Switch to full style
Open Discussion on all things C&C from new product to general questions to the rules, the laws, and the chaos.
Post a reply

Questions from a picky person...

Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:38 am

I am new to the game and am finding little problems that there seems to be no FAQ for, so...

I have second printing.
Helms.

Under the list of armors that come with helms it says chain mail comes with chain mail coif... There is no chain mail - Chain Hauberk, or Full Chain Suit are the closest, as the Hauberk normally refers to a body covering I assume that this means the full chain suit and that it is a typo.

For helms my main question is this - In determining EV, is the helm included in the suit listing or is it on top... So if I have Full Plate (4w=3) and a Great Helm(2w=1), is the EV total for wearing both 3 or 4?
Knights

Under Birthright mount it says a knight has some difficulty fighting from a riding horse (see mounted combat). Where is this mounted combat section?

On page 118 in situational combat there is a -2 penalty for melee attack from a mount and -4 for a ranged attack, are knights subject to this?
Ranged Combat

Is there any penalty for using a bow while engaged in melee?

Is there any penalty for shooting into a melee?

Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:38 am

Lances

Under the damage for lances on pg.41 they are marked **

Why?

Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:11 am

Maces

Should the large mace have a * instead of a 7 next to it, making it a two handed weapon?

Yes, I am looking at the weapons chart tonight
I am thinking that maybe the ** on the lances should be a 7 - making them double damage from a charge (knight have triple as a special)

Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:16 am

Flail

Is the heavy flail a two-handed weapon? Its heavy enough...

Re: Questions from a picky person...

Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:37 am

Neo Mystic wrote:
I am new to the game and am finding little problems that there seems to be no FAQ for, so...

I have second printing.
Helms.

Under the list of armors that come with helms it says chain mail comes with chain mail coif... There is no chain mail - Chain Hauberk, or Full Chain Suit are the closest, as the Hauberk normally refers to a body covering I assume that this means the full chain suit and that it is a typo.

For helms my main question is this - In determining EV, is the helm included in the suit listing or is it on top... So if I have Full Plate (4w=3) and a Great Helm(2w=1), is the EV total for wearing both 3 or 4?



On page 41 of my 1st printing copy (I don't know which printing you are referring to) in the listing of armor for purchase, chainmail is one of the options.

My guess and the way I would run it, is if the helm is listed as coming with the armor, then it is included in the armor's EV. If it isn't listed and is purchased seperately, then it isn't part of the EV for the armor. Of course, I don't even see helms listed as seperate items in the equipment list.

Is this from the second printing?

Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:51 am

Thanks for the reply, yep - I have a copy of second printing, so all my references are from that.

Sounds like the chain mail reference is just a typo then.

I would tend to agree with you that they would be included - most helmets are 1(w) so they effectively have an EV of 0 when worn. Great helm is the only exception with 2(w).

Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:21 pm

I recently looked up chain mail in the 2nd printing, double checking the armor bonus for one of my old modules I wrote from the 1st printing and was surprised that it wasn't listed anymore, so I am with Neo Mystic, what happened to chainmail? Itt is mentioned several places throughout the book (the explanation of how to record armor class, for example), but is not in the table for armor, unless I am missing something.

As for helms, if you read the fine print in teh 2nd printing under the Helms table, it says these bonuses apply only to attacks to the head. The armor you buy is assumed to come with an appropriate helm; it is part of the armor.
_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:24 pm

Chainmail has to be the Chain Hauberk.
_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:00 pm

magehammer wrote:
Chainmail has to be the Chain Hauberk.



I would say almost for certainty that this is what is being referred to.

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

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

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:08 pm

Chain Hauberk is Chain Mail. that is probably Serleran's fault, due to his historical accuracy fetish.

Under he helm table in the second printing the second paragraph lists which armors typically include the helm.

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:16 pm

Quote:
Chain Hauberk is Chain Mail. that is probably Serleran's fault, due to his historical accuracy fetish.



Me? I had very little to do with the equipment. I'm blaming Davis.

Re: Questions from a picky person...

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:17 pm

Neo Mystic wrote:
I am new to the game and am finding little problems that there seems to be no FAQ for, so...

I have second printing.
Helms.

Under the list of armors that come with helms it says chain mail comes with chain mail coif... There is no chain mail - Chain Hauberk, or Full Chain Suit are the closest, as the Hauberk normally refers to a body covering I assume that this means the full chain suit and that it is a typo.

For helms my main question is this - In determining EV, is the helm included in the suit listing or is it on top... So if I have Full Plate (4w=3) and a Great Helm(2w=1), is the EV total for wearing both 3 or 4?

In your example the EV is already combined.
Knights

Under Birthright mount it says a knight has some difficulty fighting from a riding horse (see mounted combat). Where is this mounted combat section?

That reference is an editing error from the SRD for 3E. Ie the author got in the SRD state fo mind and wrote a reference that isn't in the C&C PH, but is in the 3E SRD.

On page 118 in situational combat there is a -2 penalty for melee attack from a mount and -4 for a ranged attack, are knights subject to this?

No. Knights are exempt from this. Part of why they are awesome on horseback.
Ranged Combat

Is there any penalty for using a bow while engaged in melee?

Yes. You cannot be in melee (hand to hand) with a bow unless it is specially designed to double as a melee weapon. You are essentially weaponless, just like in real life.

Is there any penalty for shooting into a melee?



Yep. -4 I believe. I also believe it is in the errata, not the book.

Most of my answers are contained in the quote area.

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:18 pm

serleran wrote:
Me? I had very little to do with the equipment. I'm blaming Davis.



Davis doesn't even know what a trencher is, you do.

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:21 pm

Neo Mystic wrote:
Lances

Under the damage for lances on pg.41 they are marked **

Why?



Because it should be marked with a "7". Knights do x3.

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:21 pm

Davis Chenault on Mounted Combat wrote:
We have been doing an aweful lot of mounted combat in our games lately. There was some confusion as to this rule and it is perhaps not clear in the books as the rules are spread out. So I am compiling them and hoping to make them clear.

First things first. Mounted combat is considered a specialized ability in which one must train to be proficient in. Hence, the Knight has the ability to fight from horseback without penalty while the others suffer penalties.

1: Riding horse are for that, riding. Riding horse make poor mounts from which to fight, they scare easy. The MT almost makes this clear. Never-the-less, riding horse are for riding.

OPTIONAL RULE If a character chooses to fight from one, I would have the dorse make a mental attribute check each round, should it fails, the horse bolts and perhaps throws the player (dex check). This mental check should be amended by how much damage it takes (takes four points makes mental at -4).

2. War horses are for combat. When using a war horse, either the horse attacks or the character attacks. EXCEPT with the knight. The knight can attack as well as the horse in a single round.

3. Melee attacks from a mount suffer a -2 penalty to hit. EXCEPT the Knight, there is no penalty.

4. Ranged attacks from a mount suffer a -4 penalty to hit. Except the Knight, there is no penalty.

5. Lances do double damage if used from a mount on a charge. EXCEPT the knight, the damage is tripled.

That should cover it.

Optional Rules

1. If you would like a character to have the Knights mounted fighting abilities add 500 to their base xp.

2. If you would like just the fighting without penalty (no deflect, cover etc but not triple damage from lance) then add 250 xp to the base.

Any questions, feel free to ask.



There you go.

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:21 pm

Neo Mystic wrote:
Maces

Should the large mace have a * instead of a 7 next to it, making it a two handed weapon?

Yes, I am looking at the weapons chart tonight
I am thinking that maybe the ** on the lances should be a 7 - making them double damage from a charge (knight have triple as a special)



You got it!

As for the mace, CK's ruling.

Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:22 pm

Neo Mystic wrote:
Flail

Is the heavy flail a two-handed weapon? Its heavy enough...



See answer about heavy mace.

Welcome to the boards and the Crusade!!
Post a reply