Mighty Deeds of Arms

[bholmes4]

I agree, it may just be a typo so I would love clarification. That said, I think it makes sense as a rule and hope it is in fact what is intended.

[GnomeBoy]

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.

Haha -- that's on my list of typos to submit, because on first reading I assumed the "+3" was left off accidentally. Still, from what I've re-read, everything seems to imply or state outright that you still do 'normal' damage with an MDoA, except for that example. Personally, I'm good either way it goes.

[Sizzaxe]

I like the chart, but that may be because this is a relatively new concept and it clarified the scope of things for me. But I want to play test it and see how it affects my players use of the concept.

[nexusphere]

I think it's important to remember that this is a beta and they are asking for feedback.

One of the FIRST things brought up by one of my players was how the Deeds were supposed to be wild and creative when specific examples were given in the book.

This question is coming up in groups. It came up already in my group, and I've only run it with my Sunday crew. It is a bad idea to have specific examples of each and every type of Deed, because this game is not about referencing the book during play, or accurately simulating a tactical battle - it's about adventure and Appendix N Swords and Sorcery type awesomeness.

It's a problem, not to mention it's inconsistent with the way the spells are handled, as well as the deity provided.

I agree with the poster who said examples needed to be provided - but not specific ones.

What we need is a general section on examples of what a 3 on the die will get you (and a 4, and a 5), and how the fighters level affects the deed. Then a 4, etc. A general table of guidelines for deeds, giving super-cool ideas without giving anything too rigid- it's not a chart to reference. It should give example types. There also needs to be one of these for spell success levels, and gods etc.

What really bothers me is the people in this thread who are saying it isn't a problem.

If my players look at me, and say, "I thought deeds were going to be creative, but there's a table here with what you can do. How are you going to work that?" then it is a problem, because if it wasn't it wouldn't be mentioned. Someone telling me it's not an issue doesn't change the fact that it's sending mixed signals as evidenced by my player's response while running the beta.

the italics are the whole reason we're having the beta, right? feedback?

[moes1980]

What really bothers me is the people in this thread who are saying it isn't a problem.

If my players look at me, and say, "I thought deeds were going to be creative, but there's a table here with what you can do. How are you going to work that?" then it is a problem, because if it wasn't it wouldn't be mentioned. Someone telling me it's not an issue doesn't change the fact that it's sending mixed signals as evidenced by my player's response while running the beta.

the italics are the whole reason we're having the beta, right? feedback?

I still don't see how it is an issue (and just because a player has a question about how something in the rules works dose not neccisarly mean there is a problem with the rules, it could just mean they don't know how that rule works). If I had a player ask "how do I be creative with MDoA when there are guidelines" I would say to that player "what is it exactly you want to attempt with your MDoA, regardless of what is written in the guid lines?" After player states that he wants to do XYZ, I can consult the guidelines to get an idea of what he should need to roll in order to achive what he wants to do, basing it losely on the more standard MDoA actions given in the book.

For example, when a player was fighting a basilisk and said they wanted to do a called shot to the basilisks eyes to disrupt its gaze ability, I could use those guide lines to help me decide what should happen. Looking at the guidlines I decided it was a called shot that could deal an extra d4 damage and would have to make a fort save vs fighters attack roll or suffer the penalty to attack roll for both gaze and normal attacks. This ruling came out of looking at those guidlines that are suggested by a roll of a 3 on the attack bonus die. So, even though there is no "disrupting gaze attacks" listed on the MDoA table, it was not hard to do a quick ruling on how that might work, and the guide lines helped.

Also, the rules clearly state that, though the MDoA's presented represent common actions, new and creative actions should be encouraged.

Again, for something like this, if players don't like the guidlines they can ignore them. But other groups I am sure will find them to be quite neccesary to help with managing MDoAs