Rules question

[andakitty]

It is better, yes. But to understand where I am coming from all you need to know is that I have GMed and played almost exclusively BRP games, esp. CoC and Stormbringer. Low hit points and no increases at all.

I see several ways around C&C's hit point system with a quick simple houserule. That is one of the games' strengths, I think. I like flexible games with depth. It is what always attracted me to Stormbringer, too. Simplicity and flexibility matter most, not whether resolution is D20 or percentile, or how hit points are handled. Simplicity + flexibility = playability. IMO.

[serleran]

Ahh, I see. Yes, there are many ways to deal with HP in that regard. If I were to do it, I would go the Arduin way, or perhaps, a modified Gamma World 4e method, this modified because I don't like the Xd6 method where X = Con score.

[allensh]

BASH MAN wrote:
You know, I know that C&C is all about "THE CK IS GOD INCARNATE AND YOU CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE ARGUING WITH HIS ALMIGHTY RULING", but if you keep doing things like forcing a fighter to begin with 1hp because of a lousy roll, you're going to have players quit the game and then end up hating C&C. Or, you'll breed munchkins who roll 20 characters in a row before actually playing one, because they finally rolled max HD AND got half-decent stats.

Remember, the goal of the game is not to give the CK a power trip, it is to have fun. Starting with 1hp is not fun, for anyone ever.

I would never do this. Anyone rolling a 1 on their HP is entitled to a re-roll. I also allow the choice of taking the average roll automatically rather than even rolling the die. This is in D&D, but the guidelines would port well over to C&C. I am also awarding max HP at 1st level now.

I was merely making sure I knew what the rules as written said before I applied my deviant...er...deviations
Allen

[rabindranath72]

I experimented used the BRP method, hit points=CON score, if an hit does more than half-CON then something nasty happens. This is the bare-bones for a gritty C&C Dark Ages game. It worked nastily well
Cheers,

Antonio

[Emryys]

For gritty you could have only the first 4 levels have hit dice, then start the fixed hp bonus per level. Constitution bonuses apply
Adjustments to magic, etc, may be necessary...

If I did this then I would give max at 1st level... imagine rolling 4 ones
_________________

[baran_i_kanu]

My players and HP's.

I normally make them roll and let them reroll 1's.

If I only have a couple of players then I will let them max at first level and roll normally after that. ( I generally start at 3rd so they get max 1st and roll the next two.)

Iniative: I prefer group iniative so we roll a standard d10.

For duels or just a couple of baddies I'll let them roll individual and add dex mod.

[gideon_thorne]

Average level of the party and modifiers for terrain.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

As a carry over from 3E (I think) I allow WIS bonus to be added. Plus, I only allow the party level to be added to the CL if there is a Ranger or Thief in the party.

[Dristram]

As 1e AD&D, when a rogue makes their hide check, they are HIDDEN, period. Some will make it, some won't. For an ambush situation, I'd give the PC's a Wisdom check, modified by a terrain CL, to notice the rogues who fail their hide check. A failure for a rogue in that situation to me means the PCs just have a chance to notice the rogue(s).

[Treebore]

Dristram wrote:
As 1e AD&D, when a rogue makes their hide check, they are HIDDEN, period. Some will make it, some won't. For an ambush situation, I'd give the PC's a Wisdom check, modified by a terrain CL, to notice the rogues who fail their hide check. A failure for a rogue in that situation to me means the PCs just have a chance to notice the rogue(s).

Yeah, but in C&C it is an opposed roll, so the check they have to make is TN 12 + any CL modifiers you feel should be added. Such as WIS bonus, level bonus if Ranger or Thief is in the party being ambushed, terrain modifiers (which can lower the over all CL), magic items, etc...

So it is like 1E when they beat the TN+CL, complete success.

EDIT: My answer is given as how I handle it, not how the rules may be written.

[serleran]

The difficulty is always zero, adjusted by circumstance. If the to-be-ambushed group is especially wary, the circumstance is dramatically increased, but a party that is sleeping, ignoring theit environment, or whatever... does not actively seek to not be ambushed should not even get a chance. Dice are a resolution system, but not every action calls for a resolution.

[Dristram]

Sorry Treebore, I wasn't responding to you. Just to the poster as to how I believe it's handled with some of my own stuff thrown in.

[Treebore]

Dristram wrote:
Sorry Treebore, I wasn't responding to you. Just to the poster as to how I believe it's handled with some of my own stuff thrown in.

Yeah, I ended up doing the same thing. Should have just said its TN 12 + whatever CL adjustments the CK see's fit to throw in.

Just sometimes we either forget, or maybe never even understood, that the SIEGE system is an opposed system, just with one roll. Which is why part of a CL can be your opponents HD/level. They are opposing by getting their HD added in as part of the CL.

I find when I refresh my memory about the basics that an idea for a good "fix" often pops into my mind. So that is what I was trying to make happen for Maliki. I propbably just made it sound confusing.

[Maliki]

Thanks for the feedback.

Dristam wrote

Quote:
As 1e AD&D, when a rogue makes their hide check, they are HIDDEN, period. Some will make it, some won't. For an ambush situation, I'd give the PC's a Wisdom check, modified by a terrain CL, to notice the rogues who fail their hide check. A failure for a rogue in that situation to me means the PCs just have a chance to notice the rogue(s).

I think this is how I will handle this. If the rogues make thier hide check, the PCs will have no chance of seeing them. If they fail thier roll, the PCs get a wisdom check to notice them. I think I'll use a 12 base for rangers, rogues, plus elves and druids (they are in the forest), and a 18 base for everyone else.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[irda ranger]

IMC, the Rogue doesn't roll ANYTHING. He's an NPC. Except for attack rolls, NPC's don't roll. PC's roll. In this case, the PC's will roll to notice a hidden rogue.

The CC is 12+6 (Rogue's dex prime) + 1 (Rogue's level) = 19 (plus any modifiers I choose). The PC's will roll 1d20+level+WIS+6 (if Wis Prime), with any penalties I choose.

This, by the way, is why I use a +6 modifier for Primes. It makes opposed rolls so much easier.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Fizz]

irda ranger wrote:
The CC is 12+6 (Rogue's dex prime) + 1 (Rogue's level) = 19 (plus any modifiers I choose). The PC's will roll 1d20+level+WIS+6 (if Wis Prime), with any penalties I choose.

This, by the way, is why I use a +6 modifier for Primes. It makes opposed rolls so much easier.

I've wondered about using a +6 modifier for Primes, instead of the 12/18 split. However, in your example, shouldn't the CC have a base of 18?

-Fizz

[irda ranger]

Fizz wrote:
I've wondered about using a +6 modifier for Primes, instead of the 12/18 split. However, in your example, shouldn't the CC have a base of 18?

-Fizz

Yes. My bad.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Jason Vey]

Fizz wrote:
I've wondered about using a +6 modifier for Primes, instead of the 12/18 split. However, in your example, shouldn't the CC have a base of 18?

-Fizz

I actually use a CB 15 and +5 for Primes instead of the 12/18 split.

It's nice using a bonus instead of separate bases, because it allows true contested rolls (where the higher roll succeeds).

[ChaosImp]

Hello

I have another rule question about the sword of wounding. Since the C+C version drains a con point instead of the 1hp per round bleeding damage, how do you rule on creatures without stats? I was thinking of having them loose a HD worth of damage every other round, for example; if a character hits a giant the second time I would have the giant loose an extra 1d12 ( I use d12 for giants) of hit points due to con loss. Any other ideas out there?

IMP

[miller6]

Maliki wrote:
I plan on having a group of 1st level rogue ambush my party. To do this I make a hide check for the rogues d20+1(level)+ability bonus verses what? 12 plus the PCs level? Does the PCs stats modify this roll? Do the PCs get any rolls to notice the rogues, or does thier hide rolls cover everything?

Thanks for any feedback.

Have the rogues jump out of trashcans or pop up from sewer caps, tell the players to roll for surprise then give the rogues automatic first attacks, Those who are surprised lose an action, the rest roll for init as do the rogues.

Take it from there.

If the ambush is part of the adventure, don't even roll for the rogues hide in shadows. If they set it up ahead of time, presume they are well hidden and just give it to 'em.

Just MHO.

Brian
_________________
"The adventure continues"

[irda ranger]

miller6 wrote:
If the ambush is part of the adventure, don't even roll for the rogues hide in shadows. If they set it up ahead of time, presume they are well hidden and just give it to 'em.

Just MHO.

Brian

This is a good point. A Hide check is sort of a spur of the moment, "Quick! Hide behind this tree / in this shadow." type thing. A Rogue who has had sufficient time to pick a spot / prepare a hiding spot should be pretty much impossible to spot with normal senses and levels of alertness. Even Fighters in full armor can "Hide" is a wooden horse.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[serleran]

Quote:
Since the C+C version drains a con point instead of the 1hp per round bleeding damage, how do you rule on creatures without stats? I was thinking of having them loose a HD worth of damage every other round, for example; if a character hits a giant the second time I would have the giant loose an extra 1d12 ( I use d12 for giants) of hit points due to con loss. Any other ideas out there?

Yep, I just have them take the same damage they took the first hit. It makes rangers with a sword of wounding against hated foes a terrible foe... but, it also makes that weapon incredibly powerful, and hence, very, very, very rare and when it fails its save... tough.

[irda ranger]

serleran wrote:
Yep, I just have them take the same damage they took the first hit. It makes rangers with a sword of wounding against hated foes a terrible foe... but, it also makes that weapon incredibly powerful, and hence, very, very, very rare and when it fails its save... tough.

No offense, but this is why I hate item dependency. Wizards and Clerican can always cast spells, but your warrior-type character can go from Uber-Warrior to "uesless sod" on one roll of the die. Less face it, a 15th level warrior without a +3 weapon if pretty frickin' useless against a stone golem (or whatever, I don't have M&T in front of me).
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[serleran]

Heh, well, if the guy is dumb enough to stand and fight something he should run from, then he gets what he deserves, but I also hold that ALL items are able to be destroyed. One bad roll, one good roll... evens out in the end, and has nothing to do with "item dependency." Magic being fickle is one great thing about it... otherwise its just boring, and "reliable." Or, a dependency. Either way, someone is hoping the magic holds up... so, I don't see your point.

[irda ranger]

serleran wrote:
Heh, well, if the guy is dumb enough to stand and fight something he should run from, then he gets what he deserves,

Sure, for any given fight or another I agree with this. My point is that a warrior who loses his magic weapon is screwed until he replaces it. This doesn't mean that he has to run from the current fight; he has to run from all fights for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile his Magic-User buddy is still wailing away on the baddies with his spells.

serleran wrote:
Magic being fickle is one great thing about it... otherwise its just boring, and "reliable."

Like four 3rd level spells / day, no questions asked? Hardly fickle.

serleran wrote:
Or, a dependency. Either way, someone is hoping the magic holds up... so, I don't see your point.

No magic-user or cleric fears having their ability to cast spells semi-permenantly striken from them. Assuming they've got a back-up holy symbol or spell component pouch (which all casters should, and this doesn't ruin the feel of the game), "one bad roll" means they may be out of this fight, not out of the adventuring business.

I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I contend that "Take away a Fighter's magic weapons, amor and rings" and he's a sitting duck to any "+1 or better" monster that wonders by.

The current system forces several choices on a CK:

(1) Fudge rolls for a hard-to-replace-item's save, or never try to attack a character's weapon.

(2) Leave plenty of magic swords lying around so that if a save is botched, no biggy.

(3) Let warrior-types who have lost their +3 sword sit around doing nothing while high-level wizards go to town on the baddies.

I find none of these palatable.

(1) If the PC doesn't face risk, he doesn't really accomplish anything either, so fudging rolls is bad to player satisfaction.

(2) Magical weapons are (or should be) rather rare and wondrous. I hate the "Oh, another +3 longsword" syndrome. It reduces the fantastic and wonderful to the mundane, and is bad to player satisfaction.

(3) Letting the same players steal all the lime-light for adventure after adventure (to the exclusion of others) is bad to player satisfaction.

Rather than ask you to pick that apart piece by piece (though you can if you want), I just have one question for you.

What do your players do when their warrior PC loses their magic weapon?

1. Pull out their spare +3 axe.

2. Buy a +3 axe at Ye Olde Magical Item Shoppe.

3. Conveniently find a +3 axe on the next dead guy.

4. Be really ineffective compared to the spellcasters & well-equipped warriors until acquiring a +3 axe actually makes sense from a fantasy-adventure point of view?
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Gnostic Gnoll]

irda ranger wrote:
(1) If the PC doesn't face risk, he doesn't really accomplish anything either, so fudging rolls is bad to player satisfaction.

Hear, hear! Knowing all of one's efforts are just an illusion tends to have a huge dampening effect on my fun. To quote a friend of mine in a recent conversation we had regarding this:

"Honestly, I understand the need for GMs to take control over the game from time to time. But if that's what is going to happen, I'd appreciate if they were honest about it and just dictated the events as opposed to projecting this poor illusion of causality."

In other words, any conflict that isn't being fudged can be arranged in terms of several different scenarios:
Outcome Determined

If the evil knight is going to kill the king and get away no matter what the PCs do, the ensuing battle should simply be narrated, rather than spending time by pretending that the PCs have a chance to make a difference. It is egregiously unfair to make players put their characters' lives on the line when the only thing being decided is if they will die before the CK decides to end the battle.
Outcome Partially Determined

For instance, the knight is going to get away, but will she manage to kill the king first? That is for the actions of the PCs to determine. The battle should be played out until the king is either secured or dead, then narrated from there. More importantly, the players should be aware of what's at stake, even if their characters are not.
Outcome Not Determined

If everything is going to be played out in bitter detail, then the knight should have to murder the king and escape through her own cunning and luck, playing by the rules as much as the PCs. It's okay if the odds are not in the PCs' favor, but at the same time if they are able to overcome those odds fair and square then that should be their victory.

irda ranger wrote:
(2) Magical weapons are (or should be) rather rare and wondrous. I hate the "Oh, another +3 longsword" syndrome. It reduces the fantastic and wonderful to the mundane, and is bad to player satisfaction.

Lately I've found myself thinking along the lines of "Oh, it's just a +3 longsword." I mean, a +3 to hit and damage is nice, but as far as things go, even this supposedly great item is pretty bland and uninteresting, and all the history and description in the world doesn't make it any more intriguing than a non-magical item with the same story and description would have been. If it could part water or glow in the presence of servants of the Mantis Queen or summon spirits of flame to do your bidding, then that would be more interesting and "magical". Otherwise, it just feels like arithmetic. To that end, all the "special" weapons in M&T are far better options for characters than the standard +X arsenal. There's still math involved, but at least the math has some flavor to it within the rules.

That still doesn't reduce item dependency all that much though, and I agree that focusing more upon the characters themselves is a good thing. Player choice of abilities is, to me, preferable to just waiting for the "right" items to drop into your lap. That makes for heroes who, while they might have a harder time without some items, can still make a difference.

Finding the Conflagrant Mantle of the Phoenix Kings is just an added bonus, at that point.

[serleran]

Quote:
What do your players do when their warrior PC loses their magic weapon?

They seek another, and hope they survive long enough to get one. I never said I handed out magic like it was children's candy. However, I also don't not hand things out, if its suited to the level, adventure, and situation. Some times, the characters make their own things... not because they are powerful enough, but because its required for the adventure.

During the time they are "weaponless" which would be, again, stupid (they should have a backup weapon, of some sort, like a dagger) they can still battle things because I don't mandate "all characters must be equally effective at all times" in my games. There are times when the spellcasters are useless (magic immune creatures) and times when the fighters do nothing (high AC, or damage reduction), and many, many more encounters that don't even rely on fighting, which should ALWAYS be the last option in my games.

Oh, and I don't fudge rolls. Like you said, if there is no risk, there is no reward. One of those risks is having your magic removed (as well as life) from you... if you're not willing to take that risk, then I suggest retiring the PC, and starting again -- something I am quite used to.

[Maliki]

This all became a mute point because as the night progressed I did something out of character(for me), I felt pity on the party and did not spring the ambush, even though the party had walked right into it.

The setup was that 4 goblins and two worgs rested around a campfire in the middle of a trail. Three first level goblin rogues (normal goblins with the abilities of a 1st level rogue), and a hobgoblin ranger (2hd plus 2nd level ranger abilities) lay hidden in the woods to attack from behind after the party engaged the camp.

Everything would have been fine, if the party had stuck together, but the rogue had scouted around and found two more hobgoblins at the entrance to a hillside cave overlooking the camp. The party decided that the rogue and archer would try to take out the two hobgoblins overlooking the camp while the cleric and two fighters attacked the camp. I knew that the rogue & archer stood no chance of taking down the hobgoblins(each 2hd) before they could raise the alarm, ringing the 3hd hobgoblin leader and an ogre into the battle in just a few rounds.

The party would have been way overmatched (they already had several other encounters in the forests and where beat up and out of healing spells.)

It would have been a 2nd level party (rogue, archer, cleric, fighter and beserker) verses 4 goblins, 2 worgs, 3 goblin rogues, a 2hd hobgoblin ranger, 2 2hd hobgoblins, a 3hd hobgoblin and an ogre.

So to avoid the TPK that would have happened I never sprung the ambush, I just kept them in reserve (in case the party had it too easy).

In the end I'd call the fight a draw. The archer was almost slain (-6 hp) the rogue was down (at 0hp) the cleric was in bad shape and both the beserker and fighter where banged up as well. The two worgs fled after being severly wounded, the 4 goblins where dead as was the ogre (a single crit by the cleric), one hobgoblin guard was wounded and the other guard and leader where untouched.

The humanoids left the area taking a chest of treasue (gold and gems), the party recovered a wagon load of trade goods (to be returned to the mechants guild), they got the reward for driving out the hobgoblins, but missed out on the box of loot the hobgoblins took with them.

On the bright side, they feel they have a score to settle with the hobgoblin leader, and I know just where he can be found.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[irda ranger]

Quote:
This all became a mute point because as the night progressed I did something out of character(for me), I felt pity on the party and did not spring the ambush, even though the party had walked right into it.

...

So to avoid the TPK that would have happened I never sprung the ambush, I just kept them in reserve (in case the party had it too easy).

That's it buddy; I'm putting you on CK probation. I'm not sure you've got what it takes to be a real CK. How are they ever going to learn if you coddle them?
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Omote]

There's always a good time to be generous to your PCs, and at the same time you still have to have a firm hand. Players who get too used to having it the easy way, will begin to rely on the ease of the adventure. There still has to be a penalty for really dumb decisions on the PCs part.

But as a CK you have to know how to moderate such things.

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

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