The Player's Handbook: What you'd like to see...

Buttmonkey · Post by **Buttmonkey** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:01 pm

Grey wrote:
1) (a) Table of class abilities by level (either in class section or seperate table)

You can get that table on the Castle Keeper's Screen. Granted, that's not the PHB, but what you want is out there in another publication.

Grey · Post by **Grey** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:31 pm

Quote:
Grey wrote:

1) (a) Table of class abilities by level (either in class section or seperate table)

You can get that table on the Castle Keeper's Screen. Granted, that's not the PHB, but what you want is out there in another publication.

I realise that this table is available, but (like wanting a few monster stats) I would like to see the PHB as a 'whole' game, with M&T (multiple versions) building on that, and the CKG the 'toolbox' for all sorts of goodness (multi-classing, creating new classes, NPC details etc)

Cheers

D.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:18 pm

An expanded revised PHB that has the Engineering Dungeons , Dragons of Airdhe, and the Castellan's Book of Arms in it?
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:33 pm

Now we're getting close to my idea of an 'ultimate' C&C. But most of you know that so there's no need to repeat it.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Taranthyll · Post by **Taranthyll** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:57 pm

1. add an index

2. Put the classes in alphabetical order - I dislike having them arranged by primes.

3. 8

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:50 pm

CharlieRock wrote:
An expanded revised PHB that has the Engineering Dungeons , Dragons of Airdhe, and the Castellan's Book of Arms in it?

That would be a $60 book, or more. Well, if it can be full color too...
_________________
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

RLW · Post by **RLW** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:05 pm

It's hard to be too precise without knowing what's going to be in the CKG. As I understand it, the philosophy of C&C is to provide a streamlined, unified version of D&D that is true to its original character and compatible with the many products developed for it. None of that should change, and revisions should be minor. But there's no reason to make a fetish of tradition, and IMO the innovations introduced by the Troll Lords are, by and large, ingenious and elegant.

Basically, revisions and changes should remain true to the spirit of the game, but should answer the questions that keep coming up on this board. If there's an as-written rule that keeps getting modified or exchanged for something else (as indicated by the discussion here), it should be a candidate for revision. Where there are deliberate ambiguities in the rules (because it's a matter for the CKG to decide), there should be some indication of that fact, rather than leaving players with the consternation of thinking it a mistake -- "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"

1. I know multiclassing is supposed to be covered in the CKG, but it seems to me it belongs in the PHB. An index would be nice, but so far I haven't had any trouble finding things via the table of contents. More examples of when and when not to use the SIEGE engine would be extremely useful. Adjusting the CL is properly the CK's territory, but it would be nice to include a discussion of it in the PHB. Basic rules for disease would be good.

2. Obviously, all errata should be exterminated with extreme prejudice. As noted above, this includes clarifying ambiguities. Get someone familiar with the game but not a member of TLG to do some editing and proofreading -- it helps to have another set of eyes from outside of your lair. I'm generally happy with how the classes are constructed, keeping in mind the intent of the game. But I would revisit the fighter. I'd suggest expanding Combat Dominance and/or adding Cleave. Both seem to be traditional aspects of the archetype, particularly in cinematic fantasy. I'd like to see shields finally given their due, but wouldn't consider it an essential item for revision (besides, any discussion about combat, arms, & tactics should be tabled until the appearance of the CGtA&A).

See below for my thoughts about magic.

3. 8.5 or higher! I really do like this game and primarily just want to see it "cleaned up and expanded" rather than revised.

Magic: My personal preference is to see more spells or alteration of spells, spells arranged by schools, and an alternative to Vancian magic. However, I recognize that these aren't appropriate changes for the RAW. Ideally, I'd want to see one "cleric" archetype and one "spellcaster" archetype, which could then be customized according to the school of magic. Alignments already make it possible to do this pretty well with clerics, though CK's are more "on their own" when it comes to magic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since how one envisions magic plays a huge part in shaping a campaign, and the basic rules shouldn't be too restrictive in mandating a certain "theory" of magic. But an expanded toolkit for CKs and players would seem to me to be a good thing; the Illusionist and Druid appear to be early steps in this direction, with the Druid (IMO) a successful realization of the concept and the Illusionist less so.

For those of us without the library of old D&D books to consult or the time to develop / playtest every idea we can conceive, it'd be great to have a supplement which would do everything I've suggested in the last paragraph: more spells; guidelines for altering or customizing spell effects; spells by school to foster customization of spellcasting classes; and (if anyone can find this Holy Grail of game design) a balanced, playable alternative to fire-and-forget magic.

Hence, I'd see the game and its core books taking this shape:

PHB (basic rules, virtually unchanged except for the addition of multiclassing)

CKG (guides for running a game, houseruling, and creating campaigns, etc.)

M&T (foes and prizes)

Arms & Armor (fighter "expansion kit")

[Name TBA! ] (magic "expansion kit")

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:30 pm

Treebore wrote:
That would be a $60 book, or more. Well, if it can be full color too...

Oh, good one!

Some pages of full color splash art, and more panel pics throughout. Especially from that one dude Bradley.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

boxcornersdiety · Post by **boxcornersdiety** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:58 pm

1. I will be the voice of dissension and say that the PHB does not need an index. It should be as short as possible and well organized so that an index isn't necessary. Alphabetizing the classes might help a bit. The M&T is a completely different animal. Now that book *needs* an index. Try finding the entry for "pixie"!

2. Keep your Cleave out of my C&C please!

3. Please revise the Barbarian. I have some suggestions in the thread that Davis started.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:14 pm

A 9th printing.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

AGNKim · Post by **AGNKim** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:31 am

RLW wrote:
It's hard to be too precise without knowing what's going to be in the CKG. As I understand it, the philosophy of C&C is to provide a streamlined, unified version of D&D that is true to its original character and compatible with the many products developed for it. None of that should change, and revisions should be minor. But there's no reason to make a fetish of tradition, and IMO the innovations introduced by the Troll Lords are, by and large, ingenious and elegant.

Basically, revisions and changes should remain true to the spirit of the game, but should answer the questions that keep coming up on this board. If there's an as-written rule that keeps getting modified or exchanged for something else (as indicated by the discussion here), it should be a candidate for revision. Where there are deliberate ambiguities in the rules (because it's a matter for the CKG to decide), there should be some indication of that fact, rather than leaving players with the consternation of thinking it a mistake -- "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"

1. I know multiclassing is supposed to be covered in the CKG, but it seems to me it belongs in the PHB. An index would be nice, but so far I haven't had any trouble finding things via the table of contents. More examples of when and when not to use the SIEGE engine would be extremely useful. Adjusting the CL is properly the CK's territory, but it would be nice to include a discussion of it in the PHB. Basic rules for disease would be good.

2. Obviously, all errata should be exterminated with extreme prejudice. As noted above, this includes clarifying ambiguities. Get someone familiar with the game but not a member of TLG to do some editing and proofreading -- it helps to have another set of eyes from outside of your lair. I'm generally happy with how the classes are constructed, keeping in mind the intent of the game. But I would revisit the fighter. I'd suggest expanding Combat Dominance and/or adding Cleave. Both seem to be traditional aspects of the archetype, particularly in cinematic fantasy. I'd like to see shields finally given their due, but wouldn't consider it an essential item for revision (besides, any discussion about combat, arms, & tactics should be tabled until the appearance of the CGtA&A).

See below for my thoughts about magic.

3. 8.5 or higher! I really do like this game and primarily just want to see it "cleaned up and expanded" rather than revised.

Magic: My personal preference is to see more spells or alteration of spells, spells arranged by schools, and an alternative to Vancian magic. However, I recognize that these aren't appropriate changes for the RAW. Ideally, I'd want to see one "cleric" archetype and one "spellcaster" archetype, which could then be customized according to the school of magic. Alignments already make it possible to do this pretty well with clerics, though CK's are more "on their own" when it comes to magic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since how one envisions magic plays a huge part in shaping a campaign, and the basic rules shouldn't be too restrictive in mandating a certain "theory" of magic. But an expanded toolkit for CKs and players would seem to me to be a good thing; the Illusionist and Druid appear to be early steps in this direction, with the Druid (IMO) a successful realization of the concept and the Illusionist less so.

For those of us without the library of old D&D books to consult or the time to develop / playtest every idea we can conceive, it'd be great to have a supplement which would do everything I've suggested in the last paragraph: more spells; guidelines for altering or customizing spell effects; spells by school to foster customization of spellcasting classes; and (if anyone can find this Holy Grail of game design) a balanced, playable alternative to fire-and-forget magic.

Hence, I'd see the game and its core books taking this shape:

PHB (basic rules, virtually unchanged except for the addition of multiclassing)

CKG (guides for running a game, houseruling, and creating campaigns, etc.)

M&T (foes and prizes)

Arms & Armor (fighter "expansion kit")

[Name TBA! ] (magic "expansion kit")

I didn't read a word of that.

1. Boobies

2. Nothing

3. 8 (9 if it had boobies. 10 if it had boobies and an index. 11 if the index said:

"Boobies - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39..."
_________________
kim@trolllord.com

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

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:26 am

Quote:
more spells; guidelines for altering or customizing spell effects; spells by school to foster customization of spellcasting classes; and (if anyone can find this Holy Grail of game design) a balanced, playable alternative to fire-and-forget magic.

Well, if anyone ever actually noticed, that is exactly what the Society Netbook is geared to fulfill. However, I don't think anyone wants to put any effort forward -- there have been a few submissions, but whatever. I'm starting to think that, despite all the moaning for "more, more, more" people sure as hell don't want to help get that more.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:40 am

Serleran, chill. I don't think this is the thread to discuss exactly those topics.

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

Fat Dragon Games · Post by **Fat Dragon Games** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:46 am

AGNKim wrote:
I didn't read a word of that.

1. Boobies

2. Nothing

3. 8 (9 if it had boobies. 10 if it had boobies and an index. 11 if the index said:

"Boobies - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39..."

Heh heh... he said '"boobies".
_________________
Thomas A. Tullis

Fat Dragon Games
www.fatdragongames.com

Castles & Crusades...more D&D than D&D.

Balthock · Post by **Balthock** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:06 pm

1. Non-glossy, thicker paper. My copy has taken a bit of a beating,

and the crappy (sorry) paper is not very durable. It's also difficult to

make corrections on the glossy paper. This is my #1 complaint.

2. a. Reorganize the sections.

Races before classes, spells further back.

b. Incorporate errata and clarifications from Keeper Advice.

3. Multi-classing rules. This was an essential part of AD&D

and should be included in the PHB.

4. I'm a newcomer (relatively speaking) so I can't comment on previous

editions.
_________________
Meet me at Stonehenge at Midnight. I'll bring the goat.

old school gamer · Post by **old school gamer** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:22 pm

No glossy paper, too hard to read.

I would also like some more personalization on the weapons. Descriptions of said weapons would be nice and info on why you would want to pick one over the other. One thing I liked about 3rd Edition D&D was the different criticals on the weapons. This gave you a choice about whether or not use one weapon over the other.

Other than that I give the game an 8 overall.

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:29 am

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm fine with the paper in the 3rd printing. Maybe it's because it seems similar to the paper in my 3.X core books.

Other than that, I'm for alphabetizing the classes.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:52 am

AGNKim wrote:
I didn't read a word of that.

1. Boobies

2. Nothing

3. 8 (9 if it had boobies. 10 if it had boobies and an index. 11 if the index said:

"Boobies - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39..."

Bah. You saw the word "cleave" and your mind went into "boobies" spin - gears turn.

Very understandable, men have millions of year of evolution to account for this phenomenon.

Also, it's been proven that the head turn of men and the eye focus to a woman's breasts is the fastest possible action in the universe. Scientific tests have supported the physics of this. And some men have the ability to move their eyes from breast to a woman's face, before they can detect said eyeballing!!

Science always amazes and entertains me!

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

artikid · Post by **artikid** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:40 am

1. Multi-classing

2. Revise encumberance

3. I'd say 7.5

I don't care about paper type and think that errata should be included always in any new printing.

Please keep Feats OUT!

Artikid

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:15 am

I'd like to see more pictures. I love the art in the PHB.

Go Peter Bradley!
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:15 pm

Oooh, actually that is a good idea. I know there are space limitations, but more PB artwork in this book would be nice. Since the artwork already contained within has set the tone and feel to the C&C game to a certain extent, I also think it would be nice if possible to increase the number of pieces in the PHB.

And while were on the subject of this, how about more (and bigger) monster artwork in the M&T?!

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

Troll Lord Games

The Player's Handbook: What you'd like to see...

my vote