It's not the New Hotness I was looking for. One Caveat, I don't have Monsters and Treasure nor any means of getting it. My FLGS' distributor no longer carries it and even if they did get a copy, I'll be waiting a loooooong time before I can get money to pay for it.
So here goes:
I was looking for a streamlined AD&D variant that fixed all the problems that AD&D had, instead it magnifies them.
Now, that's not to say I won't be using this game. It has quite a few good ideas that I'm going to be outright stealing. Like the Attribute based saving throws.
Now, here's a few complaints BUT! I'm looking for the reasons behind them. And maybe I can see where the game comes from.
Firstly I still feel the Fighter is getting gipped. I'm sorry a single extra attack against 1d6 hit die critters doesn't hold up when most of them that I remember from my AD&D 2e collection start at d8 and go up. Also, the +1 to hit at level one, and Weapon Specialization doesn't justify the fact they have the same level progression as the Monk with it's 13 abilities, or the wizard and the perfect Fire and Forget effects that Magic brings (It doesn't fail, it may get resisted, but that's different. It's not like combat where a miss is a miss. Half Damage is still Damage.)
HOWEVER! I have a fix for the poor beleaguered Fighter.
At Level 1, gets the Ranger's Combat Marauder ability BUT due to being in constant battles, gets the bonuses on all foes, not just Humanoids and Giants. A Fighter learns where to hit to get the most out of his weapons.
At Level 3, gets the Barbarian's Combat Sense as written.
And keeps the rest of the abilities. THAT to me justifies having the second highest XP progression, under the Paladin.
My next two questions are also class based, and unlike my pet peeve with the fighter, is genuine curiousity:
Why give the Bard a d10 hit die when most of it's abilities are a support role, and thus not suppose to be on the front line?
And why bring back the Illusionist?
These are XP based:
Why do the Rogue and Assassin, possibly among the most potent and skilled classes have the lowest XP progression?
Weapon based:
I am not seeing where anyone would want to use a Longsword when the Bastard sword does more damage than it, and can still be used with a shield. Also, alot of the weapons have the same damage code as others but are cheaper, and nothing to make them stand apart?
DnD 3.x addresses it by making some weapons two handed unless a feat/skill is spent (I'm thinking of making weapons be strength based) or increasing the Critical modifiers. But what I want to know is why the same (Or similar idea) is not done here, or if I have missed it, can someone point it out to me.
The layout of this book leaves much to be desired I am sad to say.
One thing I want to say is that the SIEGE Engine and Primes sound nifty and I want to try them out. And like I said, I LIKE the idea that each attribute is used for Saving Throws. I would like to try this game out, I will say that as well. I want to give it a spin.
So I picked C&C and well...
Heh, well that's quite a laundry list of items. I have noticed that they all revolve around mechanics of the game. I wouldn't get so tied up by the mechanics. If you don't like something, change it. If something you want is not present, add it. If that's not to your liking, may there's another system that better fits your style of play. It's okay.
Things like the, why the long vs. the bastard sword. I've just ruled that the bastard sword damage is from using it with two hands and does damage as a long sword with one hand. And I've eliminated the broad sword as I found it's unnecesary. Problem solved for me and it doesn't bother me that I changed what's in the book.
As for the combat dominance ability, if in your campaign, that's a useless ability, adjust it to make is more usefull or replace it with another ability say horsemanship or something, as you propose to do. That's great! What ever fits your game man.
Look at the C&C book as a basis for the SIEGE mechanics. As long as you use the SIEGE mechanics in your game, you're playing C&C regardless of the other details. Heck, I'd hasten to say that playing AD&D with the SIEGE mechanics makes it C&C.
Things like the, why the long vs. the bastard sword. I've just ruled that the bastard sword damage is from using it with two hands and does damage as a long sword with one hand. And I've eliminated the broad sword as I found it's unnecesary. Problem solved for me and it doesn't bother me that I changed what's in the book.
As for the combat dominance ability, if in your campaign, that's a useless ability, adjust it to make is more usefull or replace it with another ability say horsemanship or something, as you propose to do. That's great! What ever fits your game man.
Look at the C&C book as a basis for the SIEGE mechanics. As long as you use the SIEGE mechanics in your game, you're playing C&C regardless of the other details. Heck, I'd hasten to say that playing AD&D with the SIEGE mechanics makes it C&C.
I am not happy with the fighter as is too, but the class is the only one to get a BtH on first level plus weapon specialization, meaning +2 to hit and +1 to damage over all other classes.
The combat dominance ability could really get improvements and there are more than a handful of changes made on the fighter by others around here, check the links, resources and other stuff thread, it is full of things you might "steal".
I don't like the weapon and armor list myself too, there is no point in having wooden and steel shields if they are the same too, and the price does not mean much of a difference either. I could see the armor list with better eyes by having each type explained and detailed, but that is not he case here. Weapons should really become a much simpler list and i have proposed that here, many use this approach already, steel shields means more weight, more price and the same benefit, so why bother?
At first I disliked the layout, but I see it as a choice instead of a failure, the simple style and design of the books focuses on content and specific artworks, which are really what makes me buy a book, with 3.X I have beatiful borders taking out a lot of book space, and with color, to add more to the cost of the book, and artworks that failt o please me most of the time, they are either too mcuh manga for a book that is not that or have horrendous consideration for proportions and perspective. Not to mention one rarely sees a scenario in books these days.
I am curious, though, what problems you hoped C&C would have fixed and it magnifies instead? in any case, welcome to the crusade.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
The combat dominance ability could really get improvements and there are more than a handful of changes made on the fighter by others around here, check the links, resources and other stuff thread, it is full of things you might "steal".
I don't like the weapon and armor list myself too, there is no point in having wooden and steel shields if they are the same too, and the price does not mean much of a difference either. I could see the armor list with better eyes by having each type explained and detailed, but that is not he case here. Weapons should really become a much simpler list and i have proposed that here, many use this approach already, steel shields means more weight, more price and the same benefit, so why bother?
At first I disliked the layout, but I see it as a choice instead of a failure, the simple style and design of the books focuses on content and specific artworks, which are really what makes me buy a book, with 3.X I have beatiful borders taking out a lot of book space, and with color, to add more to the cost of the book, and artworks that failt o please me most of the time, they are either too mcuh manga for a book that is not that or have horrendous consideration for proportions and perspective. Not to mention one rarely sees a scenario in books these days.
I am curious, though, what problems you hoped C&C would have fixed and it magnifies instead? in any case, welcome to the crusade.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
Pretty much what Dristram said.
We all use house rules to tweak C"&C to be exactly to our liking. Heck, I even have something kind of like 3E feats in my game. As for the fighter, I give them an extra attack every 6 levels, just like 3E. The other fighter types do too, but they have to make an "Action Check" to do it. Which is simply TN 12 + the HD of the opponent as the CL.
As for why thieves and assassins being so low in xp's, that is because a good BtH is the biggest power in any version fo the game other than spells. If you don't like it do what I did, upped their BtH to equal the Rangers and have them follow the same xp chart as the Ranger. Now they are very vicious.
As for the Bard, he has good non combat support abilities. So for direct combat they have a good BtH as well as HD, just relatively weak armor options. Plus these Bards are based on Welsh Bards, who were known for being good fighters. Or at least presumed to be such since they travelled by themselves so much and stayed alive.
I am also guessing you haven't seen the website www.cncplayer.net
Check it out for a lot of optional rules and classes.
Also Dristram is right, if you use the SIEGE engine with its Primes and stat/level based saves you are playing C&C even if you do some thing like I have done. Used the 3E Sorceror, pretty much straight from 3E. Used the 2E Specialty Priest of Tempus almost straight, as written, from "Faiths and Avatars".
You could even use the Ranger or Paladin, as written, from 1E if you like.
All you have to do is give them their BtH as in the C&C rulebook and calculate AC's as they are in the C&C PH.
Plus give C&C a serious trial run. Two or 3 gaming sessions AFTER you have figured out how it really works (trust me, you'll know when that is). Then start modifying the rules to fit you and your players tastes.
The biggest appeal of C&C is you can really make it into your game taking whatever you like from any system. How hi powered, low powered, or medium powered you want the overall system to be is totally up to you, with some pretty easy changes.
If your writing up exstensive re-writes to have C&C do what you want, your not using the SIEGE engine right. Come here and ask for advice.
Still, play it as written a few times. Reading stuff does not show you what does and does not work, seeing it in action does.
However many of us agree with you about the fighter, and have changed things as we each saw fit.
Let me give you two of my house rules for taking feats and skills from 3E and how I use them in C&C.
"Something I call "Feat like Actions".
In reality this is when you want to attempt something the base rules don't cover. Such as many feats seen in the 3E D&D rules set.
Typically you declare you want to attempt to perform an "extra" kind of action. Such as attempt an extra normal attack, or your opponent goes down and you want to try and attack the target to your left the same round (called a Cleave in 3E). Then I tell you the TN, which is typically TN 12+ the HD of the creature against whom you are attacking. You roll the d20 and try to beat the TN, adjusting with your class level only. No magic bonuses or stat bonuses help you. Pure class level only.
If you succeed, you get to make an extra attack roll, if you fail your turn is over.
Sometimes you might convince me to allow you more than one such roll in a given round. Give me good reasoning that I can agree with, and I am likely to say yes.
Typicaly, if you pull off an extra attack roll, and that attack takes down your opponent I will likely let you attempt the cleave like action against the next enemy, if its HD are the same as or lower than the opponent you just defeated.
Remember, you roll to see if you can even make the attempt. If that roll succeeds, then you get to roll again to see if you actually pull it off.
Yes, I intentionally make it require so much extra rolling. This is to discourage players from using it ALL the time. I want to see it used in tough fights. Fights where you need that something "extra" to go your way to win the day. If your worried about you and the party surviving the fight, start requesting such rolls.
If the fight seems to be going your way, don't request the rolls, it slows things down for no good reason other than "just because".
Skills:
If it makes sense for your character to have such a skill, and you write up a character background giving details as to why they have it, then your character has the skill.
Perhaps the best way for you to know what skills you have is to use the 3E skills lists. Look at the class that most closely matches your characters class (very easy in most cases). Whatever is listed for that class you have as a skill. The only limits I care about is in Knowledge, Craft, and Profession. You can have a skill in each of these categories. Just one. You can have an additional skill in each of these categories for each bonus you have to your INT.
It only works this way at character creation. In play you can spend down time learning skills instead of increasing stats, with very similiar rules."
So give C&C a work out and see how it runs. Then do some tuning until it runs just right for you.
That is what C&C is ultimately about, customizing the game to be what you want, and the SIEGE engine is so flexible/adaptable, you can do it without much fear of breaking anything.
We all use house rules to tweak C"&C to be exactly to our liking. Heck, I even have something kind of like 3E feats in my game. As for the fighter, I give them an extra attack every 6 levels, just like 3E. The other fighter types do too, but they have to make an "Action Check" to do it. Which is simply TN 12 + the HD of the opponent as the CL.
As for why thieves and assassins being so low in xp's, that is because a good BtH is the biggest power in any version fo the game other than spells. If you don't like it do what I did, upped their BtH to equal the Rangers and have them follow the same xp chart as the Ranger. Now they are very vicious.
As for the Bard, he has good non combat support abilities. So for direct combat they have a good BtH as well as HD, just relatively weak armor options. Plus these Bards are based on Welsh Bards, who were known for being good fighters. Or at least presumed to be such since they travelled by themselves so much and stayed alive.
I am also guessing you haven't seen the website www.cncplayer.net
Check it out for a lot of optional rules and classes.
Also Dristram is right, if you use the SIEGE engine with its Primes and stat/level based saves you are playing C&C even if you do some thing like I have done. Used the 3E Sorceror, pretty much straight from 3E. Used the 2E Specialty Priest of Tempus almost straight, as written, from "Faiths and Avatars".
You could even use the Ranger or Paladin, as written, from 1E if you like.
All you have to do is give them their BtH as in the C&C rulebook and calculate AC's as they are in the C&C PH.
Plus give C&C a serious trial run. Two or 3 gaming sessions AFTER you have figured out how it really works (trust me, you'll know when that is). Then start modifying the rules to fit you and your players tastes.
The biggest appeal of C&C is you can really make it into your game taking whatever you like from any system. How hi powered, low powered, or medium powered you want the overall system to be is totally up to you, with some pretty easy changes.
If your writing up exstensive re-writes to have C&C do what you want, your not using the SIEGE engine right. Come here and ask for advice.
Still, play it as written a few times. Reading stuff does not show you what does and does not work, seeing it in action does.
However many of us agree with you about the fighter, and have changed things as we each saw fit.
Let me give you two of my house rules for taking feats and skills from 3E and how I use them in C&C.
"Something I call "Feat like Actions".
In reality this is when you want to attempt something the base rules don't cover. Such as many feats seen in the 3E D&D rules set.
Typically you declare you want to attempt to perform an "extra" kind of action. Such as attempt an extra normal attack, or your opponent goes down and you want to try and attack the target to your left the same round (called a Cleave in 3E). Then I tell you the TN, which is typically TN 12+ the HD of the creature against whom you are attacking. You roll the d20 and try to beat the TN, adjusting with your class level only. No magic bonuses or stat bonuses help you. Pure class level only.
If you succeed, you get to make an extra attack roll, if you fail your turn is over.
Sometimes you might convince me to allow you more than one such roll in a given round. Give me good reasoning that I can agree with, and I am likely to say yes.
Typicaly, if you pull off an extra attack roll, and that attack takes down your opponent I will likely let you attempt the cleave like action against the next enemy, if its HD are the same as or lower than the opponent you just defeated.
Remember, you roll to see if you can even make the attempt. If that roll succeeds, then you get to roll again to see if you actually pull it off.
Yes, I intentionally make it require so much extra rolling. This is to discourage players from using it ALL the time. I want to see it used in tough fights. Fights where you need that something "extra" to go your way to win the day. If your worried about you and the party surviving the fight, start requesting such rolls.
If the fight seems to be going your way, don't request the rolls, it slows things down for no good reason other than "just because".
Skills:
If it makes sense for your character to have such a skill, and you write up a character background giving details as to why they have it, then your character has the skill.
Perhaps the best way for you to know what skills you have is to use the 3E skills lists. Look at the class that most closely matches your characters class (very easy in most cases). Whatever is listed for that class you have as a skill. The only limits I care about is in Knowledge, Craft, and Profession. You can have a skill in each of these categories. Just one. You can have an additional skill in each of these categories for each bonus you have to your INT.
It only works this way at character creation. In play you can spend down time learning skills instead of increasing stats, with very similiar rules."
So give C&C a work out and see how it runs. Then do some tuning until it runs just right for you.
That is what C&C is ultimately about, customizing the game to be what you want, and the SIEGE engine is so flexible/adaptable, you can do it without much fear of breaking anything.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Re: So I picked C&C and well...
C&C is a system that does need a bit of a different way of thinking about it. The game was designed to be mimimalist on rules and flexable enough for people to change to suit. Which is about all the answer I can put forth in regards to specific mechancis.
As for the layout decision. That I can answer, since im the dude wot laid it out. I never felt that a lot of fancy stuff added much to the presentation of a book. One needs to be able to find the information presented in a clear and uncluttered format. Which I had a crack at doing. Hence the lack of a lot of fancy doo dads in the presentation. The Table of Contents was as thorough as it needed to be to find the relavent page for needed information.
But the game is so simple that a lot of reference to the book isnt needed, save for the spell section. At least in my estimation anyhow. ^_^
As for aquiring the M&T, one can always order direct from TLG. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
As for the layout decision. That I can answer, since im the dude wot laid it out. I never felt that a lot of fancy stuff added much to the presentation of a book. One needs to be able to find the information presented in a clear and uncluttered format. Which I had a crack at doing. Hence the lack of a lot of fancy doo dads in the presentation. The Table of Contents was as thorough as it needed to be to find the relavent page for needed information.
But the game is so simple that a lot of reference to the book isnt needed, save for the spell section. At least in my estimation anyhow. ^_^
As for aquiring the M&T, one can always order direct from TLG. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
He is from Canada, he is looking at having at least $4.00 in shipping at US prices.
Nagasawa,
If you have a credit card, or know someone with a credit card, set up an account and buy from Amazons Canadian on line site. Bank debit cards should work equally as well if they have a credit card logo on the bank card.
Maybe go in on a purchase with a friend to qualify for free shipping, if Amazon Canada has that program
Nagasawa,
If you have a credit card, or know someone with a credit card, set up an account and buy from Amazons Canadian on line site. Bank debit cards should work equally as well if they have a credit card logo on the bank card.
Maybe go in on a purchase with a friend to qualify for free shipping, if Amazon Canada has that program
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Re: So I picked C&C and well...
As you may recall, that's a throwback to the AD&D ability of the fighter to get an extra attack per level against such creatures. In C&C it works against goblins, kobolds, stirges, small spiders, sprites, and other such creatures.Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
Firstly I still feel the Fighter is getting gipped. I'm sorry a single extra attack against 1d6 hit die critters doesn't hold up when most of them that I remember from my AD&D 2e collection start at d8 and go up.
-
Barrataria
- Red Cap
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
heresy
Without bungling around with houseruling all the classes, or buying more books, why not just graft the SIEGE onto your AD&D game and dump the saving throws and skill system?
Solves the problem of getting a new monster book too.
You'll have to convert the monsters' magic resistance to SR; I forget the magic formula. I think it's one pip on a d20 per 5% of MR? That's the math but I don't remember if there was other bits to it.
Your tweak to the fighter is OK but then gyps some of the other classes.
As for illusionist, the 2E/3E method that gives their spells to wizards (and lets them cast wizard spells) weakened them as a class. It also helps give gnomes a reason for existing
BB
Solves the problem of getting a new monster book too.
You'll have to convert the monsters' magic resistance to SR; I forget the magic formula. I think it's one pip on a d20 per 5% of MR? That's the math but I don't remember if there was other bits to it.
Your tweak to the fighter is OK but then gyps some of the other classes.
As for illusionist, the 2E/3E method that gives their spells to wizards (and lets them cast wizard spells) weakened them as a class. It also helps give gnomes a reason for existing
BB
-
Gnostic Gnoll
- Ungern
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:00 am
Re: So I picked C&C and well...
Dristram wrote:
As you may recall, that's a throwback to the AD&D ability of the fighter to get an extra attack per level against such creatures. In C&C it works against goblins, kobolds, stirges, small spiders, sprites, and other such creatures.
Is that from 1st Edition? Because I don't recall that, and neither does my 2nd Edition PHB. There's the whole 3 attacks every 2 rounds nonsense, but that works against everyone.
Just give the fighter an extra attack against everybody, I'd say. Let the one-trick pony do its trick a little more often.
Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
I was looking for a streamlined AD&D variant that fixed all the problems that AD&D had, instead it magnifies them.
Depending on your definition of problem, D&D 3E/3.5 fixes an awful lot. In fact, if you enjoy going into dungeons, killing monsters, acquiring treasure and experience and improving your abilities in a measurable fashion that is balanced yet rewards knowledge of the rules... I'd say it's a near-perfect game for that sort of thing. The disconnect comes for people who can't make the crunch fit their creativity, because the crunch is a very important aspect of the game. If you just start fudging rolls and leaving everything to the whims of the GM, well, you might as well be playing C&C.
The SIEGE engine turned me on to C&C, precisely because I am not so much the crunchy type of role-player. But when I got the books in my hands, I realized it wasn't the miracle drug I was looking for. The SIEGE engine is very nice, but the 1st Edition homage is pretty prevalent, and I could do without a lot of that. Perhaps it was my own fault for not researching it more. Then again, as the ability to house rule a system was a big turn-on to me, it probably should have occurred to me that I was buying a game which, by it's very nature, was not going to suit my needs. 'Cos there wouldn't be a need to house rule if the system was doing what you wanted in the first place. But I didn't really think about that until after I bought the books.
But for all that, I'm also willing to give it a spin. Unfortunately I don't have access to a gaming group where I'm at right now, and I'll be in this situation for at least a few more months. In the meantime, I contemplate, and house rule.
EDIT: I should say now I was also turned off from 3E/3.5 because of the glut of feats and prestige classes, which began to occupy the books in lieu of--rather than alongside--more narrative creativity. Quantity superseded quality, and while the damage was done to me, that's the fault of marketing and not the system itself. Plus I was never a very crunchy role-player to begin with, as I've said.
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Re: So I picked C&C and well...
Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
Is that from 1st Edition? Because I don't recall that, and neither does my 2nd Edition PHB. There's the whole 3 attacks every 2 rounds nonsense, but that works against everyone.
Ya. Its a 1E thing. All critters of less than 1 HD the fighter class and its subclasses (ranger, paladin et al) could be attacked as many times as the fighter variants had levels.
It was more or less a kind of 'sweep' attack
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
Re: So I picked C&C and well...
And that was "less than one eight-sided hit die". So I take that to mean like combat dominance and once d6 or d4 for hit dice.gideon_thorne wrote:
Ya. Its a 1E thing. All critters of less than 1 HD the fighter class and its subclasses (ranger, paladin et al) could be attacked as many times as the fighter variants had levels.
-
Nagisawa Takumi
- Mist Elf
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:00 am
Thanks for replying, I just want to address a few things. I sold my AD&D 2e stuff a long time ago because of the issues I had. And I picked up the 3.x stuff. The problem I'm having with 3.x is that there are local arguments dealing with Feats what you can do when you don't have one. I'm all for letting PCs try doing them at a penalty (Like say -5 for something like Multishot, and -4 for a +2 to damage, which would be max for those without Power Attack) but I keep getting dragged into how that demeans the whole premise, yadda, yadda. C&C was going to save me from those. Unfortunately, like I said it brings back the old problems and makes them worse.
One of the biggest problems (And this may just be personal) in AD&D was the plateau that the fighter hit after level 3. At that point there was nothing that the fighter could get other than attacks per round. Thieves, Bards got new abilities, and because of their progression got them fast. The Paladin and Ranger got some neat tricks that branches out into magic. While the Wizard and Illusionist also got magic, but because that's what they started with, they could look forward to some new and rather powerful effects (Like Save or Die, or scaling Damage), and the Cleric was the ultimate buffing/healing machine. The Fighter? You had to rely on optional rules like the Proficiencies or the Secondaries to make them get something, and the other classes got them too.
And although Magic gear was what the game seemed to be all about, I wanted to run a low magic, all warrior campaign once in AD&D as per that Fighter's Handbook (Possibly my FAVOURITE book of the line) but even if I gave them +5 items, in either attack or defense combat got boring, and it worked out in attrition that the PCs would lose.
The second issue was the over reliance on magic. A pet peeve of mine, I admit, but I grew up reading REH's Conan short stories (Once I left French Canada, I got hit with so much Japanese stuff when I was under the age of 10.) and several other authors, and every one that featured a Warrior as a main protagonist, they may have a had a magic item, but that was a defining feature for them, it was what they built around, or they used 'simple' steel and were as effective.
Again, though, if someone knows what the designers were thinking when they did the Illusionist and why the Bard has a D10 in hitpoints, I'd like to know. And maybe the rationale behind the Rogue/Assassin XP progression.
Like I said though, I do want to use this game, it's simple, neat and like I did above with the Fighter (The Combat Sense and Marauder ability adding to the class) it's easy to modify.
One of the biggest problems (And this may just be personal) in AD&D was the plateau that the fighter hit after level 3. At that point there was nothing that the fighter could get other than attacks per round. Thieves, Bards got new abilities, and because of their progression got them fast. The Paladin and Ranger got some neat tricks that branches out into magic. While the Wizard and Illusionist also got magic, but because that's what they started with, they could look forward to some new and rather powerful effects (Like Save or Die, or scaling Damage), and the Cleric was the ultimate buffing/healing machine. The Fighter? You had to rely on optional rules like the Proficiencies or the Secondaries to make them get something, and the other classes got them too.
And although Magic gear was what the game seemed to be all about, I wanted to run a low magic, all warrior campaign once in AD&D as per that Fighter's Handbook (Possibly my FAVOURITE book of the line) but even if I gave them +5 items, in either attack or defense combat got boring, and it worked out in attrition that the PCs would lose.
The second issue was the over reliance on magic. A pet peeve of mine, I admit, but I grew up reading REH's Conan short stories (Once I left French Canada, I got hit with so much Japanese stuff when I was under the age of 10.) and several other authors, and every one that featured a Warrior as a main protagonist, they may have a had a magic item, but that was a defining feature for them, it was what they built around, or they used 'simple' steel and were as effective.
Again, though, if someone knows what the designers were thinking when they did the Illusionist and why the Bard has a D10 in hitpoints, I'd like to know. And maybe the rationale behind the Rogue/Assassin XP progression.
Like I said though, I do want to use this game, it's simple, neat and like I did above with the Fighter (The Combat Sense and Marauder ability adding to the class) it's easy to modify.
I don't know but here's my guess. The Illusionist was for old-school reasons of 1e AD&D. There was an Illusionist class there. If you never played 1e AD&D you wouldn't have known that. And the bard with d10 hit points fit my bill as the "warrior poet" type class. Someone who fought along side the mighty fighters and told of their exploits. And in the travels kept gathering cultural knowlege. The movie 13th warrior did this kind of bard well, though he was a foreigner.Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
Again, though, if someone knows what the designers were thinking when they did the Illusionist and why the Bard has a D10 in hitpoints, I'd like to know.
In the tradition of old-school 1e AD&D again. They were fast progressing classes and the rogue almost mimics the old thief class in xp progression for 1e AD&D.Quote:
And maybe the rationale behind the Rogue/Assassin XP progression.
This is all fun and exciting to a guy like me who grew in D&D through 1e.
Re: So I picked C&C and well...
Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
It's not the New Hotness I was looking for. One Caveat, I don't have Monsters and Treasure nor any means of getting it. My FLGS' distributor no longer carries it and even if they did get a copy, I'll be waiting a loooooong time before I can get money to pay for it.
I had many of the same issues that you do with C&C but don't let that put you off from the game. Its basic mechanics are fantastic during play since everything can be ruled fairly on the fly. There are about as many rules variants as there are CKs out there. I have throughoutly revised the game to my satisfaction without breaking it. In 15 years of gaming, I have never found a better way to play D&D than with C&C...
Quote:
Again, though, if someone knows what the designers were thinking when they did the Illusionist and why the Bard has a D10 in hitpoints, I'd like to know. And maybe the rationale behind the Rogue/Assassin XP progression.
I am not one of the designers but the Illusionist seems to be somewhat like a specialist Wizard taken to the next level. As for the Bard, its inspiration probably was the Scandinavian Skald who was more of a warrior-poet than a rogue-wizard. I didn't like any of the classes' XP progressions either (I use a unified XP progression) but I think they attributed a XP value to every aspect that constitutes a character class and simply added up these values to obtain the XP amount needed to level-up.
*EDIT* Sorry for the redundancy with Dristram's post...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
-
moriarty777
- Renegade Mage
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Wow. For those who post of various other boards (you know which ones I mean), a post like this would could get a venomous backlash. But not here!
For the most part, I'd argue for most of the things listed 'as is' a pretty much balance to one another. At least, in the adventures I've been running all the character seems to balance no matter at how rapidly or slowly they level up due to Experience Point Progression. However I can see how it (character progression after a few levels) may seem to get static in terms of the mechanics!
Class discussion aside ... I do agree that Combat Dominance sucks. But a lot of other people out there have modified this and other things which bother them. One of the joys of the game I guess.
If you're interesting in getting the M&T... Amazon is a good place to get it fairly easily (that's where I got my first set of books... at a discount too!) but you may also be able to find a copy on eBay at a good price. Of course, you'll still have to pay for shipping but all in all, you can find a copy and pay no more than what it would cost you at cover price. It's worth a look anyway. There is also Le Valet d'Coer in Montreal that you can order from... it will cost you around $30 CDN total after shipping and taxes. The cover price in CDN funds is $24
The people on these boards are VERY helpful so, by all means, barrage us with questions!
Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"
Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
For the most part, I'd argue for most of the things listed 'as is' a pretty much balance to one another. At least, in the adventures I've been running all the character seems to balance no matter at how rapidly or slowly they level up due to Experience Point Progression. However I can see how it (character progression after a few levels) may seem to get static in terms of the mechanics!
Class discussion aside ... I do agree that Combat Dominance sucks. But a lot of other people out there have modified this and other things which bother them. One of the joys of the game I guess.
If you're interesting in getting the M&T... Amazon is a good place to get it fairly easily (that's where I got my first set of books... at a discount too!) but you may also be able to find a copy on eBay at a good price. Of course, you'll still have to pay for shipping but all in all, you can find a copy and pay no more than what it would cost you at cover price. It's worth a look anyway. There is also Le Valet d'Coer in Montreal that you can order from... it will cost you around $30 CDN total after shipping and taxes. The cover price in CDN funds is $24
The people on these boards are VERY helpful so, by all means, barrage us with questions!
Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"
Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
Again, though, if someone knows what the designers were thinking when they did the Illusionist and why the Bard has a D10 in hitpoints, I'd like to know. And maybe the rationale behind the Rogue/Assassin XP progression.
The illusionist is popular. So it went in. It also leaves more room for other like classes. The Necromancer, the Sage, the Artificer ect ect.
The bard has 10 hp because he is a mixture of warrior poet, akin to the viking Skald.
The rationale behind the rogue and assassin has to do with power levels. XP progression brings parity between the classes, so the rogue and assassin advance faster since their abilites are more subtle and less direct than say the mage or fighter.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
"The illusionist is popular. So it went in. It also leaves more room for other like classes. The Necromancer, the Sage, the Artificer ect ect."
Yep, like those in the C&C Netbook of classes.
"The rationale behind the rogue and assassin has to do with power levels. XP progression brings parity between the classes, so the rogue and assassin advance faster since their abilites are more subtle and less direct than say the mage or fighter."
Same reason it was done in 1E and 2E. It always amazes me that so many people never understood, or liked if they did understand, the different xp requirements for the classes.
I think it is a far more "real" way to balance the classes rather than make them all equally "super", which is what 3E tried to do. Still failed, but many more of the 3E players seem convinced that 3E is balanced. So its successful in perception, at least.
Yep, like those in the C&C Netbook of classes.
"The rationale behind the rogue and assassin has to do with power levels. XP progression brings parity between the classes, so the rogue and assassin advance faster since their abilites are more subtle and less direct than say the mage or fighter."
Same reason it was done in 1E and 2E. It always amazes me that so many people never understood, or liked if they did understand, the different xp requirements for the classes.
I think it is a far more "real" way to balance the classes rather than make them all equally "super", which is what 3E tried to do. Still failed, but many more of the 3E players seem convinced that 3E is balanced. So its successful in perception, at least.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Quote:
Same reason it was done in 1E and 2E. It always amazes me that so many people never understood, or liked if they did understand, the different xp requirements for the classes.
I think it is a far more "real" way to balance the classes rather than make them all equally "super", which is what 3E tried to do. Still failed, but many more of the 3E players seem convinced that 3E is balanced. So its successful in perception, at least.
The power of AD&D characters isn't as reliant on level as it is in C&C. I like that higher dependency on level but I don't think your comparisons stand as well as you are suggesting.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
Metathiax wrote:
The power of AD&D characters isn't as reliant on level as it is in C&C. I like that higher dependency on level but I don't think your comparisons stand as well as you are suggesting.
I think that is obvious since you went with a unified xp system for your C&C. Which is fine. You don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. No biggie. 8)
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
No biggie. 8) However, I would still be genuinely interested in hearing how you understand that a Paladin is considered to be twice and even thrice as powerful as a Rogue based on their respective XP progressions. I have never witnessed such a power gap between these classes (when played well at comparable levels, obviously) in my games. That's certainly not a feature I miss about AD&D nor C&C for that matter...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
I would have to know if you changed the thief in your heavily house ruled version, and/or the Paladin to know if we will be on the same page in my answering your question.
I read through your latest update, but I didn't pay attention to alterations of the classes.
Basically the Paladin is a lot more kick but than the thief in toe to toe fighting, which is the majority of combats. Plus they get some serious healing powers that can have a serious impact on keeping party members up and in the fight, all from class powers.
A thief can cause some serious damage in surprise conditions, but other than that sucks in toe to toe and can die fast. ITs great when they keep people from getting nailed by nasty traps and they are a good scout type character.
But most of thier abilities are not "powerful" in combat conditions like the Paladins are.
Since most games are combat heavy that usually means the thief is in what is often called "secondary" or "support" roles/positions within the party.
Granted this can all be changed with an exceptionally nasty weapon for the thief, but I am looking at this with an eye towards what weapons and armor they can wield/wear, and them having identical enchantments on thier equipment, if they have any enchantments at all.
So that is why I think having the thief balance out by gaining levels a good bit faster narrows that gap a significan amount by giving them HP's faster, and getting their backstab multiplier to go up faster, etc... To make them shine even more when they are "in their element" or "spotlight" in the game.
I read through your latest update, but I didn't pay attention to alterations of the classes.
Basically the Paladin is a lot more kick but than the thief in toe to toe fighting, which is the majority of combats. Plus they get some serious healing powers that can have a serious impact on keeping party members up and in the fight, all from class powers.
A thief can cause some serious damage in surprise conditions, but other than that sucks in toe to toe and can die fast. ITs great when they keep people from getting nailed by nasty traps and they are a good scout type character.
But most of thier abilities are not "powerful" in combat conditions like the Paladins are.
Since most games are combat heavy that usually means the thief is in what is often called "secondary" or "support" roles/positions within the party.
Granted this can all be changed with an exceptionally nasty weapon for the thief, but I am looking at this with an eye towards what weapons and armor they can wield/wear, and them having identical enchantments on thier equipment, if they have any enchantments at all.
So that is why I think having the thief balance out by gaining levels a good bit faster narrows that gap a significan amount by giving them HP's faster, and getting their backstab multiplier to go up faster, etc... To make them shine even more when they are "in their element" or "spotlight" in the game.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the Paladin's and Rogue's abilities are equally powerful as written (I did slightly nerf the Paladin and upgrade the Rogue combat-wise) but I find that considering the Paladin to be 3 times more powerful than the Rogue is far-fetched. For example, a 1st level paladin gets cure disease once a week (not a particularly common occurrence), detect evil (pretty useful), divine aura (very useful), divine health (not bad), lay on hands (2 HPs per day ain't that extraordinary) while a 1st level Rogue gets all of his abilities except for sneak attack. The paladin does benefit from higher HPs (maybe, if he rolls ok) but he starts with the exact same BtH as the Rogue. I just don't get why he needs 3 times as much XP to reach level 2 then. I find the XP progressions to be goofy at times. Don't worry, I also had the same gripe about AD&D. Paying homage to a game's ancestor isn't a good enough reason to me. I'm aware that my comments won't get me much love...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
The thief goes faster because he starts with less than the paladin, he got a lot of abilities, true, but they are all dependent on their level, by gaining levels faster he actually makes up for the other classes abilities and the bonus to hit and hp gained covers their lower combat prowess.
I have gamed enough in AD&D to see merit and balance in this and enough with 3rd edition to like the unified progression, but unified is harder to balance, imo, specially when you want to keep things simple, without formulas for calculating attack bonus and the like.
As to the original poster, i had a lot of gripes against AD&D 2nd edition myself, C&C solves none of them, but it is far simpler and has a unified system as its base, this makes changing anything I want a lot easier, plus the years of playing AD&D will serve me well in doing that.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
I have gamed enough in AD&D to see merit and balance in this and enough with 3rd edition to like the unified progression, but unified is harder to balance, imo, specially when you want to keep things simple, without formulas for calculating attack bonus and the like.
As to the original poster, i had a lot of gripes against AD&D 2nd edition myself, C&C solves none of them, but it is far simpler and has a unified system as its base, this makes changing anything I want a lot easier, plus the years of playing AD&D will serve me well in doing that.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Bear in mind that the relative comparative strength of the classes is all based on combat capability. Look to that for the 'why' of balance of power.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
-
rabindranath72
- Lore Drake
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:00 am
Here's a slight twist. It's not just the reliance on the skill level for the sneaky classes, but also the relative SPEED of Level advancement.
During a 3.x game, the GM decided to slow level advancement by a factor of 6. I tried playing my rogue PC for a few sessions and then said, "Tell you what, call me when you guys get past 5th level when I can be useful, okay." They called about a year later. LOL!
That would have been a full year of suck for my skill based character.
Now for my own nostaliga trip. With the customizable skill percentages, rogues where my class of choice in old Dnd. I enjoyed that I could tweak my PC to be a "spy," "pickpocket" or a "professional adventurer."
I just always eneded up in a group that insisted that since I was playing a "theif," that they couldn't trust me, or sleep near me or have their back to me.
During a 3.x game, the GM decided to slow level advancement by a factor of 6. I tried playing my rogue PC for a few sessions and then said, "Tell you what, call me when you guys get past 5th level when I can be useful, okay." They called about a year later. LOL!
That would have been a full year of suck for my skill based character.
Now for my own nostaliga trip. With the customizable skill percentages, rogues where my class of choice in old Dnd. I enjoyed that I could tweak my PC to be a "spy," "pickpocket" or a "professional adventurer."
I just always eneded up in a group that insisted that since I was playing a "theif," that they couldn't trust me, or sleep near me or have their back to me.
I always hated how people confused an archetype on the game system with a category in the game world. Once I made a thief aiming to be a treasure hunter, I did not steal a thing from anyone who was alive and the Dm in a session came to me and with this NPC called me thief.
That pissed me off.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
That pissed me off.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
I've had the same gripe. Not against me personally, but against other rogues. Some never steal, but are still referred to as thief by their party members. Some steal but don't get caught, and are called a thief by their party members. Too much out of game knowledge entering in. Poor tomb raider rogues.Nifelhein wrote:
I always hated how people confused an archetype on the game system with a category in the game world. Once I made a thief aiming to be a treasure hunter, I did not steal a thing from anyone who was alive and the Dm in a session came to me and with this NPC called me thief.
That pissed me off.
Metathiax wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the Paladin's and Rogue's abilities are equally powerful as written (I did slightly nerf the Paladin and upgrade the Rogue combat-wise) but I find that considering the Paladin to be 3 times more powerful than the Rogue is far-fetched. For example, a 1st level paladin gets cure disease once a week (not a particularly common occurrence), detect evil (pretty useful), divine aura (very useful), divine health (not bad), lay on hands (2 HPs per day ain't that extraordinary) while a 1st level Rogue gets all of his abilities except for sneak attack. The paladin does benefit from higher HPs (maybe, if he rolls ok) but he starts with the exact same BtH as the Rogue. I just don't get why he needs 3 times as much XP to reach level 2 then. I find the XP progressions to be goofy at times. Don't worry, I also had the same gripe about AD&D. Paying homage to a game's ancestor isn't a good enough reason to me. I'm aware that my comments won't get me much love...
Because it is also a "down the road" perspective I guess. I do have the same opinions about the Paladins powers, not all of them are horribly useful, but protection from evil and that +2 to AC and saves is very nice. Comined with heavier armors I am sure the thief is jealous in toe to toe fights.
The thief may have the same BtH at 1st level (0), but the Paladin gets +1 at second level and the thief does not. The Paladin gets a +1 to BtH every level, the thief gets it every 3 or 4 levels (haven't looked it up). So that alone is a lot fo why the high xp's for Paladin. The rest is their powers, which are magical in nature. That 12th level power is very awesome and will come in very handy in the tough fights.
The Smite Evil is wimpy and I have tweaked that myself.
I also agree the thief is too wimpy, and I have tweaked that as well, and increased their xp requirements to match the Rangers. Because their BtH is the same as a Ranger/Paladin/etc... in my campaign and I think all their other abilities are very equivelent in power and utility as the Rangers.
But I still see having the thief advance so much faster is a good thing. BTW, it isn't 3 times as fast. The party is 9th level and the thief would be knocking on 1 1 th level, not 27th.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
-
Nagisawa Takumi
- Mist Elf
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:00 am
rabindranath72 wrote:
I would strongly suggest to the Original Poster that he tries to PLAY the game, before discarding it and suggesting changes. Things might work MUCH better than he thinks.
Cheers,
Antonio
Dude, it's built almost exactly like AD&D. I remember the problem I had then, and I see them again. The Primes and SIEGE Engine will not fix that.
I agree with Metathiax, Combat should NOT be a factor for 'balance'. If it was then the Wizard should have the same progression as the Paladin. His 'Abilities' are much, much more powerful. In most of my games that I've been in Combat hasn't been that big an issue, as the Rogue or the Wizard usually manages to avoid it, or if it comes down to it (In 3.x) it's over with a few spells and several flank based sneak attacks.
In C&C, the Back Attack ability isn't as nasty, but it's up there.