Troll Lord Games

I recently bought Castles & Crusades Player's Handbook (6th Printing) and I just finished reading it. In general I like it a lot, but there are some questions that I would like to ask.

Is the Fighter class balanced? To me it seems to be the weakest class. Basically it is a Barbarian with less HP or a Ranger without the additional skills. +1 to BtH is not very much. Weapon Specialisation gives another +1, but still... The experience requirements in the Crusader's Companion seem more balanced, though.

By the way, the XP requirements in the Crusader's Companion are not scored according to the Class Construction chapter of the said book, are they? (If I use the XP progression given in the Crusader's Companion for the basic classes I guess I might simply rule, that all of the variant classes use the same progression as their parent class.)

How does being small affect a character? Do Halflings and other shorties get +1 to AC or something like that?

When I'm the GM I never ask any perception rolls. Finding a secret door should be about searching in the right place, not about character's skills. Anyway, I think I could replace Elf's ability to spot secret doors with a +2 bonus to Surprise rolls. What do you think?

Ok. That's it, for a while at least.

Could I ask what rpg system you're coming from?

The fighter class is effective but I recall the comment being made that balance was not a primary concern about the game. Play and fun are. That said, there are several house rules for the fighter around such as Treebore's that give the fighter a bit of extra kick if desired.

I have never paid attention to the size issue other than the use of overly large weapons and small spaces. I imagine if there is a defensive bonus it will be listed in the racial entry.

As the GM you have the right to customize to your heart's content. C&C is especially user friendly at this. Knock yourself out. It is your game. Just be up front with your players about what changes you have made.

And welcome to the insanity.

slimykuotoan wrote:Could I ask what rpg system you're coming from?

Yeah, of course. The game I've played the most must be Call of Cthulhu. Lately I've played lots of OSR games (mainly Lamentations of the Flame Princess) as well as Pathfinder. I don't like the latter, though. Too many rules, too little role-playing. I bought C&C as I enjoyed the style of OSRIC and other AD&D clones but found their mechanics too confused.

Go0gleplex wrote:And welcome to the insanity.

Thanks!

Welcome!

I am the self-proclaimed resident fighter advocate. Fighters forever! No one in the game is better than the fighter at hitting stuff. The fighters BtH is the best in the game without question. However, you are right in that he doesn't get all the bells and whistles afforded to the other classes. Tis the lot of a fighter. It is a heavy burden we bear, but we bear it with dignity because we know no one does it better. As mentioned, there are lots of ideas out there about how to gussy up the fighter. My default is advantages.

Don't get hung up on skills. I made that mistake when I started cnc. When a player asks if their character can do something just ask yourself, can a person of this class feasible accomplish this task then answer the question.

A fighter can go toe to toe with any other class and will win more often than not. They get better armor than most, they have the best BtH and the bonus from specialization is outstanding.

The Crusader Companion is a compilation of fan material. Nothing in it is "offical" material. So you have to take anything from there with a gain of salt. That being said, I know a lot of people that use features of that book and they don't have any problems incorporating it into their games.

R-

You'll find that C&C is at the far end of the spectrum from power gaming, so while it doesn't sound big, the extra +2 a fighter gets to hit is a huge deal.

No AC bonus for being a shortie. Halflings are scary enough without a bump in armor class.

The fighter may not have all the bells and whistles of the fighter "subclasses", but it does have a better BTH, weapon specialization, lower XP requirements to level, and the potential for multiple attacks per round (I believe monks are the only other class to get multiple attacks). I'd consider granting multiple attacks before 10th level (not many campaigns ever get to that level if it starts at 1st level). Maybe use the 1E approach of an extra attack every other round starting at 6th or 7th level.

Another house rule to consider if you like monks: I give monks a +1 bonus to AC over what is in the PHB for each level. It makes no sense to me that a monk who is specialized and trained in hand-t0-hand combat would be as easy to hit at first level as a wizard.

I used to worry about such things, doing lots of "white room" comparisons when I had tons of time. Now that I'm married, have a kid, work all the time, etc., I prefer to use that limited time for play instead of messing with rules.

That said, fighters in *D&D and C&C specifically have always seemed "underpowered", yet nearly every single game I've ever been a part of, the fighter is the de facto party leader and the most influential member overall by far. No amount of mechanical advantage can replace the paradigms inherent within the fighter class. Low-level fighters save everyone's bacon more times than not, and at higher levels those characters feel some sort of loyalty...hence, a 10th level fighter might not be much of a challenge for 10th level wizard toe-to-toe, but he probably has a couple 10th level wizard buddies who would be more than happy to help him out.

I agree with most of what you have said. I'll probably go with the Companion XP requirements as they seem to be more balanced -- and lower, which is good as we usually play only once in a month or so... I also like the additional classes provided in the book. Antipaladin (Avenger), Spellsword and Berserker are my favourites.

One possible boon for the Fighter would be giving the multiple attacks against weak opponents beginning at the second level. So basically they could have a number of attacks equal to their level when fighting against mooks.

To give you an idea what some of us do via house rules:

Fighters:
They get to use their BtH to make combat related SIEGE checks, plus their specialization bonuses when using that weapon. All other classes use just their BtH.

Combat Dominance is now "Mass Combat Dominance". They get multiple attacks per round whenever the Fighter is taking on 3 or more opponents at one time. Regardless of HD. 1 attack per opponent, this replaces any other attacks.

SIEGE Checks:

As you probably guessed, I allow SIEGE checks to be used for a lot of things other than skills. They can be used by fighters to try and get extra attacks, to get an extra attack when you take an opponent down, to transfer points from your BtH to your damage roll, if you think of it, ask me if you can do it. If you have played 3E many of their feats are good ideas for SIEGE checks.

IMPORTANT: If you successfully use a SIEGE check frequently enough to perform a specific kind of action I will eventually, when I decide to do so, award it as a "signature move". This will mean that as long as your opponent is no more than 3 levels higher than you, or lower, you will not need to perform a SIEGE check to do the "signature move". You can have as many "signature moves" as I decide to award you with.

***I also allow all class abilities to be treated as if you have the relevant attribute as a Prime.


SKILLS and LANGUAGES:

If you want anything beyond what your chosen class give you do a back ground write up explaining how you were raised and trained. As long as you can make it a sensible and realistic back ground I don't care if you have 20 skills or languages. Consider 20 the limit, though.

When I decide a skill/language related roll is needed I will do it as if you have the relevant attribute as Prime, even if it is not, just like I treat Class Skills.

I will not accept skills that are too broadly defined, though. For example, Gymnastics is too broad. You must specify tumbling, balance beam, jumping, the horse, the rings, etc...

As for what a class automatically knows, lets use Wizard as an example. I will be willing to assume they "know" everything about spells, spell casting, spell creation, and creating scrolls, potions, and items. I will not assume they know about magical creatures, the planes of existence, etc...

Similar assumptions will be made for the other spell casting classes. You want them to know about monsters, the planes, etc... then do a back ground write up.

Now a fighter example. I will assume they know how best to fight as an individual and maintain their weapons and armor and how to ride their horse and give basic care to their horse and riding gear. If you want them to know how to make armor, weapons, leather goods, medically treat themselves or others, to be perceptive, etc... you must write up a background history.

For clarity, also list your skills you think your write up gives you. So after you finish your write up then list skills like this:

Weapon crafting
fishing
mountain climbing
skinning animals
etc...

EVERYONE HAS THE FOLLOWING, meaning they can add their level to the following checks:

COMMON ABILITIES
Common ability checks automatically improve as characters advance in level,
Common abilities include:
Strength: Feats of strength, jump, swim
Intelligence: Appraise, estimate, recall information
Wisdom: sense motive, direction sense
Dexterity: Balance, climb (simple things, like trees)
Constitution: Stamina, fortitude
Charisma: Bluff, haggle, intimidate, persuasion

*This is not "all inclusive", and I reserve the right as CK to make situational exceptions.

SPOT/Search/Perception/Notice Checks:

Only Barbarian, Rangers, Thieves and Assassins can add their level to a Spot check, everyone else can treat it as 12 or 18, but do not add level.

Miihkali wrote:I recently bought Castles & Crusades Player's Handbook (6th Printing) and I just finished reading it. In general I like it a lot, but there are some questions that I would like to ask.

Is the Fighter class balanced? To me it seems to be the weakest class. Basically it is a Barbarian with less HP or a Ranger without the additional skills. +1 to BtH is not very much. Weapon Specialisation gives another +1, but still... The experience requirements in the Crusader's Companion seem more balanced, though.

By the way, the XP requirements in the Crusader's Companion are not scored according to the Class Construction chapter of the said book, are they? (If I use the XP progression given in the Crusader's Companion for the basic classes I guess I might simply rule, that all of the variant classes use the same progression as their parent class.)

How does being small affect a character? Do Halflings and other shorties get +1 to AC or something like that?

When I'm the GM I never ask any perception rolls. Finding a secret door should be about searching in the right place, not about character's skills. Anyway, I think I could replace Elf's ability to spot secret doors with a +2 bonus to Surprise rolls. What do you think?

Ok. That's it, for a while at least.

I think C&C did a nice job with the fighter, the extra +1 from bth and from specialisation is only 10% but it really shows in the combats. BUT I don't think the mid level fighter is right vis a vis the other characters, so I generally recommend importing the old 1e 3/2 at 5th and 2/1 at 10th. That way the fighter gets a nice boost around the same time the darn wizard is getting his fireball

The Crusader's companion is a wonderful fan made resource that really boosts options in C&C but it is not fully balanced. So read it carefully before you bring some of it into your game. The CastleKeeper's Guide also contains a bunch of options for your games, including luck points , hero points, and advantages (kind of like feats)

Small races do have some balancing factors in their descriptions (dwarves have a bonus vs giants and ogres for example) but no general bonus. Feel free to add a bonus if you prefer it. Unlike many games, C&C encourages house rules

Doing perception entirely off of description can have the problem that no matter how good the description, it is not the equivalent of actually seeing/hearing/smelling/feeling in the actual room which is what your description is trying to simulate, but never quite can. I think the general approach is a hybrid one combining whether the player's actions are clever and whether they rolled well

You could also take a more "modern" approach and award the fighter some sort of guardian skill. Something like, once per round if an opponent adjacent to the fighter attacks someone other than the fighter, allow the fighter to make a SIEGE check. If the check is successful, the opponent's attack is cancelled.

Oh I almost forgot. The optional rules in the CKG in terms of advantages and the like really spice up the fighter.

A fighter that is going to have +1 BTH, and +1 SPECIALIZATION is going to hit more often, and in doing so cause more damage. Yes, the fighter does seem a bit vanilla and boring at first. In my experience, bumping up the fighter makes them pump out tremendous amounts of damage when compared to other classes -- and that's fine, but if you are not careful it makes the other classes in melee combat less fun to play IMO. Because, when a melee fight devolves into the rangers, rogues, and monks (among others) saying "don't worry, the fighter will handle it" really gives the other class less options.

And though your campaign might not reach higher levels, it's of particular note that when the fighter gets two melee attacks per round at 10th level, any other upgrades, advantages, and other homebrew skills added to the class is essentially doubled!

As one who constantly tinkers and adds a bunch of stuff, I've learned the fighter can be supremely better than all other classes in combat, so much so that the fighter dominates the game if you run a combat-heavy style of play. Sure, the wizard has area-of-effect spells and the like, but demons and devils fall to the fighters, not really any other classes in melee.

Just my two coppers.

~O

Another way to think of the fighter's +2 advantage (with specialised weapon) vs other warriors is the 1st level fighter starts with a +2 weapon (to hit, anyway). And, at high levels, when other warriors are swinging their +3 swords, the fighter has a +5 sword (actually, +6 to hit because specialisation also improves).

Now the fighter sounds pretty awesome!

The fighter class is the definition of "balanced." Without it, the other classes would have no reference point for their XP costs. If C&C were d20 and all classes advanced at the same rate, perhaps the fighter would be under-powered. However, that is not the case -- the advancement rate of other classes is compared and contrasted with itself, but against the fighter in terms of individual ability "costs." Therefore, the fighter is the only actual class... the others are just modifications on it.

The fighter is fine. No need to mess with it. The extra attacks vs. low HD creatures and the extra attack at 10th level can only be matched by someone with a haste spell or item. Extra actions are a huge factor in gaming!

Regarding surprise checks. I stopped using those because I don't believe being surprised should cost a whole action. I do believe it should delay response so what I do is give any surprise or ambush attack or action an automatic best initiative roll. If the characters can match the best initiative roll possible (a 1 if you count up on a d10, a 10 if you count down, then they can re-roll for a tie-breaker... or go by highest dex or award ties to the party or however you handle tie-breakers.

Personally, I use 0-9 initiative on a d10 with 10 being zero because a round is 10 seconds long, hence logically, this way the initiative roll indicates how many seconds it took to respond with zero meaning immediate action. Since surprise attacks or actions have no delay at all they get a 0 roll on initiative.

Just my two-cents and a cool home rule. Take it or leave it. It's your campaign and with C&C you can do what you want.

Brian Miller
Gary Con VIII and IX C&C 3 Round Elimination Tournament Coordinator
Looking for GMs for next year! Run 3 tables and you get in Gary Con free and get a cool GM t-shirt and GM cup (which equals low cost sodas and beer any day of Gary Con).

The C&C fighter might actually be weaker than the AD&D fighter (with weapon specialization), The bonuses to hit are worse, the multiple attacks come latter, and spell DCs scale very badly compared with AD&D as wizards get level to spell saving throw.

You could make a reasonably good argument the C&C fighter is worse than the AD&D equivalents and it was only really good with magic items or kits if you use 2E. I do not mind a basic fighter as such but the numbers I feel have to be a bit better. In ACKs for example a fighter gets a bonus to damage and can cleave once per level. A 4th level fighter could potentially get 5 attacks a round if he is fighting weak crap and even in 1E fighters got a similar ability.

C&C fighters also do not benefit from extra attacks via RoF like bows, darts and daggers. An extra attack at level 10 looks cute but that is a long way away and vs spells its not really that great. Throwing darts was really only abusable in AD&D with things like gauntlets of Ogres Power. THe C&C thief is a lot better than the AD&D one but they I think they may have dropped the ball a bit with the C&C fighter. Its hard to break the game with a fighter type in AD&D, clone, and even 3E-5E.

Welcome, go baby go, just give it a try and don't worry too much.

To the Captain, while while sipping a Captain Moregame and coke and striking the Captain's pose...
That's the enthusiasm we're looking for.