C&C 2.0

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 11:51 pm
paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 10:54 pm
Maybe that's where the "common ability bonus" could come in. If the CK agrees, if a given skill/talent/whatever could be considered part of a character's background, or a reasonable part of the class, but Not a class ability, allow 1/2 the level (rounded down).

So rangers are physical outdoorsy types, so things like swimming would deserve 1/2 the ranger's level
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, it is certainly a workable system. But it would still beg the question of why a ranger could not ever be as strong as a barbarian. The real question is this: should there be certain skills that are not class-specific, and be learned at full level?

Perkins's ADD3 is a nice work, a nice combination of different systems / ideas. But the skills system is too akin to 5e for my liking, because they are connected to class abilities (which started with 3e), so i don't think it's the answer to this question.

-Fizz
I'm not suggesting adopting a skill system. That would make C&C Not C&C. The simplicity of the game needs to be preserved.

There's a big difference between a class ability that Definitely gets an entire level bonus+stat bonus, and a non-class ability that gets nothing but a stat bonus. The common bonus idea gives a CK some "wiggle room." Everything is CK-fiat anyway; but that would let a ranger get a pretty decent bonus. Unless the player can make a case of his ranger being an islander, in which case s/he deserves a full level bonus.

IMO the barbarian is badly conceived and designed anyway, in Any edition. "Barbarian" is a background; and you can find barbarians with almost any class. "Berserker" would be a class, or maybe a sub-class.

Speaking of.. sub-classes are another concept that might be adopted:)

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 12:34 am
I'm not suggesting adopting a skill system. That would make C&C Not C&C. The simplicity of the game needs to be preserved.
Why? You could have a separate skill system and have it adjudicated by SIEGE checks.

Or are you saying that for you, any abilities defined outside of class makes it not-C&C? (This goes to my earlier post about what defines C&C.)
There's a big difference between a class ability that Definitely gets an entire level bonus+stat bonus, and a non-class ability that gets nothing but a stat bonus. The common bonus idea gives a CK some "wiggle room." Everything is CK-fiat anyway; but that would let a ranger get a pretty decent bonus. Unless the player can make a case of his ranger being an islander, in which case s/he deserves a full level bonus.
So, for you C&C must treat all non-class based skills via CK-fiat? Anything else is not C&C?
IMO the barbarian is badly conceived and designed anyway, in Any edition. "Barbarian" is a background; and you can find barbarians with almost any class. "Berserker" would be a class, or maybe a sub-class.
Well, that's besides the point. It's a similar argument to the Knight class. Many people don't like the Knight for the same reason. I don't think the exact name matters, but whether the combination of abilities makes a playable character. I think they do (both barbarian and knight).
Speaking of.. sub-classes are another concept that might be adopted:)
I thought you said you wanted to maintain simplicity. :)

-Fizz

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:51 pm
Grandpa wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 8:47 pm
paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 4:59 pm
If/when we start tacking on other systems and mechanics, what's the point of playing C&C? The best thing about the game is that you Don't need a bunch of other mechanics, systems, subsystems, tables, etc. Otherwise we might as well be playing 1e.

Having a skill system, outside of actual class features, I think adds complexity to a wonderfully simple-yet-versatile game. It seems very acceptable to just give a bonus for swimming if a player can makes the case that their PC is a Polynesian.

As for the clerics-vs-rangers-surprise thing, I usually give rangers the barbarian's Combat Sense class ability. I don't much care for "barbarian" as a class (it's more of a background); and giving it to rangers fits well with the class fiction ("What's this? A ranger caught off his guard?").
True and that is part of the problem for me. I guess giving listen as a class ability decoupled from an ability score would work. Allow other classes to make such a roll but not add Class level and never be as successful as a Ranger or Rogue even if the check is successful.

An interesting note. According to the PHB the CK should NOT allow PCS to try something that is a class skill of another class but not on their class skill list. Barbarian's have swimming as a class skill. Thus other PCs without it should NOT be allowed to try to swim making a check... :D
See previous comment about barbarians:)

I would let anyone who wants to try swimming across a racing river to try, ability mod included, but Not adding level. Never add level if it's a class ability of a different class.

Another possibility.. the AD&D3e game from Chris Perkins (scruffygrognard.com) borrows a Lot of concepts from C&C. It also has a "common bonus" concept besides the regular "proficiency bonus" (class level in C&C). If you're not dealing with a class ability, but your GM thinks you should do better than No bonus, you can add like 1/2 of your level/bonus rounded down. I don't think it would convolute things too much.
Yes, good ideas

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 1:13 am
Why? You could have a separate skill system and have it adjudicated by SIEGE checks.
Got an example?
Or are you saying that for you, any abilities defined outside of class makes it not-C&C? (This goes to my earlier post about what defines C&C.)
Nope. Just trying to figure out how to get maximum flexibility with minimal complexity. Right now C&C is about as complex as BECMI without classes, but it's more flexible. I want to maintain that if possible.
So, for you C&C must treat all non-class based skills via CK-fiat? Anything else is not C&C?
Didn't say that either. Right now a lot is based on CK-fiat, by design. My suggestion just gives a framework for that. Maybe a bit less subjective.
Well, that's besides the point. It's a similar argument to the Knight class. Many people don't like the Knight for the same reason. I don't think the exact name matters, but whether the combination of abilities makes a playable character. I think they do (both barbarian and knight).
I don't care for the knight either.. lol. To do a knight class "right", you really need to have a more tactical element. The C&C knight is better than some I've seen, but not great. A class built around mounted combat is really situational.
I thought you said you wanted to maintain simplicity. :)
Rangers, paladins and barbarians were all originally fighter subclasses. Get the chassis right and subclasses don't need to be complex.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 1:43 am
Got an example?
Just ceate a list of skills that can be taken by any class; things like swimming, carpentry, heraldry, etc, anything that may be useful but not highly specific to a particular class. Say every class gets to choose 3 skills, and those skills advance like any other class ability (add level to the check). It still makes use of the SIEGE engine for any checks, so there is no additional rules required.
I don't care for the knight either.. lol. To do a knight class "right", you really need to have a more tactical element. The C&C knight is better than some I've seen, but not great. A class built around mounted combat is really situational.
Mounted combat is a piece of it, but I see mass combat as the central focus of the class. And those abilities are useful a lot of the time. I've no issue if people prefer to call it "warlord" instead, much like you prefer "berserker" to barbarian.

Speaking of which, he best version of the berserker i've seen is from AD&D 2nd Vikings Sourcebook. It has a good Runecaster class too. If you were looking for class ideas you might want to check them out, and should convert to C&C easily.
Rangers, paladins and barbarians were all originally fighter subclasses. Get the chassis right and subclasses don't need to be complex.
Subclasses per AD&D 1st is more about organization than anything else. Subclasses from 5e however require a lot more work. The method via AD&D 1st could work in C&C, but i don't know that anything is really gained from it. The method from 5e would be more complex than desired.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 2:04 am
paladinn wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 1:43 am
Got an example?
Just ceate a list of skills that can be taken by any class; things like swimming, carpentry, heraldry, etc, anything that may be useful but not highly specific to a particular class. Say every class gets to choose 3 skills, and those skills advance like any other class ability (add level to the check). It still makes use of the SIEGE engine for any checks, so there is no additional rules required.

What do you do for stuff like Climb, which is a legit "general skill" but also a class ability for the thief?
Mounted combat is a piece of it, but I see mass combat as the central focus of the class. And those abilities are useful a lot of the time. I've no issue if people prefer to call it "warlord" instead, much like you prefer "berserker" to barbarian.

Outside of mounted combat, the knight's abilities are things like embolden, inspire and demoralize. Which are typically a bard's abilities. And mass combat again tends to be very tactical in nature. "Which opponents are in this square on the mat?" My experience is that tactical combat really drags things down. Just MHO.
Subclasses per AD&D 1st is more about organization than anything else. Subclasses from 5e however require a lot more work. The method via AD&D 1st could work in C&C, but i don't know that anything is really gained from it. The method from 5e would be more complex than desired.

Granted, 5e subclasses are a little more complex, and I would definitely lean more toward 1e or even BECMI-style subclasses. I rather like the idea of a fighter starting off as a fighter, getting a calling/direction later and following it, or staying the course and mastering a weapon or style or such. It would help keep paladins and rangers as fighters first and foremost, not junior clerics and druids. It doesn't work everywhere, but it Does work with fighters.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 2:54 pm
What do you do for stuff like Climb, which is a legit "general skill" but also a class ability for the thief?
As i've stated in other messages, the thief should not have "Climb". The thief skill should be "Climb Sheer Surfaces", which not everyone can do.

The dumbing-down (making the skill more mundane) of thief skills began with 3e, and really took away from what made the thief special. Anyone can climb a tree, but only a thief can climb a sheer surface. Similarly, anyone can hide behind a curtain, but only a thief can hide in shadows. Anyone can try to move quietly, but only a thief can move completely silently.
Outside of mounted combat, the knight's abilities are things like embolden, inspire and demoralize. Which are typically a bard's abilities. And mass combat again tends to be very tactical in nature. "Which opponents are in this square on the mat?" My experience is that tactical combat really drags things down. Just MHO.
Bard abilities are more generalized, but the knight's are specific to combat, and stronger than the bard's (for combat). I agree that tactical combat can drag things down (happens in 3e), but no combat in C&C needs to be that kind of tactical or require a battlemat, so the knight's abilities are applicable in combat no matter how you run it.
Granted, 5e subclasses are a little more complex, and I would definitely lean more toward 1e or even BECMI-style subclasses. I rather like the idea of a fighter starting off as a fighter, getting a calling/direction later and following it, or staying the course and mastering a weapon or style or such. It would help keep paladins and rangers as fighters first and foremost, not junior clerics and druids. It doesn't work everywhere, but it Does work with fighters.
I guess i don't see rangers and paladins that way. They feel like warriors to me: the wilderness warrior and the holy warrior. What you describe with "starting off as a fighter, getting a calling/direction later and following it" sounds more like a prestige class. That means you can't start as a ranger or paladin, you must earn your way into it. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but that's not what i'd describe as a sub-class in the traditional sense. And, more importantly, is having to earn your way into a class in the C&C spirit?

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 10:03 pm
As i've stated in other messages, the thief should not have "Climb". The thief skill should be "Climb Sheer Surfaces", which not everyone can do.

The dumbing-down (making the skill more mundane) of thief skills began with 3e, and really took away from what made the thief special. Anyone can climb a tree, but only a thief can climb a sheer surface. Similarly, anyone can hide behind a curtain, but only a thief can hide in shadows. Anyone can try to move quietly, but only a thief can move completely silently.
So how do they play out differently in actual play? I can see why, in 3e, the Climb skill and the Climb Sheer Surfaces class ability got conflated.

I could see each class getting a set of class Skills that would be different than class Abilities. For thieves, Climb would be a class ability and get a level bonus. For others, Climb could be a skill and get 1/2 level bonus. Same with Move Silently.
Bard abilities are more generalized, but the knight's are specific to combat, and stronger than the bard's (for combat). I agree that tactical combat can drag things down (happens in 3e), but no combat in C&C needs to be that kind of tactical or require a battlemat, so the knight's abilities are applicable in combat no matter how you run it.
So can you give an example for how the knight's "mass combat" abilities would work within the context of a dungeon crawl?
I guess i don't see rangers and paladins that way. They feel like warriors to me: the wilderness warrior and the holy warrior. What you describe with "starting off as a fighter, getting a calling/direction later and following it" sounds more like a prestige class. That means you can't start as a ranger or paladin, you must earn your way into it. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but that's not what i'd describe as a sub-class in the traditional sense. And, more importantly, is having to earn your way into a class in the C&C spirit?
The fighter subclass thing is really more conjecture. In BECMI, paladins couldn't be paladins till L9. Likewise with "avengers". The VotPA articles also created the Druidic Knight, an analog for the ranger, that operated much the same way. Personally I'd want the "specialization" to start earlier, maybe L3 or 6. The first couple levels, all fighters would be almost identical in abilities; but I think a paladin or ranger might benefit from that. It's definitely not necessary, but it is something I've batted around in my mind for 5e. A spell-less paladin or ranger would likely do better as a fighter subclass. It would be interesting to see how that would work in C&C. I Much prefer the spell-less versions of C&C to the ones in D&D now.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 10:41 pm
So how do they play out differently in actual play? I can see why, in 3e, the Climb skill and the Climb Sheer Surfaces class ability got conflated.

I could see each class getting a set of class Skills that would be different than class Abilities. For thieves, Climb would be a class ability and get a level bonus. For others, Climb could be a skill and get 1/2 level bonus. Same with Move Silently.
Well, per my description the thief can do things others can't. It's not just a matter of the thief getting a better bonus. That's why changing the names of the thief abilities is important, to make that clear that it's not the same thing.

So in game play, it gives thieves their niche back. Unlike 3e, when a fighter could theoretically sneak as well as a rogue depending on how skill points were allocated, this tweak returns the class to it's AD&D glory. 3e and later rogues had few skills that were purely their own because everything became a skill available to everyone.

So, no i would not give non-thieves 1/2 level bonus to move silently. Maybe a non-thief could try to move quietly, but never silently. Similarly, a non-thief could climb tree or something with plenty of handholds, but never a sheer surface. Thief skills are theirs alone, just as arcane spells are for wizards alone, weapon specialization is for fighters alone, and turning undead is for clerics alone.

I should point out that while i have formalized this a bit, this is actually consistent with C&C rules. The rules specifically say that while a character might attempt something of another class, it should never be at the equivalent level of ability of the source class, regardless of the die roll.
So can you give an example for how the knight's "mass combat" abilities would work within the context of a dungeon crawl?
Well, it's useful for any combat. It doesn't have to be a pre-arranged open battlefield with defined armies. Say the dungeon-delving party stumbles across a hoard of 100 hostile goblins. The knight first uses demoralize, so at least a quarter of the enemies are at -1 to hit. Next round he uses Inspire so now everyone in the party has a +Cha modifier to hit. Then the party realizes the goblin magician casting a spell, so the knight uses Embolden to help protect the party from enchantments. These are all hugely useful.
A spell-less paladin or ranger would likely do better as a fighter subclass. It would be interesting to see how that would work in C&C. I Much prefer the spell-less versions of C&C to the ones in D&D now.
I prefer spell-less versions too. But i don't know that anything is gained by making sub-classes, unless your setting is such that you want the characters to grow into those roles. It's a perfectly fine idea for a particular setting, but not for our 2nd Ed C&C core.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sat May 28, 2022 11:38 pm
Well, per my description the thief can do things others can't. It's not just a matter of the thief getting a better bonus. A thief can climb a sheer surface, a non-thief cannot. A thief can move completely silently (no chance of being heard- no listen check to counter it), but a non-thief can only try to move quietly (never completely). That's why changing the names of the thief abilities is important. The thief abilities are extraordinary things that others cannot do.
So again, in game terms, when a PC wants to try something, is a CK going to know/care how sheer a wall is? I would think that Climb is Climb during play.
Well, it's useful for any combat. It doesn't have to be a pre-arranged open battlefield with defined armies. Say the dungeon-delving party stumbles across a hoard of 100 hostile goblins. The knight first uses demoralize, so at least a quarter of the enemies are at -1 to hit. Next round he uses Inspire so now everyone in the party has a +Cha modifier to hit. Then the party realizes the goblin magician casting a spell, so the knight uses Embolden to help protect the party from enchantments. These are all hugely useful.
I guess I would have liked to see a little more combat utility beyond the mass influence ability. Maybe the "knight" would be a good candidate for a fighter subclass, kind of like a knight or battlemaster in 5e. Several of the 5e knight abilities could be easily adapted, IMO.
I prefer spell-less versions too. But i don't know that anything is gained by making sub-classes, unless your setting is such that you want the characters to grow into those roles. I don't see that as being core to C&C though- i think that's more setting specific.
I think some of the early fighter abilities, especially one rank of Weapon Specialization, would work well with a ranger or paladin. 5e gives all 3 classes a "fighting style" at L1. I don't think it's a bad thing. Then have the "subclasses" branch off about L3. Just my thought process.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 3:02 am
So again, in game terms, when a PC wants to try something, is a CK going to know/care how sheer a wall is? I would think that Climb is Climb during play.
The CK should know and care, of course. You can't just say "a wall is in front of you", without expecting the PC's to ask "what kind of wall? does it have handholds? how tall is it?" Etc.

But remember that even by core rules, it's not the same ability. I've formalized things a bit, but the core rules say that a class attempting something that belongs to another class cannot be performed at the same level of the core class.
I guess I would have liked to see a little more combat utility beyond the mass influence ability. Maybe the "knight" would be a good candidate for a fighter subclass, kind of like a knight or battlemaster in 5e. Several of the 5e knight abilities could be easily adapted, IMO.
Yeah, the tricky bit is that a battlefield commander tells others what to do. "Left flank... hold the link... archers- release!" That is really difficult to model in an RPG, since the player doesn't have the expertise of warfare. Perhaps we need a mechanic for a "tactics" check, where if successful, the CK provides the relevent information to the player ("the enemy's left flank looks weak"). Maybe it could be like the assassin's Case Target ability, but for battlefield information. I'm liking this... need to think this through. This would be a good addition to C&C 2nd. :)
I think some of the early fighter abilities, especially one rank of Weapon Specialization, would work well with a ranger or paladin. 5e gives all 3 classes a "fighting style" at L1. I don't think it's a bad thing. Then have the "subclasses" branch off about L3. Just my thought process.
I'd say if rangers and paladins get a specialization, then fighters should get more than one specialization. I think that ability is best left to the true weapon masters.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 3:20 am
I'd say if rangers and paladins get a specialization, then fighters should get more than one specialization. I think that ability is best left to the true weapon masters.
Agreed.. and currently fighters get a weapon spec upgrade at L1, 7, 13 and 19. They can either increase the specialization with an existing weapon or add another. This is strictly a "core" fighter thing. What I'm thinking is that fighter "subclasses" would get the one L1 ability and that's it. Or adapt the 5e/2e fighting styles, most of which give a benefit besides just a +1 to hit.

A paladin can/should be good with a sword (especially for smiting), but not as good as a fighter. Maybe the same with a ranger and a bow?

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 4:00 pm
Fizz wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 3:20 am
I'd say if rangers and paladins get a specialization, then fighters should get more than one specialization. I think that ability is best left to the true weapon masters.
Agreed.. and currently fighters get a weapon spec upgrade at L1, 7, 13 and 19. They can either increase the specialization with an existing weapon or add another. This is strictly a "core" fighter thing. What I'm thinking is that fighter "subclasses" would get the one L1 ability and that's it. Or adapt the 5e/2e fighting styles, most of which give a benefit besides just a +1 to hit.

A paladin can/should be good with a sword (especially for smiting), but not as good as a fighter. Maybe the same with a ranger and a bow?
Well, fighters are already better than the others because they get a bonus to hit equal to their level, while ranger and paladin are level-1. And then rangers and paladins are already better than other non-warriors, even without specialization. Plus they get their own benefits (smite, combat marauder, etc). So I don't think rangers and paladins need anything extra to prove their warrior bona-fides. Under the right circumstances, they can be just as strong as fighters, just not as flexible.

So i still wouldn't, but if you do give them specialization, don't presume a specific weapon for paladins and rangers. The paladin with a sword is very Arthurian trope, but not every paladin needs to follow that archetype. Similarly, i could easily see a mountain-man-type as a ranger, tough and strong using a massive quarterstaff, but not having much use for a bow. I don't think any specific weapon should ever be presumed for any class.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:57 pm
So i still wouldn't, but if you do give them specialization, don't presume a specific weapon for paladins and rangers. The paladin with a sword is very Arthurian trope, but not every paladin needs to follow that archetype. Similarly, i could easily see a mountain-man-type as a ranger, tough and strong using a massive quarterstaff, but not having much use for a bow. I don't think any specific weapon should ever be presumed for any class.
Of course. Aragorn didn't use a bow that we know of. And for living in the woods, I'm not sure Robin Hood would have been the archer he was as a ranger.

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

paladinn wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:52 pm
Of course. Aragorn didn't use a bow that we know of. And for living in the woods, I'm not sure Robin Hood would have been the archer he was as a ranger.
If he was far out into the wilderness as much as portrayed he either used a bow and/or animal traps. Or, he starved to death.

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

Well...considering Aragorn was fostered to Elrond from the age of 2...I'm sure he was passably fair with a bow. lol

Paladin doesn't necessarily base as a fighter either.
The definition of Paladin is a knight of virtue or champion of a cause due to influence of the highest officials of the Catholic Church in service to the Pope and later Count Palatine of the Holy Roman Empire historically, though it was literature related to the 12 Paladins were related to King Charlemagne's court that really locked it into the whole knight of honor thing; the first use was in Ancient Rome for a chamberlain of the Emperor...and the imperial palace guard under Constantine...so basically a person with a lot of influence politically, not necessarily direct power; in some cases able to use the powers of the crown in the later middle ages and was an actual court rank. Anyhow...Paladin doesn't automatically mean fighter so giving weapon specialization or such is not really appropriate to the class.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 10:09 pm
Paladin doesn't automatically mean fighter so giving weapon specialization or such is not really appropriate to the class.
Just paying homage to the class history. Paladins and rangers were both fighter subclasses through 1e. But point taken.

I had asked a question about spellcasting, specifically adapting the 5e casting system (either slots or points) to C&C. In 5e, spells' effects are limited by the level they are cast at, Not the level of the caster. So a fireball cast at 3rd level, by the 5e manual, does 8d6 area damage. Each extra level used does another 1d6. Casting at 5th level would do 10d6, regardless of caster level. In C&C, a fireball does 1d6/caster level, so a 15th level caster would do 15d6 damage.

I'm thinking that using the 5e model would both allow a lot more flexibility (goodbye fire-and-forget!) and also limit the upper range of caster power. Maybe that could minimize the caster/martial gap?

Post Reply