Troll Lord Games

I was thinking of implementing the following houserules in my already heavily-houseruled game of C&C and would like to get feedback on these (especially from Treebore and his players, who are playing with my houserules):

Challenge Base/Primes: I was thinking of setting the Challenge Base (CB) at 13 and removing primes altogether. To make up for this loss of primes humans would get a static, +1 bonus, to all ability checks (including saving throws).

As it is now in Castles & Crusades the Challenge Base (CB) is 18, with primes giving you a +6 bonus to associated ability checks. For humans the average CB (after prime bonuses are considered) is currently 15 [(18+18+18+12+12+12)/6]. For nonhumans it's 16 [(18+18+18+18+12+12)/6].

As it is now (in my houserules) the Challenge Base (CB) is 15, with primes giving you a +5 bonus to associated ability checks. For humans the average CB (after prime bonuses are considered) is currently 12.5 [(15+15+15+10+10+10)/6]. For nonhumans it's 13.3 [(15+15+15+15+10+10)/6].

If I removed primes humans would have a base CB of 12 for all ability checks, while nonhumans would have a base CB of 13.

This would eliminate the HUGE bonuses that primes provide (which dwarf ability score modifiers to checks) while keeping the CBs about where they are now. It would also preserve the reason to play humans, who lack the focused bonuses of the other nonhuman races but are great generalists. Besides, across-the-board bonuses would reflect the adaptive nature of humanity... which seems very logical to me. Of course, for those wishing to stick more closely to C&C's more challenging CBs the base CB could be upped to 16.

0-level Spells: All casters would get unlimited zero level spells each day. This means that cure minor wounds would have to change a bit. It would not heal any damage but would prevent blood loss by automatically closing wounds. Other than that, I can't think of any game-breaking abuses that this would cause.

Two-Weapon Fighting: To keep things nice and simple, 2-weapon fighting would give you a flat, +1, bonus to hit. If you hit, you can choose which weapon damage to use. It would no longer grant an extra attack.

So whadaya all think?

You know, people complain over and over about Primes versus non Primes, and after 5 years, and many games, all I see is that they work as intended. Which becomes critically important at high levels, 8+. If you never run games that high I guess alternatives will work better, for a game that may go to high levels, the Prime system works exactly the way it was intended.

Even so, after many games of first to 8th level, I like how Primes work.

I have considered meddling with the primes but resisted, figuring I did not have enough experience with the game to be sure of all repurcussions. (Also, I am trying to sell this game to my players and if I go meddling with the core mechanic, it looks bad!).

As for 0 level spells; well it just depends on the level of magic in your campaign. Works fine in a high fantasy/magic game but endless Light, Detect Magic and Endure Elements spells would not suit low magic settings or grittier type games where people like to make resourcing decisions (selected spells, light sources, equipment carried etc) a feature.

Two weapon fighting; I like this one.

Thanks guys!

I am working on how this effects the characters in my game and, overall:
a] it improves their chance of succeeding at saves and ability checks
b] makes ability scores much more important, proportionally, when figuring out if they make saves/ability checks or not.
c] lowers the amount of number crunching by a little bit.

I'm still figuring this out for now but I love fiddling with rules. I'll probably post an alternate version of my rules with these changes for those who are interested.

BTW, zarathustra, tinkering with rules is a feature, not flaw, of the C&C rules. I've never played a game that has inspired me to tweak bits to the degree that C&C has. I started C&C as a player and a lot of my houserules come out of that experience. Hopefully your players will catch the bug and start working to perfect the game with you!

I'm one who likes the use of primes as well. I wouldn't houserule them out, but that's just me.

In terms of playing humans, I think that third prime stat is huge when it comes to making them desirable races to play again. The first character I played in C&C was a human knight, and the third prime turned out to be killer.

Improving chances of making saves etc....there's another interesting case. While I don't like to be one to kill characters off, I do want my players to understand that when they run in my game, there's a very good chance that the character will die. That's an occupational hazard of an adventurer. If they play smart, they do well. If not...well...

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're trying to do as you've laid it out. I think that you have some very interesting ideas, but they're just things that I don't know that I'd incorporate. That being said, though, I do like your idea regarding 0-level spells. It'd be a great way to keep those characters in the game once they burn through all their spells for the day, especially at low levels. I'd need to think about the two-weapon fighting rules a bit more.

As for the zero level spells, already been doing that for years. Not sure if I ever formally wrote it into my house rules. They are handy, but far from game breaking to have unlimited.

As for the Two Weapon fighting, I may adapt something like that myself, the current rules are a pain.

With regards to the two-weapon fighting rules, how would you rule something like a quarterstaff, or any weapon where both heads can be used to attack?

For 0th level spells, I have two rules that apply. First, you add your entire stat bonus to the number you have per day. At a 16, you have an additional 2 0th levels; at 18, you have 3. Secondly, you do not need to memorize/prepare 0th level spells. You cast the ones you want when you want them. This makes them a useful and flexible part of the repertoire, without giving unlimited castings.

Just so ya'll know, the Revised AD&D rules (with a revised character sheet) have been posted to my AD&D3 website, alongside of the ruleset that you're all using.

I've converted my weekday group's characters over and I'm liking what I'm seeing. The big inflation of bonuses has been reduced and ability/racial/class bonuses to ability checks mean a lot more than they used to (which I like). Also, without having to sink primes into certain abilities, you have more freedom to make atypical characters.

I'd never houserule out primes for Castles and Crusades itself, but perusing the AD&D 3 rules, it feels right. Maybe it's because taking it out makes it maybe more of its own thing as opposed to a C&C mod of sorts. And the idea of a generic +1 bonus to all skill checks and saving throws is kind of a neat thing for humans.

I've always made 0-level spells unlimited use in my games. I do like that idea for two-weapon fighting, though. Though not made clear in the rules you said, I'd also make sure that they are weapons that are suitable for it. Nothing bigger than, say, a rapier.

KaiserKris wrote:I'd never houserule out primes for Castles and Crusades itself, but perusing the AD&D 3 rules, it feels right. Maybe it's because taking it out makes it maybe more of its own thing as opposed to a C&C mod of sorts. And the idea of a generic +1 bonus to all skill checks and saving throws is kind of a neat thing for humans.

I've always made 0-level spells unlimited use in my games. I do like that idea for two-weapon fighting, though. Though not made clear in the rules you said, I'd also make sure that they are weapons that are suitable for it. Nothing bigger than, say, a rapier.

I figure I'll give this a test-drive and see how it works out. I kept the 0-level spells as is for know... maybe I'll change it in the future.

Here are the rules for two-weapon fighting:
================================================
Two-Weapon Fighting: When using two melee weapons, the player must designate which hand is used for the primary attack and which is the off-hand. This is determined at the start of play. The character is allowed to swing with both weapons, thus gaining 1 additional attack each round. Characters who may make multiple attacks each round, such as high level rangers, specialized fighters or fighters with combat dominance, never gain more than 1 additional attack per round with their off-hand weapon.
A character using two weapons receives a -6 penalty to hit with each weapon wielded. If at least one weapon is a light weapon (one that is at least one size category smaller than the character wielding it) these penalties are reduced by 1. Characters with an exceptional dexterity may reduce the two-weapon fighting penalties by their ability modifier, so long as they are not heavily encumbered. These penalty reductions stack, so that a character using a light weapon in his off-hand (+1 modifier) and with a dexterity of 18 (+3 modifier) has his two-weapon fighting penalties reduced by 4, to -2/-2. Note that these bonuses only serve to offset the penalties for two-weapon fighting and may never improve the character’s attack rolls.
=================================================
The weapon section goes into weapon sizes, so that it's easy to see which weapons are best suited for 2-weapon fighting. I didn't use the simplified rules here because my brother's group didn't dig the change.

csperkins1970,

"Two-Weapon Fighting: To keep things nice and simple, 2-weapon fighting would give you a flat, +1, bonus to hit. If you hit, you can choose which weapon damage to use. It would no longer grant an extra attack."

As far as the extra attack per round, I have never agreed with that, I always figured it should be an extra attack every other round. But that does not make it easier for the CK.

4th ed. D&D gives a +1 to damage for a feat called "two weapon fighting. "

Below I have posted an extract from a fan based OD&D website, Philotomy's OD&D Musings, concerning this issue. You will read in the Addendum section that +1 to hit is being considered. I would take that approach also. maybe allowing +2 to hit.

I also like the idea of allowing only one attack, but allowing both weapon a damage role upon a successful hit and the player would get the higher damage role.

Two-Weapon Fighting
In my OD&D game, PCs typically receive a single melee attack roll per round (q.v. Abstract Combat), so I needed a rule to handle PCs that fought with a weapon in each hand. I reasoned that two weapons would likely do more damage, assuming they were used competently, but that it would be harder to use two weapons effectively. My house rule states that Fighting Men, Thieves, Elves, and Halflings can use a weapon in each hand, making a single attack roll each round. If they hit and they have a Dex of 13+, they roll 2 damage dice (i.e. 2d6) and take the highest of the two rolls as the damage. Those with Dex of 12 or less inflict standard damage (they lack the dexterity to gain a significant benefit from wielding two weapons).

Addendum: I'm also kicking around a different idea for two-wepon fighting. Instead of altering the way damage is rolled, wielding two weapons could result in an increased chance to hit (i.e. +1). Going this route gives you three basic options: weapon + shield (increased defense), weapon + weapon (increased chance to hit), or two-handed weapon (increased average damage), which is nice, mechanically.

JLL

On the "Using two weapons gives an increased chance to hit", can those using a shield instead count it as a weapon for a round, giving them the bonus to hit?

Mark Hall,

I do not know who your question is directed at, but i can provide a response in regards to the information I have posted.

"On the "Using two weapons gives an increased chance to hit", can those using a shield instead count it as a weapon for a round, giving them the bonus to hit?"

Based upon the below information, the answer is no. A shield gives its benefit in regards to defense.

Addendum: I'm also kicking around a different idea for two-weapon fighting. Instead of altering the way damage is rolled, wielding two weapons could result in an increased chance to hit (i.e. +1). Going this route gives you three basic options: weapon + shield (increased defense), weapon + weapon (increased chance to hit), or two-handed weapon (increased average damage), which is nice, mechanically.

Treebore wrote:You know, people complain over and over about Primes versus non Primes, and after 5 years, and many games, all I see is that they work as intended.

This is an interesting conversation, and I hesitate to derail the thread but I think it would be worth discussing more about what the intent of Primes is actually.

From the old, old boards and the early days of playtesting in '03, my impression was that Primes were essentially designed to fill a few key goals:
1. Primes somewhat replace skills and stat checks.
2. Primes help make each class different from each other class.
3. Primes help a reason to play humans.
4. Primes are designed to be simple.

To elaborate:

• As far as skills and stat checks go, the Prime gives an advantage to the characters who should be able to attempt things. A fighter can try to pick a lock, but it's possible that DEX isn't one of his Primes so he might not be good at it.
• Each class gets one Prime and the character gets a second one. This allows for some customization but tends to give an edge to certain classes to attempt certain things. This ties back to the skill/check observation as well, since each class is also tied to a number of special abilities, which are based on stats.
• That extra prime for humans can be a big deal because they get 3/6 Primes instead of 2/6. This assumes, of course, that the CK isn't designing the campaign with "dump stats" in mind and makes an effort to value all six of the stats.
• If you replace Primes, be sure that the replacement system is simple as well. The Prime model is very easy to teach to newcomers, allows for both skills and stat checks with ease, and in general is (I believe) a good game mechanic.

Having said all of that, I can sort of see why some folks don't like Primes. However, I'd caution anyone from scrapping the Primes system until (1) they are absolutely certain they understand the design purpose behind them, and (2) they can replace Primes with something that works as well.