C&C 10th anniversary

[Traveller]

These areas where you've encountered stumbling blocks are the areas most in need of clarification. In the case of the Siege Engine, a better example may solve the issues the players are having in grasping the mechanics. In fact, more examples throughout might be a benefit here. A detailed example I believe would allow for a better understanding of how things work, if there isn't one already in the book.

I've never really gotten into the 12/18 versus +6 discussion because I tend to grasp it either way, but I do think cutting down the number of modifiers is more beneficial than having a single target number plus mods. Therefore, 12/18 should stay. One thing I believe should be removed from the PHB is the helms table and the called shots callout. That table should be placed in the CKG in the same section as Hit Locations. And from the department of redundancy department we have the Poison table which exists in both books. The Poison table should stay in the PHB but be removed from Monsters & Treasure.

[Arduin]

One thing I believe should be removed from the PHB is the helms table and the called shots callout. That table should be placed in the CKG in the same section as Hit Locations. And from the department of redundancy department we have the Poison table which exists in both books. The Poison table should stay in the PHB but be removed from Monsters & Treasure.

Exactly. Good items for correction.

[mbeacom]

We've found it much easier just to announce your result and state "Prime" if its a prime stat. Let the DM compare it to the CB, rather than the player worry about it at all. Runs much smoother for me and my groups that way.

Interestingly enough, I have found this to be the opposite. I run for two groups, and each one didn't like the +6 version of calculating the outcome. I have the players do all the work, adding modifiers, and telling me (CK) how much they beat the roll by.

~O

This is precisely why we have to be careful about "clarifications" or alterations. Changing the siege engine will help some and hurt others. Each group is different. I like how they address this in the CK, offering different ways of managing it.

[mbeacom]

See, I'm not proposing anything that will break the game. When I say "a near total rewrite" my thought here is simply to make sure that the game is noob friendly, and by using the right language it's quite possible to accomplish this.

I found that newbies, left to their own devices, stumble on the 12/18 portion of the Siege Engine.
I just explain that the Base is always 18 and you get to add 6 to your roll if the Challenge is against a Prime. DONE.

That's what I thought at first myself. But since I've been running more and more groups I've had the opposite experience. When I've tried this, I kept getting complaints that there were too many different modifiers clunking up the works. Made the siege engine feel too crunchy. Add your attribute modifier, add your level (or not), add your prime, add situational modifiers etc. We've found it much easier just to announce your result and state "Prime" if its a prime stat. Let the DM compare it to the CB, rather than the player worry about it at all. Runs much smoother for me and my groups that way.

I've had the same experience. I tried telling a player to add 6 to a SIEGE check if the attribute is prime and it just mucked everything up. He started confusing the attribute bonus with the +6 for prime. I found it worked much better to just tell them that a SIEGE check means they roll a d20, add any attribute bonus, add their level if I tell them to, and then tell me the total and whether the attribute is prime. Sadly, they seem to struggle with that plan so I have to remind them every session. It's tough teaching old dogs new tricks. They should get it eventually.

I had a similar experience with the +6 because I tried the all 18s method which made perfect sense to me at the time. Then after several groups struggled with it in this exact way, it became obvious why the trolls wrote the 12/18 the way they did. I then did as you say, told the players to roll d20 + attribute only. I'd let them know if they need to add their level. Then the +6 step is completely removed for everyone. This went much smoother for them which was surprising at first but now I get it.

[mbeacom]

These areas where you've encountered stumbling blocks are the areas most in need of clarification. In the case of the Siege Engine, a better example may solve the issues the players are having in grasping the mechanics. In fact, more examples throughout might be a benefit here. A detailed example I believe would allow for a better understanding of how things work, if there isn't one already in the book.

I've never really gotten into the 12/18 versus +6 discussion because I tend to grasp it either way, but I do think cutting down the number of modifiers is more beneficial than having a single target number plus mods. Therefore, 12/18 should stay.

This is my feeling as well.

[Relaxo]

Maybe this can just be ported in to the explanation.

[tylermo]

12/18 has pretty much always worked for my gaming groups. The other options are covered in the ckg, if somebody wishes to utilize them. I'd much rather see clarification in other parts of the phb, IF needed (more details regarding lowering or subtracting from the challenge base...which is virtually unmentioned in the phb). Anyway...

[Arduin]

12/18 has pretty much always worked for my gaming groups. The other options are covered in the ckg,

You misunderstand.

[Dracyian]

When we play we roll the D20 and add the attribute mod right away, the ck says whether or not to add levels and then we tell the ck the results and whether it is prime or not. I don't see how it is the same amount of steps because if you add in the prime to the modifers you are either going to have two modifers for dex and strength if make one a prime for the calculations for melee and range damage and the armor score. To me this will make it all sorts of confusing, maybe I am not visualizing how you do it arduin and this is probably the same for everyone else who are on the same side of the fence as I am.

[mbeacom]

When we play we roll the D20 and add the attribute mod right away, the ck says whether or not to add levels and then we tell the ck the results and whether it is prime or not. I don't see how it is the same amount of steps because if you add in the prime to the modifers you are either going to have two modifers for dex and strength if make one a prime for the calculations for melee and range damage and the armor score. To me this will make it all sorts of confusing, maybe I am not visualizing how you do it arduin and this is probably the same for everyone else who are on the same side of the fence as I am.

We had a similar experience, having 2 different modifiers, and constantly telling the players when to use which one. Ultimately, we just went back to the way the game was written and now we don't have any problems. I was honestly surprised because like Arduin the other way made more sense to me initially, until the actual practice of it and my groups changed my mind. But I can totally see why he would do it the way he does. I would have no problem operating at his table that way. But for my players, it just never jived for some reason.

[Snoring Rock]

Wow. My players have never been confused or had any problems with this. Never, not once. I had a 12 year old at the table once, and she understood it. D20/Pathfinder is certainly not a game for these folks struggling with the +6 thing.

Crazy.

[finarvyn]

I'd love to see a "Black Box" edition that is the same size as the old OD&D boxed set, but please keep font size decent. I have bad vision and most "shrunk down" booklets just seem to be too small for me to read. If I can't read it, I have little use for it.

Having a game that trims down levels and options could be neat. I don't usually use all 13 class options anyway.

Oh, and I've never had problems understanding SIEGE but if folks don't like the way it's worded I'm not against having the wording updated, either.

[Dracyian]

I'd love to see a "Black Box" edition that is the same size as the old OD&D boxed set, but please keep font size decent. I have bad vision and most "shrunk down" booklets just seem to be too small for me to read. If I can't read it, I have little use for it.

Having a game that trims down levels and options could be neat. I don't usually use all 13 class options anyway.

Oh, and I've never had problems understanding SIEGE but if folks don't like the way it's worded I'm not against having the wording updated, either.

You know you could always move some of the seige engine variants from the CKG to the PHB but I could also be dellusional, that has been happening a bit more of late

[Buttmonkey]

Wow. My players have never been confused or had any problems with this. Never, not once. I had a 12 year old at the table once, and she understood it. D20/Pathfinder is certainly not a game for these folks struggling with the +6 thing.

Crazy.

Part of the problem is simply my players not bothering to actually read the PHB. I've got one teenager and a bunch of guys in their 40s and 60s. The old timers cut their teeth on D&D back in the 70s and 80s, so they've been able to function quite well without digging into SIEGE. The teenager doesn't even own a PHB (his dad has one that he never consults). All of them are quite happy to leave the mechanics to me. They roll the dice, try to stretch class abilities beyond their intent (I can't begin to tell you how many times my dad has claimed his barbarian can do random stuff utilizing his Deerstalker ability), and have fun. I'm the nut who cares about the rules system enough to actually run a game. It would be nice if they would read the PHB, but that isn't realistic for my group.

[Omote]

Part of the problem is simply my players not bothering to actually read the PHB.

Oh, over the years I have known a handful of those player types.

~O

[mbeacom]

I'd love to see a "Black Box" edition that is the same size as the old OD&D boxed set, but please keep font size decent. I have bad vision and most "shrunk down" booklets just seem to be too small for me to read. If I can't read it, I have little use for it.

Having a game that trims down levels and options could be neat. I don't usually use all 13 class options anyway.

Oh, and I've never had problems understanding SIEGE but if folks don't like the way it's worded I'm not against having the wording updated, either.

You know you could always move some of the seige engine variants from the CKG to the PHB but I could also be dellusional, that has been happening a bit more of late

You could definitely do that. I don't think it would be a big deal. Personally, I think having the core fundamentals in the PHB and the variants and options in the CKG is a pretty good way to go. That way, people who like it as written can do it and people who want more options or something like Arduin's house rule can have access to them without pushing too much into the PHB.

[Relaxo]

Part of the problem is simply my players not bothering to actually read the PHB.

Oh, over the years I have known a handful of those player types.

~O

Oh yeah.
I caught a friend of mine using a "character sheet" that was an index card that had 5, yes, 5 numbers on it (13 to 17 IIRC) and "spellbook. 3 torches" WTF?

Those can be fun though.
more story, less rules.
Maybe they'd like FATE then.
(I say this never having played fate, but it sounds more freeform)

I'm curious, what are teh crasy Deerstalker abilities? like, making leather and guitar strings from gut? surgery? do tell!

[Snoring Rock]

Well, apparently we can't wait until the 10th anniversary for the 6th printing as the 5th is selling out. We might make it through the beginning of the year. Interestingly enough, the same is happening on the other two main books MT and CKG. So we have reprintings in the near future. The PH will go first and as we can't be without a flagship product for six months, we are looking at an early spring release of the 6th. Not sure on the CKG (getting rate of sales on that from Todd now), nor MT but they won't be far off.

As always what we would LIKE to do is limited by what we have the manpower to do. For instance coloring the CKG and MT is the next logical step, but Peter can't do all that and then some.

However, for the guts of the PH.....though I know you guys have talked about clarifications here and there, I haven't been following the discussions very much (I'm a different kind of gaming animal and do not like too much clarified) so what I would like to do is have a list of these suggested clarifications put up somewhere that I can see.

With that in mind I will start a list in the shortly or such and put some instructions up what we would like to hear from you guys.

At the very least, the PH coloring issue will be addressed.

But as for the actual 10th anniversary, which is next Gencon as that is when the white box debuted at Gencon '04, we've given it some thought, but haven't settled on any concrete plans yet. We are leaning heavily toward a black box, same size as the original white box, different content.

Steve

I cannot speak for anyone here, but I will not purchase another PHB without some rules clarifications and some fixes to stacking and conditions definitions, as well as other fixes like spelling or anything that does not jive, included in the new printing. I do not need more of the same. On the other hand, if the sales are brisk and it is new players being brought into the game, then that is great! I welcome that. If another printing would also be making changes and clarifications, then count me in. For those who do not care and house-rule these things or go to the D20 SRD, I suppose it would not matter. The risk of upsetting some over ever-changing editions can be bothersome.

If it will include clarifications, then lets get a list going.

[Ronin77]

Great to hear 5th has sold so well. Most important thing here is to not allow the PH to go out of print. Although a lot of us have our copies (or many copies) its important to keep the game alive for new players coming into the fold.

[Rigon]

Well, apparently we can't wait until the 10th anniversary for the 6th printing as the 5th is selling out. We might make it through the beginning of the year. Interestingly enough, the same is happening on the other two main books MT and CKG. So we have reprintings in the near future. The PH will go first and as we can't be without a flagship product for six months, we are looking at an early spring release of the 6th. Not sure on the CKG (getting rate of sales on that from Todd now), nor MT but they won't be far off.

As always what we would LIKE to do is limited by what we have the manpower to do. For instance coloring the CKG and MT is the next logical step, but Peter can't do all that and then some.

However, for the guts of the PH.....though I know you guys have talked about clarifications here and there, I haven't been following the discussions very much (I'm a different kind of gaming animal and do not like too much clarified) so what I would like to do is have a list of these suggested clarifications put up somewhere that I can see.

With that in mind I will start a list in the shortly or such and put some instructions up what we would like to hear from you guys.

At the very least, the PH coloring issue will be addressed.

But as for the actual 10th anniversary, which is next Gencon as that is when the white box debuted at Gencon '04, we've given it some thought, but haven't settled on any concrete plans yet. We are leaning heavily toward a black box, same size as the original white box, different content.

Steve

I cannot speak for anyone here, but I will not purchase another PHB without some rules clarifications and some fixes to stacking and conditions definitions, as well as other fixes like spelling or anything that does not jive, included in the new printing. I do not need more of the same. On the other hand, if the sales are brisk and it is new players being brought into the game, then that is great! I welcome that. If another printing would also be making changes and clarifications, then count me in. For those who do not care and house-rule these things or go to the D20 SRD, I suppose it would not matter. The risk of upsetting some over ever-changing editions can be bothersome.

If it will include clarifications, then lets get a list going.

I'm with you Rock. I was quite happy with my 3rd print, then Steve had to go and get a bug up his ass about the barbarian and change that shit up. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the "new" barbarian, but I don't see a need to purchase any more PHBs. The 3 4th prints will do me just fine.

R-

[Relaxo]

the new barbarian is totally sweet!
So's color PHB
but if there's another printing, i'll leave it for the new players.

[kreider204]

Ya, I was disappointed with the 5th printing - sold it and went back to the 4th printing. I won't buy another printing unless a serious effort to correct errata is made - and I'm not holding my breath ...

[Traveller]

Ahem...a serious effort WAS made to correct errata. Perhaps I should show you my editing copy so you can see for yourself.

Do keep in mind that what you and I consider errata may not necessarily BE errata.

[kreider204]

Ahem...a serious effort WAS made to correct errata. Perhaps I should show you my editing copy so you can see for yourself.

Do keep in mind that what you and I consider errata may not necessarily BE errata.

I know, Traveller - I'm not talking about you. Clearly I mean the Trolls. We've already discussed this at length, on the boards and in PM, remember?

[Treebore]

Ahem...a serious effort WAS made to correct errata. Perhaps I should show you my editing copy so you can see for yourself.

Do keep in mind that what you and I consider errata may not necessarily BE errata.

Well, things like saying the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability stops Phantasmal Killer when the spell itself clearly says it CANNOT effect spells above third level is definitely errata. I now have 22 Players Handbooks, I am not buying anymore until the errata is addressed and CLARITY of rules is also addressed.

[Traveller]

I know, Traveller - I'm not talking about you. Clearly I mean the Trolls. We've already discussed this at length, on the boards and in PM, remember?

Sorry...it was a knee-jerk reaction on my part...or more likely just a jerk reaction on my part.

[Traveller]

Well, things like saying the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability stops Phantasmal Killer when the spell itself clearly says it CANNOT effect spells above third level is definitely errata. I now have 22 Players Handbooks, I am not buying anymore until the errata is addressed and CLARITY of rules is also addressed.

Yet again, no one denies that there were things missed. You'll find me the first one agreeing with you that there are portions of the rules that do need clarification. However, I am finding issue with the confrontational tone in your post.

I am well aware that as only one person I could not possibly find everything in the book, and I had no illusions to the contrary despite being a perfectionist. Do you really think I LIKE knowing that there are still mistakes in the book after spending a few months of my time going through it to make it the best it can be? The way you phrase your post you must think it's the easiest job in the world and that both the Trolls and editors past and present should have found every single little error in the book by now.

I don't know if you have ever edited a book or even written one. What I do know is that I signed on to do the editing for the 5th printing to make the entire game better for you guys. kreider understands that, and he is right in that we've discussed this back and forth via PM. The attitude that comes across in your post doesn't appear to have that level of understanding. I'm sorry if the 5th printing doesn't meet up with your standards, but if you believe you can do any better, offer the Trolls your services. The game would be better for it.

[Treebore]

Well, things like saying the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability stops Phantasmal Killer when the spell itself clearly says it CANNOT effect spells above third level is definitely errata. I now have 22 Players Handbooks, I am not buying anymore until the errata is addressed and CLARITY of rules is also addressed.

Yet again, no one denies that there were things missed. You'll find me the first one agreeing with you that there are portions of the rules that do need clarification. However, I am finding issue with the confrontational tone in your post.

I am well aware that as only one person I could not possibly find everything in the book, and I had no illusions to the contrary despite being a perfectionist. Do you really think I LIKE knowing that there are still mistakes in the book after spending a few months of my time going through it to make it the best it can be? The way you phrase your post you must think it's the easiest job in the world and that both the Trolls and editors past and present should have found every single little error in the book by now.

I don't know if you have ever edited a book or even written one. What I do know is that I signed on to do the editing for the 5th printing to make the entire game better for you guys. kreider understands that, and he is right in that we've discussed this back and forth via PM. The attitude that comes across in your post doesn't appear to have that level of understanding. I'm sorry if the 5th printing doesn't meet up with your standards, but if you believe you can do any better, offer the Trolls your services. The game would be better for it.

Its the internet, there is no "tone". Just words that say what they say.

[mbeacom]

Well, things like saying the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability stops Phantasmal Killer when the spell itself clearly says it CANNOT effect spells above third level is definitely errata. I now have 22 Players Handbooks, I am not buying anymore until the errata is addressed and CLARITY of rules is also addressed.

Yet again, no one denies that there were things missed. You'll find me the first one agreeing with you that there are portions of the rules that do need clarification. However, I am finding issue with the confrontational tone in your post.

I am well aware that as only one person I could not possibly find everything in the book, and I had no illusions to the contrary despite being a perfectionist. Do you really think I LIKE knowing that there are still mistakes in the book after spending a few months of my time going through it to make it the best it can be? The way you phrase your post you must think it's the easiest job in the world and that both the Trolls and editors past and present should have found every single little error in the book by now.

I don't know if you have ever edited a book or even written one. What I do know is that I signed on to do the editing for the 5th printing to make the entire game better for you guys. kreider understands that, and he is right in that we've discussed this back and forth via PM. The attitude that comes across in your post doesn't appear to have that level of understanding. I'm sorry if the 5th printing doesn't meet up with your standards, but if you believe you can do any better, offer the Trolls your services. The game would be better for it.

While I wasn't a fan of the color PHB due to the font and page colors making it harder for me to read, I was thrilled with the contents. Each printing has gotten better and better and I'm incredibly thankful for the work of all those involved. My new PHB/MT flip book is perhaps my favor RPG purchase this year (tough call between that, Monstrosities and Adventures Dark & Deep Rules/Bestiary). I have nearly zero issues with clarity and I only very rarely interact with anything I would call errata. I'm sure they're there but I've not been bothered by a single issue. I've played lots of RPGs and can say with certainly that C&C is among the best, both in clarity and in minimizing errata related issues. Certainly after the most recent printing, the game is in great shape. I think sometimes people tend to fixate on things they notice and then tend to perceive them as more glaring than they actually are. Me, for example, I was watching Big Bang Theory the other night and for some reason the laugh track stood out to me. I couldn't stop hearing it. It ruined the episode. But the laugh track is always there. The problem was me, not the show, for letting something small become such a large factor in my enjoyment of it.

[Dracyian]

For me I would like to see a more player friendly layout for the handbook. What I mean by this is something along the lines of what you have in a good video game walkthrough, a clear table of contents, not saying they don't have this just listing features I like, I also love color coated page edges, like the classes would have a red edge while magic has green equipment has blue, stuff like that and appendices for the stupid clarifications that we all want and an index would be cool