Troll Lord Games

Meaning beyond what is described in the PH? In the PH they stay pretty simple and straight forward. How have you gone beyond that?

For an example I use it to allow for actions that are drawn from the feats of 3E. So if a Wizard wants to do max damage with their Fireball I have them roll a SIEGE check with a CL of 5 to do so.

If a Fighter wants to do what is called a Cleave because they took down an opponent, and have another standing right next to the last one, and is all out of normal attacks, I have them roll a SIEGE check with the CL=HD of the opponent they wish to hit.

So what have you done with the SIEGE engine that isn't exactly covered in the PH?

Don't really know if this example is in the PHB or not I'm kind of drawing a blank on it. Anyways in one of the games I play if we want to see if we know something in the midst of battle we roll a siege check to see if we can pull the knowledge out, e.g. we were fighting a pair of will-o-wisps and our maeg wanted to know if he remembered anything about them from his studies and his newly acquired library in his new tower in Greyhawk so he rolled a siege check and passed remembering about will-o-wisps magic weaknesses.

Another check I have had to make was during the steering of my ship out on the lake for ability to make sure I could still steer it in the fog

I've given this a lot of thought as I'm trying to put together a face to face game. Historically, I was very resistant to allowing feat-like combat actions. The C&C and 1E combat systems are abstract and assume the PC is doing everything it can to score a hit. Called shots are meaningless since it's assumed the PC would stab the monster in its eye if an opening presented itself. Similarly, kicking dust into the brigand's face to blind him is something that is already assumed into the combat matrix/AC. Lately, I've relaxed a lot and have been trying to pull the stick out of my butt in favor of the rule of cool. If a player wants to try the kick the sand in the opponent's eyes thing, I would allow it as a SIEGE check (assuming suitable sand was available at the PC's feet). I'd set a challenge level, but also put in a penalty/trade-off for attempting the non-standard action. For example, if the PC is successful, the monster is blinded for one round and loses an attack. However, the PC will be momentarily distracted while she looks at her feet resulting in her AC to drop by 2 for the rest of the round. For a failed cleave attempt, I'd rule that the PC's weapon got stuck in the first opponent and the PC must spend a round trying to pull it free. If you don't put a cost in there, I'm afraid you'll be drowning in called shots and goofy combat maneuvers at all times. Why wouldn't the PC try to cleave every time an opponent is killed if there is no cost for attempting it? I suppose the lack of success on a failed SIEGE check is its own penalty, but still think it's necessary to balance the out the unusual combat maneuvers. I suppose for something like a called shot I wouldn't impose a penalty beyond upping the monster's AC to account for the PC focusing on a smaller opening. Anyway, that's what's been going through my head.

For a while the players do tons of rolls, but they soon learn why they shouldn't. It is anti fun because it slows the game down so much. So now they do it when its a encounter that has turned out to be tough, so feel they need to pull out all the stops to turn the battle back in their favor. Plus when they do it, I do it. Since, as CK, I usually have far more bad guys to do such neat tricks with, they wait until its really needed. Which is also another "cost" they pay when they do it. I don't like doing it all the time either. Man, if I did it all the time for the NPC's, the game would really drag, and I'd get rid of it all together or allow Feats to be selected. So it took a few weeks for my players to realize all this, but once they did we went back to most combats being simple C&C, then pull out the special maneuvers when the going got tough.

Dracyian wrote:Don't really know if this example is in the PHB or not I'm kind of drawing a blank on it. Anyways in one of the games I play if we want to see if we know something in the midst of battle we roll a siege check to see if we can pull the knowledge out, e.g. we were fighting a pair of will-o-wisps and our maeg wanted to know if he remembered anything about them from his studies and his newly acquired library in his new tower in Greyhawk so he rolled a siege check and passed remembering about will-o-wisps magic weaknesses.

Another check I have had to make was during the steering of my ship out on the lake for ability to make sure I could still steer it in the fog

I don't know how all CK's run their games, but I have generally seen, and do this myself, that a SIEGE check for the Will O Wisp would be considered a type of knowledge Druids, Bards, Wizards, and illusionists would have a good chance of knowing. As well as Clerics, depending on what god they serve, and if serving that god might make them know something about such creatures.

Also the rules pretty explicitly spell out, that since C&C didn't adopt a skill system, that a SIEGE check is allowed to any character for skills. based on Prime versus non Prime, and that only skill checks that are covered by the class skills, such as picket pockets, move silently, poison antidotes, etc... (read each classes skills) are when a character cannot add level.

So even your ship steering check are covered by the default rules.

Again, depending on how your CK, or any CK, wishes to actually interpret or allow the rules to be used.

Treebore wrote:Meaning beyond what is described in the PH? In the PH they stay pretty simple and straight forward. How have you gone beyond that?

For an example I use it to allow for actions that are drawn from the feats of 3E. So if a Wizard wants to do max damage with their Fireball I have them roll a SIEGE check with a CL of 5 to do so.

If a Fighter wants to do what is called a Cleave because they took down an opponent, and have another standing right next to the last one, and is all out of normal attacks, I have them roll a SIEGE check with the CL=HD of the opponent they wish to hit.

So what have you done with the SIEGE engine that isn't exactly covered in the PH?

Very interesting. I am very slowly gearing up to CK again. I like the idea of metamagic feats being SIEGE checks, I think I would add if the check fails so does the spell.
3. x Combat feats fall into 3 broad groups in my opinion: Special Attacks, Trade-Off, new options. Special Attack feats are like disarm, trip, and sunder. I think they can be handled like disarm in C&C. Trade off feats like power attack and combat expertise can be given as just options. That just leave New Option feats like Cleave, Great Cleave, Rapid Shot (and I can’t think of anymore). Those feats may work well with siege checks. Previously I was thinking of allow critical hits dictate special attacks. So with cleaving weapons a crit. allows a second attack, with blunt it stuns opponents, and piercing does x2 damage. Critical Misses allow a counter attack by foes in melee, or hit the wrong target with missiles. I still kind of like this but Siege Checks might be interesting.

Yeah, for fighter type SIEGE checks I opted to just ignore failed rolls, slows the game down for no real good reason, IE its no fun. Spell casters, however, I do take failing their checks into account:

"Failure, in all cases, loses you the spell. Roll a natural 1 and pray for survival if it causes damage."

because as you can see, that has the potential to be a lot of fun!

I don't.

At least not for the next campaign(s) which will use other game systems.

What I do, usually, is convert other stuff to C&C because its easy. But I prefer to play games in their original form as well, just to see how they work.

When I do go full SIEGE... I allow XP to be spent to buy abilities. These are somewhat like "feats" I guess but that idea is not restricted to d20. In fact, one could argue WotC stole it from Earthdawn.

serleran wrote:I don't.

At least not for the next campaign(s) which will use other game systems.

What I do, usually, is convert other stuff to C&C because its easy. But I prefer to play games in their original form as well, just to see how they work.

When I do go full SIEGE... I allow XP to be spent to buy abilities. These are somewhat like "feats" I guess but that idea is not restricted to d20. In fact, one could argue WotC stole it from Earthdawn.

I know the feat idea isn't original to 3E D&D, I just reference it as the source because that is the source pretty much everyone does know. Very few have played other RPG's, let alone Earthdawn. So rather than say, "like they do in Earthdawn..." and have 99% of the gamers I talk to go, "Huh? Earthdawn? Whats that?" I just go with 3E D&D. To which 99% of gamers respond, "Oh..., yeah!"

I love the siege checks for extra ordinary feats of valor or deception/mischief !

I encourage PCs to let their imaginations run a muck and attempt what they want, roll play it out in detail and the siege is easier, keep doing it over levels advancement and soon there wont be a check for it.


IE: Had a fighter constantly wanting to use power attack with his sword from first level, by the time he was 6th level, he wasnt makin siege checks anymore for it,

I had a cleric cast create water well above the enemy and the next round cast spiritual weapon into the falling water to use his power to control the force of moving water into his enemies, he made the roll and created a very visual scene for all the players who were in awe.

If the person watches anime I tell them to use them as inspiration or movies like the matrix.

Had a monk who strove to be a Chi master, from 3rd level on he channeled his Ki powers into street fighter/ballz kinda attacked (granted he rolled terrible most of the time, but he made it, it was visual as hell)


This is the key to opening the imagination that other systems over complicate with stuff players only see on their character sheets.


Normal player abilities I follow the CnC rules for, its a class ability, they should only be rolling for difficult situations.

A thief climbing a 15ft building to the roof, no rolls

A knight want to do fancy tricks on his stead, no roll unless its ridiculous

a bard wants to entertain the pub with his flute, no roll

Unless its nec. like a cleric turning, let the heroes get creative.




On a completely unrelated note: The Chi master Monk died at the hands of a necromancer and the parties only character revival means was reincarnate, he came back as a centaur. The party escaped but had a 100ft rotted old ladder they needed to climb down, naturally the party went ahead of the monk/centaur. As the party got half way down the ladder the centaur monk decided he couldn't play his character anymore and jumped from the ledge crashing into two of the PCs still on the ladder taking them with him to his death. Let me tell you how PISSED the other characters were and how the rest of us cracked up till everyone decided it was time to end the session.


Just wanted to share an amusing anecdote with everyone !

First sitings of feats for me was in 2ed AD&D before wotc got their hands on it, was in the skills and powers splat books. sucked then because it was ridiculous in that book.

I didnt like 2ed alone, played in a campaign were people brought the S&P book out and had a cleric with one school of mage spells, druid shape shifting, fighter extraordinary str and con bonus (true test as who is oldschool, 3.0 player wont know what the strength N con is about to which I speak), and could backstab as an equal level thief. I played one session with the character and couldnt bring myself to play with those splats since.

Treebore wrote:

serleran wrote:I don't.

At least not for the next campaign(s) which will use other game systems.

What I do, usually, is convert other stuff to C&C because its easy. But I prefer to play games in their original form as well, just to see how they work.

When I do go full SIEGE... I allow XP to be spent to buy abilities. These are somewhat like "feats" I guess but that idea is not restricted to d20. In fact, one could argue WotC stole it from Earthdawn.

I know the feat idea isn't original to 3E D&D, I just reference it as the source because that is the source pretty much everyone does know. Very few have played other RPG's, let alone Earthdawn. So rather than say, "like they do in Earthdawn..." and have 99% of the gamers I talk to go, "Huh? Earthdawn? Whats that?" I just go with 3E D&D. To which 99% of gamers respond, "Oh..., yeah!"

And deny them the awesome that is Earthdawn? Nay!

FASA used to be awesome.

Treebore wrote:

serleran wrote:I don't.

At least not for the next campaign(s) which will use other game systems.

What I do, usually, is convert other stuff to C&C because its easy. But I prefer to play games in their original form as well, just to see how they work.

When I do go full SIEGE... I allow XP to be spent to buy abilities. These are somewhat like "feats" I guess but that idea is not restricted to d20. In fact, one could argue WotC stole it from Earthdawn.

I know the feat idea isn't original to 3E D&D, I just reference it as the source because that is the source pretty much everyone does know. Very few have played other RPG's, let alone Earthdawn. So rather than say, "like they do in Earthdawn..." and have 99% of the gamers I talk to go, "Huh? Earthdawn? Whats that?" I just go with 3E D&D. To which 99% of gamers respond, "Oh..., yeah!"

I guess I am one of those people who never played earthdawn. I really don't like the idea of limiting a character to buying feat abilities that are trade offs (everyone should be able to swing harder with less accuracy or trade offense for defense). Nor should disarm or trip be feats. I can't recall where I read it but some one had a system where you could do about anything if you offered a repercussion of failure. For example some one could say I kick him in the jewels and cause him to be come prone and stunned for 1 round, but if I fail he grabs my leg and throws me to the ground. The GM can either accept the "wager" or not. I could see that working pretty well in C&C. Attack rolls could be used while fighting, but SIEGE rolls could be outside of combat. The net effect would be to allow PC to do anything with a draw back.



It is very similar to just giving better descriptions in combat. I used to just give bonuses to attack rolls if the player described in a vivid way what they were doing. I recall a half-orc beating a guy sensless in a bar by slaming his head into the bar, sliding him down the bar into a small keg, then picking up the small keg and busting it over his head. Each attack was just an unarmed attack doing normal damage but I gave +1 to +3 to hit due to the description. But I like the wager idea better.


The draw back I found was some players were descriptive others just made attack rolls. With the wager system You could have a list of standard wages like Power Attack, Cleave, Rapid Shot, Disarm.

Not to defend the game, but Earthdawn has a reason why some of the abilities are "must buy to use." It makes more sense, with the game, than d20 does in one simple way -- everything in Earthdawn is magical and you can't activate an ability if you don't know how to. But, yes, in general I agree that a laundry list of "can" and "cannot" is not a good thing.

I thought this over a few times and almost posted then got distracted. I let the game happen. I do not define any possible action until it come up. I hare feats and skills, they turned my games into long arduous sessions of number crunching and looking mechanics up. The siege engine has made me free.

So if a player wants to do something that does not fit in the lists of maneuvers, I ask for a description. I secretly count how many steps are involved. For example, the fighter says; I will ruin and jump off the balcony (1) and grab the chandelier (2) and swing (3) let go and flip over (3) and grab the lever (4), then I add +4 to the challenge. If he repeats this kind of thing over and over, on the next level, I will drop the count to 3 or 2. Another level, and I will no longer count. He just gets better at it.

Now I take other things into account, is it an elf or a dwarf? Armor, weapon, encumbrance, but it is simple and fast and keeps the action going.

What I refuse to do is codify it or spell anything out. Try it!

I take great care in limiting the type feats that characters choose to emulate. For example, once players get the notion that you'll allow virtually anything by allowing "feat-like actions" the players will always try to do that. For example, a mage who two-wand wields. There is a feat in v3.5 that allows for this. Players in C&C want to attempt this. If it works, why would the player ever want to go back to only wielding one wand?

Doing what Snoring Rock suggests like running, jumping, grabbing a chandelier, etc. is a fine use of the Siege Engine. I would also note that doing such a maneuver does not take more that 2X the character's movement rate.

~O

Very true! I will not allow feats, even disguised. I want spur of the moment "in class use" of the siege engine, and THAT is what I allow. Something where the characters try things based on gut not on reading the rules and bonuses and then min/maxing and all that other meta-game stuff.

That is why the siege engine is so powerful. You need common sense and some imagination.

They don't always do the feat like actions because they actually fail their SIEGE checks quit a bit, so most of the time its a wasted effort. Like I rarely have any of my spell casters try to maximize the damage of their spells because its much more important to them to just get the spell off and do some damage, rather than risk all or nothing.

Like I also pointed out above, all the extra dice rolling does slow a game down, and eventually, usually in just a couple of sessions, they quit doing all the extra dice rolling all the time, because they see just how much they slow the game down, and save it for when that extra bit is really needed.

Treebore wrote:They don't always do the feat like actions because they actually fail their SIEGE checks quit a bit, so most of the time its a wasted effort. Like I rarely have any of my spell casters try to maximize the damage of their spells because its much more important to them to just get the spell off and do some damage, rather than risk all or nothing.

Like I also pointed out above, all the extra dice rolling does slow a game down, and eventually, usually in just a couple of sessions, they quit doing all the extra dice rolling all the time, because they see just how much they slow the game down, and save it for when that extra bit is really needed.

You have a very different group than I do. The players that I run often try to manipulate the rules for their maximum benefit. I had to, effectively, get rid of "feat-like actions" because of the blatant miss-use of it. It all depends upon the group. I play in another group that never tries anything 3E-like at all.

~O

Groups. I have ran C&C campaigns for over 20 different gamers. I have no idea how many I have ran for convention gamers.

I recently saw a lady player implement the Siege Engine in an unusual way, or for actions not discussed in the phb. Who needs the seduction skill from the old James Bond rpg when you have the Siege Engine? lol. It was pretty much PG-13, but not worth discussing here. Made for an entertaining session. Sometimes the players make the game.