PAIZO to continue with 3E!! (Sorry Peter)

Brutorz Bill · Post by **Brutorz Bill** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:45 pm

I think this is great news! Paizo was doing a great job with Dragon, the Pathfinder series seems to be doing well and like Treebore, methinks it will be easier to convert stuff from Paizo's 3.5ish game than 4th ed.

Zudrak · Post by **Zudrak** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:00 pm

Brutorz Bill wrote:
I think this is great news! Paizo was doing a great job with Dragon, the Pathfinder series seems to be doing well and like Treebore, methinks it will be easier to convert stuff from Paizo's 3.5ish game than 4th ed.

Agreed. I bought the first Pathfinder at my FLGS. I think there will be many addies worthy of buying and converting over to C&C.
_________________
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

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:24 pm

I'm rather happy this came along. I cannot break the deathgrip d20 has on my larger monday-night group. And this version (still in alpha) cleans up a few of the headaches I have with that *censored* game system.

My smaller sunday-night group ,which is the same people mostly minus the three biggest power-gaming munchkins, is not concenred with Pathfinder at all. If they ever move off of C&C it would be more then likely to GURPS before anything else.

I'm not really looking to try and convert an entire Adventure Path (what Paizo seems to like making) over to SIEGE mechanics. But from the Pathfinder:Alpha rules I noticed there are default skill DCs for untrained use of some skills that refer to racial skill levels. Now there is an interesting idea that we may swipe. I'm thinking it would work like a sub-Prime (like a human raised half-elf gets) but only when applied to certain things. Like, all elves have a default of 14 (- Int) (+CL) for herbalism and stuff.

It adds unnecessary complication, but can make the mechanical modifiers to the races stand out more in a high level game.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:57 pm

Kind of a shame on the Necro end. I love their products and wish them well but for compatibility reasons won't be purchasing any of their 4e material.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:00 pm

Breakdaddy wrote:
Kind of a shame on the Necro end. I love their products and wish them well but for compatibility reasons won't be purchasing any of their 4e material.

Ditto. A great shame.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:41 pm

Compatibility issues? You don't play C&C?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Plaag · Post by **Plaag** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:58 pm

Happy with this, now just wish I could get on their site a bit better
ShaneG.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:00 am

Treebore wrote:
Compatibility issues? You don't play C&C?

D&D4 needs a lot more work to convert to C&C then D&D3 did. Most people think that WotC did that to reclaim control over the brand name.

That's what I would call 'compatibility' issues with Necro (and Goodman Games for that matter).

_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:03 am

CharlieRock wrote:
D&D4 needs a lot more work to convert to C&C then D&D3 did. Most people think that WotC did that to reclaim control over the brand name.

That's what I would call 'compatibility' issues with Necro (and Goodman Games for that matter).

I think the point that Treebore is getting at is mainly to do with the fact that one can use 'setting' and 'monster' descriptions sans mechanics.

So in that sense, any company can produce material that can be used with C&C if the flavor text and setting information is all that your after.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:49 am

I was talking mechanics too. Looking at the sample monsters I see those at least as very easy to use, at least about as easy as it is for me to use 3E monsters.

As to the rest of what I have seen of the game mechanics, most are already covered by C&C.

So far I see 4E as being about as compatible with C&C as 3E is. At least the ideas I think I am going to steal are.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Harry Joy · Post by **Harry Joy** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:23 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Necromancer's products are being published through Paizo.

A post tonight from Orcus, Clark of Necromancer:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4 ... tcount=361

Quote:
I absolultely think it is 100% up in the air what will and wont be allowed under the GSL. I dont know if it will let me do Tome. I dont know if it will let me do Adventure Paths. I dont know if it will let me do my Advanced Player's Guide. I THINK it will let me do all 3, but to say "they've made it very clear what the GSL will be and what it wont allow" is not true. Now, that said, I think you mean they have made it clear ONE thing you wont be able to do is a standalone game that doesnt refer back to the core books, like say Mutants and Masterminds. But aside from that, we have no freaking clue what the GSL will allow or not allow. I do agree it will be more restrictive than the OGL, which essentailly had no restrictions.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:44 am

papercut wrote:
How large is the C&C market?

Somewhere between 'bigger than we think' and 'smaller than we want'. Truth is we only know of the people on this forum playing. The Trolls would have more knowledge of the real sales numbers.

Quote:
I'm not sure if companies not producing material for a small market merits a boycott. I honestly have no idea of any of the independent publishers size so don't take this as an insult.

The market is large enough for Goodman Games to do a C&C line, Green Ronin to make a C&C Freeport book, and Paizo to talk of C&C conversions of Pathfinder. Also there is AGP doing C&C work as well and maybe more planning to that we are not aware of.

I'm not calling a boycott. However, my gaming budget is small and it mainly has to go for the system I play. So a company not producing C&C material isn't going to get my attention since it doesn't fall under my purchase ability. With what little I have left out of the main budget I fuel my collecting of First Edition FR products and OoP AD&D material that catches my interest.

Finally there is the fact that no matter how good a product may be under D20 or 4e the fact is if you purchase that product you are telling the company to make more because that is what sold. If a C&C product sells good enough a company will see that there is a market for it and they may produce more. And at this point I have not the money nor desire to feed the d20 beast in whatever form it takes now or in 4e.

Quote:
Luckily, the internet is a perfect distribution medium, as is print on demand services for some material. I would think that someone could have a nice little cottage industry of porting things from one system to another. Yes, there are licensing issues, but that isn't always a deal breaker especially if the material is OGL.

I'd like to see a cottage industry that moves back to house systems and innovation not based on d20 or the OGL. Yes I know C&C is just that but it has moved enough away and is evolving into it's own game and I see less D20 influence than I did in the beginning.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:36 am

Treebore wrote:
Compatibility issues? You don't play C&C?

Youre just a better CK than I am Treebore.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:38 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
I think the point that Treebore is getting at is mainly to do with the fact that one can use 'setting' and 'monster' descriptions sans mechanics.

So in that sense, any company can produce material that can be used with C&C if the flavor text and setting information is all that your after.

Well, yeah. I guess that's why we're still using the KoK setting books.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:41 pm

I also see 4E as a tougher converting job to C&C; not necessarily from the monster stat block, but anything to do with PCs seem like a chore to convert. Though, I haven't been keeping up with 4E much lately, monsters may have gotten tougher to convert as more info was released.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:50 pm

Treebore wrote:
I was talking mechanics too. Looking at the sample monsters I see those at least as very easy to use, at least about as easy as it is for me to use 3E monsters.

As to the rest of what I have seen of the game mechanics, most are already covered by C&C.

So far I see 4E as being about as compatible with C&C as 3E is. At least the ideas I think I am going to steal are.

Yeah, but ...

A lot of those monsters have abilities that are ... limitless(?). The Pit Fiend could explode how many other demons a day? Apparently the total sum of all other demons allied to him. So, if the Pit Fiend was sitting mid-Abyss that means he could explode ... all the other demons in existance.

I'm not going to convert the pit fiend and I'm not worried about Abyss or any other D&D setting-piece.

However, I'm not inclined to borrow monster stats from a game that features (for heroes as well as monsters) at will "Limit Breaker" abilities. The monsters are balanced for a party that has these powers (ours won't). The monsters are also supposed to feature "minion" and "boss" rules that don't cross over as well either.

Besides, all them old d20 monster books are cheap now. I picked up Liber Bestarius and Dangerous Denizens (both 150+ page hardbacks) for less then $7. So 4e may be as easy to convert as 3e was (and I'm still dubious on that) but it sure ain't cheaper ... yet.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

papercut · Post by **papercut** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:34 pm

Limit Break!!!!

I blowed you up!!!!!
Cactuar King!!!!!

Super Mega Bahamut!!!!! ZERO!!!!!

Kablooom!

It might be interesting actually.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:35 pm

1000 needles!

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:46 pm

I gotta say, I went and signed up to the Paizo website, so I could download the Alpha playtest PDF, and ... wow.

I'm no Paizo phanboi -- hadn't even thought to look at their stuff until it was mentioned here -- but there were three or four things that just jumped out of that doc and smacked me upside the head with how much sense they made.

It wasn't a case of "cool!", it was a case of "this rule idea makes so much sense it's going into my C&C game as soon as my books arrive!"

And I'm not an rpg "rules tinkerer" by any means. If a system, as printed, can't work under its own power, I tend to ditch it for something that can work. I want to play, not patch rules.

But this alpha doc ... some of the ideas were just so right, I'd feel stupid to myself for not implementing them. Like:

- balanced racial adjustment stats.

- ditching Cure Minor Wounds for the new Stabilize (which puts dying characters at 0 HP with a touch) so that Clerics can cast memorized 0-level spells (Orisons) at will throughout the day, as do Wizards, without creating a "healing exploit".

- Adjusting class hit dice, so weaker classes are more viable at low levels.

- Arcane Bond in place of Find Familiar, which either acts as Find Familiar OR allows the magic user to bond to an item (weapon, ring, staff, amulet) which becomes a kind of signature piece or focus. This has adventages and disadvantages like a familiar, but more importantly (for me) it mirrors something I've seen in fantasy lliterature forever, without adding ten pounds of rules to the game in the process!

- Turning Healing (Or Healing Turning?). When a cleric turns undead, the positive energy unleashed will also heal all the living in a set radius. This mechanic is meant to allow clerics the chance to actually use a wider array of spells, instead of constantly having to be nothing more than "the healing machine".

There's more ... but my point is, most rules tweaks I see are usually either "customization" tweaks, where the author is bringing the rules more in line with his or her personal vision -- or else, they're just "power-up" tweaks designed to impress.

These alpha playtest rules surprised me with how much the proposed changes are actually about trying to make the game better, smoother, faster, more practical, and more fun at the gaming table.

Sounds very C&C-like, in these regards.

Anyway, thanks to posters in this thread for inspiring me to seek out the PDF document!

Anyone else who's curious can find it as a free download HERE.

The link is in blue, right underneath the big Pathfinder logo, BUT you'll have to register with the site before you can access the free download.

ALSO, as soon as you register, be sure to go into your Account Settings and turn all the privacy settings to "not", or you'll get spammed unconscious with "special offers", and other e-mail crapola, from now until the sun burns out.

TheNewGuy

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:46 pm

I actually applaud Paizo for doing where they are doing. I don't neccessarily think that Paizo is taking a chance per se, but they are certainly going against the flow of hoow thing in this industry have worked for the better part of a decade. Good for them, though long term benefits (longer then 2-3 years) would seem slim. Then again, who knows this day in age. If 4E flops on its face, then Paizo can look forward to players coming back to their version of the v3.5 blend. Hopefully, these players will come to C&C, but that is not the point of this thread. I think with Paizo's lead there might me another publisher or two in the woodpile who will follow this idea.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:06 pm

In process of downloading now. We shall see what we shall see. I can say the "healing turning" thing is meh... its like turning in general: useless if you don't use a lot of Undead. "Power-ups" should be universal, not specific.

Akrasia · Post by **Akrasia** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:37 pm

Treebore wrote:
... I think 3E will be easier to use for C&C than 4E. Why do I think that? Because I am going to have to throw out a lot more of 4E to trim it down into what I like for C&C...

Really? My impression was that statblocks for 4e will be much smaller than 3e, and thus easier to ignore when substituting C&C (or other) stats.

However, I haven't been following 4e developments closely ...
_________________
While it is unlikely to interest most of you, here is my 'cunning' blog: http://dailyakrasia.blogspot.com/

Franklincense · Post by **Franklincense** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:05 pm

Downloaded the PDF.

I have my usual objections:

Dying is rare. (What game? It's an interactive story. The hero of a novel can't die).

100% rules, 0% wing-it. (We don't trust DMs and players to have good judgment).

Frank

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:21 pm

Franklincense wrote:
Downloaded the PDF.

I have my usual objections:

Dying is rare. (What game? It's an interactive story. The hero of a novel can't die).

100% rules, 0% wing-it. (We don't trust DMs and players to have good judgment).

Frank

Quite. I bear no ill will towards anyone who likes this sort of thing.... it is the product of the video era where you save or resurect with the quick push of a button.... and the idea of the RPG as centered around a "character build," so much so that the idea of any threat to this "build" is considered "bad game."

My current group is composed exclusively of players who never played any edition previous to 3.x. My wife had only played Vampire before she joined my original 3.0 group in grad school in 2002. The others are 20-somethings from my theatre program and younger friends who also only know 3.0/3.5.

As I've run my game, they have admited they have had hands shake and pulses quicken because, as they say, "it's the 1st time I'm really afraid I might die." One character has... twice. Another once. This first real campaign I've allowed for some resurections to occur, but they certainly feel the exhiliration of the posibility - especially as my wife reminds them that the 1st character she ever played "I" killed in the 1st day.

My group had managed to raise the ire of the assassin's guild in Ascalon in our Aihrde campaign -- and the group spent much time on a private MySpace thread devoted to our game discussing group strategy. When playing Gary's Mound Island encounter from Yggsburgh (in honor of Gary), the group got to the room with about 30 of the degenerate pygmies.... they opted to send the assassin, moving silently with a ring of invisibility, to move through the room to see if he (as a half-elf) "tingled" at any secret passages (which he did - the passages to the tombs).... only then did they decide to risk the battle. It turned out to be easier than they thought, because our wizard used fireball for the 1st time in the game. Not a few minutes later, they had to fight the Mummy shaman and then the River King Wight.... and the threat of energy level drain scared the hell out of them as they saw our Dwarf fighter NPC reduced from 5th to essentially 2nd level in 3 quick turns.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:03 am

serleran wrote:
In process of downloading now. We shall see what we shall see. I can say the "healing turning" thing is meh... its like turning in general: useless if you don't use a lot of Undead. "Power-ups" should be universal, not specific.

To be clear, it is an alpha-playtest doc, and this kind of feedback is precisely the sort of thing they're looking to hear.

As for Healing/Turning, I was intrigued by any attempt to allow clerics to function as more than just "the healing machine" (that's a quote from my original AD&D crew, from ancient times).

People here occasionally like to "grognard grump" about the "video game mentality" invading modern rpgs -- but as far back as 1979, these guys effectively drove away one of the best player-character clerics I'd seen because they essentially treated his character as a medieval EMT with a metal stick. They literally referred to his character as "the healing machine".

Video-game mentality, anyone?

Yes, yes he could've "role-played" and demanded more respect, or refused to heal them, or whatnot, but the reality is, he just got tired of constantly fighting against the presumption of "you are not here except to heal all of us whenever we need it".

He was also tired of rarely ever getting to slot a spell that wasn't about healing. Oh sure, he could, but if he did and someone didn't get their "healing machine" dispensation right when they needed it, then suddenly it was his fault and he "wasn't thinking (playing) strategically".

Ultimately, I consider this one of the flaws of early D&D design -- what a cleric player is promised on paper, and what is typically required of them in-game, are often very different.

Some would say, "Well, he shouldn't have played a cleric, then" and completely miss my point. Again, what the class looks like it can be about (fighting and healing and cool divine magic) and what it typically devolves into -- be our always-on-call "healing machine" or else listen to us bitch and moan at you `til your ears fall off -- amount to two completely different things.

Someone here (the ubiquitous treebore?) mentioned that C&C cuts out a lot of the cleric spells common in D&D which turn clerics into "buff dispensers" at higher levels. I only hope this is true, as clerics can be so much more interesting and versatile if the rules would work with them instead of against them in this regard.

So Healing/Turning in the Paizo doc? Sure, it's not even nearly a perfect thing, but I do appreciate seeing some attempt at helping clerics to save their spell slots for some of the other clerical spells they have access to -- yet are almost never "allowed" to use in practical play without getting dumped on by the rest of the party for "not doing their job" as the designated "healing machine".

Oh, and that player (who was a cleric of Thoth [Djehuti], the Egyptian god of knowledge)? I was not the group DM at that time, but I ran some solo adventures for him, and built a rather elaborate story where he reluctantly became priest-king of a small fantasy-Egyptian city. He had a great time, loved the adventures and his character -- but he never brought that character back to the group table.

He didn't want to go back to being just "the healing machine".

Thanks for talking,

TheNewGuy

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:37 am

A DM can stop "the healing machine" effect by not being tight with the potions.
Hell, I've played in many games with no clerics, no (or very little) healing... and it forces you to be smarter, to play like every thing you do will be the last thing that PC does (because it often is...) and there is nothing wrong with it, nor is there anything wrong with "the healing machine." Is it boring? Absolutely, for some. So is sitting around a table for 6 hours while the thief player haggles with some merchant over the cost of a piece of fish only to stab him in the neck and steal it... and then, to others, its boring to engage in fantasy combat for hours.

What matters: players, the DM, and their cohesion.

The rules are irrelevant if you have the above in good order.

jaguar451 · Post by **jaguar451** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:00 am

I used to provide a few bonus first level spell slots that had to be used for non- healing or combat spells.... (been a while since I've played or DMd.)

I definitely like seeing various efforts (4e, Piazo, etc) to make lower level casters into, well, casters more than a couple times a day. Not saying I agree with 4e's or other takes, but a balanced, easy to use system for low level casting classes that provides for a bit more casting would be nice, IMO.

Unlimited cantrips seems interesting. Hourly first level spells? Magic Missile "at will", but with a 'To hit' role? (single missile only) Basically a Wizard with a crossbow at combat, just less EV and more 'in role' for a Wizard. ('exception' rules instead of a clean system, tho.)

hmmmm....

Guess probably belongs in one of the spell system theads, eh?

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:33 am

serleran wrote:
What matters: players, the DM, and their cohesion.

The rules are irrelevant if you have the above in good order.

You got your apples mixed in with my oranges ...
I'm the last to ever be called a "rules-based" gamer, but my point remains that the early D&D rules tacitly encouraged the cleric-as-healing-machine function which dogs and hinders the class archetype to this day.

Again, there was a persistent disconnect between what the early AD&D rules said the cleric class could be for a player, and what that class actually was when you hit the gaming table.

Sure, a good DM (CK) and good players can mitigate or re-work anything, but that's not where I was going this time.

The rules, as they illustrate character classes, are the player's blueprint of what they can do and be, in-game.

If there's a significant schism between what the rules tell you your class can do, and what you're expected to do, in game -- and you actually need to rely on a the presence of a smart and/or fair DM (CK) to arbitrate how you engage the game, at even this most basic of gameplay levels, then there's a design problem going on.

But to loop back to the main topic -- the Turning/Healing rule draft impressed me merely because someone else seemed to have recognized, and was attempting to address, this very same cleric class "schism" I first noticed years ago.

Most classic clerics rarely got to use much of their divine magic beyond healing related stuff, if played in default mode -- unless, again, they were lucky enough to have a proactive DM (CK), or group, who consciously allowed this. If you're in a classic-rules pickup game as a cleric, you're the "healing machine" -- rulebook promises of exotic divine magic be damned.

The classic class rules promise options that classic gameplay effectively takes away again, by default. If you need DM intervention just to ensure that you can play your baseline character class as written, something's wrong.

So, I still have to say cheers to Paizo for at least trying to tweak the basic cleric rules-definition so that clerics can actually choose to be fantasy cleric characters, and not just "party healing machines" -- regardless of whether the DM is clued-in, aware, generous with healing potions, or not.

All this is, of course, said with respect, Serleran. I'm simply trying to be clearer in my communication.

TheNewGuy

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:04 am

Quote:
But to loop back to the main topic -- the Turning/Healing rule draft impressed me merely because someone else seemed to have recognized, and was attempting to address, this very same cleric class "schism" I first noticed years ago.

Heh, to use the proposed logic already present

Quote:
and you actually need to rely on a the presence of a smart and/or fair DM (CK) to arbitrate how you engage the game, at even this most basic of gameplay levels, then there's a design problem going on

then there is a problem with this rule, as it relies on a DM to send waves of undead at the party, making the new ability viable and worthwhile. If the party simply encounters a troop of kobolds, that wonderful new healing while turning rule means absolutely nothing - it would have been better to give the cleric a simple boost to healing spells, such as "all clerics can cast a cure light wounds spell twice per day, in addition to whatever spells they can cast" instead, as that is universal, not specific.

That was my point.

The funny thing, really, is that we could almost agree. I don't think there is anything wrong with the way clerics are... in d20+ they are the most powerful class anyway, so I would have rather seen them restricted.

Pdiddy · Post by **Pdiddy** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:09 pm

serleran wrote:
then there is a problem with this rule, as it relies on a DM to send waves of undead at the party, making the new ability viable and worthwhile.

I know the wording doesn't necessarily support this, but who says you need undead around to use the ability? I know it is called "Turn Undead" but what if you changed the name to "Positive (or Negative) Energy Burst" which has two effects: 1. harms and turns undead 2. heals living creatures. - for the positive energy burst of course.

I kind of like this. Combined with the grace and health hit points from Book of Experimental Might and a cleric may not have to use hardly any healing spells.

Troll Lord Games

PAIZO to continue with 3E!! (Sorry Peter)

Re: PAIZO to continue with 3E!! (Sorry Peter)