Troll Lord Games

gideon_thorne wrote: And while I can't always understand why someone is interested in a given thing, I can relate to the passionate intensity. At least in some cases. I certainly get starred at for my literary obsessions. Not for me to quibble over what folks want to spend their money on. ^_~` Fair...

gideon_thorne wrote: The Necro folks are good people though. They've made their call. Some folks will go along, some wont. As always, folks will vote with their wallet and or react as their needs and interests dictate. True enough. I suppose I"m just baffled by the number of gamers for whom 4e...

moriarty777 wrote: I've stated I've been on the fence before with the whole 4th Ed thing... but Necromancer's plans to release a Player's Guide to fill in the classic gaps in terms of races and classes has probably convinced me to buy the core set along with it. Could someone explain to me in simpl...

gideon_thorne wrote: Only thing I am interested in from Necro is Tegel. But since I happen to own the original it might take a fair bit of convincing to get me to buy the new one. I'm in the same boat and, frankly, Necromancer's relentless and, I think, unfounded enthusiasm for 4e has pretty much t...

Treebore wrote: Why did they have to keep 4E so compatible with C&C? They did? From what I have read, 4e looks as if it'll quite different mechanically from 3e. That's not to say you couldn't find material to swipe from it for use with C&C, but I guess I have to wonder why you'd bother. Eve...

<t>First off, I'm new here -- very new -- so please feel free to point me to an old thread and tell me this has all been hashed out before. You can even feel free to point out that, in actual play, the concern I'm about to express about C&C doesn't really amount to much. I'll stress once again t...

jfall wrote:
I know that this has been discussed before but referring to the 2e DMG (pg.22 ) might also help give a rough guideline in regards to how a class is built.

Blast! This is one of those rare moments when I wish I still had a 2E book ...

Alwyn wrote: This is similar to bighara's idea of using feats for C&C characters that he suggested in another thread. I saw that suggestion and am intrigued by it. I'm honestly not sure I want to get peanut butter in my chocolate, so to speak, because even those basic feats strike me as too muc...

Treebore wrote: Thats one of the super cool things about C&C, it invites you to make the game your own. Including tailor fitting each class to be exactly how you want it. Absolutely. I already feel very liberated by this aspect of the game's design. It reminds me of how I used to play D&D a...

Alwyn wrote: While I am thinking about it, the same "feat" could be used to give Bards a little more uummppff also. They of course could get MU spells. My gut instinct would be to give them druid spells, in keeping with their 1E version (and possible historical role), although another par...

Fizz wrote: While i prefer them to the 3E bard, i've still not been completely happy with the C&C bard either. It's not so much an issue of `power' for me, but of flavor. Yes, flavor. That's it. The bard just lacks a certain amount of oomph in the flavor department. I don't quite recognize the ...

gideon_thorne wrote: The class is like the illusionist in the fact that it takes a subtle player, and an open minded game master, to let the class shine. This may well be. The illusionist, I guess, strikes me as very straightforward, since it's more or less a variant wizard, whereas bards ... well,...

wolfpunk wrote: I don't know about lacking in bang for the buck because they are very competent warriors. This is true. In fact, I think my real beef with bards, as written, is that they're too competent warriors and not competent enough in other areas. Or at least I wish their other areas of speci...

jamesmishler wrote: Then there are the Old School gamers, who made the jump to 3E, and are horrified by the changes they see being made in 4E. Of these, there is a very, very large segment of "Returnists," gamers who played in the early 80s and returned to D&D with the new edition. Th...

<t>I know that a lot of people have it in for fighters -- and I'll deal with that question at some later date -- but what about bards? I realize they have a rather fast XP progression, but, never having played on, it looks to me as if they get far less "bang for the buck" than do rogues, who have an...

<t>I've been discussing spellcasting paladins with one of my players and he expressed a preference for the C&C version. He'd played an AD&D paladin for a long time and found the class's spellcasting abilities underwhelming and barely worth using most of the time. I think that's a fair point ...

CharlieRock wrote: I so rarely saw a ranger that could cast (they need so many high attributes that one usually got skimped.) that I tend to forget they actually do in D&D. A paladin on the other hand ... After they get name level they start casting spells at cleric level equal to one third his...

serleran wrote: I only like spellcasting versions in some settings, where, for example, there are no druids (so rangers fill that role) or, there are "different types" of them... ie, one god might have paladins with minor clerical abilities and a different one might even have paladins tha...

serleran wrote:
Sorry, I am not allowed to discuss this any longer. But, it has been done, and is very easy.

You are an evil, evil man.

Treebore wrote: Just use the 1E progression Charts, and slap on some extra XP costs. Ah, but how much extra? I'm still a C&C novice, so my ability to eyeball how things interrelate is minimal at best. Some C&C classes use the exact same XP charts as their 1E counterparts, while others don't...

gideon_thorne wrote: I know some folks have used the AD&D classes as they stand with C&C, which ought to work out fine as well. ^_^ That may well be the kind of thing I end up doing. I really do like the C&C versions of both classes and could see using both to represent related but diff...

<t>If I had a player who wanted his illusionist or wizard to wear armor heavier than robes and the like, I'd allow it. However, I'd require that he make an attribute check (perhaps Constitution?) for every spell he cast while wearing heavier armor. The challenge base would be 18 (maybe even if Const...

<t>Has anyone ever worked up C&C versions of the paladin and ranger that have access to spells, like their D&D counterparts? As impressed as I am with C&C, I don't completely like either the ranger or the paladin classes as presented. Or at least they're not what I'm looking for at the m...