The ranger's innate class penalties...

[slimykuotoan]

Is the ranger the only class that has innate penalties built into it?

Ie. The ranger has an armour allowed list, but if he wears those armours, he can't perform his class skills: conceal, move silently, climb, etc.(the rogue cant perform the same skills in any armour over leather).

[Buttmonkey]

I'm pretty sure barbarians have the same issue.

[Persimmon]

Yeah, for barbarians, I use the Unearthed Arcana rules that they get double Dex bonuses for AC in non-bulky armor and double Con bonus for HP. Sure, it makes them pretty tough, but that's the point. And we haven't had a huge number of barbarians in our games over the years in any case. In our last C&C campaign somebody had an Half-orc barbarian, but he got killed in the second adventure by a monk in the service of the Reptile God (Module N1). So all that extra toughness availed him not.

I think in all these cases, they're trying to push you towards the archetype or classic trope. And they do kick the ranger up to d10 hit dice, though they only gain 1 at first level, rather than 2. We house rule a bonus d14 or d16 hp roll for all characters at 1st level, so it's not much of an issue for us.

[Kayolan]

Is the ranger the only class that has innate penalties built into it?

Ie. The ranger has an armour allowed list, but if he wears those armours, he can't perform his class skills: conceal, move silently, climb, etc.(the rogue cant perform the same skills in any armour over leather).

A ranger can wear any armor on his list and still perform his abilities. A rogue can wear any armor on the equipment list and still perform his abilities (though with a penalty if the rogue goes over AC 12 worth of armor). I don't see these as penalties but as restrictions.

[Kayolan]

I'm pretty sure barbarians have the same issue.

Depends on the printing of the PHB you're using. 1st-3rd printings, they have no restrictions to any of their abilities based on armor worn.

4th printing and onward, there is a restriction to climbing or swimming ("deerstalker") if the barbarian is wearing more than 25 lbs. of armor. The barbarian may not use Primeval Instincts if wearing armor over 25 lbs.

The barbarian in the 4th printing and beyond can wear any armor. The barbarian in the 1st to 3rd printing has a list of allowable armors.

[Kayolan]

I think in all these cases, they're trying to push you towards the archetype or classic trope.

Of course, it's a class-based game and that's what the classes have always been.



There's an implied "world" to the game that is inherent in the rules, it goes all the way back to the original game. With that being said however, the Trolls did diverge from that original implied setting in several ways. After all, it was meant to stand on its own and not be a mere clone of the originals.

The Trolls' design goal when creating C&C was to produce a game that had the feel of the older editions, as a vehicle for Gary Gygax to write material for Castle Zagyg especially, so the game has many artifacts of the older editions, but there are differences, such as the ranger for example. The ranger never had Move Silently in AD&D 1e. Sure, they could surprise easier and were harder to surprise, but they didn't actually have a Move Silently ability like the thief, they also did not have a Conceal ability, nor the ability to Detect Traps. They could wear ANY armor, and gained magic-user and druid spells at higher levels. The C&C version has some thief-like abilities and doesn't have any spell ability, they also have armor restrictions. So, C&C has its own flavor and though it is a spiritual successor to Basic and Advanced D&D it must be looked upon as its own game system.

[Grandpa]

Well stated Kayolan

[Persimmon]

I agree and it's those subtle differences that I'm finding most interesting as I wade back into C&C, like having the ranger be a typical class for halflings or monks for half-orcs. Familiar, but opens up some new possibilities without becoming the kitchen sink trainwreck of options and powers that is, say 5e D&D.

[slimykuotoan]

Odd that the ranger can move silently in a mail hauberk, yet the rogue can't.

That's the thing: many are quick to come up with reasons why a rogue can't possibly move silently in any armour better than leather, but at the same time they acknowledge that the ranger can do that very thing without issue.

It might be time to revamp the rogue's allowed armours methinks.

[Kayolan]

That's the thing: many are quick to come up with reasons why a rogue can't possibly move silently in any armour better than leather, but at the same time they acknowledge that the ranger can do that very thing without issue.

The ranger is only allowed to move silently in wilderness areas.

The rogue can move silently both indoors and outdoors.

Nobody said that a rogue "can't possibly move silently in any armour better than leather". The rules say that they have a penalty to their checks when trying to do so, not that it's impossible.

[slimykuotoan]

Sure I've heard people say that over the years.

Maybe nobody's said that to you.

[Kayolan]

There are also bracers or defense, cloaks and rings of protection, etc. that can give a rogue better AC without having to wear heavier armor.

Logically, metal armor isn't as quiet as leather. I fail to see the justification for having no penalty for wearing armor that will make more sound when moving in it, even if it's just a small sound, it's enough to tip someone off that you are sneaking around them. If that's an argument you've heard many times before, there's a good reason for it imo.

[slimykuotoan]

I'm talking about the ranger being able to move silently in chain, and am interested in hearing differing opinions about it.

Thanks for sharing yours.

[Kayolan]

I'm talking about the ranger being able to move silently in chain, and am interested in hearing differing opinions about it.

Thanks for sharing yours.

If anything, rather than stripping away the rogue's penalties, perhaps we should add some to the ranger's move silently check if he wears armor heavier than leather.

[serleran]

My rule of thumb has always been the ranger may use armor that provide an amount of AC equal to their Dexterity adjustment + 2 so if they have a +3 they can wear chain (as it gives +5) without penalty (as the Dexterity has already offset it). Use of armor greater than this results in a 1:1 penalty so if the armor gives +7 and you only have +5 allowed, that's a -2. Magical adjustments and those considered "enhancements" are not factored in allowing "expert chain" to give +6 but function at +5 for this.