C&C 2.0

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:39 pm
So for a L10 mage.. Btb s/he has 6 cantrips. Putting those aside for now, s/he also has spells 5-4-3-3-2. Using the spells*level formula, s/he has a total of 343 spell points.
That is way too many imo. That requires far more bookkeeping than what C&C should be. It's also falling into the fallacy i mentioned earlier: trying to emulate the exact number of spells that a Vancian caster has. The spellpoints caster has far more flexibility, so does not need the ability to cast so many. Indeed, not accounting for that makes the spellpoints caster significantly more powerful.

That said, i don't know how you get to 343. Does not spells*level give the following? 5x1 + 4x2 + 3x3 + 3x4 + 2x5 = 44, a far more reasonable number.
and will still be limited to the spells in the spellbook and/or spells prepared
If the wizard still has to prepare spells, then i don't see the point to this system. Playing a caster becomes even more burdensome- not only do you have to keep track of what's been prepared (as with Vancian), you also have to track spell points. This is not in keeping with C&C spirit, imo.

To me, the whole point of a spell point system is to let the caster cast whatever they know, when they want to, without the need for preparation. You never saw Gandalf sitting down with a book every night studying his spells or being limited in what he can do. "Oh sorry Frodo. i'm all out of that spell, give me the night to study it." Spell points then represent a physical limitation on the caster: mental / physical exhaustion from shaping mystical energies through the mortal frame, what have you.


-Fizz

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:11 pm
Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:13 am
But no one wants to see fighters become the monstrosity of 5e. In C&C, less is often more.
-Fizz
The funny thing is, in 5e, a lot pf people still have issues with the fighter (at least the champion, the "basic" fighter) not being powerful enough. In fact every martial class in 5e has to have a spellcasting subclass.
Interesting. If true, that speaks volumes as to the nature of 5E players and the system. I don't hate 5E, i've even written some material for it (for 5E Birthright). But it feels more about putting numbers together in the right combination to "win" than about story telling. Your comment seems to support that feeling.

-Fizz

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 »

We don't require clerics to prepare prayers (spells) in our game. We do use the Vancian limits though. Justification for this is that the body can only handle channeling so much divine energy...and the God of Light, Goddess of Nature will only grant their devout so many miracles of a type (spell levels) before it becomes annoying. I use a three god pantheon in my world (Light/Good, Evil/Dark, and Nature/Balance)...which is about as close to letting my personal religious beliefs color my gaming...well...other than also having a rather in-depth understanding of the true nature of evil; hence zero evil characters allowed.
"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 »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:59 pm
paladinn wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:39 pm
So for a L10 mage.. Btb s/he has 6 cantrips. Putting those aside for now, s/he also has spells 5-4-3-3-2. Using the spells*level formula, s/he has a total of 343 spell points.
That is way too many imo. That requires far more bookkeeping than what C&C should be. It's also falling into the fallacy i mentioned earlier: trying to emulate the exact number of spells that a Vancian caster has. The spellpoints caster has far more flexibility, so does not need the ability to cast so many. Indeed, not accounting for that makes the spellpoints caster significantly more powerful.

That said, i don't know how you get to 343. Does not spells*level give the following? 5x1 + 4*2 + 3*3 + 3+4 + 2+5 = 44, a far more reasonable number.
and will still be limited to the spells in the spellbook and/or spells prepared
If the wizard still has to prepare spells, then i don't see the point to this system. Playing a caster becomes even more burdensome- not only do you have to keep track of what's been prepared (as with Vancian), you also have to track spell points. This is not in keeping with C&C spirit, imo.

To me, the whole point of a spell point system is to let the caster cast whatever they know, when they want to, without the need for preparation. You never saw Gandalf sitting down with a book every night studying his spells or being limited in what he can do. "Oh sorry Frodo. i'm all out of that spell, give me the night to study it." Spell points then represent a physical limitation on the caster: mental / physical exhaustion from shaping mystical energies through the mortal frame, what have you.

-Fizz
You're right about the spell point count, my bad. It's called no sleep and a bad chest cold.

I guess we need to define what it means to "know" a spell. Obviously a mage has to have in the spellbook, right? Is that sufficient, or does s/he still need to study? Once a spell is studied/memorized/"prepared", it doesn't need to be so again, so you don't need to lug around a huge spellbook. But instead of tracking spell slots, you do still have to track total daily spell Points. It's more flexible than spell slots and Way better than fire-and-forget.

And I'm not sure Gandalf was a good exemplar of a D&D wizard any more than Aragorn was a great D&D ranger.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 4:26 pm
We don't require clerics to prepare prayers (spells) in our game. We do use the Vancian limits though. Justification for this is that the body can only handle channeling so much divine energy...and the God of Light, Goddess of Nature will only grant their devout so many miracles of a type (spell levels) before it becomes annoying. I use a three god pantheon in my world (Light/Good, Evil/Dark, and Nature/Balance)...which is about as close to letting my personal religious beliefs color my gaming...well...other than also having a rather in-depth understanding of the true nature of evil; hence zero evil characters allowed.
I agree. Spell points are the limits of power that the character can channel per day. The question is, how does one determine exactly what spells can be cast? I have no problem with clerics or druids casting any spell of any level that they Can cast, up to their spell point allotment. For mages, I'd say the spell has to be in their book, and would need to either be cast from said book or memorized/prepared. But when studying, they can choose any spell up to the max spell level for their character level, subject to their Int of course. Once "memorized", the spell can be cast any number of times until s/he runs out of spell points.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 4:43 pm
I guess we need to define what it means to "know" a spell. Obviously a mage has to have in the spellbook, right? Is that sufficient, or does s/he still need to study? Once a spell is studied/memorized/"prepared", it doesn't need to be so again, so you don't need to lug around a huge spellbook. But instead of tracking spell slots, you do still have to track total daily spell Points. It's more flexible than spell slots and Way better than fire-and-forget.
In my opinion, the spellpoint system is meant to do away with the whole fire-and-forget system. In this system once a wizard knows a spell, he always knows it. No spell book is needed (except maybe for learning it initially). And he doesn't have to prepare the spell in advance. The spell may be cast whenever desired, provided the spell points (and spell components) are available. In fact, this is how the variant mana system in the CKG works.
And I'm not sure Gandalf was a good exemplar of a D&D wizard any more than Aragorn was a great D&D ranger.
It's true Gandalf was more than a mere wizard, but i don't know of any wizards characters in fantasy that have had to deal with the Vancian method. Not Merlin, not Circe, not Medea, etc etc. Where in literature is the basis for Vancian fire-and-forget casting?

My own preference would be a spell-check system. In this, spellcasting is a skill, and thus requires a check for success. After all, magic is not normal so why should it automatically be successful? In this system, like above, once known a spell may be attempted any time. But because it might not be successful, and there may be harmful side effects, the power of the wizard is naturally kept in check. Think of the movie Willow, where the young caster struggles to get his magic to work, and sometimes ends up injuring himself from managing the arcane energies.

But i seem to be the only one in favor of spellcheck over a spellpoint system. Why is that?


-Fizz

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 »

Clerics and Druids simply pray for their 'miracles' as needed per the situation. The power isn't theirs, it's their deity's...they are simply making a request for something to happen.

The wizards...yeah. They have to have learned the spell and recorded it in their personal book of knowledge. Think of magic like math. You study and study and practice and practice until you know how to add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc. in your head at a glance. Every so often, especially as we age, you need to refresh the memory a bit...hence simply study and review for a short while. But once they've learned the spell and practiced it enough, there is absolutely no need to keep memorizing it every day...I mean, you cast it and the spell is gone from their memory so they need to relearn it?! REALLY???! So yeah. We took the approach: Mana+known spell= good to go. Casting a spell from a book without learning it costs double the mana. Spell scrolls are imbued with the mana so don't cost anything to cast. Casting a spell of a higher level than allowed or overclocking it (adding mana for more power) means a check against the average of CON & CHA...to avoid feinting, mana burn, or worse (if a 1 rolled) at GM discretion.
"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
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:26 am
Most mana systems that i have seen have result in an absurd number of points. It's like they want to be able to reproduce the Vancian system- making sure that a wizard could cast a complete Vancian table's worth of spells.
Our method resulted in a range of 1-3 mana points at 1st level based on the character's attribute scores. Spellers gained 1 mana point per level with a bonus point at specific levels if the prime attribute was high enough. Each spell's cost in mana was equal to the level. We didn't worry about trying to make a smooth conversion fromthe Vancian table. If we wanted a game with more spell use, we increased the amount of mana gained through level advancement.
Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:26 am
I've seen systems that have hundreds or thousands of spell points. I think that's the wrong approach. A spellpoint system gives a huge amount of flexibility, so you don't need to account for every spell from the Vancian table.
Agreed. Hundreds and thousands of mana points is crazy.
Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:26 am
The best spell point system i know of is from the Midnight setting. A spell costs a number of spell points equal to its level. A caster has a number of spell points equal to their level plus ability modifier. Yes, that's far fewer spells (it's a lower magic setting), but this is easily tweaked by doubling the number of spell points available.
Midnight! What a fun premise that was! Me and some friends played a few sessions of Midnight when it came out. Talk about some tense scenarios and fun RP. :) Too bad FFG let the game go dead.
Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:26 am
Though personally, i like a spellcheck system better, at least for wizards, as i consider spellcasting a skill. Thus casting a spell should not be automatic. Just as a fighter has to roll to hit an opponent, a wizard has to roll to make his spell work. But that's just me. Heh.

-Fizz
I'm doing the same thing with my homebrew rules for wizards.
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

Grandpa wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 pm
Ancalagon wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 11:11 pm
It is a Role Playing Game. Focusing on porting over ever-increasing powers, abilities, and bonuses from 5e leaves adds complexity which isn't needed to make for a more exciting character. Your assertion for only a fighter and caster class seems a tad disingenuous but you're certainly free to see it as you wish.
I think this is the heart of the matter. Once way back when in the dawn of D&D I joined a group that was playing ~2nd - 3rd level PCs and the DM started me with a 0 level soldier PC. I balked and the DM told me to REALLY pretend to be that PC and to forget about the rules and to just decide what I would do in any given situation and he'd worry about how to determine success/failure or what ever. Man, I was swinging from chandeliers (or trying); pinning orcs against a wall using a table in the room, all kinds of crazy stuff in and out of combat. I think at that point really first got RPing and what I was playing and how weak or powerful it was became a distant secondary consideration. Try playing a link bearer in a game. It kind of forces the RP angle because you have no class abilities. You have to keep alive and be useful.
Emphasis mine.
Great job by your DM at the time! So many modern players want to be invincible killing machines with all manner of kewl-powerz-n-skillz-n-stuff that actual RP and thinking falls by the wayside or gets thrown out the window entirely.
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 4:26 pm
We don't require clerics to prepare prayers (spells) in our game. We do use the Vancian limits though. Justification for this is that the body can only handle channeling so much divine energy...and the God of Light, Goddess of Nature will only grant their devout so many miracles of a type (spell levels) before it becomes annoying. I use a three god pantheon in my world (Light/Good, Evil/Dark, and Nature/Balance)...which is about as close to letting my personal religious beliefs color my gaming...well...other than also having a rather in-depth understanding of the true nature of evil; hence zero evil characters allowed.
Emphasis mine.
I handle clerics and druids the same way. If the PC(s) stay "on the path" then the power flows... within the Vancian limitations if we're using such.
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Ancalagon wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:09 pm
Our method resulted in a range of 1-3 mana points at 1st level based on the character's attribute scores. Spellers gained 1 mana point per level with a bonus point at specific levels if the prime attribute was high enough. Each spell's cost in mana was equal to the level. We didn't worry about trying to make a smooth conversion fromthe Vancian table. If we wanted a game with more spell use, we increased the amount of mana gained through level advancement.
Now that is a spell point system that i can get behind. :)
Midnight! What a fun premise that was! Me and some friends played a few sessions of Midnight when it came out. Talk about some tense scenarios and fun RP. :) Too bad FFG let the game go dead.
It's actually been revitalized by Edge Studios, and will soon be re-released for 5E. See here:
https://edge-studio.net/prepare-for-the ... -darkness/

-Fizz

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

Edited for removal
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 5:44 pm
But i seem to be the only one in favor of spellcheck over a spellpoint system. Why is that?

-Fizz
You're not. ;)
I've no problem with a spellcheck system. Sometimes it just comes down to what the group decides to do. Usually we just stick with the PHB or a CKG variant. Should I ever restart an in-person group and function as the DM, the players may just have to use the spellcheck system I devised. :lol:
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

I think we're all agreed that ditching fire-and-forget is the best. "Forgetting" a spell was always the bane of my RP existence from 1e on. And ditching F&F is what you get with a spell slot, spell point Or "spell check" mechanic.

The question, at least in my mind, is "Can a mage carry around every spell from his/her spellbook in his/her noggin?" If the answer is yes, then there's no need for a spellbook. But if that's the case, then a mage can never switch-up the spells or really add anything new to his repertoire. In that case, all mages become 3e sorcerers. You "know" certain spells, and that's it. Until you level-up, you can't learn or cast anything new. In 3e, a wizard's versatility was his/her primary advantage. In addition to the new spells that s/he gets every level, if s/he finds a scroll or another spellbook, everything can go into his/her spellbook if it's of a level s/he can cast. A mage Always has more spells in the book than what's in his/her head; and on a morning, if s/he wants to switch things up, that's what study is for. If the preference is to just go with what's already in mind, no study needed.

Is that versatility to be lost if we go with one of y'all's other methods?

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 »

That's what that high INT is for. The INT attribute pretty much is x10= IQ. So a 14 INT = 140 IQ. Folks with higher IQ's are usually...not always...pretty adept at memorizing scads of even minor trivia on top of their heavy duty math/science/chemistry/nuclear physics/etc. So I don't see an issue with filing it under 'hand-wavium'. ;) Though playing an absent-minded mage (Fizban of Dragon Lance) can be fairly fun too as long as it doesn't go over-the-top into obnoxiousness.
"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 »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:22 pm
Ancalagon wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:09 pm
Our method resulted in a range of 1-3 mana points at 1st level based on the character's attribute scores. Spellers gained 1 mana point per level with a bonus point at specific levels if the prime attribute was high enough. Each spell's cost in mana was equal to the level. We didn't worry about trying to make a smooth conversion fromthe Vancian table. If we wanted a game with more spell use, we increased the amount of mana gained through level advancement.
Now that is a spell point system that i can get behind. :)
Midnight! What a fun premise that was! Me and some friends played a few sessions of Midnight when it came out. Talk about some tense scenarios and fun RP. :) Too bad FFG let the game go dead.
It's actually been revitalized by Edge Studios, and will soon be re-released for 5E. See here:
https://edge-studio.net/prepare-for-the ... -darkness/

-Fizz
Shhhhh.. You can't mention 5e in here!!!!

Seriously tho, I wonder if the magic will be as limited in the 5e rendition

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:22 pm
Ancalagon wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:09 pm
Our method resulted in a range of 1-3 mana points at 1st level based on the character's attribute scores. Spellers gained 1 mana point per level with a bonus point at specific levels if the prime attribute was high enough. Each spell's cost in mana was equal to the level. We didn't worry about trying to make a smooth conversion fromthe Vancian table. If we wanted a game with more spell use, we increased the amount of mana gained through level advancement.
Now that is a spell point system that i can get behind. :)
Midnight! What a fun premise that was! Me and some friends played a few sessions of Midnight when it came out. Talk about some tense scenarios and fun RP. :) Too bad FFG let the game go dead.
It's actually been revitalized by Edge Studios, and will soon be re-released for 5E. See here:
https://edge-studio.net/prepare-for-the ... -darkness/

-Fizz
If you're interested in the details of the mana system, let me know and I'll PM you.

Hopefully Edge Studios will handle the Midnight setting appropriately. Izrador (Sauron) won! Given 5e's tendency towards comic bookish invincible heroics it just seems like a poor fit for the setting.
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

User avatar
Buttmonkey
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2090
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Buttmonkey »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 5:44 pm
It's true Gandalf was more than a mere wizard, but i don't know of any wizards characters in fantasy that have had to deal with the Vancian method. Not Merlin, not Circe, not Medea, etc etc. Where in literature is the basis for Vancian fire-and-forget casting?
That would be in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series (hence the term "Vancian"). It's classic fantasy literature from an Appendix N perspective.
tylermo wrote:Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Buttmonkey wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 12:14 am
That would be in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series (hence the term "Vancian"). It's classic fantasy literature from an Appendix N perspective.
:lol: FTW

User avatar
Persimmon
Ulthal
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:11 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Persimmon »

[/quote]

It's true Gandalf was more than a mere wizard, but i don't know of any wizards characters in fantasy that have had to deal with the Vancian method. Not Merlin, not Circe, not Medea, etc etc. Where in literature is the basis for Vancian fire-and-forget casting?

My own preference would be a spell-check system. In this, spellcasting is a skill, and thus requires a check for success. After all, magic is not normal so why should it automatically be successful? In this system, like above, once known a spell may be attempted any time. But because it might not be successful, and there may be harmful side effects, the power of the wizard is naturally kept in check. Think of the movie Willow, where the young caster struggles to get his magic to work, and sometimes ends up injuring himself from managing the arcane energies.

But i seem to be the only one in favor of spellcheck over a spellpoint system. Why is that?

-Fizz
[/quote]

It sounds like the system you want is what they use in DCC. Every spell requires a check. Depending on the level of your check you get different effects or levels of failure possibly leading to corruption & madness. But so long as you are successful, you can keep casting a given spell as many times as you want.

Clerics also make checks & if they fail too badly or violate the tenets of their faith, they can be punished by their deities, even losing their powers to heal or cast spells.

Apparently versions of these rules will be ported into the Swords & Chaos RPG that uses the Siege Engine so I'm interested to see how that works in play. I like DCC, but it's a bit clunkier & more table (as in too many tables to consult) heavy than C&C so we don't play it as much. This could be our middle ground.
Behind closed eyes, realize your sight....

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

I've taken a look at DCC (well the quick start rules). I think I'll pass. It's definitely table-heavy, and has too many things from Classic that I don't like (like race-as-class). The dice chain thing just seems weird. I can't imagine it plays any better or faster than C&C.

I'm sure I'll look at Swords&Chaos when it comes out, but I'm not impressed with DCC itself.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Buttmonkey wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 12:14 am
Fizz wrote:Where in literature is the basis for Vancian fire-and-forget casting?
That would be in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series (hence the term "Vancian"). It's classic fantasy literature from an Appendix N perspective.
LOL. I didn't think it was necessary, but clearly i should have begun my question with "Other than Vance...". :)

-Fizz

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Persimmon wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 1:56 am
It sounds like the system you want is what they use in DCC. Every spell requires a check. Depending on the level of your check you get different effects or levels of failure possibly leading to corruption & madness. But so long as you are successful, you can keep casting a given spell as many times as you want.
Indeed, sounds like i would like it. I've created my own systems before, occassionally tweaking the difficulty and penalties. I like spell-check system for arcanes, but i like spell-point systems for divines. That way, the two types of magic feel and play differently.
Apparently versions of these rules will be ported into the Swords & Chaos RPG that uses the Siege Engine so I'm interested to see how that works in play. I like DCC, but it's a bit clunkier & more table (as in too many tables to consult) heavy than C&C so we don't play it as much. This could be our middle ground.
I've never played DCC, but from what i've garnered i agree it looks table heavy. I too will be curious to see how Swords & Chaos handles magic.

-Fizz

User avatar
maximus
Lore Drake
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:23 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by maximus »

Fizz wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:37 am
maximus wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:19 am
I wasn't a 2E fan, but I actually did like the specialty priests and schools of magic. I'm moving toward spell points or mana in my campaign soon. I like the idea of "channeling" better than the Vancian style of fire and forget.
Indeed, i liked that too. Or rather, i liked the intention, but the implementation of it was not well done. Dragon Magazine #205 recast the spheres and was a much better version of the 2nd Ed spheres.

Regarding magic, i am not a fan of Vancian either. I prefer two methods. Wizards require a spell check to cast (it is a skill, after all), while priest types use a simple spell point system (because the deity determines how much power they have).

But would such an inclusion be too big of a shift for C&C 2nd Ed? Or better left in the CKG as an alternative?

-Fizz
I think it's best left as an alternative.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

maximus wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 12:59 pm
Fizz wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:37 am
maximus wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:19 am
I wasn't a 2E fan, but I actually did like the specialty priests and schools of magic. I'm moving toward spell points or mana in my campaign soon. I like the idea of "channeling" better than the Vancian style of fire and forget.
Indeed, i liked that too. Or rather, i liked the intention, but the implementation of it was not well done. Dragon Magazine #205 recast the spheres and was a much better version of the 2nd Ed spheres.

Regarding magic, i am not a fan of Vancian either. I prefer two methods. Wizards require a spell check to cast (it is a skill, after all), while priest types use a simple spell point system (because the deity determines how much power they have).

But would such an inclusion be too big of a shift for C&C 2nd Ed? Or better left in the CKG as an alternative?

-Fizz
I think it's best left as an alternative.
I'd almost see divine magic as better suited to spell checks. It's not dependent on the caster's anything (except level, for spell levels). It's not a matter of the cleric's spell points because it comes from his/her deity.

Arcane spells, OTOH, are Definitely better with spell points. Wizards have to channel arcane power through themselves, and there's only so much they can handle in a given day.

But in order to keep things simple, if there is only one type of spellcasting, I'd go with spell points. Just IMO.

Still not sure how limited the number of spell points should be. For wizards, spells are pretty much all they have.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Would there be any benefit to allowing ASI's (Attribute Stat Increases) in C&C? In 3e, characters are allowed to increase one stat by 1 every 4 levels. In 5e, you can choose to increase one stat by 2 or two by 1. I think that a 2-point increase is too much, but how about 1?

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Neuroschmancer »

Fizz wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 12:00 am
It depends on how different this hypothetical 2nd ed would be. Minor tweaks or significant changes?


For minor tweaks, i'd do the following:
  • rename the rogue to its proper name of thief. Rogue is a persona, Thief is a profession.
  • remove the notion of illusionist healing. Alternatively, if illusionists are "benders of reality", then rename the class.
  • tweak the fighter, maybe 5/2 attacks at 5th level and a few other simple additions that could add a lot of flavour to it.
  • give monsters primes based on individual attributes; not just "physical" or "mental", but trength, wisdom, etc.

More significant changes would include:
  • the addition of a secondary skills system (like ad&d 2nd edition proficiencies)
  • schools of magic
  • customizable priest classes (with domains or spheres or something in between)
  • modification to the saves system, not sure what yet, but something involving character class
-Fizz
----Response to Fizz-----
Minor
1. The rogue vs. thief name is definitely minor. I do agree with you that rogue is a persona. Rogue as a profession make about as much sense as having ruffian or scoundrel as a profession. To be fair though, rogue sufficiently communicates the idea and it is a well established class for this genre. So, I tend to think discussions on this to be unnecessary and engaging in the trivial.
2. YES, the illusionist class has contradictory wording and it makes no sense. Whoever wrote that entry is trying to describe something that exists in their mind but not in a coherent world. This is one of the examples where as a writer you have to be willing to put your own cherished ideas to pasture, no matter how intriguing and creative you may think they are. I finally realized what this illusionist class actually is. It is the mage concept from Mage: The Awakening from WoD. It is exactly that in concept and substance. In fact, Mage: The Awakening describes it far more coherently and competently. For anyone having difficult trying to figure out what the Illusionist class actually is, I highly suggest reading that book.
3. I would rather give the fighter more interesting combat options than directly tweak their combat power.
4. I think they did this to reduce the cognitive load of the DM having to run the monster. It is an intentional decision stemming from C&C's design philosophy.

Significant
1. I totally agree here. I think using 2e AD&D skills or something like from Adventures Dark and Deep or ADD(modern 2e revision) would work well. For an alternative approach, I also like this one from Omote.
https://sites.google.com/site/advancedc ... he-cc-game
2. The magic system is one of the things I think makes new players not want to play C&C.
3. I don't know enough to intelligently comment.
4. Yep, this stems from the Prime/Secondary system. I know they want to streamline and reuse game mechanics but the implications of this mechanic when used for saves is very problematic. I actually use ADD saves for this.

----My own suggestions----
1. Switch the skills system to a Fantasy Age or Worlds Without Number using 3d6 or 2d6+1d8(a better distribution in some cases because it has approx 10% increments in the middle of the distribution, thus is more amenable with a D20 5% increment). I won't go into a long diatribe, but it more accurately models a character who is skilled at what they do and create a statistical floor against failures and in-competent results only a beginner would have.
2. I think the skills themselves should be a hybrid of C&C and 2e. I would still not create too many specific skills because then that makes the players think, I can only stealth and pickpocket as a thief, but other roguish/thief actions I can't do because they aren't on my character sheet.
3. Make combat more mechanically interesting, but don't do Pathfinder 2e or 5e which in reality create the illusion of mechanical options. 3e did a better job of giving interesting combat, but it was too cumbersome unless you were well practiced and a veteran with the mechanics, so most players never experienced it. Of course, in 3e, the DM also had to prevent players from creating characters that were one trick ponies or completely broke the game.

Things that would help C&C sell to the 5e crowd.
1. Add something similar to Prestige Classes or class kits. I realize this will create a portal to hell, but people want to be able to play a Shadowdancer rogue, a Dwarven Defender fighter, a Shifter druid, a Frenzied Berserker barbarian or an Arcane Archer. I realize you can't do this without killing the archetypes, although I would argue the Barbarian in C&C doesn't fit a Conan barbarian as well is the OSE or ADD class does. I don't know how to do this without opening a portal to hell though.
2. Add more flavor abilities to each class to distinguish them even more from the other classes and make them more interesting to play. This can be done without opening a portal to hell.

Realistically the best way to sell to the 5e crowd is to just write old school adventures for them using 5e or modified 5e rules. You want low investment and high accessibility. You can only sell a new rule system when the existing rule systems have become pain point, people are looking for something new, and they have grown tired of playing the existing edition. So if you want your rule system to succeed, you are almost counting on WoTC creating another 4e and you being Paizo to create the system people the popular market actually wanted to play. Market timing is everything here and you still risk everyone ignoring you. What World Without Number was able to achieve here is quite extraordinary, although they were able to capitalize on a well-known and well established brand that people already liked.

General changes that would sell better in a general market.
1. Change the skill system in one of the ways mentioned earlier.
2. Change the magic system to be comparable to other magic system in other TTRPG systems. This really requires a separate topic and its own full analysis.

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 »

Neuro...re: the illusionist class...that may be what they intend now but that is NOT what the original creator of the class intended at all when he wrote it up. He intended it as a mage focused on deception and tricking the mind which is why the original spell list was what it was. The class has been badly warped from its original intent as a late OD&D add-on class and its adoption in 1e with how it has been portrayed in 3.5e and later versions. This was noted not only by the originator but by Gary himself when he made some changes with the intent to make it a bit more popular and easy to play class; because at its outset, it was the most difficult class to both play and DM for.

Frankly, as an OD&D illusionist player, I find the new version of the class rather sad in how it caters to the gamer rather than being the creative challenge it was to play and when played well, was THE most powerful class available in D&D. Now it's just another mage by any other name. Fizz is actually more correct.

The Illusionist class is probably one of the most polarized topics around...at least until us grognards start kicking the bucket and the origins get lost in time and revision. lol
"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:
Sat May 21, 2022 9:35 pm
Neuro...re: the illusionist class...that may be what they intend now but that is NOT what the original creator of the class intended at all when he wrote it up. He intended it as a mage focused on deception and tricking the mind which is why the original spell list was what it was. The class has been badly warped from its original intent as a late OD&D add-on class and its adoption in 1e with how it has been portrayed in 3.5e and later versions. This was noted not only by the originator but by Gary himself when he made some changes with the intent to make it a bit more popular and easy to play class; because at its outset, it was the most difficult class to both play and DM for.

Frankly, as an OD&D illusionist player, I find the new version of the class rather sad in how it caters to the gamer rather than being the creative challenge it was to play and when played well, was THE most powerful class available in D&D. Now it's just another mage by any other name. Fizz is actually more correct.

The Illusionist class is probably one of the most polarized topics around...at least until us grognards start kicking the bucket and the origins get lost in time and revision. lol
I'm kind of a fan of "school specialization" for wizards, of which illusions is one. The only reason I've seen to have a separate class is the illusionist's healing. Which of course is the main controversy about the class.

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 »

Originally, the Illusionist was able to do very little actual damage. Damage was done by secondary or indirect means, such as falling off the cliff that the illusion relocated a little or cutting the target's throat after they went into a coma thinking they had died from an illusionary fireball. Pretty much, as long as the those targeted by the illusion believed it was real, the illusionist could pull off things the regular wizard couldn't manage on their best day. But that was the also the Achilles' heel of the illusionist; the target(s) HAD to believe. If they didn't, there had better be a couple of fighters ready to be meat shields because the illusionist was pretty near helpless at that point. And that is the official word from both the creator and Gary Gygax themselves when asked. And while not part of the actual discussion, it was one I and the other three DMs in our group followed closely since we had over 30 players, several of whom ran illusionists besides myself.

Healing was never, and should never, be part of the illusionists repertoire...because the target knows the healing isn't real, only in their heads. At least if staying true to the class as originally intended. The illusionist is one of those classes that has fallen to the power babies and their whining about needing more power because they themselves were to stupid to run the class otherwise. Hence Gary stepping in and tweaking the class initially around 2e trying to make it a bit easier...and then it got totally carried away with subsequent editions. C&C apparently has proven no exception to this power creeping. The only 'healing' spell that would be justified in use by the illusionist would be something like the Aid spell, or as I call it, Heroic Delusion...where the target believes they have been powered up...but really not.

If you want a magic user for healing, then you want a recovery mage who specializes in Light Element magic, as the manga and light novels refer to it. Illusion falls under the Shadow/Darkness Element in such cases...making it DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to healing. But then we go back to which magic system is in use. Frankly speaking...very few systems have more than a tentative grasp on what magic is and how its portrayed in the greater literary world...they tend to scab off other systems and tweak them around.

The Shaman is another misrepresented and misunderstood class type; almost all of them being nothing more than a scabbed off version of mage/cleric dressed in a different costume. I have a Shaman class I made that is more in tune with how older cultures thought of them and their roles. Classes should have their own individual roles with as little overlap as possible IMO. I've created around 15 or so additional classes I use in my C&C games that are a lot of fun to play for my players and give a much wider dynamic in terms of how the party functions due to their individuality. Just scabbing in spells or abilities to a class simply to respond to player complaints because they can't get someone to fill the designated (boring) roles isn't the answer...and yet, that is the Illusionist and it's healing spells.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

Post Reply