Now things we would like to see in the 3rd M&T...

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:23 pm

We are thoroughly beating the PH to death, so I thought we should talk about what we would like to see improved/changed in the M&T.

Things I would like to see:

Rewrite the magic rules for item creation to be easier to understand, and if better written it may actually help cut down on page count.

The people I game with and run C&C for agree that guidelines on who can and cannot use wands, staves, and rods should be clearly indicated as a core rule, and just suggest that it can be modified/house ruled if something different is desired.

The cost of item creation are confusing, so some rewriting to make this area easier to figure out would be good.

Adding in Serl's "average/base XP rewards" for all the monsters, perhaps in parentheses following the XP. The number crunching has already been done. It just may need some further clarification on whether the XP average includes use of special powers or not.

I would also like to see rules for magical armor stacking, it is needed, especially to keep AC values from being able to go above 30, as it is without stacking limitations getting above AC 40 is very doable. Yes, a CK can make efforts to control this by creating their own stacking rules, or limiting the +5 items given out, however this is a basic game design issue, not a subject for house rules. How high the game rules allow AC's to get, by the book, is an essential part of game design and the power levels of the game, as was so clearly seen and learned in 3E D&D. So this certainly should be officially addressed, not ignored.
_________________
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

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:09 pm

I'll say this and no one may want to agree with me...and that's okay.

Lower the SR on items that have a higher than 20 SR.

Who can use what would also be nice, as Tree said. Even if it is "Everyone cas use item X..."
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:23 pm

Treebore wrote:
Rewrite the magic rules for item creation to be easier to understand, and if better written it may actually help cut down on page count.

I like the magic item creation rules as is. They should be nebulous. Not sure on the page count thing though, it's not like it takes up more than maybe 2 pages?

Treebore wrote:
The people I game with and run C&C for agree that guidelines on who can and cannot use wands, staves, and rods should be clearly indicated as a core rule, and just suggest that it can be modified/house ruled if something different is desired.

Might have a point there. I think its obvious who can use what but I more thanlikely add my assumptions from years of AD&D. I can see how a new player might have questions.

Treebore wrote:
The cost of item creation are confusing, so some rewriting to make this area easier to figure out would be good.

Not sure I see the confusion in costs.

Treebore wrote:
Adding in Serl's "average/base XP rewards" for all the monsters, perhaps in parentheses following the XP. The number crunching has already been done. It just may need some further clarification on whether the XP average includes use of special powers or not.

Agreed.

Treebore wrote:
I would also like to see rules for magical armor stacking, it is needed, especially to keep AC values from being able to go above 30, as it is without stacking limitations getting above AC 40 is very doable. Yes, a CK can make efforts to control this by creating their own stacking rules, or limiting the +5 items given out, however this is a basic game design issue, not a subject for house rules. How high the game rules allow AC's to get, by the book, is an essential part of game design and the power levels of the game, as was so clearly seen and learned in 3E D&D. So this certainly should be officially addressed, not ignored.

Disagree here. PC AC's are 100% controllable by the CK. Don't give out countless +5 items. I'm not sure what stacking rules are necessary. As I've understood the rules it hasn't been an issue.

AC's above 40 really doable? I'd have to pull out M&T but I just don't see that off the top of my head. 37 is about as high as I can see it getting and that's being overly genrous with treasure.

Full PLate +5, Ring of Protection +5, Shield +5, Dex of 18 would be 37. Off the top of my head, I'm not seeing anything that could jump it up higher as I understand the rules.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:36 pm

Your forgetting amulets of natural armor, plus since there are no restrictions on stacking you can throw in rings and cloaks and bracers of AC.

Since no guidelines are given one character could wear +5 armor, +5 shield, +5 ring of protection, +5 Bracers, +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, etc...

Thats an AC 45 and counting right there. I can think of ways to add many points to that.
_________________
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

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:42 pm

Treebore wrote:
Your forgetting amulets of natural armor, plus since there are no restrictions on stacking you can throw in rings and cloaks and bracers of AC.

No, the way I read the amulet I never assumed it would stack. Same with bracers and don't recall there being any cloaks of protection in the M&T.

And again, it boils down to CK control of treasure dispensed any way.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:53 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
No, the way I read the amulet I never assumed it would stack. Same with bracers and don't recall there being any cloaks of protection in the M&T.

And again, it boils down to CK control of treasure dispensed any way.

There is nothing either way said about what does or does not stack.

Yes, an EXPERIENCED CK would look ahead and limit what items they hand out, but this is also a system for new people starting up, plus, like I said, this is a fundamental rules and game design issue. Do you want a system with wide open AC's like in 3E? Or do you preferred a somewhat closed system like 1E was?

I personally would like to worry a bit less about controlling magic items by having built in stacking limits. I also intend on limiting my C&C games to 30th level, so would like to keep an AC cap around AC 40, 50 tops.

I suppose I could say everything stacks, but nothing gets you above AC 40, or 50. However I would prefer a solid rules reason for this, and limiting stacking made sense to me in 1E to 3E, and I think makes sense here as well.
_________________
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

Aramis · Post by **Aramis** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:00 pm

Treebore wrote:
We are thoroughly beating the PH to death, so I thought we should talk about what we would like to see improved/changed in the M&T.

Things I would like to see:

Rewrite the magic rules for item creation to be easier to understand, and if better written it may actually help cut down on page count.

The people I game with and run C&C for agree that guidelines on who can and cannot use wands, staves, and rods should be clearly indicated as a core rule, and just suggest that it can be modified/house ruled if something different is desired.

The cost of item creation are confusing, so some rewriting to make this area easier to figure out would be good.

Adding in Serl's "average/base XP rewards" for all the monsters, perhaps in parentheses following the XP. The number crunching has already been done. It just may need some further clarification on whether the XP average includes use of special powers or not.

I would also like to see rules for magical armor stacking, it is needed, especially to keep AC values from being able to go above 30, as it is without stacking limitations getting above AC 40 is very doable. Yes, a CK can make efforts to control this by creating their own stacking rules, or limiting the +5 items given out, however this is a basic game design issue, not a subject for house rules. How high the game rules allow AC's to get, by the book, is an essential part of game design and the power levels of the game, as was so clearly seen and learned in 3E D&D. So this certainly should be officially addressed, not ignored.

To all of the above, I will add a hearty "Hear! Hear!"

And not only armour stacking, but stacking in general, like multiple magical effects with similar but not identical descriptions.

The rules on creation need to be made simpler, and more clearly coherent with the listed costs. For example, why is the cost of a wand of dispel magic roughly half the cost of a wand of invisibility (16.75k vs 31k) when by the rules on p. 88-89 the cost of making the wand of dispel magic should make the price substantially higher (3x9x250 vs 2x9x250)

(maybe this has already been mentioned in errata or covered somewhere?)

Needless to say, there are also many 3e-isms in treasure descriptions that need to be removed

For experienced players, we already know we can adjust anything we want, so we don't need to have it "left up to the CK". We want a vanilla set of rules on which to base our innovations. Even 3e has optional rules included in their SRD (via Unearthed Arcana)

However, for new players (surely there must be some newbies buying C&C? If not, they are missing out on a great gameplay experience) the absence of these rules is problematic. The novice CK cannot effectively house rule them, because he does not really understand the implications of the various choices in front of him.

A good example is the curious omission of a sentence in the M&T clarifying that staves and wands can only be used by those classes that eventually will be able to cast the spells contained therein. Admittedly, this can be house ruled to allow any class to use any staff or wand.

But there is no information provided on the implications of such a massive revision of Dungeons and Dragons style (to use the generic term)gameplay. Essentially such a house rule turns the game into Nethack . One of my favourite games to be sure, but hardly what one expects in Dungeons and Dragons.

For a newbie to be told "we left it open so the CK can house rule that", makes no sense, since a newbie will not realise how very differently (mostly at high levels, when these things become more commonly available) his game will play out compared to a more vanilla C&C

Both the PH and M&T revisions and the very hypothetical CK guide should seize the opportunity to provide simple clear rules on things like effect stacking and magic item use, and from that, more advanced CKs can feel free to house rule to their hearts' content.

Based on the brilliant innovation of the SIEGE engine, which makes gameplay so fun and enjoyable compared to the alternatives, I have no doubt that the Trolls could produce similarly simple and quick rules for these issues.
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:26 pm

Treebore wrote:
There is nothing either way said about what does or does not stack.

Yeah, but I don't think it needs too. Its implied in the object description.

A half-orcs natural armor doesn't stack so why would the amulet?

The bracers give an armor bonus, not a bonus to AC. I can't wear two types of armor so why would they stack?

I'll concede it might need spelled out more for some people but I still think it's pretty clear.

Treebore wrote:
I personally would like to worry a bit less about controlling magic items by having built in stacking limits.

I completely disagree there. To me, as a CK it is given that one of your essential job functions to control the amount of magic you introduce into your campaign.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:29 pm

Aramis wrote:
However, for new players (surely there must be some newbies buying C&C? If not, they are missing out on a great gameplay experience)

Sadly I find that doubtful. Given the venues in which C&C is available I find it highly unlikely that there are many folks brand new to RPG's picking up C&C and taking it back to another group of neophytes as their first introduction to gaming.

My guess is that 99.99999% of the time at least 1 of the group has RPG experience just based on where you have to go to buy C&C.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:21 pm

Just another point to add to stacking of AC...can you not add mithril to the armor and add another +5 (or so this was pointed out to me a while back as "official")?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:32 pm

I gotta say, I don't think there has to be stacking rules at all. If a CK wants to to give her players +5 this and +5 that, who cares if they have a 45+ AC? The individual CK will learn from those supposed mistakes.

But to satisfy Treebore's point, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to put in a sentance or two talking about how the CK may or may not allow certain bonuses to AC to be allowed to be added togehter.

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

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:43 am

What i'd like to see are all four types of elemental genies- not just the Djinni and Efreeti, but the Dao and Marid as well. Why are they never all included in the same book?

-Fizz

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:51 am

Omote wrote:
I gotta say, I don't think there has to be stacking rules at all. If a CK wants to to give her players +5 this and +5 that, who cares if they have a 45+ AC? The individual CK will learn from those supposed mistakes.

Agree.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:23 am

Quote:
What i'd like to see are all four types of elemental genies- not just the Djinni and Efreeti, but the Dao and Marid as well. Why are they never all included in the same book?

Because they weren't considered "iconic." They were written up, but not cut into the work. Originally, there were to be only 100 monsters in M&T, but I thought that too small a number.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Lombardio · Post by **Lombardio** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:28 am

I'd like to see monsters have this:

Primarie(s): Dex (or any other combo of course )

..instead of:

Save: P, or P&M, or none,

As this takes no more room, is no "more" to remember, and lets CK's have a much better idea of what a monster is capable of. I mean lets face it most monsters aren't going to have more than 1 or 2 Primaries anyway.

Oh and for constistancy, i'd like the table which shows Int values for Int titles removed. If monsters don't have "stats" then don't give them any, just have a descriptor next to the title description.

Disclaimer- None of the above are "must haves" i know, the game works as is, they are just things i think (from a completely new C&C CK perspective) would make the system a little more coherent and consistant.

Cheers.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:00 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Agree.

Yeah, but with the addition of a couple of sentences a new gamer will never have to learn the mistake by having their campaign destroyed. Why make new gamers waste months of their groups time, and their CK's efforts, learning things we have already learned? Are we mentors or sadisitic bastards who laugh at others who repeat known mistakes?

Personally I prefer to be a mentor and to tell them to be very careful on how high they allow AC's to get, and as a further aid to keeping AC's low, do not allow magic armor/shields to stack with rings, cloaks, and bracers. Don't allow Amulets of NAtural Armor to stack with rings, cloaks, and bracers.

The only reason I would allow Amulets of NAtural Armor to stack with armor and shields is because barding adds to a horses AC. So the precedent is already set, and makes sense with what HP represents.

Now what about spells that add to AC? Protection from evil stacks with? Shield Spell stacks with? Shield of Faith stacks with?
_________________
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

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:18 pm

*chuckles* If anything, people have proved time and again that they never learn from the experiences of others. They lean, when they learn, from their own experience the long, slow, and oft-times painful way.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:27 pm

Treebore wrote:
Yeah, but with the addition of a couple of sentences a new gamer will never have to learn the mistake by having their campaign destroyed. Why make new gamers waste months of their groups time, and their CK's efforts, learning things we have already learned? Are we mentors or sadisitic bastards who laugh at others who repeat known mistakes?

Personally I prefer to be a mentor and to tell them to be very careful on how high they allow AC's to get, and as a further aid to keeping AC's low, do not allow magic armor/shields to stack with rings, cloaks, and bracers. Don't allow Amulets of NAtural Armor to stack with rings, cloaks, and bracers.

But why stop there? If we're going to be the Defenders of All Things N00b we're definitely going to need a bigger book.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:52 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
But why stop there? If we're going to be the Defenders of All Things N00b we're definitely going to need a bigger book.

I don't think so, I think in combination with a rewrite of certain sections we can actually make the books much friendlier to new people and keep the page count the same. There is a lot of wasted space because there are a lot of things not said with clear precision, but with a rambling manner. So I think if its re written with more precise language, and more precise examples, it can be achieved with a book of similar size, maybe even smaller.

Peter, I agree, but when it comes to games, with rules, people are much more conditioned to follow the rules. So in an RPG we can present our "life lessons" as rules, and they will likely be followed. Not by everyone, but by far more people than who fail to heed the life lessons advice.
_________________
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

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:17 pm

Treebore wrote:
Peter, I agree, but when it comes to games, with rules, people are much more conditioned to follow the rules.

Bah. The very idea is anathema to a rational anarchist like myself.

*chuckles* I'm inclined to fling a book at someone's head, in my game, who follows rules too much. I'll de condition em real quick.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:21 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* I'm inclined to fling a book at someone's head, in my game, who follows rules too much. I'll de condition em real quick.

I keep the Tal4 book on hand for that purpose. Highly effective at knocking them out in the process then me and the rest of the group can rummage through their pockets for beer money.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:36 pm

Listen to the Dwarf... I agree with much of what he has to say in this matter!
I keep my rules fairly simple (when it comes to stacking). If the have the same effect, then the better one is the one used.

However, this has not been a really big issue in my game thus far and I have no problem of making a call if one is needed should the need arise in my game.

What I hear time and time again is that C&C is set up that way. Do we want everything to be itemized for us or do we want a bit of 'purposeful' ambiguity so that we can run our campaigns the way we want?

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

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

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:38 pm

I would like to see some of the monsters submitted placed into the book, and a section on "familiars" expanded -- rather than a single entry for "cat" for example, a whole one for like 8-10 standard critters, sort of like for the horse entry.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:20 pm

serleran wrote:
I would like to see some of the monsters submitted placed into the book, and a section on "familiars" expanded -- rather than a single entry for "cat" for example, a whole one for like 8-10 standard critters, sort of like for the horse entry.

I like the idea of an 'expanded edition' of the book.

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

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

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:26 pm

Perhaps in Monsters & Treasures II.

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

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:54 pm

I mentioned in this the 4th printing PH thread, but it pertains to the M&T, really. Make the weapon and armor lists in the M&T more related to the C&C PH. As they are right now, they seem more related to the D&D PH (i.e., not the same variety).
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:51 pm

errata such as the experience per hit point table (my M&T still confuses me if I go too long between games).

more pictures (or just new ones) preferably by Peter Bradley.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:50 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Bah. The very idea is anathema to a rational anarchist like myself.

*chuckles* I'm inclined to fling a book at someone's head, in my game, who follows rules too much. I'll de condition em real quick.

I think both points make sense. I dislike those rule types just as much as you, Peter, but I think Tree has a point. I think, all things considered, people will follow rules than not follow them. And you assume there will be someone there to throw a book at them to "decondition" them.
I wouldn't make no such assumptions. I understand things pretty well amongst the two books, but I can't tell you how many times that I've heard, "these guys seem to write like the reader has experience with rpgs." I think a couple sentences to point people in the right direction, when need be, would be good, IMHO. But opinions vary.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:24 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
I think, all things considered, people will follow rules than not follow them. And you assume there will be someone there to throw a book at them to "decondition" them.
I wouldn't make no such assumptions.

There's always one to be sure, but they tend to not last too long in either my games or my game groups. Not being flexible in my settings and adventures is a sure fire way to not get very far.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:48 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
There's always one to be sure, but they tend to not last too long in either my games or my game groups. Not being flexible in my settings and adventures is a sure fire way to not get very far.

True, true. Again, I feel the same way you do. Two things I cannot stand are rules lawyers and optimizers.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Troll Lord Games

Now things we would like to see in the 3rd M&T...

Now things we would like to see in the 3rd M&T...

Re: Now things we would like to see in the 3rd M&T...

Re: Now things we would like to see in the 3rd M&T...

Re: Now things we would like to see in the 3rd M&T...