Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh
And I'm definitely open to other, better ideas on how to do the "weapon training" rules once you've given it a shot...I just want to make sure they still leave the game fun to play, and are very easy to remember and execute. Seems kind of harsh. Have you played a 0-level session yet?Ze Groupe wrote:It may work, i have no doubt of that, but it screams poor design.
I was thinking of trying something along these lines, too. It seems more elegant than listing specific allowed weapons for each class. It seems strange to say that wizards can use "usual list of old-school magic-user weapons plus longsword, because that's what Gandalf had" and instead just say all classes can use all weapons, with some specific restrictions.stacktrace wrote:I respect that the game is meant to be played, though this hand waved rule also seemed strange.
Though, what really is the point of weapon training?
To prevent Mages and Thieves from using Two Handed Swords and Polearms and reflect a Diety's favored weapons?
That seems to be the main consequences of the rule as it currently is. Yes, there are other weapons unusable by non-Warriors, but the classes can also use an equivalent or better weapon, so there is no real balance reason.
You could easily get rid of the whole idea of weapon training without affecting the rules. Instead:
-Thieves cannot backstab with two handed weapons
-Clerics gain a -4 (or d16) when attacking with a weapon not favored by their diety or from their occupation to represent the diety's disfavor (while occupation weapon is an exception because their early lives were guided by the diety, so it was by diety's will that they pick up that particular weapon for some unknown purpose)
-Mages require a hand free to cast spells, as such two handed weapons cannot be properly wielded for proper defense during rounds in which they cast, causing a reduction in AC. The staff is an exception as it can still provide defense one handed.
Ok, I admit that last one is a little rough, I am sure others could do better.
This is roughly what I was going to suggest but make the maximum base weapon damage: Wizards (1-6 dmg)/ Halflings, Clerics and Thieves (1-8 dmg)/ Warriors, Dwarves, Elves (no limit).blizack wrote: One thing I played around with is the idea that all classes can use all weapons, but unless the character is a fighter, the damage can't exceed their hit die type. In other words, a wizard can use a longsword, but he'll only inflict 1d4 damage when doing so. It lets players give their character the weapon they want without outshining the fighter as the guy who is really a weapon master.
You know what, after reading Joseph's explanation, I'm going to give it a try both ways and see. I have never played a 0 lvl session before (first one this Saturday!!). Alot about the pc funnel and 0 lvl play is loosely designed anyway--such as the the training gap from lvl 0 to lvl 1. But the rules make a strong appeal to start this way, and promise that it's a key element of DCC play. I'm going to go for it as is. And the -4 penalty seems like a minor thing to overlook in order to gain something potentially much more valuable.goodmangames wrote:This may sound like a weird comment so let this digest a bit but...DCC RPG is meant to be played. My primary interest is in creating a game that is fun to play. (Note that this is not always the goal of RPG authors...)
... So I removed that rule and the games were a lot more fun.
So my recommendation would be, balance the game design principles against game play. Play a 0-level game with the -4 penalty, then play one without. Let me know which is more fun.
Thanks,
Joseph
I like this, blizack. A lot.blizack wrote: I was thinking of trying something along these lines, too. It seems more elegant than listing specific allowed weapons for each class. It seems strange to say that wizards can use "usual list of old-school magic-user weapons plus longsword, because that's what Gandalf had" and instead just say all classes can use all weapons, with some specific restrictions.
One thing I played around with is the idea that all classes can use all weapons, but unless the character is a fighter, the damage can't exceed their hit die type. In other words, a wizard can use a longsword, but he'll only inflict 1d4 damage when doing so. It lets players give their character the weapon they want without outshining the fighter as the guy who is really a weapon master.
If you really wanted to get crazy you could give fighters the ability to bump up the damage dice of weapons, but I think that's probably going too far.
I really love this idea.nanstreet wrote:Why not scrap the -4 penalty altogether, for 0-levels and for classed characters? Just have untrained weapons do a reduced damage die and use a worse crit table. That way if anybody wants to hit someone over the head with a chair or fence with a fireplace poker or try to backstab the king in the garden with a trowel or pick up the Duke's son's sword after he bite's the dust, there's a just as good chance to hit but the damage won't be as phenominal as it would if a weapon the character was trained in was used.