Mighty Deeds of Arms

[jrients]

Howdy!

Between the playtest/demo type sessions at Gary Con and the Beta I've become a fan of the DCC rpg. I registered for this forum solely to petition for one change from the Beta to the final version of the rules:

Please, please, PLEASE drop the Mighty Deeds of Arms rules from the judge's section! Instead of hard rules, leave the Mighty Deeds nice and freeform as they currently read in the Fighter section. Maybe add in some advice on how to tell when a player-proposed Mighty Deed goes too far and what to do about it.

The Mighty Deeds described in the class description for Fighters are rock solid awesome. That juju is totally killed by the fiddly rules in the judge's section.

I'm not too proud to beg. I will literally take video of me on my knees begging and post it to youtube if that will help.

Jeff Rients

[Leg1on]

Seconded.

Legion

[bholmes4]

I'm not a big fan of this either. In fact I was kind of shocked when I saw it presented like that (basically pages of "feats" but done in a simpler manner).

I recognize that d20 fans are probably expecting this sort of thing so I may just have to hand wave that section away. Something that originally seemed fun and mysterious now seems dry and boring (and repetitive). I can already imagine my players wanting to blind ("I stab at his eyes") or disarm ("Called shot to his sword hand") at every opportunity, which will get annoying fast. The best part of the MDoA's to me were that they would encourage creative game play for the warriors in the group, but as presented I see players simply reverting to going through the motions again.

Why be creative for a small bonus when I can just "stab at his eyes" again? The only other option I see is attaching some sort of negative modifier to the common feats listed in the book so that they aren't over-used but not doing the same when a player tries something more exciting (ie. swinging from a chain in to a group of orcs).

[smathis]

The MDoA section in the Judge's section is presented as "guidelines" for using them.

I like having guidelines because I know that many DMs will be unclear what sorts of benefits can be expected from an MDoA. Not all MDoAs are created equal.

Please keep the guidelines that are there. But maybe make it clearer that they are just that: guidelines. Rules, they ain't.

[meinvt]

I think I'm seeing two different complaints. One is that players will repeatedly attempt the same feat (a tactic actually endorsed in the player's section), and thus be less creative. The second is that by presenting examples and ranges of effects it perhaps implies that this is all you can do, and this is also somehow less creative.

I strongly disagree with both. When I read the Player's section on warriors I was interested in the idea, but thought it pretty much meant that as a DM I'd need to constantly decide just how cool their character gets to be, which would usually be "just cool enough to not break the encounter." The rules in the judges section are awesome. They let me know in an objective way how to grade the effects and if a player gets lucky and breaks the encounter, cool!

If anything, this section of the Judges rules is part of what sold me on the game. They are clearly guidelines. I wouldn't slavishly follow them. At the same time they give helpful ranges of effect, and are written in a way that I can extrapolate to other actions. Bottom line, I wouldn't change anything other than perhaps to emphasize the guideline nature of what is written and to encourage saying "yes" to player creativity.

The issue of attempting Deeds with every single attack is a different problem which I agree with. I'd probably give a significant penalty to attempting the same outcome with repeated attacks (the opponent is now 'on guard' for that).

[smathis]

If anything, this section of the Judges rules is part of what sold me on the game. They are clearly guidelines. I wouldn't slavishly follow them. At the same time they give helpful ranges of effect, and are written in a way that I can extrapolate to other actions. Bottom line, I wouldn't change anything other than perhaps to emphasize the guideline nature of what is written and to encourage saying "yes" to player creativity.

The issue of attempting Deeds with every single attack is a different problem which I agree with. I'd probably give a significant penalty to attempting the same outcome with repeated attacks (the opponent is now 'on guard' for that).

Before reading the guidelines in the Judge's section, I was very skeptical about MDoAs. I felt as a player I could use them to run roughshod over pretty much any DM. And, as a DM, I wanted to know how these in-game effects compared to each other. Kicking a bucket of mop water into a goblin's face is significantly different from slashing a sword and accompanying it with a powerful whirlwind kick to send a 300 lb throne of molten swords into a group of henchmen.

"You mean all I have to do is roll above a 3 on a d5 and I can do ANYTHING? Let's start with permanently blinding the Dragon and go from there!"

I think the guidelines are essential enough that I would use them even if they didn't make the book. And I wouldn't use them as "rules" or "feats". I'd use them as guidelines. So if a player said they wanted to permanently blind the Dragon, I could assess how close or how far from the mark they came based on their Attack Die result. A "3" wouldn't permanently blind the Dragon. But a 7 would.

Also it allows me to eyeball how much a result exceeds what it needed. Roll a 5 to kick a mop bucket into a goblin's face. Ha! Then that mop bucket wasn't filled with water but with a caustic acid that does damage to the Goblin. Or perhaps the Goblin loses his footing a falls flat on his back.

I think it's good to know those kinds of things. Mileage varies.

[jrients]

The MDoA section in the Judge's section is presented as "guidelines" for using them.

As I recall the magic items costs in 3.x were presented as guidelines as well. I think the CR rules were presented that way also. Both those mechanics wrecked up a lot of good games because the players took them more seriously than the designers.

I'm all for giving advice to the ref on how to say No to ridiculous requests. My problem is that if you include a bunch of charts that will lead to the ossification of the mechanic.

[smathis]

As I recall the magic items costs in 3.x were presented as guidelines as well. I think the CR rules were presented that way also. Both those mechanics wrecked up a lot of good games because the players took them more seriously than the designers.

I'm all for giving advice to the ref on how to say No to ridiculous requests. My problem is that if you include a bunch of charts that will lead to the ossification of the mechanic.

Then again, the AD&D DMG had rules for Disease that were featured in one of the opening sections of the book. Yet I've never seen those rules used in 30 years. It was like in the first 5 pages. This huge section. The money shot of DMG sections. And ignored.

Weapon Speed was in the PHB -- and usually not featured in play. As well as Spell Components. The random harlot table? Well, 'nuff said. Probably over used.

To bring this back to modern times, 4e has the chart for stunts on p. 42 of the DMG. I've only seen it used once in the last 2 years of regular play. I don't think 80% of the DMs out there even know it's there. 4e also has the "Say Yes" advice on gamemastering. Yeah, no, not getting much play around these parts either. And Stealth. Does anyone know what the Stealth rules are? Yeah, usually gloss over that too.

I think excluding something from the game because it might influence DMs to run a game a certain way is jumping ahead a bit. Sure, they might. But demons got yanked out of D&D too because people thought roleplayers would all grow up to be creepy, devil worshippers. I don't think we can successfully play Rulesguard. People are going to do what they're going to do. There are just as many examples of people completely ignoring stuff as there are of people latching onto it like a vampire baby on a blood bag.

I think clear guidelines are essential for some groups, IMO. For those who are down with the Rule of Cool. Well, Cool. I don't think those DMs need the guidelines. And there's nothing in the book that says they must follow them. I think it's easier to ignore something that's in the book than to try to create something to fit in the book that you need there.

It's not like the MDoA charts are as essential as 3e's magic item economy. I mean, seriously. Monte Cook can say the magic item economy is "optional" as much as he freakin' wants. But the MATH of the game assumes it's there. How optional is that?

If a player happens to read the Judge's MDoA section and wants to treat the MDoAs like "feats", then here's what I think a DM should do. And I'm totally okay with Joseph snipping this for the MDoA chapter.

1. Point out the word "guideline" at the beginning of that chapter. If the player isn't clear, then help explain that guidelines do not equal rules as civilly and politely as you can.

2. Take the d30 and chuck it at the player. (Not too hard though because those things hurt.) And then announce in your best Tony Montana impersonation, "See! That's what all you muvvafukkahs get for reading MAHY section. I'M DA JUDGE. I make da guidelines. Get that?! I MAKE DA FAKKIN GUIDELINES!" Then bury your face in a 3 lb. pile of talcum powder come up and tell everyone to roll initiative because it's "time to meet mahy little friend". The players should all be rolling up zero-level PCs by the time the combat is over.

Yes, I'm willing to run that at a convention. Players will have to sign waivers though.

(Now that my medication has evened me back out.) I like having the guidelines. But, to me, they're JUST guidelines. You're right. Some people won't treat them like guidelines. But so? What's the big wrongness with that? If the guidelines weren't there, they'd make their own. Which means we'd have 14 different charts of guidelines all saying different things. And I don't like that.

I'm too lazy to write up my own guidelines. I like having benchmarks to work off. And I'd rather my benchmarks come from Joseph than some random guy on the internet. Like Harley.

Is that so bad?

[jmucchiello]

Derail, just ignore me, but...

To bring this back to modern times, 4e has the chart for stunts on p. 42 of the DMG. I've only seen it used once in the last 2 years of regular play. I don't think 80% of the DMs out there even know it's there.

You must not read a forum where 4e players post. Page 42 is venerated around ENWorld as the single most important innovation in D&D history.

[GnomeBoy]

*can't find clip of old ladies from Monty Python clapping*

[smathis]

Derail, just ignore me, but...

To bring this back to modern times, 4e has the chart for stunts on p. 42 of the DMG. I've only seen it used once in the last 2 years of regular play. I don't think 80% of the DMs out there even know it's there.

You must not read a forum where 4e players post. Page 42 is venerated around ENWorld as the single most important innovation in D&D history.

Yeah. I've been widely broiled for just stating this fact on RPG.net. But it's true. I've had 7 different DMs. 5 of whom don't even know each other. As in different groups entirely.

Only one has allowed a p. 42 action. And I try it in every group to get a feel for (a) how well the DM knows the rules and (b) how comfortable the DM is with leaving the script.

I know it's big cheese online. But in real life? It's hardly made a peep (for me).

</derail>

[mythfish]

DMG? I run 4e almost weekly and I don't think I've even cracked the cover of the DMG. Game plays just fine without it.

[jmucchiello]

Read page 42 at a minimum. It's not earth shattering. But 4e is about reducing DM prep time and page 42 is about improving DM improvisation speed.

And I can't imagine 4e balance without the parcel system but that at least can be trumped by "setting concerns".

[rabindranath72]

Another slight derail...

The MDoA section in the Judge's section is presented as "guidelines" for using them.

As I recall the magic items costs in 3.x were presented as guidelines as well. I think the CR rules were presented that way also. Both those mechanics wrecked up a lot of good games because the players took them more seriously than the designers.

+1! Most of the problems people found with 3e is due to players taking the books to the letter, which was really never meant to be, if one cares to read the DMG, which in one of the opening paragraphs suggests, as an example of the DM authority, to COMPLETELY SCRAP the combat system if it's not to the player's tastes. 3e was meant as a toolbox, but this was never fully realised (just as a disclaimer: I have only recently "discovered" D&D 3.0, despite having bought the core rules 10 years ago, so I am a bit late to the party... )

[robertsconley]

Please, please, PLEASE drop the Mighty Deeds of Arms rules from the judge's section! Instead of hard rules, leave the Mighty Deeds nice and freeform as they currently read in the Fighter section. Maybe add in some advice on how to tell when a player-proposed Mighty Deed goes too far and what to do about it.

The Mighty Deeds described in the class description for Fighters are rock solid awesome. That juju is totally killed by the fiddly rules in the judge's section.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I encountered several RPG systems with freeform stunt/feat/deed system and I founder trying to implement them. It isn't a lack of my, or my player's, imagination that gets me but rather my wildly inconsistent rulings that invariably trend upward to ever more spectacular effects due to my players reasonably extrapolating from my earlier inconsistent rulings.

So when I saw the Mighty Deeds of Arms, I groaned and thought to myself, "Here we go again." But then I saw a set of guidelines implementing several generic categories and when yay!

I think the issue could be solved as labeling the section in question as OPTIONAL guideline. So that the exception is that some referee will be using it and other won't. So those referee like you that are comfortable winging it don't have to live with walk-in saying "but this is what the rule say", and referees like me who don't do so well have something firm to use.

[meinvt]

Last night the group ended up fighting a baker's dozen shades. Half the party fled, leaving the remaining characters facing two or more each for a time. The shades themselves were about level 1 monsters, AC 10, Attk +0, d6 dmg, hit points equal 2 plus stamina bonus of the character they mirrored.

A Warrior at the table decided she wanted to try to swing her spear around to strike two at once as a mighty deed. No problem! Go for it. She rolled a hit, 3 on the mighty deed die and 8 on the damage die. A total damage of 13 and I simply announced she had dispersed two of them (hp 2 each) with one swing.

Another player, in the same adventure attempted to use her mighty deed to both strike a crocodile and vault over it with a single attack. That ended up being a miss, but the point remains that I don't think the presence of the chart need inhibit the players, or DM.

[jrients]

I don't think the presence of the chart need inhibit the players, or DM.

I agree. The section could stay exactly as written and plenty of people, myself included, could easily ignore it. My main concern is that once rulebooks are released into the wild suggestions can become expectations. And not every judge has the experience or confidence to face down a table full of players who point to a bunch of lavish charts and demand an explanation for why they can't expect the rules to behave exactly as written in the book they shelled out 35 bucks for.

If this game is only for veteran judges who know better, fine. Leave it as written. If anyone is expecting lesser mortals to run it, then I say scrap the charts and include instead a good, detailed example of the ref hashing out a Mighty Deed result with input from a player. Include considerations going on in the judge's head and his reasons why he vetoed or downgraded a requested Mighty Deed. Have him point out to the player that what happens on a roll of 3 needs to be less than what happens on a 5, or there is no point to rolling higher than a three.

I'll admit that a bunch of charts is the easiest way to write out the problems inherent in a freeform system. But what do we want novice refs to be doing with their time, flipping through the book looking up results or learning the craft of running a smooth game?

I think I've said my piece now. Thanks for taking my opinion into consideration.

[bholmes4]

Ok I just realized that the MDoA die doesn't add to damage rolls if used for an MDoA. This needs to be explained better in the final book. In any case it reduces my concern that they will be over-used and become repetitive/boring. I'm a lot more comfortable having these charts in the books now though I think they need to be better highlighted as options/suggestions only.

[GnomeBoy]

Ok I just realized that the MDoA die doesn't add to damage rolls if used for an MDoA...

Where is that? Everything I see says the attack is as normal, including the attack die adding to damage. Under Warrior there is a line that starts "The Deed does not increase the damage..." which could sound like the die used for a Deed cannot also be used for damage, but may mean you can't say "My Deed is to do Critical damage!" or "My Deed chopped off his hand! It should do more than 5 points of damage!". I think 'increase" is the operative word; Deeds don't increase damage, but the they do occur alongside normal damage (second sentence in item 3 under performing a Deed on page 73).

In all cases, I'm taking normal damage to mean the same damage that would happen if no Deed is performed/attempted.

[moes1980]

DON'T GET RID OF THE GUIDELINES!!!!

Ok, maybe some GMs are aswome and don't need them, but others do need them and want them. When in doubt about including something like this, include it, and if others don't like it they can ignore that section. And for people who are worried the players will try to use those rules to run over their GM rulings, it runs both ways. Without guide lines the GM cannot point to anything to try to limit what players will want to do. So, if players try to abuse the system, the GM has guidelines in the rules he can point too. If the guidlines are too restrictive for the players, then you can just ignore them!

[bholmes4]

Ok I just realized that the MDoA die doesn't add to damage rolls if used for an MDoA...

Where is that? Everything I see says the attack is as normal, including the attack die adding to damage. Under Warrior there is a line that starts "The Deed does not increase the damage..." which could sound like the die used for a Deed cannot also be used for damage, but may mean you can't say "My Deed is to do Critical damage!" or "My Deed chopped off his hand! It should do more than 5 points of damage!". I think 'increase" is the operative word; Deeds don't increase damage, but the they do occur alongside normal damage (second sentence in item 3 under performing a Deed on page 73).

In all cases, I'm taking normal damage to mean the same damage that would happen if no Deed is performed/attempted.

That was how I read it but other posts on this forum suggested otherwise. I decided to check it out myself now that you questioned it as clearly there is confusion on this.

Looking at the Warrior section (p.29) it does in fact look like you don't include the MDoA die result in the damage if an MDoA is attempted. As quoted from the book.

Example #1: A 1st-level warrior with a Strength of 16 (+2 bonus) has a d3 attack die. He is fighting a goat-headed demon that emerged from an extraplanar portal. The warrior declares his Deed will be to shove the demon back through the portal. He attacks, rolling 1d20 + 1d3 +2 (due to his Str). The result is a 16 on the d20, and a 3 on the 1d3, plus his +2 Str modifier, for a total attack roll of 21 (16+3+2). The demon’s AC is 17, so the attack lands. Because the attack die came up a 3, the Deed also succeeds. The warrior does 1d8+2 damage with his longsword and shoves the demon back through the portal!

I have bolded the important part here. In this example the warrior does the damage from his sword and adds his strength bonus but the MDoA die result (3) was not added.

[smathis]

I have bolded the important part here. In this example the warrior does the damage from his sword and adds his strength bonus but the MDoA die result (3) was not added.

You're right, bholmes4. That needs to be called out better. I've read the beta three times and didn't catch that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[jmucchiello]

That could just as easily be a typo in the example. It needs to be called out in big black letters that you don't get the class die as a bonus to damage when doing a MDoA. (And I like that idea as some way to limit the "I try to knock him down again" aspect of MDoAs.)

[geordie racer]

It definitely beefs up the standard attack (without MDoA), making it an option rather than always going for MDoA.

[jrients]

I like that idea as some way to limit the "I try to knock him down again" aspect of MDoAs.

I agree. Left as written, players will only try Mighty Deeds in situation when they think the benefit outwieghs being able to do +d3/+d5/whatever damage. If that's the intent, it needs emphasis in the final rules.