Help me tinker

[DarthSunshine]

Alright, so I'm just getting back into C&C. I played a few games back when it was new, but I've been playing other games in the mean time. I'm organizing a game, hopefully the entire A series, with my primary gaming group. Their backgrounds are mostly in more "modern" games such as Savage Worlds, Vampire, Barebones Fantasy, and Cortex Classic. C&C is a pretty easy and friendly game as long as you have an old schooler to assist with the learning process. However, there are a few things that I would like to "think out loud" on these fora about with input being welcome.

1) My players are used to static target numbers from Savage Worlds and I see a clear opportunity to take advantage of that in Castles & Crusades. There are even some suggestions in the CK Guide to achieve this. The CL 18 with primes rolling at +6 seems to be a solid method. However, I've had a crazy idea.

I strongly dislike 4th edition D&D but there are a few things I have liked from the recent playtest for "Next." The advantage rules seemed to be an interesting break from the ever present list of simple modifiers. What if prime stats received no set modifier, but rolled 2d20 and kept the highest roll? All other modifiers would be added to the highest die as usual (level, attribute mod, etc.) Mathematically, this works out to be a +5 bonus on average, fairly close to the +6. How do you think this would work out?

This idea could also be used for other items within the system, but I digress.

2) I understand that the attribute modifier table is steeped in tradition, but I feel that the more intuitive table was one of the few good things to come out of 3rd edition. It is even listed in the CK Guide. I think using this table would slightly increase the power level of characters, but really not by that much. It would more strongly impact lower level characters and then rather rapidly fade as they climb the level ladder. I am thinking that it might balance out well if the roll 2d20 for primes idea works.

3) I have to say that I don't believe the races are remotely balanced. Not that they ever have been well balanced in any edition of D&D, but I have always tinkered with them to bring them a little bit closer to center. C&C is the first "version" that I feel humans take the cake and don't even leave crumbs for demi-humans. Seeing as that 3rd prime not only improves saves, but also largely opens up a some class abilities to far better use, demi-humans could use some serious loving here. I think that being more generous with racial attribute modifiers could help make up for the lack of a third prime, especially since I may end up using a more generous table to determine the bonuses. My group hates "Guh-nomes" to the point they aren't allowed in any of our games even as NPC's (don't ask, I don't know the answer) and none of them have ever played a halfling. Thus, I will only worry about Elves and Dwarves here.

Elves: +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Con. Their racial abilities are mostly the same as written in the PHB with a few exceptions. They receive +1 to hit with all one handed swords and daggers as well as with all bows (but not crossbows) not just with one weapon. Being fey creatures, they have the Druid's Nature Lore class ability as a racial gift. They also get a +2 bonus on Nature Lore rolls if they happen to be a druid. I am strongly debating if I should go with a Ranger's Survival ability instead of Nature Lore.

Dwarves: +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Dex. Otherwise, they are almost exactly the same as the PHB save that they don't count their armor's EV when determining encumbrance and they are always proficient with axes, hammers, and picks. I am considering a +1 bonus to AC instead of the +2 bonus to Str.

4) I need to make magic a little bit more straight forward for a non-D&D initiated group. I plan on treating pretty much all casters like the 3e sorcerer (no memorization, you can cast any spell you know but you expend the "slots" as if you had cast a memorized spell.) Sure, this makes casters more powerful, but these players aren't going to be attempting to abuse the system. I also want to avoid the lengthy down time traditional casters always take to memorize their spells. I have ordered a print copy of the Rune Lore book and I am anxiously awaiting the possibilities that it may contain. Does the magic system in that book serve as a sound replacement for the quirky Vancian system?

5) Fighters gain Cleave at 4th level (the ability to make an extra attack when they drop a foe) and at 8th level their is no limit on the number of extra attacks that can be made in this fashion. This replaces the interesting, yet extremely limited, Combat Dominance ability they have.

6) The Ranger's prime attribute seems to be off the mark. As printed in the PHB, they are very much like martial Rogues that favor wilderness terrain. It seems to me that Dex would be a much better prime for them. Also, it would seem to me that Str would be a better prime for the Knight as he has no ability that seems to require Charisma. In fact the only Siege ability the Knight has requires Dex, but Str seems to be a better fit as I can't imagine a Knight character not selecting Str as their other prime. I understand that there are roleplaying elements regarding the Knight that imply the need for Cha, but it isn't actually needed for any class ability.

Please give your thoughts and advice on my ponderings, either on individual items or as a whole as you see fit. Thank you, and game on!

[Treebore]

As for number 1, you still need to set a baseline CL, and it sounds like you would go with 18, and since I have never used the 2D20 idea outside of play testing D&D Next, I can't really say how it will work with C&C. Plus it sounds like they will only get the advantage with Prime only numbers, so will make non Prime seem even more painful than they already do.

As for two, the modifiers are not steeped in tradition, no other edition does it the same, except maybe the 1974 edition. 1E even has STR add on a percentile modifier for STR when a Fighter "type" has it, and could go to +3 to hit and +6 to damage. So while it has a degree of similarity, I would say its closer to 3E than 1E. That aside, I see no reason to not give your idea a try, I don't think it will "break" anything. I know some old school DM's/Gm's seem to think high attributes and high modifiers break a game, but I've been gaming for just shy of 30 years now, and I've never felt attributes were even close to being any real problem.

As for 3, I never thought races were supposed to be "balanced", but I do agree, that over all, it is better to be human in C&C, so I just go with it as is. Again, that put aside, I don't see any reason to not give what your thinking a try out as well. Just leave yourself an "out", make it clear your essentially play testing your ideas, so they are all subject to later change and even outright elimination.

As for 4, if you were to read my House Rules you will note I have support in there for playing 3E style "Sorcerers", and while I personally do not like them, I think they work well enough within the C&C system. As for Rune Lore, I personally am not a fan of having another system within my C&C, so will not be using the system, just the ideas, and will be sticking with my Vancian style Runemark. However, your tastes, etc... may enable you to love it, so it may very well be something you will love, even though you will have to be careful with what Runes you enable them to have, and most importantly, when.

As for 5, again, if you were to read my House Rules, you would see I have my Fighter be much closer to what your doing, than what is in the book. So I think you will be relatively happy with what your doing.

As for #6, I went with the completely "Iconic" class route, so in my games all Class Skills are treated as being "Prime" for that character class in my games. So everyone of the same class is equally "capable" as a base line, and after that only attributes and level separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

As for the Knight, last time I read the class, its special abilities were completely dependent upon its "leadership" ability, so there fore CHA is extremely important to the class. Of course I have some house rules on that as well. Mainly dealing with having a base line usage for a Knight with any score in CHA, and then having additional uses with higher CHA scores. But this is C&C, do whatever makes sense for you and your players. The rules are guidelines, not your master.

[Shadowslayer]

I've not been involved with DnD Nxt, but that "roll 2 d20" thing for primes sounds interesting - more elegant than the 12/18 or +6 thing for primes. I wonder how the success/failure thing works out. Might need to bring the target number down a little....maybe 16?

I'm not a mathmetician, but the way I'm seeing it, you have a 30 percent better chance of passing a skill check if its prime. So the question is, does that extra die on a prime give you plus/minus the 30 probability that you'd have doing it the normal way? (Maybe some of those guys who have a prime in math can jump in here)

Only other thing I wanted to add: YMMV, but I never bought into the idea of race-balance. Its not random...you pick your race. If you want 3 primes then you go human. If you want pointy ears, +1 with a longsword, and an affinity for finding secret doors, you go elf. Easy peasy...and the extra prime for humans is a lot more satisfying than level limits for demihumans.

[Jack C]

I've not been involved with DnD Nxt, but that "roll 2 d20" thing for primes sounds interesting - more elegant than the 12/18 or +6 thing for primes. I wonder how the success/failure thing works out. Might need to bring the target number down a little....maybe 16?

I'm not a mathmetician, but the way I'm seeing it, you have a 30 percent better chance of passing a skill check if its prime. So the question is, does that extra die on a prime give you plus/minus the 30 probability that you'd have doing it the normal way? (Maybe some of those guys who have a prime in math can jump in here)

Only other thing I wanted to add: YMMV, but I never bought into the idea of race-balance. Its not random...you pick your race. If you want 3 primes then you go human. If you want pointy ears, +1 with a longsword, and an affinity for finding secret doors, you go elf. Easy peasy...and the extra prime for humans is a lot more satisfying than level limits for demihumans.

Agreed. IMV, race (species?) choice should come from roleplaying desires, not desires for statistical success.

[Shadowslayer]

Well, you could just tell everyone "ok, everyone gets 3 primes and no other racial bonuses....and if you want pointy ears and wish to call yourself an elf, have at it" problem solved.

I actually did that one time back in the 2e days. (removed racial bonuses) No one liked it.

[DarthSunshine]

Thank you for the replies.

I'm not entirely sure how the 2d20 for primes would work out either. I presented my most faithful player with the standard siege system as well as the ones from the CKG and the 2d20 method. The 2d20 method was clearly her favorite as she loved rolling both the dice. Mathematically, it should work out just fine but I'm afraid that it will feel a little out of place. I don't see an easy method of using it as a unified mechanic. It would be interesting if I added it to certain class abilities, but then I would be getting closer to 5th edition which I didn't like all that much. I of course told her it was just an experiment.

As far as races go, I completely agree that they should be chosen based on what a player's desired fantasy delve. I also agree that races don't need to be perfectly balanced, but they have to be close enough so that players don't feel like they have made the "wrong" choice. Humans getting an extra prime is simply a massive advantage, but it can be mitigated by just upping the demi-humans a bit. This is the change I'm most confident about.

As far as the Knight goes, I completely agree that Charisma is import for roleplaying the class effectively. The issue is that there is no actual requirement for it in the class. His inspire abilities do no require a roll as I read them, nor does his ability co collect troops. I could be wrong as I only read it once and then skimmed it again to try to make sense of it.

Please don't think that I'm hating on C&C, I want to run a long campaign. However, I am a stickler for continuity and logic and there are a few things that I feel the need to tinker with. This is the only edition of a D&D-like game that I have strong interest in playing.

On a side note: Treebore, you made mention of your house rules. Where may I read them at?

[Treebore]

The most direct use of CHA is the bonus from inspire is based on their CHA modifier.

My house rules are in the Online games forum, my Wilderlands thread, page 1, 6th post down. Here is a direct link to the page.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12477&p=191119#p191119

[lobocastle]

1. I would recommend you use the CL 18 with primes rolling at +6 then after a few sessions implement your house rule. This way you will know the affect of the rule first hand.

2. That is in the CKG and helps lower level characters and would not unbalance the game that much. I have consider it but dropped it because I figured that all the C&C Monster books base the monster power levels on the attribute bonuses of the C&C PHB.

3. I agree with you about the Races and would make the following changes.
Elves: +1 Dex, +1 Wis, -1 Con. Their racial abilities are mostly the same as written in the PHB with a few exceptions. They receive +1 to hit with all one handed swords and daggers as well as with all bows (but not crossbows) not just with one weapon. Being fey creatures, they have the Druid's Nature Lore class ability as a racial gift. They also get a +2 bonus on Nature Lore rolls if they happen to be a druid.

Dwarves: +2 Con, -1 Dex, -1 CHA. Otherwise, they are almost exactly the same as the PHB save that they don't count their armor's EV when determining encumbrance and they are always proficient with axes, hammers, and picks. Natural Healing: Dwarfs heal twice as fast.

4. I have done that for years without any problems. I have the Wizard or Illusionist provide which spells they have memorized for the day. They can cast any spell they have memorized as long as they use a proper slot level. I do not worry about cantrips, I figure they know them all. I just have them select the ones for use that day.

Example: A 3rd level Wizard with 16 INT:

Cantrips: Cast any cantrip on the list as needed limited to four cantrips for the day.

1st level spells: If the Wizard memorizes Charm Person, Feather-fall, Magic Missile, and Shield for the day, then the Wizard can cast any combination of the four memorized spells but is limited to four 1st level spell castings for the day.

Spell Book 1st Level Spells
CHARM PERSON
FEATHER-FALL
IDENTIFY
JUMP
MAGIC MISSILE
SHIELD

2nd level spells: If the Wizard memorizes Acid Arrow and Darkness for the day, then the Wizard can cast either spell memorized but limited to two 2nd level spell castings for the day.

Spell Book 2nd Level Spells
ACID ARROW
CONTINUAL FLAME
DARKNESS*
DETECT THOUGHTS

5) I have had that house rule for a long time.

6) I use DEX as prime for the Ranger. I think the Knight needs all the help it can get.

[DarthSunshine]

The most direct use of CHA is the bonus from inspire is based on their CHA modifier.

Yeah, I just found that before I came back online. I missed it in my first read, obviously. However, something still doesn't sit quite right with me as far as the Knight goes. One problem that I see coming is that in any D&D-like game I have ever played horses were simply used for road travel or pack animals. It is hard to fight on horseback in thickets, wilderness, and dungeons. I doubt that this class will ever be used in my games simply because it would feel like a fish out of water.

My house rules are in the Online games forum, my Wilderlands thread, page 1, 6th post down. Here is a direct link to the page.

Interesting stuff. I like the idea that casters get a magical attack that doesn't require spell slot consumption, though your damage for it feels a touch high. I was planning on doing something similar or perhaps simply making cantrips and orisons unlimited. I don't want my magical players to run out of magic but at the same time I don't like crazy high magic either.

1. I would recommend you use the CL 18 with primes rolling at +6 then after a few sessions implement your house rule. This way you will know the affect of the rule first hand.

This is a fair point. If I'm not very familiar with how the normal system plays out, how can I compare it to the fancy system I am suggesting? I am torn between just going by the book (12/18 etc.) or using the target 18 with +6 bonus to primes. Exactly the same in effect, of course, so it doesn't really matter what I choose here.

My main concern with the 2d20 for primes method isn't the fact that it won't work for what I intend, but the fact that my players will desire it to be expanded. "Hey, since I successfully crept up behind this gnoll, can I roll 2d20 on my attack roll instead of the normal modifier," is something that I know I will hear. This is not necessarily a bad thing at all, but it does open up an whole new can of worms that I will have to ponder upon. If I like it enough, it might happen.

2. That is in the CKG and helps lower level characters and would not unbalance the game that much. I have consider it but dropped it because I figured that all the C&C Monster books base the monster power levels on the attribute bonuses of the C&C PHB.

Another fair point, I'm coming to the conclusion that since it matters so little I may just not bother with it.

3. I agree with you about the Races and would make the following changes.
Elves: +1 Dex, +1 Wis, -1 Con. Their racial abilities are mostly the same as written in the PHB with a few exceptions. They receive +1 to hit with all one handed swords and daggers as well as with all bows (but not crossbows) not just with one weapon. Being fey creatures, they have the Druid's Nature Lore class ability as a racial gift. They also get a +2 bonus on Nature Lore rolls if they happen to be a druid.

Dwarves: +2 Con, -1 Dex, -1 CHA. Otherwise, they are almost exactly the same as the PHB save that they don't count their armor's EV when determining encumbrance and they are always proficient with axes, hammers, and picks. Natural Healing: Dwarfs heal twice as fast.

That is a bit more cleaned up that what I posted above, especially since I'm probably not going to mess with changing the modifier chart. The dwarf natural healing rule is a nice touch. I might just use it. I since I will probably be using the 4d6/drop lowest method of attribute generation, I might keep the lower bonuses that you gave for racial mods.

4. I have done that for years without any problems. I have the Wizard or Illusionist provide which spells they have memorized for the day. They can cast any spell they have memorized as long as they use a proper slot level. I do not worry about cantrips, I figure they know them all. I just have them select the ones for use that day.

I'm going to reserve judgement on this until I get the Rune Lore book. If I happen to love the system in there, it is possible that I may use it as a supplement or even replacement of the Vancian system. I don't know until I get the book shipped to me, so I will just have to wait with anticipation. However, If I do use the standard model of casting still I will probably not even require any form of memorization at all. If you know a spell, you can cast it by expending a slot.

5) I have had that house rule for a long time.

6) I use DEX as prime for the Ranger. I think the Knight needs all the help it can get.

There are a lot of little things about the classes that irk me a bit. I will say again that I really like C&C and part of it is that I tinker with everything. I really love some of the class ideas in the PHB. I most appreciate how only a few classes have magical ability. I never liked caster rangers and bards, not everybody and his uncle needs to be able to cast cure light wounds. Speaking of Bards, they are pretty bad buttocks! Easily my favorite version I have ever scene.

My brain is currently turning the gears on if I want to do a bit more reorganizing with abilities. A large number of abilities that classes have aren't much more than notes saying, "Rogues add their level to stealthy SIEGE rolls," or "Rangers add their level to SIEGE rolls when hunting." That is just a gross generalization, of course, not every ability is like that. However, what if abilities like that were simply noted as proficiencies? It would save a lot of space and simplify rules even more.

Running with that idea would make "real" class abilities stand out more. Perhaps a simple proficiency system would really go a long way. I believe there is something along those lines in the CKG, but I haven't payed much attention to is as it looked like "just another skill system" to me. I will have to reread that and see what it's all about.

[Rigon]

I would actually recommend running the game for a few sessions btb before you change anything. That way you can get a feel for how the system is supposed to work before you change the things you don't like.

However, the changes you are thinking about, shouldn't effect the play all that much.

R-

[Treebore]

I have the damage scale to where it stays on par with a Fighter that focus' on using a bow. Not exact, but close enough for a game. Plus it can only be done every other round without a SIEGE check, and it requires hitting the targets AC, at the Wizard/Priests BtH, so it ends up being a lot like they are using a powerful Bow, so it is far from being a reliable way to do damage, and only to a single target at that. So it serves its function, exactly like it does in 4E D&D, it gives spellcasters a magical way to contribute even when they are out of the "appropriate" spells, and once all the factors are taken into account, doesn't do all that much damage on a per round average.

[lobocastle]

DarthSunshine,

C&C was made to house rule and most of the people on this board have a set of house rules they use. Having a class ability like track is a big deal because you can add the character level to the SIEGE check. Depending on the Castle Keeper, they may not allow a character to even attempt an established class skill. I do allow it but players cannot add level and the difficulty modifier could be higher.

I am considering an expanded role for Secondary skills in my game.

For the Bard I add hear noise and disguise as class abilities.

For the Ranger I remove favored enemy and tone down combat marauder. Combat Marauder does +1 damage at level 1 and an additional +1 damage at levels 3, 6, 9 etc. I add archery as follows: the Ranger receives levels a +1 bonus at levels 1, 4, 7, 10 which the Ranger can add this bonus to either their hit role or damage done. The choice must be selected at the beginning of the round. Archery Damage does not stack with Combat Marauder, but the Ranger could use the Archery bonus on their hit role.

JLL