Troll Lord Games

sieg wrote:
Much of the issues currently under debate about C&C remind me of the discussions that go on at dragonsfoot about XYZ in 1E/2E Classic A/D&D. The game works as is; if people think the Barbarian needs work (and I do), then come up with a variant. Submit it to the Crusader, or just here on the site. Same with other things (Like Tre's spell refocus; which is a good idea IMO).

All in all, disagreement and debate (as long as its civil) is a good thing and perfect to get everyone's creative juices flowing!

Deogolf wrote:
I totall agree. The game is what you make it. If there is something you don't like or feel is "clunky", whatever it is - change it. It's what Gary has been saying for decades and what players sometime have a hard time getting their head around. If you don't like it, change it!! It's not that hard to do. It's more fun if you're not beating on the book all the time trying to find a certain rule for something - that's what that other edition is for. Wing it and have fun!!

dutch206 wrote:
To the OP: "New version of the rules" is not a phrase I am very fond of right now.

Telhawk wrote:
I'd like to think the strength of the SEIGE engine has been aptly demonstrated, both in the games my brothers and I have played over the last nine months or so, and in the fact that Troll Lords' sales have obviously been vigorous enough to allow them to start expanding the realm.

The "small stuff" referred to applies, I think, mostly in typo clean-up (and I can't tell how many times I've seen people disparage C&C because of editing issues, immaterial as that might ultimately be), addressing contradictions in the PHB and M&T, and tweaking some of the game mechanics - such as surprise - that might not be completely up to snuff.

All the above are pretty much easily houseruled; however, it is nice to have the administration take note of these issues and smooth out the wrinkles. Just part of the ongoing and soon-to-be-completed quest for perfection.

Traveller wrote:
The core concepts of the game are perfectly fine. About the only thing that the book could stand is perhaps a cleaning up of its prose. Of course, compared to the original three books of D&D back in 1974, C&C is a literary masterpiece.

Julian Grimm wrote:
All I would want is both the PH and M&T unified into one volume with the item descriptions introduced, spell schools returned and clarification of rough parts of the text. Maybe and I do stress maybe it would be nice to include a small gazzeteer of Outrermere as a base for adventures.

serleran wrote:
Item descriptions are done, and have been done. I made them available to everyone who wanted them. Not many did. Must not be that big a deal, then, eh?

serleran wrote:
Item descriptions are done, and have been done. I made them available to everyone who wanted them. Not many did. Must not be that big a deal, then, eh?

Julian Grimm wrote:
I do have those. What I was talking about was including them in the PH which to date, hasn't been done.

Quote:
Really? Was it illustrated?

Dragonhelm wrote:
I'm the lone voter who said yes to a revamp, though I wonder if I should have voted for option three.

For the most part, I think C&C is fine the way it is. I would see a few things changed, though. I'd like to see a unified XP table, HD progression above 12th level rather than a flat bonus to HP, and some sort of skill system.

That being said, I can house rule most of that, so I'm fine with it as it is. I'm with Treebore on making C&C my own.

Treebore wrote:
Could you explain how you consider the classes to be poorly balanced against each other? I have done some tweaking myself, but I have done it because I thought some of their powers were too weak for the XP's they were paying.

Plus 3E proved to me that balancing classes under a unified XP chart doesn't work well either. So I think the various XP charts actually do a better job of balancing things.

Which I think the CKG will illustrate much more clearly. Essentially, in C&C, you get what you pay for, with XP's.

So to me its a question of "Do I get my XP's worth?" rather than "Is my class as powerful as the one next to me?"

csperkins1970 wrote:
Some examples:

Spellcasters, over time, are overpowered because it becomes nigh impossible to make saves (I've tweaked this by using a 10/15 split for Challenge Bases).

Barbarians are awful. Rage is debilitating and doesn't really help all that much when used.

Fighters are bland. Combat Dominance is bleh... at best. It should encompass all 1 hit die creatures with a d8 HD (all monsters should use d8s for hit dice, with bonuses per die pumping up hit points). Weapon Specialization should improve every few levels... not just once, at level 7.

Rangers seem to be a favorite class for the game's designers and, imho, rock when compared to other fighter-types. Combat Marauder damage bonuses should "cap out"... otherwise you're adding double-digits to your damage after 9th level. This shames the poor fighter. Other than that, rangers have other great abilities. Other fighter-types should have been balanced against the ranger.

Multiclassing (via CZ) doesn't work too well.

There's more but I'm off to watch the telly with my wife.

If you want to see how I revamped C&C, see:
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~dp58/AD&D3.pdf

I think it brings all characters in line with one another (and with their "power levels" in AD&D... including Unearthed Arcana).

Treebore wrote:
There is one big reason why these have not been added. Increase the page count the book cost will be increased. Its going to be increased with the next printing irregardless. Increase the page count and the cost will jump even more.

I have plenty of item books with pictures. So when my kids ask "What does it look like?" I have a half dozen or so books to show them with. Same with any other player at my table.

My online groups and I have been finding out that Google search, etc... comes up with real world examples pretty fast.
So I think such a list is of far more use to people who are "new" to RPG's, for the most part.

Treebore wrote:
Cool. I agree there are "issues". Your rewrite of the Barbarian is pretty good. I agree fighters are bland, but what are supposed to do? They are good at two things, hitting and dealing damage. So the only meaningful tweaks to do would be to increase those.

So I agree making specialization occur more often would be nice. I just don't see as increasing their effectiveness at being "bland" as effective at dealing with the problem of blandness. IE your taking a small bowl of blandness and turning it into a bigger bowl of blandness.

Maybe adding "powers" along the lines of the Knight and Paladin? Maybe allow them a stun attack similar to the Monk? Give them their own version of inspirational leadership?

Lots of possibilities. Which comes back to why I love C&C as much as I do. Its so darn easy to tweak with because you can do it around the SIEGE mechanic.

Julian Grimm wrote:
The itallicized reason is why they need to be in there. We need to remember that not all players will have several editions of AD&D to draw from when playing and that this will help the newer players as well some of us older players who wonder what the hell Laminar Leather really is.

I would gladly pay a bit more for a PH with this in there.

Quote:
Also, Palladium has a weapon compendium book that is really too cool for words.

serleran wrote:
That would be the Compendium of Arms, Armour, and Castles.

Its actually an expanded reprint of an earlier product.

And, yes, it kicks ass. Has over 700 weapons in it.

Treebore wrote:
Yeah, I see the "need" as well, but I've been wondering if another product would be best for it. I was thinking maybe adding a couple of pages to the character sheet booklet with this material? It already has the handy dandy price list, so adding the item descriptions and their pictures kind of makes sense too. In fact, adding these in there would make even more sense.

Guess it really comes down to pricing and the effects the additional pages would have.