Troll Lord Games

I think it would be great if you would sticky the errata posts so we can find them easily. I really like the game, but honestly, your editing and proofreading are . . . not good. Making the errata easy to find would be a step in the right direction. Every time I play the game, I am finding vague, contradictory, or poorly explained rules.

Last night, I pulled out the 6th printing PHB to look up the dodge rules, and found the following sentence in the description: "They do not need to roll initiative, but must announce their intention before the round begins." However, in the same paragraph it states: "A dodge can be declared at any time in a combat round as long as the character has not taken any other action." These seem to be contradictory. I suspect someone copy and pasted the text from the "Evade" paragraph, but forgot to change all the text.

I would also suggest that a detailed index is a necessity. You managed to put a basic index in the 4th printing of the CKG, so why not the PHB?

Please take this as constructive criticism. I really like the game a lot, but poor editing makes it difficult to enjoy playing the game, since we have to parse the rules and decide what was intended whenever we run across these errors.

The dodge thing is not an error or a contradiction. It is not explained well, but that does not make it errata.

You must declare that you will be using the dodge at some point in the round, but you are free to do something else, including attack when it is your actual initiative. If you do something, and then needed your dodge, you cannot then use it because you have performed another action. So, in effect, the dodge replaces your possible action but does not preclude you from doing that other action... if you really needed to; you just lose the dodge.

It's also impossible at this time to sticky the errata as there is no compiled errata as of yet.

For those who ask for declaration before rolling initiative, it works out pretty well for me.

How I rule it is that a PC can announce a dodge during declaration. Even if they don't, however, and decide that they need to - and as long as they haven't acted yet - they may change their declared action to a dodge (and subsequently lose their action for the round). I think that's the closest thing to the intended writing of the rules (at least in my opinion).

While I agree it is not errata per se, the wording is awful. I had hoped that would have been addressed in the 6th printing. But the book still looks dang nice and ahs a lot of errata removed. In this case, there are lots of clarification on the forums on this specific topic.

PH7,, you know its coming, and you know this crew cares about it.. so when someone starts one, here are two short ones:
Assassin and poison: To be painfully clear, "1/3 the street cost for the assassin to make" could at least be "1/3 the street cost as noted in the table for the assassin to make" and under the table *Street Cost per Dose. This would remove all doubt.

Weapons list, which weapon goes with footnote 6?

Captain_K wrote:PH7,, you know its coming, and you know this crew cares about it.. so when someone starts one, here are two short ones:
Assassin and poison: To be painfully clear, "1/3 the street cost for the assassin to make" could at least be "1/3 the street cost as noted in the table for the assassin to make" and under the table *Street Cost per Dose. This would remove all doubt.

Weapons list, which weapon goes with footnote 6?

Ok you struck a chord! The weapons list is a crater. There are so many weapons there that have special abilities that are shared by other weapons on the list that do not get the same treatment. If you list them all then search them on the internet, get pictures and historical use and then line them up and build a grid, you will see the holes in the foot notes and the weapons missing special treatment. The example you give above, is just one of many...

I did this and used D203e to fill in the gaps. I have a very complete and comprehensive list. If you would like a copy, PM me and I will email you the spreadsheet.

Snoring Rock wrote:If you list them all then search them on the internet, get pictures and historical use and then line them up and build a grid, you will see the holes in the foot notes and the weapons missing special treatment.

I know someone who did that too, and then added more weapons and armor, just for giggles.

serleran wrote:I know someone who did that too, and then added more weapons and armor, just for giggles.

So, he's trying to re-create Rolemaster?

mmbutter wrote:So, he's trying to re-create Rolemaster?

No. No critical hit tables or armor mitigation results. Some people maintain their sanity.

No, not more rules or complication. Here is an example. There are reach weapons listed in the weapons list in the PHB. The Bill Hook is listed as a 2-handed weapon but is not given a bonus or even a designation as a weapon for dismounting foes or as having disarm abilities and lacks reach.

The Bill Hook was an cheap weapon invented in peasant level France, used specifically for dismounting mounted opponents, and for reaching to hit armored guys with swords. It should be a two-handed weapon with reach and a bonus for disarming and dismounting. That is all I am saying. I took the Weapons and Armor book one step further.

I thin the published weapons are incomplete for what the weapons really should do.

Snoring Rock wrote:No, not more rules or complication. Here is an example. There are reach weapons listed in the weapons list in the PHB. The Bill Hook is listed as a 2-handed weapon but is not given a bonus or even a designation as a weapon for dismounting foes or as having disarm abilities and lacks reach.

The Bill Hook was an cheap weapon invented in peasant level France, used specifically for dismounting mounted opponents, and for reaching to hit armored guys with swords. It should be a two-handed weapon with reach and a bonus for disarming and dismounting. That is all I am saying. I took the Weapons and Armor book one step further.

I thin the published weapons are incomplete for what the weapons really should do.

Personally, that is way more granularity than I want in the core rules, although I can see why you want them. I suspect that sort of detail will be included in the Arms & Armor Guide the Trolls are publishing.

Snoring Rock wrote:No, not more rules or complication. Here is an example. There are reach weapons listed in the weapons list in the PHB. The Bill Hook is listed as a 2-handed weapon but is not given a bonus or even a designation as a weapon for dismounting foes or as having disarm abilities and lacks reach.

The Bill Hook was an cheap weapon invented in peasant level France, used specifically for dismounting mounted opponents, and for reaching to hit armored guys with swords. It should be a two-handed weapon with reach and a bonus for disarming and dismounting. That is all I am saying. I took the Weapons and Armor book one step further.

I thin the published weapons are incomplete for what the weapons really should do.

If you want that level of detail you needs to spec stuff like the almost uselessness of swords against high end (late period) plate armor. Maces/hammers were the weapon(s) of choice of plate armor clad melee opponents if they wanted to take out each other.

Buttmonkey wrote:

Snoring Rock wrote:No, not more rules or complication. Here is an example. There are reach weapons listed in the weapons list in the PHB. The Bill Hook is listed as a 2-handed weapon but is not given a bonus or even a designation as a weapon for dismounting foes or as having disarm abilities and lacks reach.

The Bill Hook was an cheap weapon invented in peasant level France, used specifically for dismounting mounted opponents, and for reaching to hit armored guys with swords. It should be a two-handed weapon with reach and a bonus for disarming and dismounting. That is all I am saying. I took the Weapons and Armor book one step further.

I thin the published weapons are incomplete for what the weapons really should do.

Personally, that is way more granularity than I want in the core rules, although I can see why you want them. I suspect that sort of detail will be included in the Arms & Armor Guide the Trolls are publishing.

I thought you liked C&C? If you are using the PHB for weapons and thus, the core rules, then you have way more granularity than you want already. That granularity is already there (see the footnotes on weapons in the PHB). My example is of one weapon. The Trolls have another 2 or 3 weapons on that list as dismounting weapons or disarming weapons. They have reach weapons and even have a single weapon that gives a huge bonus vs. chain armor, scale and plate. My point is, that some of them (weapons on the list) actually should have more of the features the Trolls gave them, than they did. Some of them were kind of glossed over.

Not looking at adding to the list, just pointing out that if "this weapon" gets "reach" then so does "that weapon". If "this weapon" gets disarm functions, then "that weapon" does as well.

The Arms and Armor Guide does not list all of the weapons in PHB. The author told me that he stuck to a very specific time period so that did not include every weapon. Steve said he would consider looking at that since he wants to expand that book with the next printing. He has my revised list. It does not add to the game, just gives equal treatment to 3 or 4 weapons where reach or disarm bonuses should have been given where the weapons were comparable. Please read all of the footnotes for weapons in the PHB.

Let me give a better example. In the PHB 6th printing, the Glaive has @ and * which in the footnotes, indicates that the weapon is 10 ft. long (reach) and is a two handed weapon. Below it is the Glaive Guisarm, listed with the same exact footnote annotations. If you will go to the list of footnotes you will see that #6 states that weapons marked with a "6" are weapons that disarm and other bonuses like dismount, etc.. Find me, in the list, one weapon marked with the footnote "6". There are none. That is errata. The #6 footnote is footnoting nothing. It is clear that the weapons meant to have that annotation were missed.

What I am saying is that a 6 should be noted after the Glaive Guisarm. This adds no granularity to the game. The Glaive Guisarm was a weapon invented for removing riders from horses and disarming combatants on the field of battle as a reach weapon. That is why I would use footnote 6 on that weapon.

I hope that is a better example than my first. There are a few more like that on the list that should include footnotes 5,6 and 7.

Firstly... there is an index book coming for the three sisters for those who backed the Kickstarter. Sure, it isn't ideal for some but I personally like the idea of having it separate since, honestly, I have no issues finding anything in the PHB or the M&T books.

Secondly, regarding the Arms and Armor book which one are we talking about? The one that Mike Stewart wrote up that was published a few years back or the new comprehensive volume that was one of the Stretch Goals of the recent C&C KS. The first one was limited and restricted historically but the new one is to be more 'complete' ... something akin to what Palladium did but for C&C. At least that is the impression I got from Steve. How this will look in the end, I have no idea. I had some concerns and questioned this during the KS and was assured that someone was compiling and doing the research for this but time will tell. As long as a poignard doesn't get mistaken for a polearm as it once did back in the 1st and 2nd printings of the PHB.

Game isn't perfect but far from 'broken and unplayable'. As far as weapons are concerned, I've tweaked a couple things out of necessity when I started playing C&C. Three or four weapons. Aside from that, people tend to stick with familiar ones and tend to stay away from most polearms. Makes it easier for me.

M

moriarty777 wrote:Firstly... there is an index book coming for the three sisters for those who backed the Kickstarter. Sure, it isn't ideal for some but I personally like the idea of having it separate since, honestly, I have no issues finding anything in the PHB or the M&T books.

Secondly, regarding the Arms and Armor book which one are we talking about? The one that Mike Stewart wrote up that was published a few years back or the new comprehensive volume that was one of the Stretch Goals of the recent C&C KS. The first one was limited and restricted historically but the new one is to be more 'complete' ... something akin to what Palladium did but for C&C. At least that is the impression I got from Steve. How this will look in the end, I have no idea. I had some concerns and questioned this during the KS and was assured that someone was compiling and doing the research for this but time will tell. As long as a poignard doesn't get mistaken for a polearm as it once did back in the 1st and 2nd printings of the PHB.

Game isn't perfect but far from 'broken and unplayable'. As far as weapons are concerned, I've tweaked a couple things out of necessity when I started playing C&C. Three or four weapons. Aside from that, people tend to stick with familiar ones and tend to stay away from most polearms. Makes it easier for me.

M

I agree. Few there be who pick up pole arms to drag into the dungeon. I do however, have a group who has employed soldiery for defense of house and home and the choice in weapons had become a serious issue. But most of the time only swords, daggers, axes and hammers get purchased from the weapon-smith in my campaigns. Not sure anyone really knows what a Lucern hammer or a Bill Hook really looks like, much less get excited about taking one in the dungeon. They are battlefield weapons.

The upcoming Arms and Armor will contain a lot more as you stated, than does the current revision. The weapon list I compiled using that book and the current PHB, is the one Steve has. It is simply a review of the footnotes in the PHB for application across the list and then add in everything in the Arms and Armor book (not a whole lot). It ranked high enough with Steve that he is looking at it.