Players Handbook Corrections and Additions

[Traveller]

But through sleepless nights and dangerous hallucinations untold, I managed to get this monster conquered.

Just wait until Monsters & Treasure is ready for its next printing. I suspect we're both going to be raving loonies after that one is done.

[Frost]

I wasn't clear here. I had a few problems with the barbarian so I rewrote it for the 4th printing. It will not change for the 5th printing. I'm very happy with the primeval approach it now has.
Steve

I'm glad to hear it, because I'm very much in agreement. I never used barbarians in games before, and now I do.

Yeah, the C&C barbarian nails it. I'm still a bit confused on how the Intimidate ability works. That is, can a barbarian Intimate and attack in the same round? I've been ruling that he could. It makes for a kind of cool "rolling Intimidate."

[Omote]

But through sleepless nights and dangerous hallucinations untold, I managed to get this monster conquered.

Just wait until Monsters & Treasure is ready for its next printing. I suspect we're both going to be raving loonies after that one is done.

Looking forward to this... and I look forward to Pete Bradley's new M&T wrap-around cover on that.

~O

[Traveller]

I suspect that the biggest issue with Monsters & Treasure is in making sure that the rules established in the PHB are carried over to Monsters & Treasure where required, such as EV for treasure and magic items. Most of the other stuff is going to be the typical grammar fixes, making sure the spell like abilities fixes are worked into the creature entries that need them, and redoing the magic items tables so they work properly.

[MattyHelms]

I suspect that the biggest issue with Monsters & Treasure is in making sure that the rules established in the PHB are carried over to Monsters & Treasure where required, such as EV for treasure and magic items. Most of the other stuff is going to be the typical grammar fixes, making sure the spell like abilities fixes are worked into the creature entries that need them, and redoing the magic items tables so they work properly.

Consistency in how multiple numbers of attacks are listed would help distinguish those instances from monsters with multiple separate methods of attack.

[Traveller]

If I understand you correctly, number of attacks is not being shown properly? Do explain.

[agent_fej]

Though I'm new to C&C, mark me down for more streamlined rules for grappling and overbearing. As written, they are a bit clunky and not very intuitive. I'd love to see something more in the spirit of the rest of the game.

PS - I love this game! I've recently returned to gaming and have been playing with a great group of guys. Unfortunately, the current DM has us playing D&D 3.5 (switched from D&D 2E). Unsatisfied, I searched for something simpler and found C&C about 6 months ago. It's perfect! So fast and intuitive. I've been slowly trying to convert the rest of the group and it's starting to work. Three of us now have PHBs! I also have M&T and the CKG. When it's my turn to DM (uh, CK?) were definitely going with C&C.

Keep up the good work Trolls!

[Traveller]

First, welcome to the Crusade!

Second, I can't say whether there will be any changes to those sections. My draft copy of the book was for all intents and purposes the 4th print and there were no changes to the mechanics at that point. The Encumbrance system has been simplified but not replaced, based upon the draft copy of Encumbrance I received yesterday. Having looked it over, I'm actually ok with the simplifications. Even the Ad-hoc Encumbrance rules are a lot better defined, making it now possible to determine the ER of any creature (with a little help from the d20 SRD) using the rules as written.

[Arduin]

First, welcome to the Crusade!

Second, I can't say whether there will be any changes to those sections. My draft copy of the book was for all intents and purposes the 4th print and there were no changes to the mechanics at that point. The Encumbrance system has been simplified but not replaced, based upon the draft copy of Encumbrance I received yesterday. Having looked it over, I'm actually ok with the simplifications. Even the Ad-hoc Encumbrance rules are a lot better defined, making it now possible to determine the ER of any creature (with a little help from the d20 SRD) using the rules as written.

Now you just made me want to buy the upcoming printing.

[doominicus]

I like the grappling/overbearring rules as they are. They are only a little more complex than the others rules, but not so much.
And I like the encumbrance system too: it's easy and there's no difficult to sum up the encumbrances of the items.
But if the trollord has further simplified it, well it sounds good!

[MormonYoYoMan]

"Overbearing" is a rule I use only for politicians and internet intellectuals.

[Traveller]

I like the grappling/overbearring rules as they are. They are only a little more complex than the others rules, but not so much.
And I like the encumbrance system too: it's easy and there's no difficult to sum up the encumbrances of the items.
But if the trollord has further simplified it, well it sounds good!

The current version of Encumbrance, as written, wasn't as intuitive as it could be. How the ER was figured was an issue with its negative modifiers, and figuring the EV of a filled capacity object was a nightmare. The base is now equal to the Strength score, with positive modifiers based on whether Strength and/or Constitution are prime. There are no negative modifiers.

The Encumbrance conditions have changed. There are now only three: Unburdened, Burdened, and Overburdened.

Worn and Capacity Objects have been dramatically simplified. There is no reduction for wearing an item. In the case of a capacity object only the EV of the capacity object, worn or not, is figured into encumbrance calculations. Each item in the capacity object must have an EV of less than the capacity object's EV. Just remember to use common sense here. Seven EV6 chests are not going to fit in an EV8 backpack.

Ad-hoc Encumbrance hasn't changed appreciably except to define what EV1 is, prior to modifications due to weight and materials.

Encumbrance was always a system I hated because it required too much fiddling with numbers to get a result. The revised system, while not as realistic regarding capacity objects, is a system that I wouldn't have an issue with using.

[nightstorm]

Today I ran a four hour stand alone with three people that never played C&C. Let me tell you one of the things that should have been done to the new ed is putting the classes Alphabetically. Like pulling teeth at the game table. Why oh why??? when everything else (such as spells are placed such) is done so? I get that it's group by attribute, but really nothing is more practical then alphabetizing.

[redwullf]

Today I ran a four hour stand alone with three people that never played C&C. Let me tell you one of the things that should have been done to the new ed is putting the classes Alphabetically. Like pulling teeth at the game table. Why oh why??? when everything else (such as spells are placed such) is done so? I get that it's group by attribute, but really nothing is more practical then alphabetizing.

I have to agree on this one. Listing the classes alphabetically just makes sense - at least more sense than by "primary attribute."

[Traveller]

From what I recall this was a stylistic decision on the part of the Trolls, and it's not without precedent.

• 1st Edition AD&D's classes were - in order - Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Monk. Bards were in the appendices.
• Last Unicorn Games' Dune: Chronicles of the Imperium has its archetypes out of order. The archetypes are Adept, Assassin, Strategist, Mentat, Noble, Swordmaster, Suk.
• The Dungeons & Dragons supplement "Diablo II: The Awakening" lists its kits in near-alphabetical order. However necromancers come after sorcerors.
• Tunnels & Trolls classes are - in the order presented in the book - Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, Warrior-Wizard.

I'm sure there are more examples, however to be blunt I don't see the problem here. You have a table of contents in the book for a reason. Find the character in the TOC and flip to the page.

[Relaxo]

Yeah, but with 13 classes, really how hard is it if they're not alphabetized? With 100+ spells it's so needed.
Perhaps jot the page # on the character sheet, if you need.

[Traveller]

Not hard at all. AD&D had 11 classes and no one complained about it. But looking at it again, AD&D's classes did have an order to them. Core classes are in alphabetical order. The subclasses are all in alphabetical order beneath the core class. That's not strict alphabetical order like what nightstorm and redwulf are likely expecting, but it is in some type of order. The other games I give examples of all break alphabetical order.

Castles & Crusades at least is overt about its order. It's not alphabetical but based upon what attribute is prime, with the core class at the top of each list. Thus for a CHA prime you have the Knight as the core class with Paladins and Bards as subclasses. STR primes have Fighters as core classes and Rangers as the subclass.

[redwullf]

I don't think we're saying it's "hard" or a "problem," and it's certainly not a deal breaker, or we wouldn't be here discussing it. I will say, however, that before I became very familiar with the book, it was a mild nuisance flipping around in the Classes section, or going to the TOC for help. You say there's a precedent, but I would point out that when you're listing selectable options there's a much greater precedent for alaphabetical order, in virtually any context. It's something anyone can understand, even when picking up the book for the first time. That's all we're saying. There's nothing wrong with making an argument in favor of convenience and universal user friendliness. Imagine if the same concept was applied to other features of the game - say, organizing spells by "type of saving throw." It'd be crazy confusing.

And, Traveller, no offense intended, but I don't think that you can reasonably say "no one complained," about how classes were laid out in the AD&D PHB. I'm sure the book had plenty of detractors, including those who griped about confusing layout decisions, like classes not in alphabetical order.

Note that modern versions of the game have "fixed" this by alphabatizing classes. Obviously we're not the first or only people to see this as an improvement to the book.

[Relaxo]

No, I'm sorry, I do see your point.
Thinking back, I think I too found it weird at first (this is like, 4.5 years ago already, wow). But by weird, I meant, not in the order in 2nd ed PHB, which also wasn't alpha, just what I ended up memorizing after years of play.

IIRC correctly, Warriors (Figher, Ranger, Paladin), Priests (Cleric, Druid), Wizards (Mage, Specialists), Rogues (Theif, Bard). or something.
But point is, also not Alphabetical.

[Traveller]

And, Traveller, no offense intended, but I don't think that you can reasonably say "no one complained," about how classes were laid out in the AD&D PHB.

None taken. However, I can only go by what I've experienced, and that experience is that no one complained about that aspect of AD&D.

[Harlock]

And, Traveller, no offense intended, but I don't think that you can reasonably say "no one complained," about how classes were laid out in the AD&D PHB.

None taken. However, I can only go by what I've experienced, and that experience is that no one complained about that aspect of AD&D.

To be fair, if we had had the internet in 1978, someone would have complained.

[Traveller]

We should be thankful that all the character classes are in one book. Finarvyn would know this as much as I would, but OD&D had its classes spread out over three supplements. Now while that's bad, and something AD&D repeated later with Unearthed Arcana, what's worse was that updated information for the original classes was in Supplement I, but in the form of additions to the original info. This naturally led to some confusion as Supplement I was a literal game changer for OD&D. It also caused problems since you had information on the core classes split between two books.

[Sir Ironside]

We should be thankful that all the character classes are in one book. Finarvyn would know this as much as I would, but OD&D had its classes spread out over three supplements. Now while that's bad, and something AD&D repeated later with Unearthed Arcana, what's worse was that updated information for the original classes was in Supplement I, but in the form of additions to the original info. This naturally led to some confusion as Supplement I was a literal game changer for OD&D. It also caused problems since you had information on the core classes split between two books.

I can't fault them for that. I don't think they knew what they had until after the Original books. After-all this was the very first rpg and there was no giants to stand on.

[Lord Dynel]

We should be thankful that all the character classes are in one book. Finarvyn would know this as much as I would, but OD&D had its classes spread out over three supplements. Now while that's bad, and something AD&D repeated later with Unearthed Arcana, what's worse was that updated information for the original classes was in Supplement I, but in the form of additions to the original info. This naturally led to some confusion as Supplement I was a literal game changer for OD&D. It also caused problems since you had information on the core classes split between two books.

Hey, wait a minute Traveller, we DO have classes spread acorss multiple books/supplements! Let us not forget the Witch Hunter, Metals Master, Portal Keeper, and Vampire from Tainted Lands, and the soon-to-be-released Rune caster from the Rune sourcebook.

Seriously, I find this an odd conversation. Call me crazy. I've never found there an issue with the class layout from the C&C PHB, as they're arranged by prime ability score as they're laid out on a C&C character sheet. If I'm looking for Ranger, I know they're towards the front, as they have Strength prime. Is that as intuitive as alphabetical order? Maybe not. But If I flip to "Rogue" in an alphabetized PHB, I know to flip back to look for the Knight. But as it is now, I know to flip forward. A brand new person might have a little problem, but it's easily learned.

Maybe all this has been said before. If so, my apologies...I wanted to add my 2 cents, though.

[Traveller]

@Sir Ironside: The point is that things could have been a lot worse. Of course, this "issue" was stillborn upon arrival.

@Lord Dynel: There really isn't much else that can be said on this topic, except this: you can't please everyone.

[serleran]

I wonder how much will change when / if Davis (as I recall, can be wrong) ever completes his Adventurer's Backpack which should wrench this monkey up Mario-size.

[redwullf]

Well, with 5th printing already at the printers, all of this is a moot point for the time being.

Alphabetically organized classes or not, my mouth still waters at the thought of getting that full color PHB. Can't wait...

[Peter]

Hey, wait a minute Traveller, we DO have classes spread acorss multiple books/supplements! Let us not forget the Witch Hunter, Metals Master, Portal Keeper, and Vampire from Tainted Lands, and the soon-to-be-released Rune caster from the Rune sourcebook.

There is also the Conjurer from DB6, Weirling from DR2, Necromancer from R2, Charade, Charlatan, Crusader, Mortis, Templar from Crusader #4, Bounty Hunter, Brigand, Hermit, Mocker, Scoundrel, Shaman, Warcaster, Witch from Crusader #5 and the Pankratiast from Crusader #25.

[Relaxo]

D'oh! Now you make me want to buy all the crusaders! jerk. I'm already poor.

[Sir Ironside]

D'oh! Now you make me want to buy all the crusaders! jerk. I'm already poor.

If you put a plan to save some shekels, you could probably get them at a huge discount with the X-mas sale. It appears defunct so stock may wanted to be unloaded.