[Design Question] DCC RPG and 10 Levels

[smathis]

The trick for DCC is going to be getting the D&D leveling monkeys to be more interested in story progression than mechanical progression. This will more truly mimic Appendix N, as you have pointed out.

I agree and disagree. I would ask how many people know or have participated in groups that have played Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia once a week for two decades. I've known at least three that have done so with D&D. I got the privilege of playing in one for a few sessions.

The trick isn't getting the level-monkeys on board. I think they're on to something, personally. I can't keep a group together longer than a couple of months with Dogs in the Vineyard, even though it's an amazing game. But plop D&D of almost any stripe down and it's like instant group cohesion.

I think the trick is finding the balance between how many levels DCC can offer versus where the existing system breaks down. Levels are goalposts. I think the game needs enough goalposts for players to kick down. It doesn't mean that the power levels have to go through the roof (as I've demonstrated). But it does mean that there needs to be just enough of getting to the next level to keep a group coming back for more.

If a group hits level 5 in 2 or so months of play, they're going to go back to Labyrinth Lord, S&W or C&C... mark my words. The attitude will be... Done it. Seen it. Been there. And DCC will become the Paranoia of fantasy roleplaying games.

Levels hook people in. And, contrary to some opinions, I think people want to delve far longer than 5 levels. I thought 10 was good. I was concerned about power inflation, especially with spell charts and MDAs -- even hit points. But I think the game should at least offer 8. I don't think the levels should be equatable to levels of other D&D-based games. But I do think they should be comparable, to an extent.

I should be able to run Expedition to Barrier Peaks with DCC core. It shouldn't be a cakewalk. It might be a bit of a death march. But it shouldn't be out of the question. At least, I don't think it should. Demonweb Pits? Well, that's another story.

And if the goal of Appendix N is to emulate the fiction of Appendix N, there needs to be a pulp dial. Something that allows characters to do something besides die and die some more. We've had lots of discussions about hit points, VP/WP, etc. But truth be told, there ain't a single Appendix N book I've read where everyone just flat out dies and new characters show up automagically.

I get that we want something "old-school" and "hardcore". But that novelty will last a month or two and then people will either hack DCC to make characters more survivable or they'll go back to whatever they were playing before.

I want this to be my go-to fantasy rpg. Not Hackmaster Lite.

[jmucchiello]

And if the goal of Appendix N is to emulate the fiction of Appendix N, there needs to be a pulp dial. Something that allows characters to do something besides die and die some more. We've had lots of discussions about hit points, VP/WP, etc. But truth be told, there ain't a single Appendix N book I've read where everyone just flat out dies and new characters show up automagically.

I get that we want something "old-school" and "hardcore". But that novelty will last a month or two and then people will either hack DCC to make characters more survivable or they'll go back to whatever they were playing before.

I want this to be my go-to fantasy rpg. Not Hackmaster Lite.

Basically my issue as well. Being lethal is easy. When I read about how lethal the game is at the cons I entirely unimpressed. A DM can create a TPK any time he wants. That's not a challenge.

Skirting the edge of lethal and making it a challenge without it ever feeling like a cakewalk. That should be the goal. I want a game where you get the McGuffin and spend several months recovering before dealing with the next one.

[mshensley]

I want this to be my go-to fantasy rpg. Not Hackmaster Lite.

Yep, I agree completely. Either the game has sufficient depth in the core rulebook or I'm not going to buy it. I don't want to have to invest in another shelf of rpg books to run a decent campaign.

[smathis]

I think you are not taking one thing into account. Levels in 1e AD&D will not map directly to levels in DCC. 1e AD&D had 20-30 levels. DCC will have only 10. This basically means that every 1 level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in AD&D, so you would have to adjust the levels down. A level 8 adventure in AD&D would probably be a level 2-3 adventure in DCC.

Just a thought.

I've been considering this for a while and here's how I feel about this.

If the reason that DCC is now being considered as only including levels 1-5 is because each level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in regular D&D, then I think they're trying to do TOO MUCH with each level.

I can't see the XP progression being 2-3 times larger. Are we going to see Wizards needing 7200 XP to get to level 2? I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

Also, I don't see a 5th level DCC Wizard or Warrior being comparable to a 15th level Wizard or Fighter in 3e. Is a 5th level DCC Wizard going to be dropping Finger of Death or Prismatic Spray twice a day? Is a 5th level DCC Fighter going to have 3-digit hit points? God, I hope not.

I don't think this is the case. I think the system probably has some cracks in it at the higher levels.

Take the Fighter. What do we know about him? Well, he gets an Action Die that goes up "each level". So 1st level is d3. 2nd level is d4. 3rd level d5. 4th level d6. 5th level d8. 6th level d10. That MDA thing is good right until 4th level with that progression. But it really gets whacky once we move to the d8 and d10. Why? Because all of a sudden the Fighter is pulling an MDA 75% and 80% of the time. Basically, almost every hit the Fighter makes includes some sort of MDA.

Consider the typical 3e Fighter. IME, their Combat Feats come into play every 2 or 3 turns. Why? Because a lot of Feats are just stuff that allow Fighters to just *do* stuff... like Fighting with Two Weapons. That hardly counts, IMO. Because those aren't the kinds of feats an MDA is going to represent. If we're talking about things like Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, Spring Attack and the like... there aren't that MANY of them for the 3e Fighter load up on just them. Even more, most of them are dependent on a pre-existing condition. Like Cleave. You can't Cleave if you've only got one opponent. And those that can be spammed every round, like Power Attack, have their own drawbacks.

So here's a thought. Maybe MDAs are TOO good. Maybe the progression should be slowed down to raising the die type every OTHER level. Or every THREE levels. Doing an MDA 33% of the time is good. Doing one 50% of the time is really good. Doing one 66% of the time is epic.

Here's another thought. Based on this character sheet from the playtest, a Wizard's spell bonus is Level + Int bonus. Considering that a Wizard's spell bonus goes down every time the Wizard casts a spell, that second level Wizard is in a pretty good spot. He has to roll a 9 or above to get that Scorching Ray off. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. He only has to roll a 7 or above to get Magic Missile off.

And therein lies the problem, IMO.

If we push this bonus out to 10th level, we have a Wizard with a +12. That Wizard can spam Magic Missile at least 5 times. But, wait, he's a 10th level Wizard... What's the big deal, one might ask?

Well, let's say I have two spells. One is Magic Missile. I need to roll over a 1 to cast it. And the results will allow me to reasonably (as in rolling a 10 or above) do up to 64 points of damage to up to 4 different targets. But I also have Scorching Ray. Which will allow me to do (with roughly the same die result) up to 66 points of damage to up to 3 different targets. But I have to roll a 14 or better to cast Scorching Ray. Meaning I have a 10% greater chance of failing it and losing that spell.

Why would I ever cast Scorching Ray?

Consider then Finger of Death. I'd need a 24 or better to cast it. It only affects one target. At that 10th level, I would have to roll 12 or better to cast it. Meaning I'd have a 60% chance of failing. And even if I didn't, I'd still only get the minimum result -- still allowing for the target to save to only take 3d6 damage.

Why would I ever use that? I could do between 11-64 points of damage with Magic Missile. No save.

I don't think the issue is that DCC characters are that much more powerful than regular D&D characters. I don't think they are.

I think the issue is that there are concerns with the system at high levels. After a good amount of thought on the matter, I think that's because MDAs are too good. I think they need to be spread out over the levels more. I also think that the spellcasting system offers a serious boost to the low level spells, so much so that high level spells are simply bad options. I think that's exacerbated the higher the levels go.

Two possible solutions for that... Cap the efficacy of low level spells. Magic Missile should never do more damage to more targets than Scorching Ray. Or up the potency of higher level spells to the same effect.

And, again, I could be wrong. But I think these are a couple of the reasons why we're hearing that DCC may only go up to 5th level. I don't think that's necessary. And I don't think it addresses either of these issues. It just cuts the game off at a point where they can be ignored.

[jmucchiello]

Take the Fighter. What do we know about him? Well, he gets an Action Die that goes up "each level". So 1st level is d3. 2nd level is d4. 3rd level d5. 4th level d6. 5th level d8. 6th level d10. That MDA thing is good right until 4th level with that progression. But it really gets whacky once we move to the d8 and d10. Why? Because all of a sudden the Fighter is pulling an MDA 75% and 80% of the time. Basically, almost every hit the Fighter makes includes some sort of MDA.

Didn't I say this somewhere? Oh yes: [url=http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 503#p33503]I did.[/quote]

I don't think the whole "just 5 levels" thing has been really figured out yet.

[jmucchiello]

Well, let's say I have two spells. One is Magic Missile. I need to roll over a 1 to cast it. And the results will allow me to reasonably (as in rolling a 10 or above) do up to 64 points of damage to up to 4 different targets. But I also have Scorching Ray. Which will allow me to do (with roughly the same die result) up to 66 points of damage to up to 3 different targets. But I have to roll a 14 or better to cast Scorching Ray. Meaning I have a 10% greater chance of failing it and losing that spell.

Why would I ever cast Scorching Ray?

Better question: Why is Scorching Ray in the book? If wizards only have 4-6 spells ever and they take up a whole freakin' page. There better not be Magic Missiles and Lightning Bolt and Fireball and Scorching Ray and Melt's Acid Arrow. That would waste a whole lot of pages with duplicate spell effects. In fact, I don't think spells should have "levels". They should just have their effect charts. "Easy" spells like MM have "no effect" = 2-11 while hard spells, like Fireball have "no effect" = 2-15. Heck, you could have finger of death. Just make the chart REALLY hard. "No effect" = 2-23, "save of die +2 save bonus" 24-25, etc. Why can't your first spell be "3rd level", you just suck at casting it. But when you get lucky, look out world.

[Black Dougal]

I think you are not taking one thing into account. Levels in 1e AD&D will not map directly to levels in DCC. 1e AD&D had 20-30 levels. DCC will have only 10. This basically means that every 1 level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in AD&D, so you would have to adjust the levels down. A level 8 adventure in AD&D would probably be a level 2-3 adventure in DCC.

Just a thought.

I've been considering this for a while and here's how I feel about this.

If the reason that DCC is now being considered as only including levels 1-5 is because each level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in regular D&D, then I think they're trying to do TOO MUCH with each level.

I can't see the XP progression being 2-3 times larger. Are we going to see Wizards needing 7200 XP to get to level 2? I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

What I am suggesting is not an exact mapping, and certainly not an XP one. In 1e AD&D around level 15-16 PCs were expected or encouraged to setup some sort of holding and become a lord. According to some posts on this forum in DCC this will happen around 5-6 level. Also based on one of Joseph's comments on the speed of XP accumulation it seems like the XP values won't change, but there will be more adventuring required to get each point.

Also, I don't see a 5th level DCC Wizard or Warrior being comparable to a 15th level Wizard or Fighter in 3e. Is a 5th level DCC Wizard going to be dropping Finger of Death or Prismatic Spray twice a day? Is a 5th level DCC Fighter going to have 3-digit hit points? God, I hope not.

I don't think this is the case. I think the system probably has some cracks in it at the higher levels.

I don't ever see a DCC Wizard comparing directly to a D&D Wizard. Magic is just too different.

Take the Fighter. What do we know about him? Well, he gets an Action Die that goes up "each level". So 1st level is d3. 2nd level is d4. 3rd level d5. 4th level d6. 5th level d8. 6th level d10. That MDA thing is good right until 4th level with that progression. But it really gets whacky once we move to the d8 and d10. Why? Because all of a sudden the Fighter is pulling an MDA 75% and 80% of the time. Basically, almost every hit the Fighter makes includes some sort of MDA.

Consider the typical 3e Fighter. IME, their Combat Feats come into play every 2 or 3 turns. Why? Because a lot of Feats are just stuff that allow Fighters to just *do* stuff... like Fighting with Two Weapons. That hardly counts, IMO. Because those aren't the kinds of feats an MDA is going to represent. If we're talking about things like Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, Spring Attack and the like... there aren't that MANY of them for the 3e Fighter load up on just them. Even more, most of them are dependent on a pre-existing condition. Like Cleave. You can't Cleave if you've only got one opponent. And those that can be spammed every round, like Power Attack, have their own drawbacks.

So here's a thought. Maybe MDAs are TOO good. Maybe the progression should be slowed down to raising the die type every OTHER level. Or every THREE levels. Doing an MDA 33% of the time is good. Doing one 50% of the time is really good. Doing one 66% of the time is epic.

I haven't played enough to know about the MDoA progression. It does sound like they get very powerful rather quickly.

Here's another thought. Based on this character sheet from the playtest, a Wizard's spell bonus is Level + Int bonus. Considering that a Wizard's spell bonus goes down every time the Wizard casts a spell, that second level Wizard is in a pretty good spot. He has to roll a 9 or above to get that Scorching Ray off. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. He only has to roll a 7 or above to get Magic Missile off.

And therein lies the problem, IMO.

If we push this bonus out to 10th level, we have a Wizard with a +12. That Wizard can spam Magic Missile at least 5 times. But, wait, he's a 10th level Wizard... What's the big deal, one might ask?

Well, let's say I have two spells. One is Magic Missile. I need to roll over a 1 to cast it. And the results will allow me to reasonably (as in rolling a 10 or above) do up to 64 points of damage to up to 4 different targets. But I also have Scorching Ray. Which will allow me to do (with roughly the same die result) up to 66 points of damage to up to 3 different targets. But I have to roll a 14 or better to cast Scorching Ray. Meaning I have a 10% greater chance of failing it and losing that spell.

Why would I ever cast Scorching Ray?

Consider then Finger of Death. I'd need a 24 or better to cast it. It only affects one target. At that 10th level, I would have to roll 12 or better to cast it. Meaning I'd have a 60% chance of failing. And even if I didn't, I'd still only get the minimum result -- still allowing for the target to save to only take 3d6 damage.

Why would I ever use that? I could do between 11-64 points of damage with Magic Missile. No save.

I guess much of the decision on which spell to cast comes down to what you describe above, but some of it may also depend on the effect tables for the two spells. Also there could be an in game reason why Scorching Ray makes more sense to cast.

I don't think the issue is that DCC characters are that much more powerful than regular D&D characters. I don't think they are.

They aren't more powerful necessarily. They just level more slowly. I guess it just seems like levels are more meaningful in DCC than they are in D&D. Levels come at lower power levels. There are fewer levels to acquire. The more I think about comparing leveling in D&D to leveling in DCC the less I think the comparison makes sense.

At what level in DCC should a party go into the Underdark?

I think the issue is that there are concerns with the system at high levels. After a good amount of thought on the matter, I think that's because MDAs are too good. I think they need to be spread out over the levels more. I also think that the spellcasting system offers a serious boost to the low level spells, so much so that high level spells are simply bad options. I think that's exacerbated the higher the levels go.

Two possible solutions for that... Cap the efficacy of low level spells. Magic Missile should never do more damage to more targets than Scorching Ray. Or up the potency of higher level spells to the same effect.

And, again, I could be wrong. But I think these are a couple of the reasons why we're hearing that DCC may only go up to 5th level. I don't think that's necessary. And I don't think it addresses either of these issues. It just cuts the game off at a point where they can be ignored.

I think that Joseph should continue with the 10 levels planed in the base book. I guess I fit into the "five levels feels like half a game" camp.

I disagree that Magic Missile should never do more damage than Scorching Ray. I do think it should only happen when some sort of major success is rolled on the effect table for the spell, which shouldn't be a common occurrence.

I guess we really need to do some playtesting up around eighth level or so. It seems like everything you have mentioned fits into the "long-term play" problem which has been mentioned before. What happens in a campaign when the characters get to high levels?

I also am starting to think that we should stop talking about 3e in relation to DCC. Systematically it is based on 3e, but at this point it is just the basic die system and the system of saving throws. There really is not much of 3e left. Are we bringing too much baggage from previous editions to the discussion?

[Black Dougal]

Well, let's say I have two spells. One is Magic Missile. I need to roll over a 1 to cast it. And the results will allow me to reasonably (as in rolling a 10 or above) do up to 64 points of damage to up to 4 different targets. But I also have Scorching Ray. Which will allow me to do (with roughly the same die result) up to 66 points of damage to up to 3 different targets. But I have to roll a 14 or better to cast Scorching Ray. Meaning I have a 10% greater chance of failing it and losing that spell.

Why would I ever cast Scorching Ray?

Better question: Why is Scorching Ray in the book? If wizards only have 4-6 spells ever and they take up a whole freakin' page. There better not be Magic Missiles and Lightning Bolt and Fireball and Scorching Ray and Melt's Acid Arrow. That would waste a whole lot of pages with duplicate spell effects. In fact, I don't think spells should have "levels". They should just have their effect charts. "Easy" spells like MM have "no effect" = 2-11 while hard spells, like Fireball have "no effect" = 2-15. Heck, you could have finger of death. Just make the chart REALLY hard. "No effect" = 2-23, "save of die +2 save bonus" 24-25, etc. Why can't your first spell be "3rd level", you just suck at casting it. But when you get lucky, look out world.

I think Joseph mentioned in a different thread that there will be a much smaller list of spells available. The effect tables for some spells make some of the higher level spells redundant.

[smathis]

Didn't I say this somewhere? Oh yes: [url=http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 503#p33503]I did.

I don't think the whole "just 5 levels" thing has been really figured out yet.

Yes, you mentioned it first. I'd given it some thought and have come to agreement with your conclusion. I didn't intend to steal your thunder.

[smathis]

What I am suggesting is not an exact mapping, and certainly not an XP one. In 1e AD&D around level 15-16 PCs were expected or encouraged to setup some sort of holding and become a lord. According to some posts on this forum in DCC this will happen around 5-6 level. Also based on one of Joseph's comments on the speed of XP accumulation it seems like the XP values won't change, but there will be more adventuring required to get each point.

I understand. And I'm a strong proponent of E6. But I fear DCC is capping out for the wrong reasons. I'm talking out of thin air, of course. But even in E6 character advancement didn't stop at 6th level. Advancement just continued at a slower pace for feats, while other elements -- such as hit points, spells per day and saving throws -- did stop. I'd be fine for that with DCC too. But I think 5 is just too low. I don't think I could sell that to any group, no matter how different the leveling was.

I guess much of the decision on which spell to cast comes down to what you describe above, but some of it may also depend on the effect tables for the two spells. Also there could be an in game reason why Scorching Ray makes more sense to cast.

I suppose. But when the difference between two spells (basically ranged damage spells) is SO minimal, why would a player ever choose Scorching Ray over Magic Missile? There's a 10% greater chance of failing Scorching Ray for a fairly minor, randomized damage boost. Caster's level plays a BIG part in that spell damage.

They aren't more powerful necessarily. They just level more slowly. I guess it just seems like levels are more meaningful in DCC than they are in D&D. Levels come at lower power levels. There are fewer levels to acquire. The more I think about comparing leveling in D&D to leveling in DCC the less I think the comparison makes sense.

I think the levels (and again I'm in the land of conjecture) are on one hand comparable to D&D -- hit points and saving throws -- and on the other hand more powerful -- MDoAs and possibly hacking the Spellcasting system.

And by "comparable to D&D", I mean in line with AD&D. In almost every case (except MDAs), I think DCC characters would be LESS powerful than their 3e counterparts. And, again, I think that's a hard sell to prospective players: "You're going to be LESS powerful AND there's only FIVE levels!"

I think that Joseph should continue with the 10 levels planed in the base book. I guess I fit into the "five levels feels like half a game" camp.

I disagree that Magic Missile should never do more damage than Scorching Ray. I do think it should only happen when some sort of major success is rolled on the effect table for the spell, which shouldn't be a common occurrence.

A roll of a 24 on Scorching Ray does 3 x (1d10 + caster level). A roll of 24 on Magic Missile does one missile at 4d12 + caster level at a range of 1000'. Just taking averages, that Scorching Ray will do 16 + 3 x caster level damage. That Magic Missile will do 26 + caster level. This illustrates how crucially caster level can swing things too and is probably another consideration in not allowing those bonuses to extend past +5.

While a roll of 12 on Magic Missile does 1 point of damage to 1 target. And a roll of 12 on Scorching Ray means the spell is lost.

I think one of the problems (at least that I'm seeing with a very limited view) is that the upper end of the higher level spells isn't that much better than the upper end of the lower level spells. Seriously, why ever cast Scorching Ray? Its damage output is roughly comparable to Magic Missile at all but the lowest rolls.

Don't forget Scorching Ray gets a save too. I don't know if Magic Missile does or not. If it doesn't, that just made Magic Missile the Ferrari of 1st level spells.

I guess we really need to do some playtesting up around eighth level or so. It seems like everything you have mentioned fits into the "long-term play" problem which has been mentioned before. What happens in a campaign when the characters get to high levels?

I agree. Based on my experience, stopping at Level 5 is a hard sell. Level 8 or even Level 7 is less of a big deal. I think the whole issue would be fine if DCC went old school on us and said "okay, at Level 8, you're NAME LEVEL and from there on you get an extra +1/2/3 hit points per so many thousand experience points".

But I think there's some tweaking that would need to happen with the spells in either case. I think the DC to get more powerful effects on low level spells should be HIGHER. Such that, it's always behind the higher level spell. For example, that Mega-Missile? It should probably be closer to DC 30.

Low level spells should have wider ranges in their DCs. I think acquiring the next boost to a spell should totally depend on how high the DC to cast it is. Such that Finger of Death might see a chart that goes...

1-23 Whoops!
24-25
26-27
28-29

While Magic Missile should be more like...

1-11 Whoops!
12-17
18-22
23-27
28-32

Maybe even a cap on the low level spells such that 20 + DC to cast is the highest result they can give you. So no result on Magic Missile would ever be better than 32. While Finger of Death might go up to 44.

I also am starting to think that we should stop talking about 3e in relation to DCC. Systematically it is based on 3e, but at this point it is just the basic die system and the system of saving throws. There really is not much of 3e left. Are we bringing too much baggage from previous editions to the discussion?

First, I'm relieved that Joseph said DCC would be using the more bell-curved stat bonuses of earlier editions of D&D. Big happiness on that one. I have no problem with DCC diverging wildly from 3e. Heck, let's adopt S&W's saving throw system while we're at it!

And I'm not intending to compare it to 3e. None of the modules I went over earlier are 3e adventures. But I wanted to point out the differences between high level play in DCC (just going by numbers and gut) versus high level in 3e.

First in regards to MDAs and how, at high levels, I could see them being BETTER than feats. So maybe those die increases could be spread out a bit.

Then in regards to spells and how lower level spells are MUCH more attractive to higher level casters than they perhaps SHOULD be.

I mean, if I'm looking at what a 24 in Magic Missile gives me and comparing that to what a 24 in Finger of Death would give me, I should never see Magic Missile as the better option from a mechanical standpoint.

I have no problem with spells scaling higher. I just think that the scaling doesn't take into account the spell's level in the same way that the DC to cast the spell does. Magic Missile at 24 should be less effective than a Scorching Ray at 24. Not equal or better. The caster is taking 10% LESS risk in casting Magic Missile, shouldn't he expect a 10% better return?

For me, it's about presenting a proper bang for the buck. If we're going to scale DC by spell level, I think we should do the same with results. Otherwise, we're setting ourselves up for a game where it's mechanically obtuse to cast anything but the lowest level spell possible. And, at that point, why differentiate spell DCs by level at all?

[geordie racer]

why differentiate spell DCs by level at all?

Isn't it left to the effects table and the mercurial magic effect of the individual caster ?

Maybe individual DMs could differentiate by how hard some spells are to acquire e.g only found on the 3rd level of the Ravening Crypt, voyage to the Isle of Dooom etc.

[Black Dougal]

And by "comparable to D&D", I mean in line with AD&D. In almost every case (except MDAs), I think DCC characters would be LESS powerful than their 3e counterparts. And, again, I think that's a hard sell to prospective players: "You're going to be LESS powerful AND there's only FIVE levels!"

I agree. It would be a hard sell to some of the PFRPG players that I know, the kids that didn't start playing until 3e especially.

I think one of the problems (at least that I'm seeing with a very limited view) is that the upper end of the higher level spells isn't that much better than the upper end of the lower level spells. Seriously, why ever cast Scorching Ray? Its damage output is roughly comparable to Magic Missile at all but the lowest rolls.

This sounds to me like the Scorching Ray table needs to be tweaked.

But I think there's some tweaking that would need to happen with the spells in either case. I think the DC to get more powerful effects on low level spells should be HIGHER. Such that, it's always behind the higher level spell. For example, that Mega-Missile? It should probably be closer to DC 30.

Low level spells should have wider ranges in their DCs. I think acquiring the next boost to a spell should totally depend on how high the DC to cast it is. Such that Finger of Death might see a chart that goes...

1-23 Whoops!
24-25
26-27
28-29

While Magic Missile should be more like...

1-11 Whoops!
12-17
18-22
23-27
28-32

Maybe even a cap on the low level spells such that 20 + DC to cast is the highest result they can give you. So no result on Magic Missile would ever be better than 32. While Finger of Death might go up to 44.

This is an interesting idea. I definitely understand the desire to keep the higher level spells relevant.

First, I'm relieved that Joseph said DCC would be using the more bell-curved stat bonuses of earlier editions of D&D. Big happiness on that one. I have no problem with DCC diverging wildly from 3e. Heck, let's adopt S&W's saving throw system while we're at it!

I like the ways that it has diverged so far and don't mind if it continues. I like it that the game feels familiar while still being something new and unique.

And I'm not intending to compare it to 3e. None of the modules I went over earlier are 3e adventures. But I wanted to point out the differences between high level play in DCC (just going by numbers and gut) versus high level in 3e.

First in regards to MDAs and how, at high levels, I could see them being BETTER than feats. So maybe those die increases could be spread out a bit.

Then in regards to spells and how lower level spells are MUCH more attractive to higher level casters than they perhaps SHOULD be.

I mean, if I'm looking at what a 24 in Magic Missile gives me and comparing that to what a 24 in Finger of Death would give me, I should never see Magic Missile as the better option.

I have no problem with spells scaling higher. I just think that the scaling doesn't take into account the spell's level in the same way that the DC to cast the spell does. Magic Missile at 24 should be less effective than a Scorching Ray at 24. Not equal or better. The caster is taking 10% LESS risk in casting Magic Missile, shouldn't he expect a 10% better return?

For me, it's about presenting a proper bang for the buck. If we're going to scale DC by spell level, I think we should do the same with results. Otherwise, we're setting ourselves up for a game where it's mechanically obtuse to cast anything but the lowest level spell possible. And, at that point, why differentiate spell DCs by level at all?

Your point makes sense the game needs to go up to reasonable levels, like 8-10 and needs to scale appropriately at those levels. I don't want to see the characters becoming "superheroes" at level 8 either.

[smathis]

I like the ways that it has diverged so far and don't mind if it continues. I like it that the game feels familiar while still being something new and unique.

Your point makes sense the game needs to go up to reasonable levels, like 8-10 and needs to scale appropriately at those levels. I don't want to see the characters becoming "superheroes" at level 8 either.

I agree very much with both of those conclusions. Thank you for taking the time to read through my crazy, long post.

[jmucchiello]

Didn't I say this somewhere? Oh yes: [url=http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 503#p33503]I did.

I don't think the whole "just 5 levels" thing has been really figured out yet.

Yes, you mentioned it first. I'd given it some thought and have come to agreement with your conclusion. I didn't intend to steal your thunder.

I wasn't worried about my thunder. It just did seem awfully familiar. And sometimes it feels like we're all talking past one another.

[smathis]

I was giving more thought to the spell charts. And going along with that 10% thing. I think the progression should be as follows -- assuming a 4th level spell is about as high as DCC will go. Roughly an 8th level spellcaster is as high as we go.

Zero Level
1-9: Whoops!
10-21: Normal effect
22-33: First Boosted effect
34+: Second Boosted effect

1st level:
1-11: Whoops!
12-21: Normal effect
22-31: First boosted effect
32+: Second boosted effect

2nd level:
1-13: Whoops!
14-21: Normal effect
22-29: First boosted effect
30-37: Second boosted effect
38+: Third boosted effect

3rd level:
1-15: Whoops!
16-21: Normal effect
22-27: First boosted effect
28-33: Second boosted effect
29-39: Third boosted effect
40+: Fourth boosted effect

4th level:
1-17: Whoops!
18-21: Normal effect
19-25: First boosted effect
20-29: Second boosted effect
30-35: Third boosted effect
36-41: Fourth boosted effect
42+: Fifth boosted effect

The math to it is that each spell level "boosts" at 10% better rate than the level above it, respective to how the DC to cast is higher. Assuming a cap on spells at 4th level (roughly an 7-8th level spellcaster), that's our base and bumps every 4. 6 for third. 8 for second. And so on. With results going no higher than 24 + DC to cast or 45, whichever we hit first. I tried 20+ but it really waters down the low-level spells, IMO.

We'd have to find a balance between the power ups of spells like Cure Wounds and the DC so that we can cover all the iterations of healing (like Cure Light, Serious, Critical, etc.). So maybe "Cure" becomes a 2nd or 3rd level spell as a result (in terms of how the chart goes) but maybe it's still available to 1st level characters?

If the level of spell caps out at 4th (not a bad idea, IMO), then we're looking at 4/3/2/1/0 level spells getting their boosts at 4/6/8/10/12.

EDIT: I think it's important to point out that the normal effects and "boosts" are not comparable in effect. So a first level spell at it's first "boost" might be comparable to a second level spell at its normal effect. For Scorching Ray, consider the "normal effect" doing one ray at 1d8+caster level damage and the first power up doing up to 3 rays at 1d10+caster level each. For Magic Missile, consider the normal effect to be one missile at 1d4 + caster level. And the first power up allows for 1d4 missiles at that level of effect. The real value of higher level spells would be that higher level casters could hit those boosts a lot easier with them and their level of effect is more, well, effective.

[smathis]

I wasn't worried about my thunder. It just did seem awfully familiar. And sometimes it feels like we're all talking past one another.

I was aware that you had made the point before. I neglected to point that out and it's my bad. I'm sorry. I was in the heat of the moment and typing like a mad man. It wasn't intentional.

I was afraid you'd taken offense.

At the time of your original post, I was undecided if the MDA die bumps would be an issue or not. But now, I think it's likely that they are.

[mythfish]

And, again, I think that's a hard sell to prospective players: "You're going to be LESS powerful AND there's only FIVE levels!"

I realize I'm in the minority when I say this, but to me that's a strong selling point. I usually start getting bored with D&D characters around levels 5-7 because they're too powerful.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that a DCC character is less powerful than a D&D character of twice their level. A 10th level D&D wizard will probably know more spells and have more HP than a 5th level DCC wizard, and those are about the only advantages the D&D wizard has. The D&D wizard will be able to cast 14 total spells, period (not counting 0 level spells), and he better have memorized all combat spells for this fight. The DCC wizard, on the other hand, will be able to cast all his spells indefinitely until he gets unlucky (and at 5th level his spell checks on 1st level spells like Magic Missile are pretty good). The DCC wizard will get a lot more mileage out of his Magic Missiles, too, since he'll probably be rolling fairly well on the chart consistently. He can also utilize spellburn to make sure he gets higher results, and he can call on his Patron to send aid. The 5th level DCC wizard also gets to take 2 actions per round. If it gets to the point where he's out of good spells, the DCC wizard can put on heavy armor and shoot with a longbow.

[smathis]

The D&D wizard will be able to cast 14 total spells, period (not counting 0 level spells), and he better have memorized all combat spells for this fight. The DCC wizard, on the other hand, will be able to cast all his spells indefinitely until he gets unlucky (and at 5th level his spell checks on 1st level spells like Magic Missile are pretty good). The DCC wizard will get a lot more mileage out of his Magic Missiles, too, since he'll probably be rolling fairly well on the chart consistently. He can also utilize spellburn to make sure he gets higher results, and he can call on his Patron to send aid. The 5th level DCC wizard also gets to take 2 actions per round. If it gets to the point where he's out of good spells, the DCC wizard can put on heavy armor and shoot with a longbow.

A 5th level DCC Wizard can't cast "indefinitely until he gets unlucky". His spell bonus decreases by one after each casting attempt. By all accounts, he'll be scraping the bottom of his potential barrel when his spell bonus hits the -4 mark. Meaning a 5th level Wizard in DCC has 9 casting ATTEMPTS before he should consider packing it in. By contrast, the vanilla 3e Wizard has 6 bona-fide spells (not just attempts) -- not counting zero level spells.

I think the dynamic in DCC would be as follows... 1st spell of the day is the one that's going for the biggest bang. So before lunch we'll have our Fireball, then towards dinner we'll see a lot of Magic Missiles and Comprehend Languages.

So in DCC, all Spellcasters are "morning people".

And to insinuate that having 1/2 the hit points of a 10th level 3e spellcaster isn't a big difference... well... are we playing the same D&D?

Because I'll take a spellcaster with 6 legitimate spells and 35 hit points over your spellcaster with 17 hit points, 9 spellcasting attempts and degrading efficacy any day. Even if your guy can swing a long sword...

[GnomeBoy]

I just want to check in on MDAs: You have to roll a three or better on your small die and you have to hit the thing that you're performing the maneuver against. As you level up, you're also probably going to be facing some stuff that's harder to hit than the stuff you fought at 0-level or 1st level. So even if your MDA roll becomes "easy" to make, you may not be hitting any more often (and maybe less). That might be slicker than an AD&D fighter (depending largely on your DM), but compared to 3e, I'm not so sure.

In 3e, you can use something like Many Shot consistently each attack; you can always apply your Dodge against somebody; Rapid Reload just lets you do it; if you have Spring Attack you have Spring Attack. The DCC RPG fighter still might not get those kinds of effects on each attack, even assuming he hits every time. Granted MDAa can cover all of those things, which brings great versatility, but they are never 100% guaranteed to succeed. Not to mention if the GM can apply modifiers for the situation (I don't know if that's part of MDAs or not).

If I'm wrong on this, let me know.

If MDAs are too gross, slow down the progression a bit, right...?


P.S. Yes, I know MDA can do more than the Feats of 3e, but I think the things that are "more" would be the equivalent types of actions, more or less.

[GnomeBoy]

...So in DCC, all Spellcasters are "morning people"...

Depends on the structure of the modules. If it's based on App. N style storytelling, not what you might call D&D style storytelling, then there could be a few encounters and then a short narrative break that covers, say, several days of overland travel, and then some more encounters. The fight against the forces 'behind all the trouble' might fit your breakdown, but I don't know if the rest of all adventures will.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we might not be expected to slog through the entirety of the Tomb of Horrors with our DCC RPG characters. There might be several Tomblettes to deal with...

I'll stop spouting off the top of my head. For now.

[geordie racer]

Question, though. How long do you think the progression from Levels 0-5 would take? And what options would be available to a group when their characters hit Level 5? Will it be like "name levels" in AD&D where you can "advance" every 1,500,00xp and get 2 hit points for your troubles? Or will Level 5 be a hard stop?

This is what I'm wondering, especially as I've played Holmes-only D&D where you could only level as far as 3rd, but just kept adventuring. It was fun and each level felt like reaching a milestone, but it was a hard sell to my gaming crew. If 5th-level does seem like a higher D&D level then I'm fine with just 1-5 in Core. Hell, it took my AD&D fighter a year of weekly 2 hr sessions to get to 6th level !

I do think the high-end adventuring that Joseph refers to requires more detail as he says, so I don't mind if it isn't in the core rules.

[mythfish]

A 5th level DCC Wizard can't cast "indefinitely until he gets unlucky". His spell bonus decreases by one after each casting attempt.

Nope, that's the cleric. It also (as the rules stand now) only decreases on successful checks. The wizard can cast a spell over and over and over again with no additional penalties to his spell check. He loses that spell (and that spell only) for the day if he fails a spell check when trying to cast it.

Half the hit points is a big difference if the DCC character is going up against 10th level D&D opponents, yes. But even in 5th level DCC adventures I don't think monsters are going to be hitting for 30 points of damage very often. Also, two actions! The DCC wizard is fireballing the D&D wizard twice per round.

I understand that D&D is a commonality amongst pretty much all RPGers, so comparing every game to D&D is natural, and especially in the case of d20 games. But DCC RPG is not meant to be like D&D, it's a different beast entirely. Its stated purpose is to be better than D&D at portraying the sorts of fantasy D&D was based on, and frankly in most of that literature (that I've read anyway) I don't see people going up more than a few levels.

And nobody cares if their Weird War II character levels in a similar progression to D&D, so why should we make a big deal out whether our DCC RPG characters do?

[smathis]

Nope, that's the cleric. It also (as the rules stand now) only decreases on successful checks. The wizard can cast a spell over and over and over again with no additional penalties to his spell check. He loses that spell (and that spell only) for the day if he fails a spell check when trying to cast it.

So... If a Wizard fails a spell check, he loses the spell for the day but his spellcheck bonus does NOT go down. But if he successfully casts the spell, he doesn't lose the spell but his spellcheck bonus goes down.

So how can a Wizard cast a spell over and over again without losing efficacy in spellcasting? Either he loses the spell via failing the spellcheck. Or his spellcheck bonus goes down by one.

Is that right?

Half the hit points is a big difference if the DCC character is going up against 10th level D&D opponents, yes. But even in 5th level DCC adventures I don't think monsters are going to be hitting for 30 points of damage very often.

So... it was never the intent that I could play DCC characters through Keep on the Borderlands? Or Ravenloft? Or even the DCC adventures produced for 3e?

Also, two actions! The DCC wizard is fireballing the D&D wizard twice per round.

What's the rational for this, I wonder? I don't recall a whole lot of two-fisted spell-slinging in Appendix N.

I understand that D&D is a commonality amongst pretty much all RPGers, so comparing every game to D&D is natural, and especially in the case of d20 games. But DCC RPG is not meant to be like D&D, it's a different beast entirely. Its stated purpose is to be better than D&D at portraying the sorts of fantasy D&D was based on, and frankly in most of that literature (that I've read anyway) I don't see people going up more than a few levels.

If so, I'm feeling a little misled. Because the sales pitch says...

Return to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery.

And even though Joseph says that DCC "is not compatible with 1970s/1980s D&D rules" in his first Design Diary. Nowhere does he say it's not compatible with 3e.

And worse yet, if the intent is for it not to be like "D&D", there's an awful lot of ink in that first design diary comparing it to D&D.

There are comparisons and correlations all over that design diary. From races as classes, six ability scores, Vancian magic (just not Gy-Vancian magic) to direct statements that it plays like 1974 OD&D.

I'm a little confused.

I wasn't expecting a retro-clone. I wasn't expecting exact level equivalency with D&D. But, frankly, right now I don't know what to expect. And it's not in a edge-of-my-seat, ooo-this-is-going-to-be-fun sort of way. It's in a I-took-a-date-to-see-Human-Centipede-because-I-thought-it-was-a-superhero-movie-and-she-liked-comics sort of way. I've always had a hard time embracing existential horror, especially when it involves things I care about.

So, really, what is this game about?

I'm having a hard time connecting the vision of an Appendix N game with Wizards tossing out Fireballs like a Howitzer and Paranoia-level body counts. It's sounding more like Saving Private Ryan is having a stronger influence than Fritz Leiber.

And nobody cares if their Weird War II character levels in a similar progression to D&D, so why should we make a big deal out whether our DCC RPG characters do?

Well, if the intent was for DCC to create a sword & sorcery version of Weird War II, why didn't they say so to begin with?

I mean, these games (CoC, Paranoia, Weird War II) keep getting tossed out there like it somehow excuses DCC from having to address issues with levels and such. But I doubt any of those games are pitching how they're reinventing D&D from the ground up.

It's hitting me like Apple saying they didn't put a camera on the iPad 1 because, well, a toaster doesn't have a camera on it...

And if the strategy is to create the go-to fantasy game for the die-hard Weird War II fanbase, the marketing's a little off.

I'm very confused at this point in a very bad way.

[smathis]

And nobody cares if their Weird War II character levels in a similar progression to D&D, so why should we make a big deal out whether our DCC RPG characters do?

And one last response, if I may.

Leveling is fun. I want DCC to be fun. I know my players. I know they want to level early and often. They were turned off of B/X because it took too long to level. I think that's bollocks but it's what I've got.

I feel I have a vested interest in representing my fun and their fun in this.

Because if DCC is just plain not fun, we all lose. Joseph, you, me, my group. All of us.

I want us all to win. I'm saying going from 1-5 is not a win. And I feel my opinion is being marginalized by the crowd who really has a say in the game's development. Hopefully Joseph, Harley, Tavis or someone sees the light on this issue because right now I feel like a gnat in a wind tunnel.

[mythfish]

I want us all to win. I'm saying going from 1-5 is not a win. And I feel my opinion is being marginalized by the crowd who really has a say in the game's development. Hopefully Joseph, Harley, Tavis or someone sees the light on this issue because right now I feel like a gnat in a wind tunnel.

It's not my intent to marginalize anyone's opinion, and frankly as far the development of the game goes my opinion doesn't count any more than yours does. My opinion should not be taken as representative of Joseph's or any of the other designers'. I'm just lucky enough to run some playtests here and there. Sometimes I forget not everyone has the same information I do, but in a couple months we'll all know the same stuff. Not fair of me to debate with insider info, sorry.

I just feel that people (not just you) are over-emphasizing this issue, and I'm trying to demonstrate that the game can be fun without comparing it to D&D, because it's a different game. I know I'm probably in the minority when it comes to preferring low-level play and not a lot of leveling (in fact, I think "leveling" is a silly concept to begin with...give me a point buy system or the-skills-you-use-improve system any day), but I think only 5 levels in the core book is win. You and I have strong differing opinions on this matter, and I don't want mine to go unheard any more than you do.

[Not that I really think any of our opinions will go unheard...Joseph and Harley do read these boards, and I've already seen a few ideas that came from here tried out. Joseph is a very savvy businessman and an excellent designer, and I have no doubt that however the game turns out, it'll be fun. It's not going to be win for everyone on every issue, we've just proven that, but I'm sure it'll still be a game we can all find ways to enjoy.]

I mean, these games (CoC, Paranoia, Weird War II) keep getting tossed out there like it somehow excuses DCC from having to address issues with levels and such. But I doubt any of those games are pitching how they're reinventing D&D from the ground up.

My point is simply that it's not D&D. That's all. Is it D&D-like? Sure. But it has to be different enough from D&D or any other game out there to warrant publishing it in the first place, right? Reinventing is just that.

I apologize if it seemed like I was telling you you're wrong or attacking you personally in any way, I assure you I wasn't.

I'll just STFU now.