Troll Lord Games

I am sure this has been answered before but, as some one who just got the book to day.

Why would any one want to play a fighter in C&C? (let alone a humabne one, its hard to imagine a less "meeh" character)

I ask, because, well as soon as I read that class I remembered why I never really had a bout of nostelgia for OD&D/AD&D (and believe me I am far to old to be playing these games...or so I have been told).

I wanna like ther game, but it's just something that bugs me....what is the appeal, that is so "dumbed down" any dunderhead can get in to it? (Shouldn't that be the boobarbain??)

Sorry I don't mean to get off on the wrong foot....but aside from the "more armor" factor (and is that really a big deal???, other classes can match that) why play the most generic guy in the game???

Because he's the only class that can kick anything's ass. Best attack progression rate. Only class (aside from a monk) that ever gets more than 1 attack. And, as human, you get 3 Primes, which is damn powerful.

And... its the player that makes something "un-meh," not the rules.

Give a boring person the most awesome thing ever, and if they "don't get it" it will remain boring. Bells and whistles are meaningless if you can't play them.

Of course, I'm not saying you're a bad player... but, first: C&C does not expect the system to provide everything. It demand the player puts effort into the game.

Whats the appeal of any class? The C&C classes don't have nearly the abilities of the 3rd edition D&D counterparts. Every class in that game has a wide range of cast in stone powers, feats, skills and so forth.

The answer, in C&C's case, is the Siege mechanic. With that, and a bit of coloring outside the lines rules wise, your fighter can have pretty much any warrior related ability or skill one can think of.

The design of the game is based on abstract thinking and how the system relates as a whole. A classes abilities or lack thereof therefore cannot be considered in isolation.
See.. MY second level fighter, who has wisdom and charisma as prime abilities, has quite an array of things he can do. He can influence people, he's resistant to those who would dominate him. He's insightful and aware of his surroundings and canny in combat. He knows how to lead. He understands application of strength and power.

All of this can be widely interpreted depending on where one puts their prime attributes.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

I would have liked to have seen a 1/1, 3/2, 2/1, 5/2 attack progression like the AD&D fighter and their combat dominance ability is truly useless.

They're still the best pure fighters against most foes, though.

Yamo wrote:
I would have liked to have seen a 1/1, 3/2, 2/1, 5/2 attack progression like the AD&D fighter

And you are, of course, free to tweak the class in just that way.

Buttmonkey wrote:
And you are, of course, free to tweak the class in just that way.

Quite.

Personally, I shifted around Weap Spec to 4th and Combat dominance to first and added another attack per round at 7th and 13th.

Just cause I can.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Buttmonkey wrote:
And you are, of course, free to tweak the class in just that way.

That's true of any RPG rule. When I talk about the C&C fighter without qualifications, though, it's safe to assume I mean the PHB one.

Weapon specialization, extra attacks.

Because some people like to play and have fun and not crunch numbers to make sure they have the best of the best. I like playing a fighter sometimes with a low INT and just go crazy.
_________________
kim@trolllord.com

Click here: http://tiny.cc/4rvo5

I thought the same thing at first, untill I realized that C&C is often about the stuff you find to make your characters more powerful. (magic items, etc.)

I'd tweak the class if you feel it's needed.

Let's say in combat dominance...have an extra attack against monsters half the Fighter's hit die, as opposed to 1 hit die, etc.

It's a solid class with no drawbacks, leaving you free to develop the character as you like. It will also progress slightly faster than the fighter variants, although this evens out around 10-12th level.

If you fight in a campaign with extensive use of humanoid and demi-human opponents, then simply removing the (badly thought through) d6 HD limitation from Combat Dominance makes the class very deadly.

I have experimented with "scaling" Combat Dominance, as follows:

4th level: +1 attack versus 1HD

8th level: +2 attacks vs 1HD, +1 attack vs 2HD

12th level: +3 attacks vs 1HD, +2 attacks vs 2HD, +1 attack vs 3HD

If you want a true "low level sweep" effect, at 10th level allow "stacking" of Extra Attack, i.e. +1 attack all-around. This means that at 10th level a Fighter has 4 attacks vs 1HD, 3 attacks vs 2HD, and 2 attacks vs everything else. At 12th level, that's 5 attacks versus 1HD, 4 attacks vs 2HD, 3 attacks vs 3 HD, and 2 vs 4HD+ ... !!

This makes a high level fighter a devastating opponent vs humanoids, even against tougher bodyguard and leader types, but doesn't effect the play-balance vs the bigger critters.

gideon_thorne wrote:
The answer, in C&C's case, is the Siege mechanic. With that, and a bit of coloring outside the lines rules wise, your fighter can have pretty much any warrior related ability or skill one can think of.

The design of the game is based on abstract thinking and how the system relates as a whole. A classes abilities or lack thereof therefore cannot be considered in isolation.
See.. MY second level fighter, who has wisdom and charisma as prime abilities, has quite an array of things he can do. He can influence people, he's resistant to those who would dominate him. He's insightful and aware of his surroundings and canny in combat. He knows how to lead. He understands application of strength and power.

All of this can be widely interpreted depending on where one puts their prime attributes.

Thats the central thing to C&C. Most people do not "see" this about the SIEGE engine. Unlike 3E or any other RPG I have played, the SIEGE engine allows your imagination to take your character wherever you want. If any changes are ever made to the PH I would like to see a couple of paragraphs dedicated to explaining this to the CK and players.

It amazes me how people want lists to define their character. With the C&C SIEGE engine, think of an idea, tell the CK, the CK determines a CL (if its something the CK wants to even be possible to do, reason still has to exist), the player rolls, if they beat the TN they did it.

You want skills? You have them built into the SIEGE mechanic. Thats too abstract? Then you define a skill system however you want it defined. Steal it from other editions of D&D if you wish.

C&C is all about making it into the exact game you want it to be. You want one predefined for you, you have plenty of great options.
_________________
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

Picky McGee wrote:
Why would any one want to play a fighter in C&C? (let alone a humabne one, its hard to imagine a less "meeh" character)

I ask, because, well as soon as I read that class I remembered why I never really had a bout of nostelgia for OD&D/AD&D (and believe me I am far to old to be playing these games...or so I have been told).

I wanna like ther game, but it's just something that bugs me....what is the appeal, that is so "dumbed down" any dunderhead can get in to it? (Shouldn't that be the boobarbain??)

The nice thing about the fighter is you can just select your primes and get started on the character himself. 3E fighters are such a pain in the butt - you have to select all these feats as you level up, and a lot of times you have to plan things out levels ahead of time, or else you'll end up inefficient to the point of harming the party. In C&C, you can just play the character you want to play.

(And in my experience, fighters kick serious tail.)

Picky McGee wrote:
I am sure this has been answered before but, as some one who just got the book to day.

Why would any one want to play a fighter in C&C? (let alone a humabne one, its hard to imagine a less "meeh" character)

I ask, because, well as soon as I read that class I remembered why I never really had a bout of nostelgia for OD&D/AD&D (and believe me I am far to old to be playing these games...or so I have been told).

I wanna like ther game, but it's just something that bugs me....what is the appeal, that is so "dumbed down" any dunderhead can get in to it? (Shouldn't that be the boobarbain??)

Sorry I don't mean to get off on the wrong foot....but aside from the "more armor" factor (and is that really a big deal???, other classes can match that) why play the most generic guy in the game???

Is this person a troll? Why a fighter?

Guess I just don't get the question without thinking of a troll.
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

I have a sneaking suspicion that you're framing your comparisons w/ previous games. Castles and Crusades is truly a system of its own and should be judged as such.

Play it. Seriously...and then, if you still find the fighter lacking, change a few things. That's the beauty of this system though. It's a wonderful platform from which to create the perfect game for you.
_________________
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.'

Lewis Carroll

Quite simply, a fighter is the best all around fighting class in the game. This is the character that could be bred for war; the soldier who's life duty is to keep fighting; the character that has seen the ways of war and best knows how to deal with it head on.

That is the fighter.

The act of roleplaying the part is what sets each fighter class apart from one another. No character has to be "meh" when a player make the fighter his own. Think about this: The fighter class is all of those things mentioned above, but after seeing all of that decides to become a pascifist. The character retains all of the abilities of the fighter as he has known them in life, but the challange comes from the player turning the fighter into a pacifist. This is an extreme example, but totally valid. The player makes each class different. There is no need to have 40 rules books to tell me how to make my fighter different.

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

In context, I have noticed that some of my players pick the ranger over the fighter. Probably because my players tend to play sneaky characters instead of tanks in armor. (Maybe it as to do with the ranger having much more abilities than most classes...) Well, that is the way my group plays. The thing is a fighter would only be "weak" or "meeh" if you only do skirmish game types. Besides the ranger, others would be even weaker... C&C is a game for both role-play and action. C&C is not for tactical miniature warfare at its core, although with some adjustments it can be. So in theory, it all depends on how you play a game I suppose.

To me, the fighter plays just fine.

ZW.
_________________
To understand some, you gotta make some!

Number one, I don't think this guy is trolling, its a question that has been asked before.

Number two, I play a fighter. With a Ranger in the party. I kick butt. The +3 STR bonus helps, but just being a fighter helps a lot too. Plus the CK changed it to where I get extra attacks against creatures half my level.

So a Ranger is cool, but a fighter does what he is supposed to do, kick major butt!! Is high AC a big advantage? Heck yeah! Just ask the others in my party, which includes the only other class that can wear the armor my fighter wears. I have been hit far less than anyone else, and it sure isn't because I stay away from the thick of it. I am always in the thick fo it.

So my fighter does what he is supposed to do. He is the devastating tank of the battle field. He can be taken down, but it isn't done easy.
_________________
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

I think what's missing is that in C&C what you do, your actions as a character within the game make you what you are. Your abilities and class features shape the character, but are NOT the character.

I love that C&C relies on imagination and not rules to make for a fun game. That is why it resonates with my BECMI D&D and OAD&D experience.
_________________
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

Agreed! The dwarven fighter in my campaign is a combat monster - goblinoids fall like wheat under the scythe.

But really, a human fighter is nothing to sneeze at. With three primes, I can think of no other race / class better suited to be the classic "action hero."

serleran wrote:
Because he's the only class that can kick anything's ass.

Deogolf wrote:
Is this person a troll? Why a fighter?

Guess I just don't get the question without thinking of a troll.

The question does come up with predictable frequency. Folks are used to more options. The answer to the question is found in how to apply the siege engine and the philosophy of the game.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

I had a player who consistently picked a Fighter. Usualy a Dwarf Fighter, but thats a different thread. I asked him why. His reasons were bascally this.....

He didn't want a Paladin, too goody-good, too many rules/restrictions.

No Cleric, some of the same reasons as a Paladin. He ddn't want to be obligated to Church/Gods.

The Monk is a kung-fu guy, save him for Oriental Adventures.

Thief or Asssassin- nah. Not real "fighters". He didn't want to spend the game picking locks & hiding.

Magic-user/Illusionist, obviously not in the front line of combat.

Ranger- good warrior, but wasnt into outdoors. Most adventures were dungeons, or urban areas.

Druid, he didn't want a tree-hugger or animal-lover.

Knight/Cavalier- this guy wasn't into chivalry.

Barbarian, who wants to go berserk & possibly attack your friends?

Bard? save the guitar for campfire sing-alongs.

Simply put, this player wanted a tough character who would be on the front-line, in the thick of the action, going head-to-head with the enemy. Great armor, weapon skills, hit points/strength. The Fighter can be simple to play- no complicated choices of which spells to memorize or pray for. No skulking around or avoiding the enemy. Not alot of restrictions/rules.

The Fighter can be alot of things. A tough Dwarf warrior, a grizzled human mercenary, an Elven archer,etc. Some of the Fighters appeal is its straight-forwardness.

Plus, and I've voiced this before on other threads, if you want to get into the other (nonhuman) races: There ain't nothing tougher out of the gate melee-wise than a longsword-wielding elf fighter with a high ST.

EDIT: Oh, and IMC Combat Dominance applies 1HD creatures, d8 or less.

What's the appeal you ask? Chicks, man. Chicks.

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

Omote wrote:
What's the appeal you ask? Chicks, man. Chicks.

-O

It's true. Real men play human fighters.

I just change combat dominance to Cleave (a la 3e), and Fighter is awesome.
_________________
-------

Dan
http://home.comcast.net/~danbuter/candc.html - my Castles and Crusades webpage

danbuter wrote:
I just change combat dominance to Cleave (a la 3e), and Fighter is awesome.

See in my game, the one I run, not the previously mentioned game in which I play, Cleave can be done with a successful SIEGE check, CL=HD of opponent. So all fighter types are awesome. Just fighters get their full BtH, which equals their level, plus their weapon of choice bonus when it is used. So they get an extra +2 to all such SIEGE checks no one else can get, since the check is done based purely on their skill, so no magic or stat modifiers apply. Only their BtH.
_________________
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

I Ck Tree's fighter and let me just say that if it weren't for him there would have been severl TPKs. Zurgas is a brute! Plus I added a 2e style attack progression for weapon specialization.

1st level: +1 to attack and damage; 1 attack per round

5th level: +2 to attack and damage; 3 attacks per 2 rounds

10th level: +3 to attack and damage; 2 attacks per round

15th level: +4 to attacks and damage; 5 attacks per 2 rounds

20th level: +5 to attacks and damage; 3 attacks per round

Other warrior types (any class with a BtH of level - 1) plus the fighter for any non-specialized weapon get a progression like this:

1st-6th level: 1 attack per round

7th-12th level: 3 attacks per 2 rounds

13th level and up: 2 attacks per round

The fighter, in my opion, should be the absolute best at combat. In my campaigns they are, period.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

Holy crap!! I am +2 to hit and damage now!
_________________
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

Treebore wrote:
Holy crap!! I am +2 to hit and damage now!

Yeah, I know. I probably have to start throwing dragons at you now just to make things interesting.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind