Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game Ruleset - Bug reports, feedback, etc..

[leozelig]

I believe that is a CoreRPG issue rather than the DCC ruleset. I don’t know enough about it to offer a solution, but maybe another forum can help.

[rathen45]

Hey, there are a couple of things that I noticed looking at the NPC's:
formating: for example the damage on the fire elemental's attack reads (3d6) on the fire elemental it should be (3d6 fire) to trigger the type. I notice this on other creatures as well. unfortunately they gave the creature the 'burning touch' special quality in the book instead of formatting it to be more friendly to the FG format.

'water' should be added to the damage type list to allow the effect to trigger

[leozelig]

DCC is all over the place with damage types. Sometimes they say lightning, sometimes electricity, and there are weird damage types like arcane. I don’t mind the unconventional stuff, but there is no official list which makes coding a VTT ruleset very difficult. I ended up using a combination of 3.5E and 5E dmg types rather than every dmg type mentioned in the rules, opting for 5E if there is overlap (thunder not sonic). A few years ago, I made a list of dmg types mentioned in the core rules, and it’s just a mess.

That said, I will review the NPCs and add damage types when appropriate. I have been considering adding special attacks like poison and disease as powers to include the saving throw and effects, so this might be a good opportunity for that. Thanks for the suggestion rathen45 - I appreciate the feedback!

[leozelig]

The other frustrating thing with DCC from a ruleset design perspective is the lack of damage types for mundane weapons. Some of the adventure modules contain NPCs with resistance to mundane weapon types (or all non-magical weapons), but the core rules don’t include dmg types for mundane weapons, so it’s sometimes a thing and sometimes not. I did not include damage types like bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing on item records, but those are recognized by the ruleset in case you want to run things that way.

[rathen45]

Yeah, Goodman games made the game fun but playing in person is awkward with all of the tables (especially for casters) and playing on a VTT if awkward because with the inconsistent formatting there's a lot to be interpreted...

[leozelig]

I uploaded a fix for the save effects not recognizing filters.

I'm working on improving damage type functionality for the next major update, particularly as it pertains to normal weapons. The core rules do not explicitly define basic damage types for weapons (or natural attacks), but in true DCC fashion, Goodman Games' larger DCC library includes random references to them on a semi-regular basis. At higher levels, monsters with immunity to non-magical weapons are common, which is coded in 5E as 'IMMUNE: bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, !magic'. The question then is how to define these without an official entry in the core rules - use the latest Systems Reference Document (p.66)? This works for most weapons, but not polearm (assume halberd?) or garotte. You can also make the argument that DCC has more in common with 3.5E, which has subtle differences from the SRD 5.1.

The alternative is to continue using 'untyped' damage for all non-magical physical attacks, in which case the FG effect for immunity to non-magical weapons becomes 'IMMUNE: untyped'. This is simple enough, but if a GM wants to use basic damage types (which are recognized by the ruleset but require manual entry due to their omission from the core rules), then the effect is the same as 5E. Deviating from the syntax of the most popular rulesets generates confusion, and niche rulesets need all the help they can get! I would also need to classify untyped spell damage as 'magic' to differentiate it from a physical attack, which is easy enough from a coding perspective.

If you have any comments on this, feel free to share.

[Tabarkus]

I think the inclusion of damage types in the FGU version of DCC is useful and only adds to the benefits FGU brings to the table (pun intended). It allows for the increased use of functionalities such as RESIST, IMMUNE, VULN, !magic, !silvered, etc. Currently I haphazardly add damage types to my game via character sheets and NPC sheets, or on the combat tracker as I come across them. Creatures with these types of abilities are being written into official Goodman Games material so it only makes sense to me to include these functionalities in DCC/FGU since we have the ability to do so.

[leozelig]

My goal is always to avoid building any of my own interpretations into the ruleset. Since Goodman Games is often lax on details, that means fewer opportunities for auto-pilot features and more legwork for GMs

[Tabarkus]

Haha, yes; work for Judges is what I was trying to avoid! What I should do is copy all the weapons, NPCs, etc. and edit them to include the details I want. That way I only have to do it once.

[leozelig]

Looking at damage types for the next update... I found a couple more passing references to weapon damage types in the NPC descriptions:

Page 423: "Slimes suffer half damage from slicing and piercing weapons (swords, daggers, arrows, axes, etc.), as their primordial mass quickly re-knits such wounds."

Page 426: "Shroomen hides are so dense that they take only half damage from any bludgeoning weapon (club, mace, stave, etc.)."

Energy damage types (fire, cold, etc.) are even more ambiguous and confusing. I want to do something with damage types for the next update, but I'm finding it very inconvenient that Goodman Games did not bother to outline these in a more deliberate way.