Troll Lord Games

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:51 pm**

Are spell-like abilities subjected to magic resistance? Are they able to be dispealed or surpresed? Thanks .
_________________
Nightstorm: So tell me something about your elf.

Zippo: He's an elf. He lives in the woods.

Nightstorm: Did you hear that Gary? "His elf lives in the woods"

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:00 pm**

Spell like abilities typicallly mimic spells, but are just cast as a "at will" kind of power, so yes, they are still subject to SR and can be dispelled, etc...

Edit: Assuming the spell they mimic are also subject to SR and Dispelling.
_________________
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

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:13 pm**

Thanks. I thought so, but was not certain. Is that in the monster book? I looked in the players but could not find it.
_________________
Nightstorm: So tell me something about your elf.

Zippo: He's an elf. He lives in the woods.

Nightstorm: Did you hear that Gary? "His elf lives in the woods"

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:53 pm**

Actually I do not think it is anywhere, I asked here, on these boards, and was told they were meant to be handled just like they were in 3E (and 2E and 1E for that matter), so I just used the SRD description as my guideline:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilit ... eAbilities

Edit: I have found that anything that C&C doesn't specifically cover the SRD is a solid resource to use to fill in the blanks C&C has. Like C&C has no stacking rules for magic item bonus'. This is because they left it up to decide if we wanted to go with whichever editions guide lines we wish, so I personally go with the 3E SRD since it is the only edition that had to deal with Natural Armor and luck bonus', which C&C kept. IF you go with C&C it seems to indicate everything can stack, which quickly gets ugly.

For example, you could have an 8th level PC wearing +3 Plate, +2 Shield, +4 Bracers, +2 Cloak, and +3 Amulet of Natural armor in C&C, and have a 33 AC, which in C&C makes you pretty much un-hittable, so definitely adapt whatever stacking rules you like best and put it into your house rules document.

If you want, check out my house rules and see how I have adapted feats, etc...
http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

They are on these boards, so that link just takes you to another part of these message boards.
_________________
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

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:26 am**

I looked through the players book again thinking I saw the term spell-like but could not find it. I could have sworn that I did.
_________________
Nightstorm: So tell me something about your elf.

Zippo: He's an elf. He lives in the woods.

Nightstorm: Did you hear that Gary? "His elf lives in the woods"

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:54 am**

nightstorm wrote:
I looked through the players book again thinking I saw the term spell-like but could not find it. I could have sworn that I did.

Yeah, reading the C&C rule books reminds me of reading the 1E DMG, you could swear you read something, and it isn't there. You look, and look, and still nothing. Then you go to look for something else, and suddenly what you couldn't find before is there.
_________________
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

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:57 pm**

"Spell-Like abilities" are lightly sprinkled in the PHB and moreso in the M&T, but there is not a definition of them like you might find in 3e. I don't really think there needs to be as the term itself pretty much defines itself.

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

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:51 pm**

I thought I saw it somewhere.

I beg to differ. If you use a term in a book you need to define it. I know what Spell-like means in the AD&D and 3.0, but what does it mean in C+C???
_________________
Nightstorm: So tell me something about your elf.

Zippo: He's an elf. He lives in the woods.

Nightstorm: Did you hear that Gary? "His elf lives in the woods"

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:32 pm**

nightstorm wrote:
I beg to differ. If you use a term in a book you need to define it.

Well that is silly. Who wants to go around defining terms like Longsword, Teleport, and Attribute in a game like this? Though I do understand where you are coming from, particularly in the case of this term.

If I were to define Spell-Like Ability for the purposes of the Castles & Crusades Roleplaying game, it would be simply thus:
Spell-Like Ability: An effect that mimics or replicates a spell. A Spell-Like Ability for all intents and purposes works just like a standard spell.

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

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:17 pm**

Omote wrote:
Well that is silly. Who wants to go around defining terms like Longsword, Teleport, and Attribute in a game like this? Though I do understand where you are coming from, particularly in the case of this term.

If I were to define Spell-Like Ability for the purposes of the Castles & Crusades Roleplaying game, it would be simply thus:
Spell-Like Ability: An effect that mimics or replicates a spell. A Spell-Like Ability for all intents and purposes works just like a standard spell.

~O

Thats easy for you to say, you have been gaming a long time and have seen this term before. TLG needs to learn to write their rules for someone completely new to RPG's if they really want to grow their customer base.

Hell, I know of experienced RPG gamers who got frustrated enough to not use C&C because they felt it was a waste of their money to buy an RPG that was so incomplete they couldn't define the terms they chose to use.

Imagine how frustrated new people would be.
_________________
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

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:37 pm**

Treebore wrote:
.....Thats easy for you to say, you have been gaming a long time and have seen this term before. TLG needs to learn to write their rules for someone completely new to RPG's if they really want to grow their customer base.

Hell, I know of experienced RPG gamers who got frustrated enough to not use C&C because they felt it was a waste of their money to buy an RPG that was so incomplete they couldn't define the terms they chose to use.

Not certain what that bolded line is meant to say....

C&C was a complete game system with the first two rule books that were published; along with dice, the Monsters and Treasure Book and the Players Handbook were enough.

In fact, I could have taken just the booklets inside the White Box Set and gone without buying another book and still made C&C work just fine for years and years.

Just like I did in the late 70's with the OD&D white box set and a couple of Adventure Modules that I had first purchased way back then.

Even with all the gazillions of volumes of data published through the D20 gaming industry and AD&D 3.0, 3.x, and 4th edition there was still confusion MANY times about what rules should apply in many situations and sometimes even then with all those libraries available the rules missed some things.

I like C&C due to the lack of mega libraries worth of rules, and I do not miss reams of paper and stacks of rulebooks and shelves filled with supplements.

I WANT a rules light game and C&C is exactly that to me.

I have enough source books and supplements through my old AD&D books that I wont need much more, except for the occasional adventure and the occasional core rules book next edition.

I want to be able to use those simple rules and if needed to define those rules in ways that make the most sense to my players and myself.

As experienced RPGers, one would think they might have welcomed a rules system that allows for more creativity by the players and the CK and less rules confusion.

Treebore wrote:
....Imagine how frustrated new people would be.

Actually I do not have to imagine new (young) people learning C&C.

I have seen it for myself.

I have five grandkids, three of them are old enough to play RPGs and I started them playing C&C, late in 2008.

The oldest three are ages 13, 10, and 6 today.

My oldest grandson uses the C&C White Box and a few other books that I game him (C&C Core Rules, AD&D MM and MMII, Fiend Folio and several adventure modules, both C&C and AD&D) and he creates his own adventures with a pencil and some graph paper that I also gave him.

He is 13 years old now and currently runs games from his home with other kids in his neighborhood.

He has been running games of his own for well over a year now.

But then he was never previously exposed to AD&D 3.x or 4th Edition.

Well, not until June of last year when he played in a 3.5 game (his first) that was run at the North Texas RPG convention.

And yes, sometimes he or one of the other kids discover something they do not understand.

They either figure it out themselves (And he then creates a house ruling) or they ask the old man (that would be me).

One wonders what that says about those experienced RPGers you mentioned.

Is it possible that those experienced gamers did not even try?

Do you think they are (perhaps?) too jaded for a basic game like C&C?

Perhaps they actually prefer a rules system that accounts for every possible thing that could happen in the games they play?

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:57 pm**

A spell-like ability is one that is not quite a spell, because it is not cast (that is, has no components) but which has an effect similar (if not exact) to a spell. Any resistances to the spell, such as SR or immunities to the damage type (such as fire) apply -- the only difference is that the spell-like ability is not a spell, and therefore, not subjected to certain other rules such as interruption -- the spell-like ability will often describe other effects, such as "returnable at will" or "cannot be dispelled" or "affects snakes instead of animals" and the like, so the Castle Keeper is aware of the difference in game effect. Some Castle Keepers may wish to limit spell-like abilities to the point of being interruptible, but I prefer to not. Regardless, unless noted in the description, like a spell, only one per round may be used, so there is a natural built-in limitation to their usage, not counting anything like "once per day" type stuff.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:15 pm**

And you see I knew that, but it would still be nice for it to be in the book. To use a term and not define it makes no sense. Because of monsters, you have to have something similar to spell-like to explain what they can do. And because it's a simplified version of it so much the better. But it needs to have definition. The definition can be vague like many of the rules but there should still be rules for it. And for it not to be in Monsters and Treasures ( at least according to everyone here) makes it even more frustrating.
_________________
Nightstorm: So tell me something about your elf.

Zippo: He's an elf. He lives in the woods.

Nightstorm: Did you hear that Gary? "His elf lives in the woods"

Posted: **Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:43 pm**

I won't get into what should and should not be included, but remember that some of this stuff may have originally been intended to be left vague so the Castle Keeper could implement whatever was wanted. C&C was never about explaining everything. Whether that is a strength or a flaw is opinion, but mine is that it makes the game more enjoyable to run... and sometimes less.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:57 am**

Aneoth of Ironwood wrote:
Not certain what that bolded line is meant to say....

C&C was a complete game system with the first two rule books that were published; along with dice, the Monsters and Treasure Book and the Players Handbook were enough.

In fact, I could have taken just the booklets inside the White Box Set and gone without buying another book and still made C&C work just fine for years and years.

Just like I did in the late 70's with the OD&D white box set and a couple of Adventure Modules that I had first purchased way back then.

Even with all the gazillions of volumes of data published through the D20 gaming industry and AD&D 3.0, 3.x, and 4th edition there was still confusion MANY times about what rules should apply in many situations and sometimes even then with all those libraries available the rules missed some things.

I like C&C due to the lack of mega libraries worth of rules, and I do not miss reams of paper and stacks of rulebooks and shelves filled with supplements.

I WANT a rules light game and C&C is exactly that to me.

I have enough source books and supplements through my old AD&D books that I wont need much more, except for the occasional adventure and the occasional core rules book next edition.

I want to be able to use those simple rules and if needed to define those rules in ways that make the most sense to my players and myself.

As experienced RPGers, one would think they might have welcomed a rules system that allows for more creativity by the players and the CK and less rules confusion.

Actually I do not have to imagine new (young) people learning C&C.

I have seen it for myself.

I have five grandkids, three of them are old enough to play RPGs and I started them playing C&C, late in 2008.

The oldest three are ages 13, 10, and 6 today.

My oldest grandson uses the C&C White Box and a few other books that I game him (C&C Core Rules, AD&D MM and MMII, Fiend Folio and several adventure modules, both C&C and AD&D) and he creates his own adventures with a pencil and some graph paper that I also gave him.

He is 13 years old now and currently runs games from his home with other kids in his neighborhood.

He has been running games of his own for well over a year now.

But then he was never previously exposed to AD&D 3.x or 4th Edition.

Well, not until June of last year when he played in a 3.5 game (his first) that was run at the North Texas RPG convention.

And yes, sometimes he or one of the other kids discover something they do not understand.

They either figure it out themselves (And he then creates a house ruling) or they ask the old man (that would be me).

One wonders what that says about those experienced RPGers you mentioned.

Is it possible that those experienced gamers did not even try?

Do you think they are (perhaps?) too jaded for a basic game like C&C?

Perhaps they actually prefer a rules system that accounts for every possible thing that could happen in the games they play?

Hey. I am about as experienced as you, close enough anyways, with my 25 years on pretty much non stop gaming. My longest "break" from gaming over those years is 3 months. I am not old enough to have grand kids, but I do have kids, and they all know how to game.

So in my experience, your grand kids came to you because something in the C&C rules books was not clearly explained, and I would bet they were the same things my kids, and my players who were knew to C&C came to ask me about.

Which is why it is my habit to refer to the 3E SRD on line to give them a written answer for them to refer back to until they have it down solid.

Every one of those times I was able to give them an answer from the 3E SRD is an example of each item C&C should have described more fully inside of its own pages. When the rules refer to an ability, condition, state, whatever, the rules should then define those references, not make people decide for themselves what they mean, or be like me and refer to how another system defined it.

Plus it still does not change the fact that I know of at least 6 people that I have met and talked with at conventions, game days, and the like, who cited as one of C&C's short comings was its unwillingness to define terms they use in their own descriptions.

Now don't get me wrong, I have been running C&C as my game of choice since late 2005, and still do to this day, so I am not someone who does not love C&C, but I am one willing to admit to and accept its weaknesses.

Which leads to my desire to see these imperfections fixed, so I have an easier time getting people to love C&C like I do.
_________________
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

Troll Lord Games

Spell-like ablilities

Spell-like ablilities