Troll Lord Games

Just downloaded this and I'm thinking of using his disciplines system for C&C... that and using Con plus HD type for 1st level HP to give the squishes survivability.

Has anyone else checked this out? Any suggestions on how to integrate the disciplines into C&C w/o throwing the balance of too greatly?

I saw where that was coming out. I haven't seen it. Glad Monte is still putting out gaming stuff. I'd also be interested in hearing from others if any of it is useful for C&C campaigns.

Interesting... I know not everyone likes Monte's work but I find he's done some cool stuff all things considered. If there's a review on it, I'd love to read it.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

I bought it, but haven't had a good chance to read it over yet.

I like the 20-level spell progression. I think the regular 9-level system is too ingrained in my head for me to switch, but 20 levels makes so much sense.
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus

tenkar wrote:
using Con plus HD type for 1st level HP to give the squishes survivability.

I've been using a similar system for a few months now, inspired by the Arduin Grimoire HP rules (vol. III). Better starting HP and a slower HP progression has been a nice change of pace...

Dragonhelm wrote:
I bought it, but haven't had a good chance to read it over yet.

I like the 20-level spell progression. I think the regular 9-level system is too ingrained in my head for me to switch, but 20 levels makes so much sense.

I'm surprised Monte didn't push for this back when he was working on 3E... after all, he got his start in the industry with Rolemaster (at Iron Crown Enterprises), and RM has used 20+ levels of spells since back in the day...
_________________
James Mishler

Main Man, Adventure Games Publishing
jamesagp1@gmail.com
http://adventuregamespublishing.blogspot.com/
http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com

jamesmishler wrote:
I'm surprised Monte didn't push for this back when he was working on 3E... after all, he got his start in the industry with Rolemaster (at Iron Crown Enterprises), and RM has used 20+ levels of spells since back in the day...

Remember that the original intent of 3.0 was to "return to the roots of AD&D" (more or less the words of Peter Adkison). They got lost along the way, but at least those were the (stated) intentions.

Also, I guess Monte was a little fish in a big pond at the time, so probably he did not have much weight in the choices which were taken.

Bought it. Love it. This book is killer.
_________________
Rom Elwell
romelwell@gmail.com

Developer: C&C Ruleset for Fantasy Grounds II

Digital Adventures, LLC
http://www.digitaladventures.net

-----------

The Lost City of Barakus: A C&C campaign using FGII
http://castles-and-crusades.wikispaces.com/

I also purchased a copy. Good stuff.

I am thinking about using the disciplines in my C&C game also. I don't know about the 20 levels of spells though, might complicate things too much.

I also like the idea of at least using base CON to boost starting hit points, but I will not be using the "Grace" HPs.

The wounded and dying rules are good also.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Quote:
I'm surprised Monte didn't push for this back when he was working on 3E... after all, he got his start in the industry with Rolemaster (at Iron Crown Enterprises), and RM has used 20+ levels of spells since back in the day...

I can clearly recall an interview or blog entry where he said that he had called for exactly that when they were writing 3E. Now it looks like they've done it for 4E.

After looking over this, I foresee one problem. What about the non-spell using classes. They will need something to equate to the disciplines. May be a few "feat" type disiplines are in order for them to choose from at every even or third level.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Alwyn wrote:
After looking over this, I foresee one problem. What about the non-spell using classes. They will need something to equate to the disciplines. May be a few "feat" type disiplines are in order for them to choose from at every even or third level.

If you read the section on Feats, you will see he suggests that all characters be given a FEAT every level. A Discipline can be taken instead of a FEAT too.

However, keep in mind that these same classes that now get disciplines had built in abilities effectively stripped or in terms of spell progression completely modified. It looks balanced enough as it stands. Though I'm not sure I like the notion of a FEAT every level.

(Yep... I ended up getting it. Some neat stuff all considering).

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

M,

Since I am considering using these for C&C and not using "Feats", I was curious as to if anyone thinks the non-spell users (i.e. Fighter, Knight, Thief, and Assassin) need any kind of a boost to equal out?

After looking at the Book of Experimentasl Might, I am thinking the Knight, Thief and Assassin are alright because of their class abilities. But, to me, the Fighter needs a little more. I was thinking of allowing the old AD&D three attacks every two rounds at seventh level for the Fighters only.

I might add a few "disciplines" for the Thieves and Assassins, as well as the Fighter and Knights, just so that the players can customize their characters a bit.

What do you think?
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Alwyn wrote:
M,

Since I am considering using these for C&C and not using "Feats", I was curious as to if anyone thinks the non-spell users (i.e. Fighter, Knight, Thief, and Assassin) need any kind of a boost to equal out?

After looking at the Book of Experimentasl Might, I am thinking the Knight, Thief and Assassin are alright because of their class abilities. But, to me, the Fighter needs a little more. I was thinking of allowing the old AD&D three attacks every two rounds at seventh level for the Fighters only.

I might add a few "disciplines" for the Thieves and Assassins, as well as the Fighter and Knights, just so that the players can customize their characters a bit.

What do you think?

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:

In terms of the Fighter, you have to keep in mind that the main advantage the Fighter class got over the other 3.x classes (aside from stuff like the BtH) were the Bonus Feats. With C&C you don't really have Feats but classes do get their various and different abilities. In the Fighter's case, we are talking about Weapons Specialization at first level, Combat Dominance at fourth, and Extra Attack at tenth. But a Fighter also has a lower EPP compared to other classes.

In general, some of the discipline stuff is pretty cool. I think that if you wanted to strip the kind of abilities that got stripped from their 3.x class counterparts and develop a system where they can 'take' a few disciplines, I'd probably just tone down the discipline stuff in general. For example, tone down the impact of Discipline Enhancement.

If you want to 'develop' some new disciplines, I'd suggest going through taking a look at some of the AD&D 2nd Ed material. Examples of disciplines suggestions for Fighters may be culled from the Complete Fighters Handbook, such as Fighter Styles. Combat Dominance could become a Discipline with enhancements being improvements on the base ability as it currently stands in the PHB.

Or, you could simply bump up (or down) EPP progression of certain classes. As it stands, you could probably get away with just doing the disciplines for spell casters (Wizards, Druids, and Clerics ... Illusionists may need a bit more customizing) and not touch any of the other ones. Maybe keep some of the basic aspects of the disciplines and forget the enhancements.

As I said, that's me thinking about it at this very moment, I may have more to say on the subject later.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

moriarty777 wrote:
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:

In terms of the Fighter, you have to keep in mind that the main advantage the Fighter class got over the other 3.x classes (aside from stuff like the BtH) were the Bonus Feats. With C&C you don't really have Feats but classes do get their various and different abilities. In the Fighter's case, we are talking about Weapons Specialization at first level, Combat Dominance at fourth, and Extra Attack at tenth. But a Fighter also has a lower EPP compared to other classes.

In general, some of the discipline stuff is pretty cool. I think that if you wanted to strip the kind of abilities that got stripped from their 3.x class counterparts and develop a system where they can 'take' a few disciplines, I'd probably just tone down the discipline stuff in general. For example, tone down the impact of Discipline Enhancement.

If you want to 'develop' some new disciplines, I'd suggest going through taking a look at some of the AD&D 2nd Ed material. Examples of disciplines suggestions for Fighters may be culled from the Complete Fighters Handbook, such as Fighter Styles. Combat Dominance could become a Discipline with enhancements being improvements on the base ability as it currently stands in the PHB.
Or, you could simply bump up (or down) EPP progression of certain classes. As it stands, you could probably get away with just doing the disciplines for spell casters (Wizards, Druids, and Clerics ... Illusionists may need a bit more customizing) and not touch any of the other ones. Maybe keep some of the basic aspects of the disciplines and forget the enhancements.

As I said, that's me thinking about it at this very moment, I may have more to say on the subject later.

M

I agree with Moriarty, especially the paragraph I bolded. Also, you could allow a fighter two weapon specialties, so he can specialize in both a missile and a melee weapon. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Happy gaming,

Zudrak
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

If I were adding 20 levels of spells I would probably retool Monte's list so that every odd level contained mostly out of combat spells and every even level contained the damaging 'boom' spells... that would give them more of an option to keep their list diversified.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys