Goodman Games

I didn't find a topic like this using the search function so here goes.

What would you like to see in the DCC Annual?

Off the top of my head, I would like:
1) Bard
2) Ranger
3) Monk
4) Tunnels & Trolls style Rogue
5) Enough spells to make some specialist wizards
6) Wizard Variants not just with specialist spell lists but also some unique class abilities, corruption tables, and mercurial magic tables (Illusionist, Pyromancer, etc).

1) No proliferation of AD&D classes (Bard, Ranger, Monk)
2) No additional class options for non-humans
3) clearer rules for Elven vulnerability to Iron, Bronze armour etc. (mine for example )
5) More fab art
6) Another 0 level funnel adventure

Maybe...a Bard class. Just maybe...as long as it is distinct from the other classes. I would like it to have a completely fresh spell list that is self contained in the annual (no cross ref)

No Paladin. No Monk. No Ranger. No Assassin....classes that blur boundaries....urgh.

A few ready made interesting magic items...wand of wonder, deck of many things etc

Some more standard stock bad guys. Maybe an AD&D DMG stat block style page? Handy like.

More patrons (yes I know about third party but I want them from Goodman Games)

A Zero level random funnel generator?

Weisenwolf wrote:1) No proliferation of AD&D classes (Bard, Ranger, Monk)
2) No additional class options for non-humans

Yeah, those would top my 'Do Not Want' list. One of the things I despise about mainstream D&D is the bloat of classes, more classes, multi-classes... blech!


I'd definitely jump at more spells and Patrons... some bizarre magic items that have uses other than combat-related bonuses.

Yellow Lantern, I'm on your side for this one. I like more classes and options. Blur some lines!

I guess at this point I'd like more options for the players. The adventures are great, but give the players a few more toys!

1. More deities with their own disapproval tables.
2. More patrons with their full spell spell lists and corruption.
3. Psionics
4. Some Artifacts (or a set of random tables to create Artifacts)
5. More creatures

I was going to add a small Gazetteer about Punjar or Aereth but I think those will be their own thing instead of part of the "Annual" (Is still an annual? The game is what? 3 years old?)

Ah yes excellent point, pencil me in for the 'more patrons' option too

I'd also like some content about using Patrons with other classes... how they might aid Fighters and such... the costs of such relationships, how Patron taint works on Thieves, etc.

No new classes.

More stuff for Clerics!
Perhaps a fleshing out of the gods given in the Rulebook.
By Crom! we need patron rules for deities.

I feel the need for more on Mighty Deeds, but I am not sure what that would entail.

Maybe a "maneuver chart" for burning luck. Might add a boost for thieves and 1/2lings.

Perhaps more high level monsters...

More spells.

Perhaps more on this fabled city of Punjar?

T

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the Annual? is that something coming out this year?

TallGoblin wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but what is the Annual? is that something coming out this year?

When the game was just coming out, the idea of an occasional rules supplement was talked about. "Like an annual or something" was the gist of the idea -- but it got latched onto like it was gospel: "There WILL BE an ANNUAL!"

There are rumors that something is now in the works, but it's doubtful there will ever be an actual "annual rules supplement" -- too much amazing third-party stuff constantly coming out for there to even really be the need for any such thing!

By far what we need the most are: A fully detailed pantheon with all the spells, disapprovals, sins, sacrifices, etc. Use the pantheon from Aereth.

And: More non-evil patrons. We have lots of "Chaotic" patrons and need more neutral ones.


Also
More optional rules, classes
More tables
More low level adventures

Troy812 wrote: Perhaps more on this fabled city of Punjar?

T

We know that Stroh is working on a Punjar box set. So that's coming. Hopefully this year.

I'd love to see fleshed out material for the areas that were skipped in the rule book (magic items and treasure, monsters, procedures for random encounter checks and timekeeping, etc.)

Diety expanded for sure or a template to outline how to handle dieties for building your own in your world on the fly. 5 page dragon building table? How often do dragons impact the DCC RPG world? vs .How often are people bonding there clerics wizards and elfs to supernatural gods and entities?

I disagree on some of the class stuff. I do think there is a jumping the shark that can happen with classes but I don't think the line is at monk, bard, or druid. Part of building successful classes is finding a way to implement new ideas without changing the overall mechanics but there are limits to that before you are just revising something that you already have.
-Monk: I would love to see a monk so much that I just wrote my own dcc monk. I think it's pretty good and its in the character forum if anyone wants to feedback it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mS ... sp=sharing (currently playtesting it for balance)
-Druid and other magic classes: I really love how DCCrpg handles magic through and through its my favorite. The argument against druid is valid in that it may dilute magic or is unessesary and you could reskin wizard to hit it. My off the cuff thought on how to adress peoples interest in specialized magic is pretty basic: More spells. I would say players should write their own but theyll likley not use the risk vs reward idea well. Gonna tackle this next I think after I dial in the monk. Got a few ideas but need to flesh them out.
-Bard: bard is hard. bard would require a new mechanic in order to not be a weak wizard who wears heavy armor and does theif stuff /yawn. jack of all trades is not often handled well but I do think its possible. Top of my head would be a mimicry skill that allows a bard to attempt anything he has seen someone else do in the last round or few rounds (friend or foe) at a severly reduced die. This could be attempting to reproduce the same words and hand gestures of a wizard or disarm a foe in the same way a warrior just did.

The thing I love about DCC RPG is the lack of right and wrong way to use it. So feiry opposition to stuff doesn't really do much for me. If people want to be a psyonic elf pixie...make it work. not my cup of tea but good on ya.

godinabox wrote:...
-Bard:... a mimicry skill that allows a bard to attempt anything he has seen someone else do in the last round or few rounds (friend or foe) at a severly reduced die. This could be attempting to reproduce the same words and hand gestures of a wizard or disarm a foe in the same way a warrior just did.
...

A very interesting idea.



Personally, since DCC was published in 2012 and it is now 2015, I'm starting to think that maybe an annual is not going to happen.

godinabox wrote: I disagree on some of the class stuff. I do think there is a jumping the shark that can happen with classes but I don't think the line is at monk, bard, or druid.

Monks and Druids just seem like variants of Cleric to me. Add a few more spells and pick the right mix to suit the theme.

I've never understood the desire to play a Bard though... there must be some core bit of fantasy fiction or movie I've missed watching to get the trope. I might like them better if the Player actually had to sing at the table while casting spells...

I think Monks are a no armor melee specialist class who focuses on enemy disruption over damage not cleric at all. The Ki and healing stuff is the worst interpretation of my favorite fantasy class. Check out my monk write up in the character thread or on the google+ group.

Druid is more of a wizard than a cleric. The reason people don't feel able to play druid in DCC is the basic spells are pretty arcane/elemental/necromantic in nature. I think the biggest area that third party content is lacking so far is in getting the spell book closer to the whatever 700+ spells that exist. druids necromancers summoners and alot of other magic specialist classes could come from strong roleplay and good judging of a wizard with access to well written spells we havnt seen yet. With larger spell selection it would be pretty easy to create "kits" of spells at each level for different specialists.

The names 'Monk' and 'Druid' both seem inherently connected to temples/religions/cults to me.
Otherwise a 'Monk' is just a 'Boxer'/'Martial Artist' and might as well be a variant of 'Warrior'/'Fighter'.

I particularly like the description of Druids here: http://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2014/09 ... ruids.html

I would enjoy more deities and patrons, with applicable spells and charts. Maybe some more monsters and spells. As far as classes go, I think a druid and a monk would be good...not sure DCC needs many more though. I would love to see a gnome playable race too.

cjoepar wrote: Personally, since DCC was published in 2012 and it is now 2015, I'm starting to think that maybe an annual is not going to happen.

I think you are right. Calling it "Annual" would be a mistake. Perhaps the "DCC Companion vol 1" would be a better name.

godinabox wrote:I think Monks are a no armor melee specialist class who focuses on enemy disruption over damage not cleric at all. The Ki and healing stuff is the worst interpretation of my favorite fantasy class. Check out my monk write up in the character thread or on the google+ group.

Druid is more of a wizard than a cleric. The reason people don't feel able to play druid in DCC is the basic spells are pretty arcane/elemental/necromantic in nature. I think the biggest area that third party content is lacking so far is in getting the spell book closer to the whatever 700+ spells that exist. druids necromancers summoners and alot of other magic specialist classes could come from strong roleplay and good judging of a wizard with access to well written spells we havnt seen yet. With larger spell selection it would be pretty easy to create "kits" of spells at each level for different specialists.

I would say that all the tools are already there. The Arcane Affinity spell gives you the specialization. Note that you could just as easily modify this spell to a cleric and build a "Druid" with nature-based spells affinity. And by taking existing spells and adding different manifestations and a little flavor description when they're cast... any of the cleric spells could be nature spells.

The tactic I've taken with classes is that, really, all the "classic" classes are already there. A Chaotic thief is an assassin. A monk is a warrior with specialized mighty deeds. A Druid is a neutral cleric. A ranger is a warrior that has some outdoors/scouting skills. The modifications necessary to have these archetypes don't necessitate the creation of new classes, whole cloth. If you squint a little, it's all there. Except the bard...but who cares about bards, anyway?