Hey folks!
After reading the C&C Player's Handbook and browsing a lot of topics on these boards, I've put together a list of house rules for the upcoming game I'm running. I'm looking for a bit of feedback on this stuff before I unleash it on my players, if anyone wants to take a look. They can be found here:
http://www.geekbox.net/users/ryan/cncst ... erules.pdf
Looking for feedback on house rules
You've sure buffed the fighter!
It's a pretty timid house rules list I must say. One nitpicky thing is that player, especially those of 3.x background, may not understand why other classes never get additional attacks per round. Just explain to them that attacks in C&C aren't represented the same way as in 3.x. Attacks are full actions of melee that result in damage instead of just single swings. And a fighter's additional attacks represent additional damage possible from his round of melee actions. That seems to work well to help them see how it all works.
Happy gaming!
It's a pretty timid house rules list I must say. One nitpicky thing is that player, especially those of 3.x background, may not understand why other classes never get additional attacks per round. Just explain to them that attacks in C&C aren't represented the same way as in 3.x. Attacks are full actions of melee that result in damage instead of just single swings. And a fighter's additional attacks represent additional damage possible from his round of melee actions. That seems to work well to help them see how it all works.
Happy gaming!
-
Gnostic Gnoll
- Ungern
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:00 am
Hey Ryan!
I don't know if I said it when you made your initial post here (though I read it), so welcome to the Crusade!
I like your house rules. Your interpretation of the fighter is pretty good. I also think your take on non-memorized spellcasting is admirable.
I do have two suggestions though. First, just forbid evil alignments outright. "Unless you can come up with a supremely good justification" implies you aren't that inclined to allow it in the first place. Even with a good reason, an evil character in a heroic party is usually just a formula for disaster among players unless they're willing to agree upon the majority of their intra-party actions at the metagame level. If everyone is just "being spontaneous" about their characters then it's normally just trouble. Hardly anyone ever says, "Wow, it was really great that time Raymond's character stole my diadem of influence/betrayed us to the trolls/murdered my character in her sleep."
Nip the problem in the bud, be honest and up front about what you want out of the game and just say no to evil.
Second, your multiclassing rules are admirable (I mean it, overall it looks pretty solid), but I think they might unintentionally screw over anyone who wants to multiclass as a rogue. As a number of people suggested over in the thread "So I picked C&C and well..." under a staggered EPP the rogue more-or-less needs to be a level or two ahead of everyone else for its particular talents to be useful, due to the extreme reliance on a single throw of the die.
I think C&C unwittingly shot itself in the foot with the whole multiclassing deal, although I hope the CKG will clear things up a bit. A staggered EPP means multiclassing isn't as simple as it is in 3E/3.5, and the incorporation of level into the SIEGE Engine means that the old "split your experience" method causes undue complications. Your system, as you've written it, looks like it will work pretty well overall, but like I said, the rogue might not be a good multiclassing option. But give it a whirl, and let me know if you end up with promising results.
I don't know if I said it when you made your initial post here (though I read it), so welcome to the Crusade!
I like your house rules. Your interpretation of the fighter is pretty good. I also think your take on non-memorized spellcasting is admirable.
I do have two suggestions though. First, just forbid evil alignments outright. "Unless you can come up with a supremely good justification" implies you aren't that inclined to allow it in the first place. Even with a good reason, an evil character in a heroic party is usually just a formula for disaster among players unless they're willing to agree upon the majority of their intra-party actions at the metagame level. If everyone is just "being spontaneous" about their characters then it's normally just trouble. Hardly anyone ever says, "Wow, it was really great that time Raymond's character stole my diadem of influence/betrayed us to the trolls/murdered my character in her sleep."
Nip the problem in the bud, be honest and up front about what you want out of the game and just say no to evil.
Second, your multiclassing rules are admirable (I mean it, overall it looks pretty solid), but I think they might unintentionally screw over anyone who wants to multiclass as a rogue. As a number of people suggested over in the thread "So I picked C&C and well..." under a staggered EPP the rogue more-or-less needs to be a level or two ahead of everyone else for its particular talents to be useful, due to the extreme reliance on a single throw of the die.
I think C&C unwittingly shot itself in the foot with the whole multiclassing deal, although I hope the CKG will clear things up a bit. A staggered EPP means multiclassing isn't as simple as it is in 3E/3.5, and the incorporation of level into the SIEGE Engine means that the old "split your experience" method causes undue complications. Your system, as you've written it, looks like it will work pretty well overall, but like I said, the rogue might not be a good multiclassing option. But give it a whirl, and let me know if you end up with promising results.
Looks like it will all work to me. I wouldn't want to multi-class in your game, so if you are hoping to discourage multi-classing it would be effective with me.
If you aren't trying to discourage it you may want to try a different approach, similiar to 2E's.
Plus you may want to make an exception on the restrictions for Paladin and Monk. I allow Paladins to multi-class as a Priest/cleric of their deity with no penalties.
Monk I would allow to multi-class with Rogue, mainly because I would want to see how wicked that combo could become. Or Monk/Assassin, to be equivelant to a Ninja, even though I think the Netbook of Classes has a Ninja.
Other than that, I agree that they should not want to multi-class, except maybe to cleric, as part of their spiritual journey.
If you aren't trying to discourage it you may want to try a different approach, similiar to 2E's.
Plus you may want to make an exception on the restrictions for Paladin and Monk. I allow Paladins to multi-class as a Priest/cleric of their deity with no penalties.
Monk I would allow to multi-class with Rogue, mainly because I would want to see how wicked that combo could become. Or Monk/Assassin, to be equivelant to a Ninja, even though I think the Netbook of Classes has a Ninja.
Other than that, I agree that they should not want to multi-class, except maybe to cleric, as part of their spiritual journey.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Thanks for the critiques so far, guys.
Gnostic Gnoll - Good call on the alignment stuff.
Treebore - Hmmm, I'm not sure how to handle multiclassing effectively. The idea is definitely NOT to discourage it, but in my mind, going the 2E route is a big hassle, as I always found that system to be really clunky (3E's multiclassing rules are one of the few areas the game excelled in). It's just tough to come up with something uncomplicated with the XP tables staggered the way they are, and I didn't care much for the multiclassing options in the Yggsburgh book, either. The other possibility I had considered for a long time before coming up with this approach is a unified XP table, but I imagine that would create a lot of other unwanted balanced issues.
And the monk/paladin restrictions are something I keep going back and forth on in my head. The possibilities you've pointed out definitely make a lot of sense.
Gnostic Gnoll - Good call on the alignment stuff.
Treebore - Hmmm, I'm not sure how to handle multiclassing effectively. The idea is definitely NOT to discourage it, but in my mind, going the 2E route is a big hassle, as I always found that system to be really clunky (3E's multiclassing rules are one of the few areas the game excelled in). It's just tough to come up with something uncomplicated with the XP tables staggered the way they are, and I didn't care much for the multiclassing options in the Yggsburgh book, either. The other possibility I had considered for a long time before coming up with this approach is a unified XP table, but I imagine that would create a lot of other unwanted balanced issues.
And the monk/paladin restrictions are something I keep going back and forth on in my head. The possibilities you've pointed out definitely make a lot of sense.
This issue of the Crusader magazine presents 3 approaches to multi-classing, including a staggered one. I do use a unified XP table but I did have to overhaul the classes in order to balance them satisfyingly. My take on C&C might not be your cup of tea but my players approve...Quote:
It's just tough to come up with something uncomplicated with the XP tables staggered the way they are, and I didn't care much for the multiclassing options in the Yggsburgh book, either. The other possibility I had considered for a long time before coming up with this approach is a unified XP table, but I imagine that would create a lot of other unwanted balanced issues.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
I write the dangers of being evil, right into the core of my campaign world.
Evil characters run the risk of gaining the attention of the evil gods. The Evil gods don't believe in free will and will thus corrupt and eventually consume the character who is evil. This, of course, only happens if the character begins to become powerful. Before that, they are nothing than a gnat to the evil gods.
As for multi-classing. It simply isn't an option in my gameworld. However, I will work with any player that is interested in developing a new class that fits their vision for the character they wish to play.
_________________
Earned the following:
50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran
Evil characters run the risk of gaining the attention of the evil gods. The Evil gods don't believe in free will and will thus corrupt and eventually consume the character who is evil. This, of course, only happens if the character begins to become powerful. Before that, they are nothing than a gnat to the evil gods.
As for multi-classing. It simply isn't an option in my gameworld. However, I will work with any player that is interested in developing a new class that fits their vision for the character they wish to play.
_________________
Earned the following:
50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran
How about Dual Classing instead?
With the EEP stuff, I don't feel comfortable with giving people so many front loaded bonuses. I'm not only worried with the "theif" classes getting shafted with the longer waits, but the fact that someone with Fighter/Mage is going to have the spot light for quite a while.
With the EEP stuff, I don't feel comfortable with giving people so many front loaded bonuses. I'm not only worried with the "theif" classes getting shafted with the longer waits, but the fact that someone with Fighter/Mage is going to have the spot light for quite a while.
I think they are simple and good enough, i like the reduction for wooden shields, makes them worthy something when compared to a steel shield. The multiclassing rules sound nice, but i still think the big problem with C&C is that none really liked how multiclassing used to be before 3.X and we cannot use the later in it too.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
Jason wrote:
That's the smartest thing I've read in a while. 8)
From me or in general? If it's the latter, then thanks! If it's the first, then I must have said a bunch of dumb things lately.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
I very much like your fighter rules. I've always thought this class in C&C needed some beefing up and this seems to be a good approach. However, having said that, we are watching the Elven Fighter in our campaign
progress, and so far he has been quite effective RAW (and his player is happy with him). Even his slightly higher BAB makes a big impact compared to the other characters, which has made it easy to say, "Yep let the expert do his work on those Gobs, since the Barbarian failed his save again."
progress, and so far he has been quite effective RAW (and his player is happy with him). Even his slightly higher BAB makes a big impact compared to the other characters, which has made it easy to say, "Yep let the expert do his work on those Gobs, since the Barbarian failed his save again."
-
irda ranger
- Red Cap
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:00 am
Ok, I just got a gander at your house rules.
Question: Why does the printing matter when it comes to character generation?
There's no difference in character generation for either printing to the best of my knowledge, so I'm wondering why this is a restriction.
Character Generation: "Tilt" points? I actually like that idea. Maximum hit points per die at 1st and 2d level is something I don't use, being so old school that my books actually absorbed water when they were accidentally used as coasters. However, maximum hit points at 1st and 2d level is a good idea, since it does aid in survival.
Alignment: No complaints there about Chaotic Neutral. As to the evil alignments, I believe the reason for their inclusion in AD&D was that there were those individuals who wanted to rape and pillage and plunder the castle instead of saving it. But, what you say here does make sense.
Fighter Abilities: You made the fighter a lot more like the AD&D fighter. I'm not too keen though on the "to hit" and damage bonuses at 7th and 15th level and believe it makes the fighter too powerful. I personally would redo the fighter abilities to be even more like AD&D, and focus on the number of attacks per round (4th level: 3 attacks/2 rounds, 7th level: 2 attacks/round, 10th level: 5 attacks/2 rounds, 15th level: 3 attacks/round).
Spontaneous Spellcasting: I've never been terribly fond of the d20 Fantasy sorceror, and this to me seems to echo that class. I do like the limitation you put into the system however.
Equipment: You speak a great deal regarding statistical redundancy. However the differences between the different pieces of equipment you mention are all in terms of historical flavor rather than hard numbers. For example, your barbarians may want to wear cuir boille, but would you see a Roman legionaire wearing cuir boille? He'd be wearing the Roman ensemble (lorica segmentata), which while having the same statistics, looks VERY different. An even better example would be the same cuir boille and a Greek linen cuirass, which is nothing more than many layers of linen glued together. Both would have the same armor class, and probably be around the same weight, yet once again, very different.
Limiting the armor in this manner I don't believe is a good idea.
Reducing the weight of bucklers and wooden shields? I can see it, but since I don't like the by the book encumbrance system it doesn't matter to me.
Dumping the broadsword? I can see it, since it and a longsword are about the same length and weight, though the longsword's blade is likely thinner. If you're going for a more accurate setup for swords, you need to dump the bastard sword as well, since the bastard sword is merely another name for a longsword. Thus, you're left with shortswords, longswords, and greatswords. From there, you can fit in the various swords in the book.
As to the notation regarding two-handed weapons, I do believe these items have been addressed as errata. But if you go with the sword setup above, you don't need to mention the bastard sword at all.
Multiclassing: It's passable, although I much prefer the free document on the Trolls' web pages which excerpts Gary Gygax's multiclassing rules from castle Zagyg. About the only thing I really don't like about it is the Bonus "To Hit". I believe it should be averaged, not added together.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.
Question: Why does the printing matter when it comes to character generation?
There's no difference in character generation for either printing to the best of my knowledge, so I'm wondering why this is a restriction.
Character Generation: "Tilt" points? I actually like that idea. Maximum hit points per die at 1st and 2d level is something I don't use, being so old school that my books actually absorbed water when they were accidentally used as coasters. However, maximum hit points at 1st and 2d level is a good idea, since it does aid in survival.
Alignment: No complaints there about Chaotic Neutral. As to the evil alignments, I believe the reason for their inclusion in AD&D was that there were those individuals who wanted to rape and pillage and plunder the castle instead of saving it. But, what you say here does make sense.
Fighter Abilities: You made the fighter a lot more like the AD&D fighter. I'm not too keen though on the "to hit" and damage bonuses at 7th and 15th level and believe it makes the fighter too powerful. I personally would redo the fighter abilities to be even more like AD&D, and focus on the number of attacks per round (4th level: 3 attacks/2 rounds, 7th level: 2 attacks/round, 10th level: 5 attacks/2 rounds, 15th level: 3 attacks/round).
Spontaneous Spellcasting: I've never been terribly fond of the d20 Fantasy sorceror, and this to me seems to echo that class. I do like the limitation you put into the system however.
Equipment: You speak a great deal regarding statistical redundancy. However the differences between the different pieces of equipment you mention are all in terms of historical flavor rather than hard numbers. For example, your barbarians may want to wear cuir boille, but would you see a Roman legionaire wearing cuir boille? He'd be wearing the Roman ensemble (lorica segmentata), which while having the same statistics, looks VERY different. An even better example would be the same cuir boille and a Greek linen cuirass, which is nothing more than many layers of linen glued together. Both would have the same armor class, and probably be around the same weight, yet once again, very different.
Limiting the armor in this manner I don't believe is a good idea.
Reducing the weight of bucklers and wooden shields? I can see it, but since I don't like the by the book encumbrance system it doesn't matter to me.
Dumping the broadsword? I can see it, since it and a longsword are about the same length and weight, though the longsword's blade is likely thinner. If you're going for a more accurate setup for swords, you need to dump the bastard sword as well, since the bastard sword is merely another name for a longsword. Thus, you're left with shortswords, longswords, and greatswords. From there, you can fit in the various swords in the book.
As to the notation regarding two-handed weapons, I do believe these items have been addressed as errata. But if you go with the sword setup above, you don't need to mention the bastard sword at all.
Multiclassing: It's passable, although I much prefer the free document on the Trolls' web pages which excerpts Gary Gygax's multiclassing rules from castle Zagyg. About the only thing I really don't like about it is the Bonus "To Hit". I believe it should be averaged, not added together.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Metathiax wrote:
Its a particularly wise statement in general simply because some of us are too used to the 'agree with my way or your unworthy' attitude.
Clearly we all have stylistic differences. The fact that such can be discoursed on here without any excessive rancor is quite a novelty to those of us who have had less than pleasant message fora experiences. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
Quote:
Its a particularly wise statement in general simply because some of us are too used to the 'agree with my way or your unworthy' attitude.
Clearly we all have stylistic differences. The fact that such can be discoursed on here without any excessive rancor is quite a novelty to those of us who have had less than pleasant message fora experiences. ^_^
So very true. I might add that the members of these boards are exceptionally courteous. It's refreshing to see that the (very often constructive) discussions held here remain civilized even when the participants totally disagree on a given topic.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8
Traveller wrote:
Equipment: You speak a great deal regarding statistical redundancy. However the differences between the different pieces of equipment you mention are all in terms of historical flavor rather than hard numbers. For example, your barbarians may want to wear cuir boille, but would you see a Roman legionaire wearing cuir boille? He'd be wearing the Roman ensemble (lorica segmentata), which while having the same statistics, looks VERY different. An even better example would be the same cuir boille and a Greek linen cuirass, which is nothing more than many layers of linen glued together. Both would have the same armor class, and probably be around the same weight, yet once again, very different.
Limiting the armour in this manner I don't believe is a good idea.
Having overlapping armours in the book would only be justified by making reference to them and explaining where they come from and why they are there, since there isn't that in the book it is redundant, not everyone knows the differences spot on and even though i gamed for a good while now I do not know the differences at all times.
That is one of things the Trolls could have made better in the book, adding the descriptions instead of making an intriguingly interesting table without any other reference.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
I don't believe it is necessary to provide full descriptions, origin, etc for the weaponry and armor that was presented and assigned game values. I would prefer book space spent elsewhere since I can look up those references some other way if I needed to (which I used to do in the olden days).
If we were talking about some invented equipment (such as the Vardatch used in the Midnight campaign setting), then I would expect it to be explained within the game material.
If we were talking about some invented equipment (such as the Vardatch used in the Midnight campaign setting), then I would expect it to be explained within the game material.
Nifelhein wrote:
Having overlapping armours in the book would only be justified by making reference to them and explaining where they come from and why they are there, since there isn't that in the book it is redundant, not everyone knows the differences spot on and even though i gamed for a good while now I do not know the differences at all times.
That is one of things the Trolls could have made better in the book, adding the descriptions instead of making an intriguingly interesting table without any other reference.
While I do agree that the armors could have been explained, if there was any space in the book to do so (there wasn't), I do not buy into the redundancy argument. It's quite plain that a Roman ensemble and cuir boille are two totally different things. No one is going to wear cuir boille if they envision themselves as a Roman centurion, because cuir boille is nothing more than leather boiled in oil until it is rigid, and is rather primitive appearing versus a Roman centurion's armor.
As to not knowing the different types of armors, ignorance is not a valid excuse. I highly recommend The Compendium of Weapons, Armor, and Castles from Palladium as an essential resource for any role playing game.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.
Traveller wrote:
As to not knowing the different types of armors, ignorance is not a valid excuse. I highly recommend The Compendium of Weapons, Armor, and Castles from Palladium as an essential resource for any role playing game.
Depends on how much time you have to do research ... or what style of game you want.
For guys who want to take C&C and do a Roman mythology/sentorial campaign, there's no excuse. Of course I know guys who spend over $500 to buy two period armies, spend weeks painting them and terrian just to referee something in their favorite time period. Then again a few of these guys might find C&C lacking in "realism."
For me, if I'm using something as "rules-light" as C&C, I'd rather just have some armor bonuses and a listing of what type of armors fit the bill in that range. In essence, the only real differences will come down to weights, which can be included with the armor description.
Really, i do not mind having the armours in the table, i find the lack of info on them is bothersome, I could make do with a web supplement with just that, or even a single paragraph explaining their presence and why keeping the overlapping armours was important (historical, regional or whatever reason there was).
Not all people know what those armours are and most will be too lazy to look for info on them, even if they do thousands of useless stuff on the web.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
Not all people know what those armours are and most will be too lazy to look for info on them, even if they do thousands of useless stuff on the web.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.
-
irda ranger
- Red Cap
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:00 am
I'm of the opinion that if you're going to include an type of armor in a rulebook, you should have at least a sentence or two explaining what the armor is and how it differs from the other armors in the same AC & weight catetgories. There doesn't even have to be a "rules" difference. The weapons and armor table in the C&C book is the only real let down for me. Two many questions unanswered.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia