Troll Lord Games

Reminds me of the need to create the woeful wereberus, the ettin-werewolf from hell.

gideon_thorne wrote:
That makes about as much sense as any discussion on gaming I've seen on many a message board.

Well yeah. That's what I'm all about . . making sense of huge thread/discussions and getting to the meat of it, as it were. The meat is sweet ~ closer to the bone.
[WTHeck???]
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

serleran wrote:
Reminds me of the need to create the woeful wereberus, the ettin-werewolf from hell.

wouldn't that be a were-aardvark?

Not really, no.

serleran wrote:
Not really, no.

Cerebus is sad.

Ah well, Cerebus doesn't wear armor. What does he care about stacking it anyway?

Thinking about it I think the stacking of magical items should depend on the item. a ring of protection +1 should stack with bracers of protection +1 and a cloak of protection +1 just fine but I don't think a bracer of armor +5 should stack with any sort of mundane armor since it actually gives protection as if the wearer was wearing a suit of mail though I guess it should stack with the ring and cloak.

What I do not want is for our beloved C&C to turn into 3.5. I have a stack of 3.5 books that I have boxed away and for a reason.

I like rules lite.

I like being able to make a ruling on something and not having some player pull some crap from the complete adventuring aardvark manual to disagree with my ruling. I think if the rules mechanics to a RPG take up more than 15 pages that its not a very good RPG.

I wasn't trying to be mean or harsh to anyone. I was trying to point out the strengths of this game and hobby we all love enough to devote our time arguing on a board about. You bought the book.. it belongs to you now and the joy of C&C is that it has been designed to allow you the CK to do what you will with out destroying the core mechanic. I say stack armor bonuses how ever you want, Give barbarians as many new powers as you see fit and If you want your orcs to be green instead of brown or black then go for it.

You don't need anyone else to tell you how to use the C&C rules, you bought them and they are yours to do with as you will. thats the beauty of the C&C rules.

K- conobar, I'm not sure how to respond.

I'm sure there's a rule somewhere for situations like this...

Kidding.

slimykuotoan wrote:
K- conobar, I'm not sure how to respond.

I'm sure there's a rule somewhere for situations like this...

Ya, just let it go and move on.
Everyone cool now? Back to the topic
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

concobar wrote:
I like being able to make a ruling on something and not having some player pull some crap from the complete adventuring aardvark manual to disagree with my ruling...the joy of C&C is that it has been designed to allow you the CK to do what you will with out destroying the core mechanic.

In that I heartily agree.

I cringe when I recall my players taking out three d20 books I'd never heard of, and trying to over rule me.

slimykuotoan wrote:
K- conobar, I'm not sure how to respond.

I'm sure there's a rule somewhere for situations like this...

Kidding.

HAHAHA!

I thought it was funny.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Back to the topic

Good idea. Ahh what was it?

Oh yeah:

Can the primadonna Rick James wearing rose colored glass apply preparation H while riding his phat catoblepas who's vehemently eating cheerios?
If so, then yes all manors of armor stacking will work.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

Rhuvein wrote:
Can the primadonna Rick James wearing rose colored glass apply preparation H while riding his phat catoblepas who's vehemently eating cheerios?

'searching through the player's guide...'

I don't follow this. You're giving your PCs a load of +5 items and then complaining about the problem of the PCs having +5 items?

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
I don't follow this. You're giving your PCs a load of +5 items and then complaining about the problem of the PCs having +5 items?

Nope. I used +5 item as the extreme example for the potential problems I see. Defining how armor stacks will help deal with the problem. I was saying TLG should make official rules for stacking.

They aren't going to.

So I am just going to keep using 3E rules for armor stacking.

So I am all set, however people new to RPG's or don't have enough experience CKing may have problems and frustrations over this.

Hopefully they at least will see this thread and refer to the online SRD and use the armor stacking rules there. Or download the SRD from WOTC. Find guidance some where.

I mean TLG used terms like "Natural Armor" and don't even give a definition from which a CK can begin to make a rules decision form. 3E defines what natural armor is. They define luck bonuses, armor bonuses, deflection bonuses, etc... and how they do and do not stack.

So as a CK you have to be careful. You may have put the treasure out there for the wizard to get the +3 bracers, the Druid to get the +2 Amulet of Natural Armor. the +2 Plate for the fighter, and the +2 shiled for the Ranger.

But then the party divides treasure by the highest roll system and one character ends up with all those items and you end up with one character having an AC of 27+ and the rest of the party has AC's in the range of 11 to 18.

Stacking rules will encourage that one PC that ended up with all of those items to more equitably distribute them since they do him no good.

The party will have AC's in the 14 to 20 range instead of the previous distribution.

So which situation would you prefer to occur?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

I admit you're not the first person to observe TLG have occasionally got confused about terminology and referred to things that are actually from D&D (in its various incarnations) as opposed to C&K. AD&D had another set of rules for limiting magic AC bonuses: basically, it said that you could get your AC from either armour or other stuff. Other stuff would stack ad infinitem so you could have your Bracers of Defence AC 2, a +5 Ring of Protection, a +5 Cloak of Protection for AC-8 (equivalent to AC 28) but if you picked up a shield or put on even leather armour, poof - if was gone. Armour and/or shield bonuses were incompatible with anything else.

Anyway, a perusal of the books make it unnecessary to resort to anything from WotC's collectable book game: it works much as AD&D did. M&T sets out on p.104 that armour plusses only add to the normal armour's value plus anything from a shield. The description for Bracers of Armour says 'just as though he were wearing armor' so presumably they don't stack with anything but a shield. So, for your example of someone wearing Polish Hussar's Armour +5 with a shield +5 and a Ring of Protection +5 and Bracers +5, they'd get a total of +19 because the armour's +5 can't stack with the ring or bracers, only with its normal bonus and the shield.

How many angels can do the lambada through the eye of a needle?

serleran wrote:
How many angels can do the lambada through the eye of a needle?

72

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

I thought it was 68? Could have sworn somebody told me that.

..........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

72?

68?

I think we need a rule clarification.

Or, to be easy about it, just take the average.... 70. I mean, do we really need to be told how many? I doubt it. They probably have mystical abilities that allow them to be less or more each time, and there probably really is no specific amount, but we can guesstimate. Damn, people. Quit being lazy.

I need pin point specific answers, or else the CK walls will come crumbling down, and the the game will fail! DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT!!!

................................................ mote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Omote wrote:
I need pin point specific answers, or else the CK walls will come crumbling down, and the the game will fail! DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT!!!

................................................ mote

FPQ

For what it matters, there is a specific answer to this particular question. One that's just blurry enough to keep everyone happy.

slimykuotoan wrote:
72?

68?

I think we need a rule clarification.

42... duh!

Also, I'd like to know about stacking armor, such as padded and leather or chain, or is that already counted when wearing chain?

Mad_Irishman wrote:
Also, I'd like to know about stacking armor, such as padded and leather or chain, or is that already counted when wearing chain?

Simple. Go find a local SCA group who does live steel combat. Ask anyone there if you can borrow a padded surcoat, some leather armor, and some chain mail. Put them all on at once and let us know how it goes after you get out of the hospital after suffering from heat stroke.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

the padded gambeson worn beneath mail is no relation to padded armor. it is more of a thick shirt to protect one from some blunt trauma but mostly to prevent armor bites and chaffing.

If you wear multiple suits of armor, you're just encumbering yourself. I'd rule that, if it were even possible, only the best AC would apply, but, I'd also be a real asshat about the EV, too... so you'd likely end up being worse off. Unless, of course, what you mean is "gladiator armor" or "piecemail" where armor is made of different things covering different areas, and then, whatever the breastplate was would be overall, but the others would depend for attacks to those areas, to keep it simple.

I was looking through my 2E "Complete Fighter" book last night and came across their "piecemeal armor" system. Easily adaptable to C&C. Just as easy as converting AC in general.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

That assumes you like those rules. I don't, as they are overly complicated for very little net effect.

serleran wrote:
That assumes you like those rules. I don't, as they are overly complicated for very little net effect.

Wasn't that the whole point? Its not easy to match armors anyways and I thought it was design irony for the method to be as complex/difficult as doing it in reality and have it work effectively.

Besides, I am sure C&Cers have what it takes to simplify the system anyways.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames