csperkins got it go'n on - psionics

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:08 am

Diito man, tis goode stuff.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:04 am

As I said above, I really like your Attribute progression table (probably because it's almost exactly the same as the one I use). I don't like that you used D20 style Iterative Attacks, though; I really hate those.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:18 pm

Matthew wrote:
As I said above, I really like your Attribute progression table (probably because it's almost exactly the same as the one I use). I don't like that you used D20 style Iterative Attacks, though; I really hate those.

I used those to represent the 1/1, 3/2, 2/1 and 5/2 attack progressions of 1st and 2nd edition. I don't like that C&C doesn't have iterative attacks for non-fighters... it weakens characters when compared to their AD&D counterparts.

I see where you're coming from but that was the solution I could think of (it seemed, at the time, the most elegant solution)... I thought it was a "cleaner" system that would be easier to keep track of.

I'm actually editing the doc right now (I got my wife to help me), so please throw a suggestion as to how you'd fix this my way.

Thanks!

Moorcrys · Post by **Moorcrys** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:47 pm

Hey CSP,

Have you gotten a chance to see those 'non-standard' classes in play, such as the additional classes in your UA? How have they panned out?
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:19 pm

csperkins1970 wrote:
I used those to represent the 1/1, 3/2, 2/1 and 5/2 attack progressions of 1st and 2nd edition. I don't like that C&C doesn't have iterative attacks for non-fighters... it weakens characters when compared to their AD&D counterparts.

I see where you're coming from but that was the solution I could think of (it seemed, at the time, the most elegant solution)... I thought it was a "cleaner" system that would be easier to keep track of.

I'm actually editing the doc right now (I got my wife to help me), so please throw a suggestion as to how you'd fix this my way.

I like to tinker with the rules a fair bit and I don't always use the same ruleset, but here are a couple of approaches I have used:

Quote:
Higher Powered

All Classes get +1 to hit per level (just like Monsters)*, but only Fighters (and Fighter Sub Classes) get multiple attacks. They get them at the rate of:

Levels 1-6: 3/2

Levels 7-12: 2/1

Levels 13-18: 5/2

Levels 18-24: 3/1

Specialisation is available to all Fighters and Fighter Sub Classes, but only grants +1 to hit and damage [i.e. no Attack Routine increase].

* Characters using weapons not appropriate to their Class don't necessarily get to add their full level [i.e. a Wizard using a Halberd wouldn't get to add his Level to hit in addition to any non proficiency penalty; obviously, protracted use of such a weapon might create allowances]
Lower Powered

Bonuses to hit are as normal, but Fighters and Fighter Sub Classes get attacks either at the rate above or at a lesser rate as below:

Levels 1-6: 1/1

Levels 7-12: 3/2

Levels 13-18: 2/1

Levels 18-24: 5/3

Currently, I use the higher powered version.

Some other AD&D/C&C House Rules, if you're interested:
Alternative weapon tables
Fighting Styles
Alternative Defences (Block, Parry and Dodge)
Weapon Mastery
Scout Class
Complementary Surprise
Initiative, Closing and Flanking
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:30 pm

Moorcrys wrote:
Hey CSP,

Have you gotten a chance to see those 'non-standard' classes in play, such as the additional classes in your UA? How have they panned out?

I haven't used ANY of the Unearthed Arcana stuff yet. The only classes that could be a problem are the Psionicist and the Duelist. Every other class is (I think) pretty well balanced against the class that it's based upon.

With the Duelist, there are some new abilities that might muck up the works (I don't think there should be a problem BUT I've never used the class). The Psionicist works differently from any other class and, despite my efforts to balance it against the other classes, could be a challenge to incorporate into a game.

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:42 pm

Matthew wrote:
I like to tinker with the rules a fair bit and I don't always use the same ruleset, but here are a couple of approaches I have used:

Currently, I use the higher powered version.

Hmmm... I think (based on the BtH progressions that I've been using) that I like the Lower-Powered option you've given. I'll definitely look at incorporating that in place on secondary/tertiary BtH bonuses. It may actually speed things up a bit.

In 2nd edition I had a homebrewed Scout class that looks a lot like yours. Good stuff! I may add a similar class (akin to the Bounty Hunter and/or Archer class from Dragon) to Unearthed Arcana. Then again, with less restricted multiclassing and Background Skill rules, a decent approximation can be done with a Fighter/Thief or Ranger/Thief.

Still, no reason not to work on a single class Scout. Thanks for your helpful advice. Off to look at revising my rules!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:33 pm

Whoops, that last entry should have read 5/2, but I'm sure you realised that!

I am not a big fan of Multi Classing, I prefer to just create a new Sub Class to meet the desires of a Player, but it's all means to the same end. I'm still looking through what you have written, so I'll probably have more to say yet.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:35 pm

Matthew wrote:
Whoops, that last entry should have read 5/2, but I'm sure you realised that!

I am not a big fan of Multi Classing, I prefer to just create a new Sub Class to meet the desires of a Player, but it's all means to the same end. I'm still looking through what you have written, so I'll probably have more to say yet.

Cool! I'm re-typing the attack progression charts now. It feels good to make this more "old school" and less like 3rd edition (though, to be honest, there are merits to 3rd edition's unified mechanics).

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:41 pm

One thing I have never really understood is why half Orcs get +1 to Strength and Constitution. Looking at what the 1e AD&D DMG says about the 'average' strength of an Orc (12) and the other races, I'm minded not to allow any such modifiers. It's not like Half Elves get +1 Dexterity, after all. Just a though, anyway.

Looking at your Hit Dice adjustments, they seem a little high to me. 10 Hit Dice for a Barbarian and then +5 HP per Level? The way I see it, it should be:

1d4: +1 HP per Level

1d6 or 1d8: +2 HP per Level

1d10 or 1d12: +3 HP per Level

The idea being to keep Hit Point inflation down. Personally, I'm these days inclined to draw the line at 6 Hit Dice, but that's another story...
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:57 pm

Matthew wrote:
One thing I have never really understood is why half Orcs get +1 to Strength and Constitution. Looking at what the 1e AD&D DMG says about the 'average' strength of an Orc (12) and the other races, I'm minded not to allow any such modifiers. It's not like Half Elves get +1 Dexterity, after all. Just a though, anyway.

Looking at your Hit Dice adjustments, they seem a little high to me. 10 Hit Dice for a Barbarian and then +5 HP per Level? The way I see it, it should be:

1d4: +1 HP per Level

1d6 or 1d8: +2 HP per Level

1d10 or 1d12: +3 HP per Level

The idea being to keep Hit Point inflation down. Personally, I'm these days inclined to draw the line at 6 Hit Dice, but that's another story...

I'll probably cap HD at 9 and use your HP progression... with one difference.

d12 HD would get +4 HP per level (just as barbies got in UA).

Thanks again. Having an outside opinion really helps me to think about why I made certain design decisions and rethink them.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:38 pm

No problem. It's always interesting to read other people's take on the game.

I see you're using the 1.5 Strength Multiplier to damage when using a weapon two handed. My main objection to this is that it only benefits strong characters and in disproportion as they get stronger. It's much simpler to just make it +1 to damage (which is all a character with 16-18 Strength is going to get anyway) or even +1 to hit and damage. Similarly, I think that the D20 approach to Two Weapon Fighting is overcomplicated. It's much simpler to just use static penalties to hit, since damage doesn't scale much in BD&D/AD&D/C&C. [-8/-4 + 0.5 Strength Bonus vs. -6/-6 or with Light Weapons -4/-4]. I presented some of the Math for C&C Two Weapon Fighting. Of course, if you like the D20 way, feel free to ignore me.
I am a bit hesitant to mention this one, but I think it is a significant design concept and one that is worth addressing. First, I should say I am not against Attribute checks nor their use as a default mechanism, but I think the Siege System is a little unwieldy and too keyed into balancing the races. I'm not a huge fan of unified experience progression either, but I can see how it helps with Multi Classing. With that in mind, I just wanted to explore a couple of alternate possibilities.

Consider unhooking the +5 bonus from Primary Attributes and instead applying it to Class appropriate actions. I see that you are already doing this to some extent with the Thief's Listen Check.

To offset this, you could create a separate Demi Human experience chart; my suggestion would be:
Human

2,000

4,000

8,000

16,000

32,000

64,000

125,000

250,000

+250,000, etc...
Half Elf/Orc

2,250

4,500

9,000

18,000

36,000

72,000

150,000

300,000

+300,000, etc...
Dwarf/Elf/Halfling

2,500

5,000

10,000

20,000

40,000

80,000

175,000

350,000

+350,000, etc...

That way you keep your elegant Multi Classing System and account for the difference between the Abilities of Demi Humans, Half Humans and Humans.

In my opinion, this allows for a greater degree of freedom in handling Skill Checks/Class Abilities/Attribute Checks/Saving Throws without hardwiring the concept of Primes and Non Primes into the game system. Anyway, just a thought.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:38 pm

Matthew wrote:
No problem. It's always interesting to read other people's take on the game.

Well, so far, I've redone the attack progressions and static HP bonuses (starting them at 10th level rather than 11th and lowering the static HPs for fighter-types and cleric-types) based on your insightful suggestions.

I'm at work right now but I'll definitely think about the 2-weapon and 2-handed fighting style changes (my 2-weapon fighting rules in particular are a little too munchkin-able).

Since attribute mods aren't too much of a factor in C&C or AD&D, I might just adopt the +1 to damage you suggested (which, I think, is the norm for C&C). The reason why I didn't do this in the first place is that I had the mental image of a weak wizard with a quarterstaff. Since it is a 2-handed weapon, he'd always get a +1 to damage (that would work to offset his STR penalty to damage).

Now back to work for me...

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:56 pm

Cool, glad to be able to help.

With regard to Two Weapon Fighting, I should mention you still have to watch out for the Ranger's Damage Bonus throwing things off. Still, it's fortunately a situational bonus. Currently, I don't allow Dexterity to offset penalties and use:

Two Long Swords: -6/-6

Long Sword and Short Sword/Dagger: -4/-4

Two Short Swords: -4/-4

Short Sword and Dagger: -2/-2

Two Daggers: -2/-2

As for the Staff wielding Wizard, I had a go at addressing this in the above linked Alternative Weapons Table. Basically, I consider the Staff's default Damage rate to be 1d4 and move it up to 1d6 when used Two Handed. I do the same for all weapons, rather than adding 1, so:

Dagger: 1d4/1d6

Club: 1d4/1d6

Staff: 1d4/1d6

Spear: 1d6/1d8

Short Sword: 1d6/1d8

Long Sword: 1d8/1d10

Great Sword: 1d10*/1d12

* Obviously, only Large Creatures can use this weapon One Handed.

In order to differentiate 'true' Two Handed Weapons (I include Spears in this, but not Staffs) from the others, I also grant +1 to hit and damage with them on top when used Two Handed, which I find nicely balances out the Armour Class advantage of using a Shield and offsets the benefits of Two Weapon Fighting.

I messed up thos suggested tables (that's the problem with doing things from memory). The last two versions should have gone:
Half Elf/Orc

2,250

4,500

9,000

18,000

36,000

72,000

137,500

275,000

+275,000, etc... up to 3,300,000 at Level 20 or 4,400,000 at Level 24
Dwarf/Elf/Halfling

2,500

5,000

10,000

20,000

40,000

80,000

150,000

300,000

+300,000, etc... up to 3,600,000 at Level 20 or 4,800,000 at Level 24
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

xitaqa · Post by **xitaqa** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:31 am

I haven't read through your PHB in any great depth yet, but I have looked through you version of UA, and I like it. I'm particularly pleased to see the psionics rules make an appearance. And not meaning to offend anyone, but I get awfully tired of hearing about how 'psionics' is too 'science fiction' and doesn't belong in a fantasy game. I've had players who wouldn't even consider playing in a game if they knew I was allowing psionics. Of course, when I told them there was a new kind of magic that was neither arcane nor divine, and a new "Mentalist" class that used it, these same players usually thought that was pretty cool. So that's probably what I'll end up doing with your psionics conversion.

Say, I don't suppose you've given any thought to making a C&C version of Oriental Adventures classes, have you? I'd like to do it myself, but I am a little concerned that it wouldn't balance with the standard classes at all. Do you have any advice as far as such conversions go?

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:22 pm

With great thanks to those (especially Matthew) who have given constructive criticism, I've posted an updated alternate PHB that:

1] gets rid of 3rd edition-style iterative attacks

2] slightly reduces set hit points for high-level hit points

3] cleans up 2-handed and 2-weapon attack rules

Eventually I'll finish Unearthed Arcana (changing that to reflect the changes I made to the PHB).

Thanks again,

Chris Perkins

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:18 pm

csperkins1970 wrote:
With great thanks to those (especially Matthew) who have given constructive criticism, I've posted an updated alternate PHB that:

1] gets rid of 3rd edition-style iterative attacks

2] slightly reduces set hit points for high-level hit points

3] cleans up 2-handed and 2-weapon attack rules

Eventually I'll finish Unearthed Arcana (changing that to reflect the changes I made to the PHB).

Thanks again,

Chris Perkins

Thanks for the heads up!

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:45 pm

No problem. I am looking forward to reading these more in depth.

By the way, the current version of the Barbarian Progression chart hasn't been adjusted. It still reads as 10 Hit Dice and +5 Hit Points per Level thereafter.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:53 pm

Matthew wrote:
No problem. I am looking forward to reading these more in depth.

By the way, the current version of the Barbarian Progression chart hasn't been adjusted. It still reads as 10 Hit Dice and +5 Hit Points per Level thereafter.

Crap! I'll fix that when I get home (I'm getting ready to game right now).

Thanks for catching that.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:01 pm

Just another note. I notice you have gone with Padded Armour as granting only +1 AC ala D20. I think you should consider allowing it to grant AC 8, as it does in AD&D. Otherwise, you'll never see a Militia in Padded Armour, only Leather.

I like that you're keeping the D20 Small Shield +1 AC and Large Shield +2 AC dynamic, but I wonder whether it's really necessary to distinguish between 'metal and wood' versions. Few shields were actually made completely of metal. it might be better to just use the Small/Large dynamic and allow any further differentiation on a case by case basis.

In the same vein, I thought I would quickly mention the D20 Tower Shield. One possible way in which including it might be fun is as a 'Two Handed Great Shield'. That way, large creatures like Ogres and such can make use of it. What I currently do is allow it to grant +4 AC when used Two Handed and +3 AC when used One Handed (Large Creatures only). Just a thought.

Anyway, I have to go and prepare for a game now, as well!
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

papercut · Post by **papercut** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:52 pm

Keep this discussion up!

I am using the PHB as a basis for my multi-national game that I'll be running soon. Woot!

CnC is superb and it is making me look at all the old ADnD material as well. I need to throw some cash at the Trolls! They gotta eat!

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:09 pm

Matthew wrote:
Just another note. I notice you have gone with Padded Armour as granting only +1 AC ala D20. I think you should consider allowing it to grant AC 8, as it does in AD&D. Otherwise, you'll never see a Militia in Padded Armour, only Leather.

I like that you're keeping the D20 Small Shield +1 AC and Large Shield +2 AC dynamic, but I wonder whether it's really necessary to distinguish between 'metal and wood' versions. Few shields were actually made completely of metal. it might be better to just use the Small/Large dynamic and allow any further differentiation on a case by case basis.

In the same vein, I thought I would quickly mention the D20 Tower Shield. One possible way in which including it might be fun is as a 'Two Handed Great Shield'. That way, large creatures like Ogres and such can make use of it. What I currently do is allow it to grant +4 AC when used Two Handed and +3 AC when used One Handed (Large Creatures only). Just a thought.

Anyway, I have to go and prepare for a game now, as well!

My wife did a little proofreading and I've fixed a few minors errors based on her glance-over and re-posted it again. Please send any errata you find my way.

As for the shield thing... I think I'm gonna stick with Large and Small shields for now. An ogre using a normal (medium-sized) Large shield would gain the benefits of a Small shield due to the lack of coverage it gives the ogre. Likewise, a halfling using a normal (medium-sized) Small shield would gain the benefits of a Large shield because it covers a greater area relative to their size.

At the same time, a giant could use a large-sized Large shield while a halfling could a small-sized Small shield. Both of these would be useless to a medium-sized character. I hope that this makes sense...

papercut · Post by **papercut** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:39 pm

i believe there is a problem with one of the pali bonuses being written up as a cavalier bonus.

Your edition from yesterday is at the copy shop, I'm getting a paper version printed for me. I'll have to bust out some white out when I get it. lol

Since the files are works in progress, how about adding a version number to the files?

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:08 pm

papercut wrote:
i believe there is a problem with one of the pali bonuses being written up as a cavalier bonus.

Your edition from yesterday is at the copy shop, I'm getting a paper version printed for me. I'll have to bust out some white out when I get it. lol

Since the files are works in progress, how about adding a version number to the files?

Sorry about that. There are no major changes at this point... just proofreading errors. I've read over it a few times but, when you're the only writer-editor, you tend to miss stuff.

I'll fix that errata later. My wife has promised to read over the whole book (I had it printed as a hardcover) in order to find all of the spelling and grammar errors.

PS: Even with the errors that I'm finding, I'd wager that my PHB still has less errata than a lot of RPG books out there.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:27 pm

I can see your reasoning on the shield front, though it means your missing the Pavise as an option.

No thoughts on the Padded Armour thing?

The way it's presented in AD&D 1e (DMG, p. 27) is as follows:

Padded - AC +2 (can be soft leather)

Ring Mail - AC +3 (Essentially Reinforced Padded Armour)

Leather - AC +2 (not soft leather, but rigid)

Studded Leather - AC +3 (not soft, basically reinforced Leather Armour)

I also note that you have inherited the D20 'only composite Bows can be Strength Bows' rule. Personally, I think that's crazy. Both Composite Bows and Self Bows can be custom made to suit the strength of the user. Indeed, Long Bows require a strong user to get their full effect.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:32 pm

That is why the "strength bow" should be called a compound bow which is possible on virtually any style of bow... from composite to reflex.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:35 pm

I dunno about that. As far as I am aware, a Compound Bow is a very specific type of modern bow, but I'm no expert on archery nomenclature. Do you have another meaning in mind?
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:40 pm

Yes, think of it more as a double-convex bow, whether self or composite, would have greater tension and pull, increasing both range and penetration, due to closing the distance between tip and tip; they are also harder to draw back completely because of that. In my opinion, that would be the "strength bow."

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:48 pm

Hmmn. The way I see it, a Strength Bow is just a stronger version of an ordinary bow. The type of wood used, seasoning and the length and shape of the stave will affect the strength required to use a given bow effectively and the results. Of course, the weight and length of the arrows used also impacts range and penetration relative to strength.

I think I would rather leave Compound Bows out of C&C/D&D, but different strokes for different folks!
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:14 pm

Matthew wrote:
I can see your reasoning on the shield front, though it means your missing the Pavise as an option.

No thoughts on the Padded Armour thing?

The way it's presented in AD&D 1e (DMG, p. 27) is as follows:

Padded - AC +2 (can be soft leather)

Ring Mail - AC +3 (Essentially Reinforced Padded Armour)

Leather - AC +2 (not soft leather, but rigid)

Studded Leather - AC +3 (not soft, basically reinforced Leather Armour)

I also note that you have inherited the D20 'only composite Bows can be Strength Bows' rule. Personally, I think that's crazy. Both Composite Bows and Self Bows can be custom made to suit the strength of the user. Indeed, Long Bows require a strong user to get their full effect.

I wanted padded armor (and leather jerkins) to be less protective than cuir bouilli. At the same time, I didn't want to bump up all other armors to accommodate padded armor having a +2 AC bonus.

For bows, I'm no expert so I just went with a differentiation between "stick" bows and "composite bows". My thinking was that composite bows, because they are made from layered materials, would be able to better make use of higher strength "pulls".

I just got this from Wiki:

Almost all composite bows are also recurve bows as the shape curves back away from the archer; this design gives higher draw-weight in the early stages of the archer's draw, so storing somewhat more total energy for a given final draw-weight. It would be possible to make a bow of wood that has the same shape, length and draw-weight as a traditional composite bow, but it could not store the energy and would break at full draw.