first"

[Tortog]

I don't understand the comparisons to 3E. 3E allows any character to attempt all the things covered by MDoAs. There are rules for all of them and even Fighters probably will not have the feats that make it "safe" to trip or disarm an opponent. The Combat rules for 3E are 25 pages long and they do in fact cover just about all "cool" fighting maneuvers. In fact, 3E makes it less likely people will do "cool" things only because the failure rates are so high.

True. My point in making the comparison was to show that in 1e & 2e any character had the right to try and be "mighty" (to use the DCC term) there were no rules to say "yes/no" you just had to 1) convince the DM that your idea was plausible... 2) negotiate with the DM on what had to be rolled to determine success. The result of this process was that everyone had the chance to be "mighty". One of the other results of this system was that DM's frequently had to defend themselves against accusations of "favoritism", etc. from the lack of consistent approaches to common situations.

The 3e forward version of D&D tried to fix this situation... and ended up seriously overcompensating with the 25 page of rules you point out; but, everyone still had the ability to try...

The DCCRPG system seems to be overcompensating in the opposite direction. As written all of the actions that we're discussing here (tripping, blinding, rallying, etc.) are firmly the province of Warriors. Sure, as a non-warrior class I technically have the right to try something... (there are no rules to say that it can't be done ) but only if the DM agrees and comes up with a mechanic to cover the situation. When you consider the mantra coming down the pipe from GG is "MDoA is the Warriors job" then it stands to reason that DM's will be disinclined to allow non-warriors to try and be mighty.

As written, the DCC beta makes it impossible to trip an opponent. Personally, the method where the non-warrior does not do damage when attempting MDoA maneuvers seems the most balanced.

From a "balance" POV this is probably true, but it is terribly unrealistic. IMO the non-warriors should get to do half damage. I justify this by pointing out that the class descriptions have lists of weapons that the non-warriors are trained to use. IMO this means they can do the things that a warrior could do with that weapon... the warriors are just better at it and can do it longer.

... when the DM is asked "can I try to do this cool thing?" The answer should be "YES" most of the time. Really, who wants to play a game where you are told "No, you cannot attempt that perfectly logical action, because you aren't 3rd level (or whatever meta-game excuse you like)."

I'd still like to know what Joseph does in his playtests for this. I can't imagine after all this time no 0-level character hasn't tried to do something cool.

Ditto that!

Considering the example of "Fizzypop the wizard" I set down earlier:

A) these kinds of situations happen all the time in games.
B) the default response of the DCC rules says that in these situations: everybody dies and y'all roll up new characters... As a writer (all be it an a novice) I find that to be odd. The situation where the weakest PC gets to save everyone's a$$ is the platinum standard for dramatic role play. It is far more impressive than listening to a gaggle of "steel-shirts" sitting around a table bragging about how many orcs they killed. IMO killing things is a fighters job, being "showy" about it is irrelevant.