MDoA for other classes?

[Coffeedragon]

I love the rules for the Mighty Deeds of Arms, but I find myself wondering why the other classes shouldn't be allowed to use them?

The MDoA encourages Warriors and Dwarves to be more creative in combat, but what happens when a cleric or a thief wants to shove an opponent through a door? (for example)
Do we just make that an ability check using the same results guidelines as laid out for MDoA's?
Or are the less martially able classes doomed to just flail away at opponents until a warrior or dwarf arrives...?

[geordie racer]

I love the rules for the Mighty Deeds of Arms, but I find myself wondering why the other classes shouldn't be allowed to use them?

The MDoA encourages Warriors and Dwarves to be more creative in combat, but what happens when a cleric or a thief wants to shove an opponent through a door? (for example)
Do we just make that an ability check using the same results guidelines as laid out for MDoA's?
Or are the less martially able classes doomed to just flail away at opponents until a warrior or dwarf arrives...?

A Thief can burn his luck, or try to escape/evade harm. Why be fighting when you can be thieving?

[smathis]

I think the Cleric should get a "nerfed" MDoA. At first it just starts out as an Attack Die.

Say the progression goes something like this...

1st level... Attack Die 1d3-1
2nd level... 1d3-1
3rd level... 1d4-1
4th level... 1d4-1
5th level... 1d5-1

Note the "minus ones". I think those are important because they pose a risk for the Cleric to get a +0 and they also limit the Cleric a bit so he's still fun and fighty but never quite as competent as the Dwarf or Fighter.

By this progression, the Cleric will start getting MDoAs at 3rd level but they'll still be fairly unique. Prior to that the Attack Die is just a bonus. It's more fun to roll for the bonus than not. And the Cleric was the one class in the playtest I felt could use a little more fun.

[meinvt]

I'll allow a character to attempt a similar feat as their action for the turn. I choose an appropriate ability and they make a check. The warrior's bonus is that he gets to make his regular attack, and do something special as well. For the other classes it is an either/or proposition. I think this is more than fair. A cleric already has the option to consider lay-on-hands, turning, or casting a spell as well as attacking. I don't suggest adding any of those features to the Warrior or Dwarf, so I don't see why the reverse is needed.

[jmucchiello]

This is nearly a FAQ but there's no absolute answer from GG. Meinvt's interpretation is the one I like best. Warriors can attempt fancy things AND do damage at the same time. Anyone else in combat can attempt fancy things OR do damage. The only flaw with the "mechanic" is interpreting how well a Cleric does a bull rush uses a different mechanism than the Warrior.

In my class die world, I'd use the class die as MDoA die for determining EFFECT only. It would not add to the attack roll. So when you wanted to do something unusual, you would reach for the extra die and if the action die plus mods hits the target, the class die determines the effect. Not sure if there would be a penalty to the roll though. It's bad enough you don't get your damage from the attack, isn't it?

[Coffeedragon]

. Meinvt's interpretation is the one I like best. Warriors can attempt fancy things AND do damage at the same time. Anyone else in combat can attempt fancy things OR do damage.

I agree. This makes sense to me and seems balanced. Thanks