Level Limits

[Thane]

Hello

I noticed in the Beta rulebook that levels only went as far aa 5. Is this going to change when the rulebook is officially released?

[finarvyn]

The Beta rules were never intended to be a complete game, but instead are more of a preview of the rulebook. The final rulebook will cover levels ranging from 1 to 10.

[Thane]

Ok thanks for that.

I have another question, it was posted in one of the rpg.net reviews. I enjoyed the two reviews over on rpg.net, but I was concerned with the following text:

I think Goodman's magic mechanic is really intriguing and fun, but the fun would wear off quickly. It's really aimed to please people aesthetically (Wow, look at how crazy magic is! I love the flavor!) rather than creating fun moments for players.
This affects the two magic users differently. As the wizard, I felt I had a lot of opportunities to shine, but I knew my days were numbered. It didn't impact my fun because we played a one-shot; I'll never have to worry about the day when my wizard has goat legs, permanent pustules, a penalty to three stats, 0 luck, and pacts with two different demons who demand sacrifice.

But if I played my character for more than two or three sessions, I would follow a steady downward trajectory. Natural 1s are inevitable, and their (often irreversible) effects accrue over sessions. The only way to buy off these effects by the rules is to barter with supernatural patrons, often requiring the sacrifice of body parts, ability scores, piles of gold, or magic items. The arc of a wizard is an inevitable descent into Gollum-hood, and I question whether gaining levels will be enough to offset that long-term.

The cleric has it worse because their downward spiral happens every session. Every spell cast increases the penalty on casting more spells. The likelihood of upsetting a deity and incurring their ire is high. Since healing requires spells, this puts a huge burden on the cleric, whose entire party role seems to be "take spankings from God so the party can keep going." This is really unfortunate.
I think the best thing Goodman could do on this front is remove the cumulative penalty for clerics. Or if that's just way too generous for an old school game, a good bet would be to make healing a special class ability, not a spell, so the cleric can at least heal people x times without adding to that penalty.

The thief has a whole different set of problems, which is to say they don't have any real chance to shine at all. Wizards and clerics can shine if they're willing to take a huge risk, but thieves spend most of the game feeling like they should've been a fighter. Initially, the draw of the Thief's luck ability made me think it would be the most fun class (it's at least versatile), but our Thief's player pointed out that in the absence of flanking rules, all he could really do is hope to get backstab on the first round and then contribute very little for the rest of the encounter.
These problems mean that the fun of a DCC session is wrapped up in whatever devil-may-care hijinx you stir up. You don't really expect your character to survive and be heroic (except maybe fighters), so you try to see how much stuff you can grab, eat, drink, steal, activate or break along the way. It's hard to wave an ongoing, compelling narrative around characters you don't care about. I suspect that a lengthy DCC campaign would lose its gleam. A three-session adventure is about the most I could stand unless there was some way for me to feel invested in my character.

Is this an issue, if it is, is it going to be rectified in the main product? I more concerned with the thief’s inability to shine at all, but the above looks to be an issue in general.

Thanks

[Thane]

Anyone?

[finarvyn]

Sorry, missed this the first time around.

I don't entirely agree with the review. While I can see that some folks could get tired of running characters that continually face death and other bad things, I think that in play it isn't as big a deal as the review makes it sound. At least, for our group it wasn't.

Gritty swords & sorcery is partly about heroes facing tough odds and tough badduns and character death is always an option. Very old school in design, harkening back to the days where characters had few hit points and lived with danger constantly. Modern RPGs often take a very different approach, to the point where some players I know have never had a character die. I suspect that the review is more a fan of the latter than the former.

So is this a problem or some issue to "fix"? I guess I don't see it. It's all a matter of style and I'm sure some will like it while others won't.

[Thane]

Thank you for that Finarvyn.

What do you make of the thief being quite bland in play, did you find that an issue?

[finarvyn]

What do you make of the thief being quite bland in play, did you find that an issue?

My players who play thieves in other RPGs like the DCC thief a lot.

The thief has more non-combat things to do than any other class, so it may come down to the style of play that the reviewer had. If you are doing a combat-fest the thief can get lost a little because he doesn't have flashy spells or "mighty deeds" for combat, but the more you have exploration and city involvement and that kind of thing the more the thief can contribute to the adventure.

The thief is a little more conservative than some of the spellcasters, since he doesn't have the "double-edged spell" issue (cool results if you roll well, bad if you don't). Maybe that's "bland" to some folks.

[ragboy]

The thief has more non-combat things to do than any other class, so it may come down to the style of play that the reviewer had. If you are doing a combat-fest the thief can get lost a little because he doesn't have flashy spells or "mighty deeds" for combat, but the more you have exploration and city involvement and that kind of thing the more the thief can contribute to the adventure.

I look at the DCC thief as how the class was originally intended to be -- not a "rogue" ... literally a thief. He gathers information others can't gather, he's one of the primary drivers to the adventurers *going* on an adventure, since he's got the lowdown on various jobs, artifacts, treasures, etc. In a non-game environment, he would be the one *hiring* the meat shields, convincing the traveling priests, and the half-crazy wizards to tromp off into the hinterlands. (I think DCC did a better job of giving the cleric and magic user just as much of a role in organizing expeditions than other editions of D&D). While these classes drive toward the goal with their own agendas, the thief lurks in the background (or "scouts ahead"), snatches up what treasure he can, fiddles with artifacts before the wizard gets his hands on them, etc. Fight? Don't be silly. While the party's fighting, he's trying to stay invisible and uses the party as a distraction while he scoops up the choicest loot. And if things get too hot, he's out of there.

It's more role for the thief than roll, though I recognize that "party unity" and defined roles are all about the modern RPG experience...DCC is retro for a reason.

[shadewest]

Well, the review was for the original Beta. The issues with the cleric were addressed with the new version posted here last fall. For wizards, the main concern is with corruption. Can't get detailed yet, but that's been softened quite a bit from the beta, too. The thief? Seriously, the thief can get away with so much. Luck heals for him, so he should be spending it like crazy, and pulling off some amazing stunts. Besides, the thief is supposed to be clever (ie Cugel). The class is best played in the hands of a player who is likewise.

So yes, like any RPG, not all options are going to be attractive to all players. The review was for the beta, too. For the most part, the concerns have been addressed in the final draft, at least, as much of it as I've seen.

[Galadrin]

I don't really follow how the reviewer came to these conclusions. To review his principle points:

"thieves spend most of the game feeling like they should've been a fighter"

The Thief can one-shot any enemy. A level 4 Thief recovers 4 luck each day, and can burn 10 luck to do +10d6 damage on his attack. To me this seems somewhat powerful. If there was a duel between a Level 4 Fighter and a Level 4 Thief, I would put my money on the Thief.

"The cleric has it worse because their downward spiral happens every session"

Negative modifiers are removed every day. They can also be removed mid-day by doing things in the name of the deity (a clever player will abuse this rule).

[goodmangames]

I think the rpg.net review does have a few good points...which is why we fixed all that in the final rules.

[Thane]

If there was a duel between a Level 4 Fighter and a Level 4 Thief, I would put my money on the Thief.

Isn't this the extreme opposite? Surely a level 4 fighter should best a level 4 thief?

Dice apart, I'm very interested in this game, I believe GG put out some very good material and look forward to DCC's release. Any date set?

Thanks all for the info.

[Thane]

I think the rpg.net review does have a few good points...which is why we fixed all that in the final rules.

Brilliant news!

Whilst I remember, is the magic Vancian, fire and forget? I'm sure I've asked this but it's 6:24am here and my mind hasn't quite woken up yet

[shadewest]

I think the rpg.net review does have a few good points...which is why we fixed all that in the final rules.

Brilliant news!

Whilst I remember, is the magic Vancian, fire and forget? I'm sure I've asked this but it's 6:24am here and my mind hasn't quite woken up yet

It's somewhat D&D "Vancian". There's a spell roll. So, fire and remember, FAIL to fire, and forget. At least for wizards.

[Thane]

I think the rpg.net review does have a few good points...which is why we fixed all that in the final rules.

Brilliant news!

Whilst I remember, is the magic Vancian, fire and forget? I'm sure I've asked this but it's 6:24am here and my mind hasn't quite woken up yet

It's somewhat D&D "Vancian". There's a spell roll. So, fire and remember, FAIL to fire, and forget. At least for wizards.

More good news

Thanks

[jmucchiello]

If there was a duel between a Level 4 Fighter and a Level 4 Thief, I would put my money on the Thief.

Isn't this the extreme opposite? Surely a level 4 fighter should best a level 4 thief?

Yes, in a duel, facing one another 20 feet apart in a closed 30 foot square room underground: the thief is toast.

If the thief has any control over the environment (or if it's not a duel, just a thief who wants a fighter dead), the thief has options that should make it a close call. Take a high noon fight on a city street with townsfolk scared inside their buildings. Round 1, the thief runs down an alley. The fighter follows slowly. Round 2, The thief hops onto a roof and disappears. Round 98, the fighter finds a short sword sticking out of his chest from a back stab. If he doesn't drop, the thief runs off again and attempts another back stab on round 234.

And so on.

[shadewest]

If there was a duel between a Level 4 Fighter and a Level 4 Thief, I would put my money on the Thief.

Isn't this the extreme opposite? Surely a level 4 fighter should best a level 4 thief?

Yes, in a duel, facing one another 20 feet apart in a closed 30 foot square room underground: the thief is toast.

If the thief has any control over the environment (or if it's not a duel, just a thief who wants a fighter dead), the thief has options that should make it a close call. Take a high noon fight on a city street with townsfolk scared inside their buildings. Round 1, the thief runs down an alley. The fighter follows slowly. Round 2, The thief hops onto a roof and disappears. Round 98, the fighter finds a short sword sticking out of his chest from a back stab. If he doesn't drop, the thief runs off again and attempts another back stab on round 234.

And so on.

Even in a straight up duel, if the thief can win initiative, and manage to hit, he can blow all his luck to do enough damage to one shot the warrior. If he blows initiative, then yeah, he's going to need to get clever to beat the warrior. Fortunately, most of them are.

[jmucchiello]

Thieves can't expend luck to improve damage dice. They can only expend luck to improve their "chance" of success, aka d20 or d% rolls.

For each point of Luck expended, he rolls one die, and applies that modifier to his roll. This bonus can be applied to thief skills where each +1 = +5%. For example, a level 2 thief who burns 2 points of Luck adds +2d4 to a d20 roll or +2d4(x5)% to use of a thief skill.

Was there a change to this in the forum that I missed?

[Galadrin]

Thieves can't expend luck to improve damage dice. They can only expend luck to improve their "chance" of success, aka d20 or d% rolls.

For each point of Luck expended, he rolls one die, and applies that modifier to his roll. This bonus can be applied to thief skills where each +1 = +5%. For example, a level 2 thief who burns 2 points of Luck adds +2d4 to a d20 roll or +2d4(x5)% to use of a thief skill.

Was there a change to this in the forum that I missed?

Not to counter quote you, but...

"Luck is typically used to affect a character’s attack rolls, damage rolls, spell checks, thief checks, and saving throws, but it can also be used for other purposes."

I honestly don't mind that my Thief characters can burn off 13 points of Luck in one go and kill a dragon outright with +13 dice of damage. Thieves have always been "wildcard" characters to me, and pulling a trick like that out of your hat is pretty wildcard.

[Thane]

I honestly don't mind that my Thief characters can burn off 13 points of Luck in one go and kill a dragon outright with +13 dice of damage. Thieves have always been "wildcard" characters to me, and pulling a trick like that out of your hat is pretty wildcard.

That's a bit over the top for my liking. Killing a dragon in one blow is the stuff of legends in my book. A once in a lifetime achievement (if that).

[Galadrin]

Maybe, but as a referee, you can still make the players work for it. I wouldn't just hand the thief a chance to kill the dragon.

It is probably as a result of this thinking (that momentous events should be rare or impossible), that few players have gotten to level 9, killed a dragon, or "won" the game. And this also may be the reason that we have a false dichotomy between the new "old school" attitude that you can never win, and the D&D 4e attitude that players have to get more and more powerful until they must win. In my mind, the ways that the original game was played are much more diverse, and in some campaigns, some players may reach "the end" while others (at the same table, or in other campaigns) simply would not.

But in any case, the characters growing in power would never significantly assist in reaching the end (as evidenced in the relative dependence of old-school characters on equipment, not stats). A character could win if the player him or herself was shrewd, clever, wise and, of course, a little lucky. My point is that it depends on the player outwitting the DM, not really on game mechanics, whereas the old-school/new-school dichotomy has framed this as a question of game mechanics alone (and subsequently made it impossible or necessary to win, respectively).

[shadewest]

If the judge has done his job right, the thief will have used up a good portion of his luck before ever reaching the dragon. Even then, a thief would need to be a decent level for his luck dice to be large enough to be significant, and should probably need to spend some improving the to hit roll. Unless, of course he manages a backstabbing, or the warrior has set him up with a Deed, etc, but then you're playing the classes properly anyway.

[DCCfan]

If the judge has done his job right, the thief will have used up a good portion of his luck before ever reaching the dragon. Even then, a thief would need to be a decent level for his luck dice to be large enough to be significant, and should probably need to spend some improving the to hit roll. Unless, of course he manages a backstabbing, or the warrior has set him up with a Deed, etc, but then you're playing the classes properly anyway.

I agree with this 100%. As a DM I try to find a way to make the player burn more resources before fighting the dragon. If they still find a way to kill the dragon inside of three rounds then I probably underestimated them. I don't think right away that the rules are broken. Instead I try to think of what could I have done better to make this dragon more of a challenge.

[finarvyn]

I don't think right away that the rules are broken. Instead I try to think of what could I have done better to make this dragon more of a challenge.

For some reason this is a very "old school" concept and many modern gamers seem to struggle with it. When I first learned to play OD&D we spent time learning the balance of the game instead of changing the balance to make it match our notion of what it should have been.

Of course, back then there weren't any other models to work from and we were probably too stupid to imagine that a GAME DESIGNER (cue sound of angels singing) might not know what he was doing.

Some of my friends tweaked games before ever playing them, which always seemed to be a little strange.

[Aluvial]

Earlier in this thread there was mentioned a fix to the cleric, or an update to the cleric from the beta. Where can I find that?

Thanks,

Aluvial