My House Rules and some help wanted.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

I've had some time to think it over, and I've come to a few things I am going to add, alter or remove.

Now bear in mind my conceits and likes will be affecting this, but this is what I was thinking of doing in my games.

First off, the first class in the book, the Fighter.

Added: Level 1, gains Warrior's Resolve, Combat Marauder that applies against ALL foes.

Level 3, gains the Barbarian's Combat Sense as listed.

Not sure what to do with Combat Dominance, other than maybe using it to represent a Cleave option, while the other combat classes can try it with Siege, the Fighter is the only one to add his Level to his check.

A Fighter fights, it's what he does, and I figure this will help when the Party Mage is down, and the party is fighting skeletons or other undead. I've had too many TPKs when one or more of the casters go down as numbers win out. Realistic I'm sure, but I'm running/playing a fantasy game here, not reenacting The Battle at Crecy.

Ranger, no change, although I will allow bow based Siege tricks to be 'in class', as well as maybe two weapon techniques as well.

Rogue, no change, despite my opinion that this class gets some the best breaks in the game ever.

Assassin, same as the Rogue.

Barbarian, I'm thinking of allowing Primal Fury to scale with level. At least the Damage bonus for combat. It's already limited to melee, so I don't think it's too over the top.

Monk, I don't like this class. Never did. So I'll tend not to change nor ever use it.

Wizard, Illusionist, Cleric and Druid, these will need to be addressed some how because I NEVER liked the Fire and Forget system, magic should be wondrous, spectacular and frightening. It should ALWAYS work for the caster (And I'm not saying it always works on the castee. Various abilities counter it, I know, but the mage ALWAYS gets his spell off.)

Knight, this one is trick. He's a fighter, so he should technically get the Warrior's Resolve in some fashion... I think it'll apply to Humanoids only, including Humans, Elves, Dwarves and the 'evil' ones as well. BUT it doesn't stack with Horsemanship.

Paladin, this one is easy, give him Holy Insight, a damage bonus a la Combat Marauder, but only working against Demons and Undead. Sometimes other Evil creatures, maybe... But other than that, no change.

Bard, Hit Die drops to a D8. Now I understand he needs to be tougher because he's no longer got the support magic some of the previous versions, but at the same time NONE of his skills allow him to be in the middle of combat. One cannot orate, nor sing very well when swinging a weapon. So, he's going to be in the back, and protected by his buddies, thus having a d10 is a waste.

All of this is IMO.

Here's the help request:

I am thinking of adding strength minimums to certain weapons, as like I pointed out Longswords are not as good as Bastard swords except in price, and can still be used with a shield, making it a superior choice. Also other weapons like the Falchion (Which was a two hander) has similar issues.

Good idea? Bad?

I'm also thinking of doing the 1.5x strength thing for two handed weapons and two weapon fighting. To give an incentive over just sword and board.

Yes/No?

Also, I was thinking of giving a scaling defense bonus in place of AC, and make armour a damage reduction (As because I have worn plate and chain, that's what it does. It's not an all or nothing deal, AC has always been too abstract for my little mind.) However, I could take it directly from Iron Heroes, but the BtH scaling is different and I'm not sure if it'll make or break the system.

Lastly, Magic. I want it skill based, and with no limit to casting save escalating difficulties the moment you pass your safe 'Daily Spells' limit. To use a DnD 3.x-ism, in a 3rd party source book, there was a system that redid magic into a similar system that I more or less lifted, but changed a few things.

Here are the basics:

[quote]Code:


Now the issue is that C&C has no 'skills' which makes adapting this difficult for me.

Help?

[moriarty777]

Hmm... I think the fighter might be getting a bit much. I do see where you're getting at though but I think the Combat Marauder ability as you intend to use it is why it irks me a bit.

I find one of the most appealing aspects of the Ranger is the combat marauder ability. Sure, a ranger has got a bunch of skills (most which work best in a wilderness setting) not to mention Favored Enemy, but that last one I mentioned I believe is only gotten at 6th level. The ranger is also limited in armor and has an EPP progression higher than that of the fighter.

But... I realize you were asking mainly about some of the other stuff. What I decided to do with the Bastard Sword (specifically) was have it used one handed or two handed but have it as 2d4 while one handed and 1d10 while two handed. The reasoning is that the Bastard Sword is not much longer in the blade than a longsword and has a 'half-a-hand' longer grip to accommodate two-handed use if one chose to. A strength requirement in order to use it one-handed (without penalty) may be a good way to go. It's balance was slightly different than a longsword so it's not unreasonable to tag one on considering it was probably a tad more difficult to wield one handed. I felt that, considering it's many similarities, one-handed use of the bastard sword shouldn't outshine the longsword. By giving it 2d4 for one-handed use, I'm still trying to recognize the fact that it *isn't* just another longsword.

In terms of two-handed weapon use how bout a +1 bonus to damage instead of 'x1.5'. Seeing that one typically rounds fractions down in the game, someone with less than a 15 Strength wouldn't see any benefits to the multiplier. It would take someone with an 18 strength to see a greater benefit to damage that a mulitplier would impart than a +1 would overall. That is assuming you're using the ability mods as outlined in C&C...

Damage reduction is a great idea, and my only suggestion would be to drop the AC values of armor slightly to try and balance things out. Something like 1 / 2 / 3 Damage Reduction for Light / Medium / Heavy armor and reduce the AC values by the same amounts... or go with a 0 / 1/ 2 breakup. This is just off the top of my head without looking at 'specific' armor values. Of course, you'd have to determine what's light, medium, of heavy -- but we're talking theory here right?
Hope some of these suggestions prove beneficial. Overall, I'd say your changes look pretty good.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Treebore]

You can have skills in C&C. You can lift the skill system straight from 3E and run it exactly the same way, except based on SIEGE TN's, which would all be base 12.

Here is an excerpt from my house rules about feats and sklls:

Game Play:

Something I call "Feat like Actions".

In reality this is when you want to attempt something the base rules don't cover. Such as many feats seen in the 3E D&D rules set.

Typically you declare you want to attempt to perform an "extra" kind of action. Such as attempt an extra normal attack, or your opponent goes down and you want to try and attack the target to your left the same round (called a Cleave in 3E). Then I tell you the TN, which is typically TN 12+ the HD of the creature against whom you are attacking. You roll the d20 and try to beat the TN, adjusting with your class level only. No magic bonuses or stat bonuses help you. Pure class level only.

If you succeed, you get to make an extra attack roll, if you fail your turn is over.

Sometimes you might convince me to allow you more than one such roll in a given round. Give me good reasoning that I can agree with, and I am likely to say yes.

Typicaly, if you pull off an extra attack roll, and that attack takes down your opponent I will likely let you attempt the cleave like action against the next enemy, if its HD are the same as or lower than the opponent you just defeated.

Remember, you roll to see if you can even make the attempt. If that roll succeeds, then you get to roll again to see if you actually pull it off.

Yes, I intentionally make it require so much extra rolling. This is to discourage players from using it ALL the time. I want to see it used in tough fights. Fights where you need that something "extra" to go your way to win the day. If your worried about you and the party surviving the fight, start requesting such rolls.

If the fight seems to be going your way, don't request the rolls, it slows things down for no good reason other than "just because".

Skills:

If it makes sense for your character to have such a skill, and you write up a character background giving details as to why they have it, then your character has the skill.

Perhaps the best way for you to know what skills you have is to use the 3E skills lists. Look at the class that most closely matches your characters class (very easy in most cases). Whatever is listed for that class you have as a skill. The only limits I care about is in Knowledge, Craft, and Profession. You can have a skill in each of these categories. Just one. You can have an additional skill in each of these categories for each bonus you have to your INT.

It only works this way at character creation. In play you can spend down time learning skills instead of increasing stats, with very similiar rules.

Called Shots:

I do not like to use called shots. So I won't. Unless you do. Then it will become a free for all. It is likely your PC will end up dead.

Luck points:

I give you luck points to use to achieve a given goal. Say your currently heading to clear out a steading of hill giants. Your pool of luck points is refreshed for working towards this goal. So any time you use a luck point until you successfully clear out and achieve the goal, your luck points do not refresh.

How many luck points do you have? 1+ your Character level.

What can you use them for? To re-roll any roll you make for YOUR character. One time per roll, only. IF, you fail a save versus a spell that kills you, you can permanently burn a luck point to not die. Some fluke of luck puts you at deaths door instead. You can do the same when an attack does enough to kill you. Burn a luck point to reduce the damage by enough to put you at deaths door instead.

Otherwise you die, and if your party lives reincarnation or being raised from the dead may allow you to live once again.

Going negative HP:

I do not do the -10 HP thing, unless your CON SUCKS!! If your CON is higher than 10, that is how negative you can go without dying. If you have a CON modifier, you add that to your CON score. So, for example, if you have an 18 CON (+3 modifier), you can go -21 without dying (18+3). If your CON is lower than 10, then I'm nice and 10 is your default, minus your negative CON modifier only. So if your Con is 8, you subtract the (-1) from 10, so you are at deaths door at -9, rather than (-7).

If CON is your Prime, you automatically stabilize and stop losing HP when you go negative.

Diplomacy, bartering, negotiating, intimidating, etc... You will have to roleplay, not just roll. I will still make a roll, but I will adjust the TN by how good (or bad) your role play is. If your new to playing RPG's I will cut you some slack. Plus if you are new and impress me I'll give you an even better modifier."

Those are my house rules that directly efect gameplay. I have also done some class alterations on the Paladin, Thief, and Druid.

I can't see any reason to disagree with anything else your wanting to do.

I don't understand how with have to make a Spellcaster check to succeed in getting a spell off counters your desire for spells to always work, unless failure just mean the backlash damage only, and the spell still goes off.

Still, I know many battles where such backlash damage would have killed my mage.

So that is the only thing I question. I think you will find giving the fighter combat marauder is too powerful. I am looking at doing something similiar but only at +1 to damage/3 levels. Which I think you probably read in the other thread.

[angelius]

I tried DR and it sounds great on paper but is a pain to implement. I know I tried it for about 2 sessions.

- Mostly due to the low damage potential of monsters in C&C, makes battles longer on average.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[Nagisawa Takumi]

moriarty777 wrote:
Hmm... I think the fighter might be getting a bit much. I do see where you're getting at though but I think the Combat Marauder ability as you intend to use it is why it irks me a bit.

I find one of the most appealing aspects of the Ranger is the combat marauder ability. Sure, a ranger has got a bunch of skills (most which work best in a wilderness setting) not to mention Favored Enemy, but that last one I mentioned I believe is only gotten at 6th level. The ranger is also limited in armor and has an EPP progression higher than that of the fighter.

I agree the Combat Marauder is appealing. It's TOO appealing. Most of my players looked at me when I showed them the book and one said, and I quote, "And so why play a Fighter? I'd rather hit hard with a guaranteed bonus to damage than hoping to hit twice and having to role two dice."

In fact the consensus was at least one Wizard, a healer type, an Assassin (For the multiplier, but the guy was argued into a Rogue) and a Ranger. Because most of the bad guys are going to be humanoids, while the REALLY big things, well that's what magic is for. Also, Undead is the Cleric's purview. The Fighter was looked at and ignored as useless. One of them lamented that 'once again, the fighter gets the shaft'.

And you're almost right. The Ranger's XP progression is worse than the Fighter's until level eight, then it changes and the Fighter gets the longer progression. Which then stretches into infinity.

moriarty777 wrote:
But... I realize you were asking mainly about some of the other stuff. What I decided to do with the Bastard Sword (specifically) was have it used one handed or two handed but have it as 2d4 while one handed and 1d10 while two handed. The reasoning is that the Bastard Sword is not much longer in the blade than a longsword and has a 'half-a-hand' longer grip to accommodate two-handed use if one chose to. A strength requirement in order to use it one-handed (without penalty) may be a good way to go. It's balance was slightly different than a longsword so it's not unreasonable to tag one on considering it was probably a tad more difficult to wield one handed. I felt that, considering it's many similarities, one-handed use of the bastard sword shouldn't outshine the longsword. By giving it 2d4 for one-handed use, I'm still trying to recognize the fact that it *isn't* just another longsword.

I'm not sure I want to add yet another die type to a weapon. AD&D 2e did that and it was clunky. Also the average sword was about 36-39 inches, while what we call a Bastard sword (Which was often called a long sword) was about 40-48 inches in length from tip to pommel.

moriarty777 wrote:
In terms of two-handed weapon use how bout a +1 bonus to damage instead of 'x1.5'. Seeing that one typically rounds fractions down in the game, someone with less than a 15 Strength wouldn't see any benefits to the multiplier. It would take someone with an 18 strength to see a greater benefit to damage that a mulitplier would impart than a +1 would overall. That is assuming you're using the ability mods as outlined in C&C...

I am using the basic mods in C&C, and I thought about the +1, but at the same time, two weapon combat gets penalized that way.

moriarty777 wrote:
Damage reduction is a great idea, and my only suggestion would be to drop the AC values of armor slightly to try and balance things out. Something like 1 / 2 / 3 Damage Reduction for Light / Medium / Heavy armor and reduce the AC values by the same amounts... or go with a 0 / 1/ 2 breakup. This is just off the top of my head without looking at 'specific' armor values. Of course, you'd have to determine what's light, medium, of heavy -- but we're talking theory here right?
Hope some of these suggestions prove beneficial. Overall, I'd say your changes look pretty good.

Moriarty the Red

I like the idea on lowering the armour/AC points, they do seem a tad high. Although I don't have Monsters and Treasures, and with the state my finances are right now, I doubt I'll ever be able to pick it up, however I have my 3.x books, so that should do me quite fine.

One last thing:

What does the Monster stat blocks look like for C&C? I need something to work off of when translating my books.

[Gnostic Gnoll]

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
What does the Monster stat blocks look like for C&C? I need something to work off of when translating my books.

BIG SCARY MONSTER

NO. ENCOUNTERED: 1

SIZE: Large

HD: 8 (d10)

MOVE: 200 ft., 1200 ft. (fly)

AC: 200

ATTACKS: Head-gnaw (12d12)

SPECIAL: Really Big, Really Scary

SAVES: P + M

INT: Smart enough to eat you

ALIGNMENT: Bad Nasty Evil

TYPE: Magical Beast

TREASURE: 4

XP: 1,000,000 + 3

Big, scary monsters tend to haunt dreams. You keep running and running, but you can't get away. Eventually they catch you, and gnaw on your head and you wake up. Sometimes you don't, and guess what? Then you're dead!
Combat: The big scary monster chases you until you can't run any more, and gnaws on your head. Simple, effective, and deadly.
Really Big: Once per round, the big scary monster can be really big, dealing 12d12 damage to all creatures around it in a 20 ft.-radius who are not quite so big.
Really Scary: People around the big scary monster must make Charisma saving throws each round or run away, screaming, "AAAH! IT'S SO SCARY!"

-----

+ SAVES represent which stats are considered prime saves. It's Physical (P), Mental (M), Both (P+M) or None (N).

+ INTELLIGENCE is expressed by a word like in older AD&D.

+ TYPE is like 3rd Edition (not 3.5), without all the inherent benefits and qualifiers.

+ TREASURE corresponds to a number in the treasure tables.

+ XP is a static number plus a certain number per hit point of the monster.

Hope this helps!

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
BIG SCARY MONSTER

NO. ENCOUNTERED: 1

SIZE: Large

HD: 8 (d10)

MOVE: 200 ft., 1200 ft. (fly)

AC: 200

ATTACKS: Head-gnaw (12d12)

SPECIAL: Really Big, Really Scary

SAVES: P + M

INT: Smart enough to eat you

ALIGNMENT: Bad Nasty Evil

TYPE: Magical Beast

TREASURE: 4

XP: 1,000,000 + 3

Big, scary monsters tend to haunt dreams. You keep running and running, but you can't get away. Eventually they catch you, and gnaw on your head and you wake up. Sometimes you don't, and guess what? Then you're dead!
Combat: The big scary monster chases you until you can't run any more, and gnaws on your head. Simple, effective, and deadly.
Really Big: Once per round, the big scary monster can be really big, dealing 12d12 damage to all creatures around it in a 20 ft.-radius who are not quite so big.
Really Scary: People around the big scary monster must make Charisma saving throws each round or run away, screaming, "AAAH! IT'S SO SCARY!"

-----

+ SAVES represent which stats are considered prime saves. It's Physical (P), Mental (M), Both (P+M) or None (N).

+ INTELLIGENCE is expressed by a word like in older AD&D.

+ TYPE is like 3rd Edition (not 3.5), without all the inherent benefits and qualifiers.

+ TREASURE corresponds to a number in the treasure tables.

+ XP is a static number plus a certain number per hit point of the monster.

Hope this helps!

PERFECT! Sankyu!

[Lurker]

On the big scary ou forgot the ability to pass through walls or some other ability alowing them to get ahead of you ,,,

Quote:
Also, I was thinking of giving a scaling defense bonus in place of AC, and make armour a damage reduction (As because I have worn plate and chain, that's what it does. It's not an all or nothing deal, AC has always been too abstract for my little mind.) However, I could take it directly from Iron Heroes, but the BtH scaling is different and I'm not sure if it'll make or break the system.

I like the idea of scaling defense & damage reduction, but am not smart enough to bend my brain around a good way to do it. Any hints....

Quote:
Lastly, Magic. I want it skill based, and with no limit to casting save escalating difficulties the moment you pass your safe 'Daily Spells' limit. To use a DnD 3.x-ism, in a 3rd party source book, there was a system that redid magic into a similar system that I more or less lifted, but changed a few things.

I agree on the skill based idea. I too have some ideas on a patchwork 3.x source books version. But LOTS of tinkering to do there.

Quote:
Luck points:

I give you luck points to use to achieve a given goal. Say your currently heading to clear out a steading of hill giants. Your pool of luck points is refreshed for working towards this goal. So any time you use a luck point until you successfully clear out and achieve the goal, your luck points do not refresh.

Love it
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

[irda ranger]

I also think your Fighter is too strong. I agree the one from the book needs some tweaking, but I think you went overboard. Also, "Combat Marauder" and "Combat Sense" are other classes' abilities. Let them keep them, and make up something else for the Fighter. For instance, C&C RAW does not provide for critical hits. You could let the Fighter get them (and no one else).

I'm also not sure why you feel the need to change the Bard, Knight or Paladin. I like them as is, and no one else has complained about them. Also, I think your 'vision' of the Bard is incorrect. He's not the Thief-Wizard-Juggler concept of versions past. He's a warrior-poet, with the emphasis on warrior.

There'a a great scene involving a messenger pigeon in Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai which embodies my view of the C&C Bard. If you transliterated the C&C Bard to d20 Modern, his name would be Ray Vargo.

Quote:
Sonny Valerio: "If a warrior's head were to be suddenly cut off, he should still be able to perform one more action with certainty." What the f**k does that mean?
Ray Vargo: It's poetry. The poetry of war.

Anyway ...

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
Here's the help request:

I am thinking of adding strength minimums to certain weapons, as like I pointed out Longswords are not as good as Bastard swords except in price, and can still be used with a shield, making it a superior choice. Also other weapons like the Falchion (Which was a two hander) has similar issues.

Good idea? Bad?

I'm also thinking of doing the 1.5x strength thing for two handed weapons and two weapon fighting. To give an incentive over just sword and board.

Yes/No?

Both are bad. High strength characters get a higher bonus to damage and they get better weapons? Way to nerf the 13 Str Fighter. Might as well throw in the towel and go home.

Remember, all Fighters are Strength-Prime. They have the training and conditioning that non-ST-Prime characters do not. Besides, most weapons (that are well balanced) are not that heavy. Speed is critically important, and the difference between a 3 pound sword and a 5 pound sword (while noticable, and tiring if you're not used to it) doesn't mean you can't learn to weild the latter.

I use Moriarty's rule. 1d10 is what the B-sword does when wielded two-handed. Otherwise, its a longsword. Two-handed weapons already get a bonus to damage for being bigger (they use more/bigger damage dice). One-handed weapons are not balanced for two-handed use, so there's no advantage. I would leave it all alone.

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
Also, I was thinking of giving a scaling defense bonus in place of AC, and make armour a damage reduction (As because I have worn plate and chain, that's what it does. It's not an all or nothing deal, AC has always been too abstract for my little mind.) However, I could take it directly from Iron Heroes, but the BtH scaling is different and I'm not sure if it'll make or break the system.

This is exactly what I do. I love Iron Heroes. I give a BtAC equal to BtH. Armor does DR only (I use the IH chart), and has no effect on AC.

My rules are thus: You must be aware of the attack and have the means to defend yourself to get your BtAC. For melee this means you have to have a weapon to defend yourself. To protect yourself from missiles, you need a shield. "Aware" is a somewhat vague term, subject to CK's discretion. Dex and shields still increase AC.

Fights may take longer, and a heavily armored Knight may be immune to goblin-swords. That's fine by me. That's the goblin's problem. Why do you think that Kobolds love traps and poisons? For the same reason we use traps and guns on grizzly's - they're bigger than us, and

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
Lastly, Magic. I want it skill based, and with no limit to casting save escalating difficulties the moment you pass your safe 'Daily Spells' limit. To use a DnD 3.x-ism, in a 3rd party source book, there was a system that redid magic into a similar system that I more or less lifted, but changed a few things.

Here are the basics:


Now the issue is that C&C has no 'skills' which makes adapting this difficult for me.

Help?

Disclaimer: I hate Fire & Forget too. Can't stand it. I'm totally with you. So please read the following advice in the most 'constructive' light possible.

Well, for one, Paladins, Rangers, and Bards are no longer casters. I would keep it that way too. If they want spells they should multi-class into Cleric, Druid or Illusionist (if you allow for that). It's a much cleaner solution, and for a variety of reasons, works very well in C&C as compared to D&D 3.x Partial-casters (such as Rangers) were a hack attempt to overcome the difficulties introduced to spellcasting by the D&D 3.x unified XP progression. Since C&C doesn't have a unified-XP progression, there's no need for partial casters.

Also, get the concept of "Skills" out of your head. There's the Options & Skills book from CZ, but that's different. If you want a level-based progression, just make it a SIEGE check of d20+Level. That's the "C&C way", and you'll be much happier if you can keep all the rules under one roof.

Also, there are no "Difficulty Levels". There are Challenge Levels, and they are all either 12 or 18, plus modifiers based on HD, level, stat or CK fiat. Since all spellcasters are Prime in their spellcasting stat (by definition), I would make the CL for casting a Spell 12+(2*Spell's level). This keeps the CL for the wizard's highest level spell available about constant at all levels.

Is "bashing damage" the same as non-lethal or subdual damage? Good mechanic.

I would allow the first role at no penalty. Scholbreck's first CL would be d20+level vs. (12+(3*2)) = 18, and his second Fireball would be CL 20.

I have a question for you: how does a spellcaster choose which spells he can cast? If there is no memorization, can he cast any spell from his spellbook at any time? That's very, very powerful. I would restrict it to say that a Wizard can "prepare" a number of spells at a given level according to the spellcating chart, and he can cast them in any combination up to that number of spells per day.
Example:

Scholbreck the Wizard at level 5 can cast three level 3 spells per day under the normal system (2 for his level, 1 more for having an Intelligence of 16) however, with this one he can cast three spells with no casting check, and additional spells would require a casting check with an escalating CL (18, 20, 22, ...). He can prepare 2 third level spells (2 for his level, and no bonus for Intelligence (the bonus is for casting only, not prep). He has Fireball and Fly prepared. He is surrounded by Orcs and casts three Fireballs. He kills plenty of them, but dozens remain. He needs to escape, so he summons up the dregs of his strength, and casts Fly. Unfortunately he rolls a 2, blows his roll, suffers 5d4 bashing damage, and is knocked unconcious by the magical backlash. The Orcs eat him.[/list]
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Nelzie]

Quote:
Luck points:

I give you luck points to use to achieve a given goal. Say your currently heading to clear out a steading of hill giants. Your pool of luck points is refreshed for working towards this goal. So any time you use a luck point until you successfully clear out and achieve the goal, your luck points do not refresh.

I have considered adding something like this to my game. Only, I would call them "Plot Points" and they would require the player giving up XP to trade for a "Plot Point". There would be no limit on the number of points one could bank up, however there would be a limit to the number that can be used for any given situation and a restritction on at least one roll.

Plot Points can be used for any dice rolls, save Hit Point gains at leveling. Each Plot Point spent equals a single d6 that is added to the standard die roll result. Up to 3 Plot Points can be used at a time.

I am considering making plot points "fluid" in that they can be spent before or immediately after the result of a single Die toss as a potential "Save" or immediate rewriting of an action.

They would be most useful for PCs trying a SIEGE Engine Check that doesn't allow the adding of their level to the roll or making saving throws that the player really feels his/her character needs to make or hitting that opponent, adding damage to attacks and so on.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[irda ranger]

Luck Points:

A DM of mine has done an extensive write-up of Glory and Virtue Points:
http://www.cusick.ca-a.googlepages.com/description.html
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Nagisawa Takumi]

irda ranger wrote:
I also think your Fighter is too strong. I agree the one from the book needs some tweaking, but I think you went overboard. Also, "Combat Marauder" and "Combat Sense" are other classes' abilities. Let them keep them, and make up something else for the Fighter. For instance, C&C RAW does not provide for critical hits. You could let the Fighter get them (and no one else).

I'd rather not get in a fight with the Rogue by making his Back Attack skill pointless for the first 5 levels. I thought of it and suggested it. Floated worse than a lead balloon.

My group has discussed the idea of the flat damage bonus and they agreed.

irda ranger wrote:
Also, I think your 'vision' of the Bard is incorrect. He's not the Thief-Wizard-Juggler concept of versions past. He's a warrior-poet, with the emphasis on warrior.

His skills all deal with his mouth or his head. He sings/orates. He knows obscure lore. He's not going toe to toe with Mr. Orc, because has has to speak to use a skill, and doing so is an action. Either you attack, or you use a skill, not both. Thus he will NOT be in the thick of things IF he wants to use Exalt, Fascinate or Exhort Greatness, thereby wasting the d10.

And for the record, Clerics ALSO get into the middle of things if necessary, but he doesn't have a d10, and his attack progression is much worse.

Anyway ...

irda ranger wrote:
Both are bad. High strength characters get a higher bonus to damage and they get better weapons? Way to nerf the 13 Str Fighter. Might as well throw in the towel and go home.

Remember, all Fighters are Strength-Prime. They have the training and conditioning that non-ST-Prime characters do not. Besides, most weapons (that are well balanced) are not that heavy. Speed is critically important, and the difference between a 3 pound sword and a 5 pound sword (while noticable, and tiring if you're not used to it) doesn't mean you can't learn to weild the latter.

Have you taken a look at the weapon weights? A falchion is 16lbs. while a greatsword is 15lbs, and MUST be used two handed. The Flamberge is 12lbs! And is another two hander. The weights don't match the apparent intent. And I'm not going to start with the polearms, as half of them are one handed and they vary between 8-12lbs.

The Falchion at 16lbs. does 2d4, while a Broadsword at literally half it's weight does the EXACT SAME DAMAGE and is cheaper. So... That's a good thing?

Another topic I'm NOT going to touch are the actual weights of most of these weapons, because I don't care about realism here. (If I were, I'd be flipping out on how overly heavy they are. HOWEVER, I am not.)

irda ranger wrote:
I use Moriarty's rule. 1d10 is what the B-sword does when wielded two-handed. Otherwise, its a longsword. Two-handed weapons already get a bonus to damage for being bigger (they use more/bigger damage dice). One-handed weapons are not balanced for two-handed use, so there's no advantage. I would leave it all alone.

Hmm, this is going to be tougher than I thought. I see your point on the Primes, but at the same time the Weapon list has some goofy things on it, as I've pointed out.

irda ranger wrote:
This is exactly what I do. I love Iron Heroes. I give a BtAC equal to BtH. Armor does DR only (I use the IH chart), and has no effect on AC.

My rules are thus: You must be aware of the attack and have the means to defend yourself to get your BtAC. For melee this means you have to have a weapon to defend yourself. To protect yourself from missiles, you need a shield. "Aware" is a somewhat vague term, subject to CK's discretion. Dex and shields still increase AC.

Fights may take longer, and a heavily armored Knight may be immune to goblin-swords. That's fine by me. That's the goblin's problem. Why do you think that Kobolds love traps and poisons?

Agreed whole-heartedly.

[ChaosImp]

Hello everyone

On the topic of swords I just come across this and thought it might be interesting reading for some of you. Bad news is I couldn't copy the pictures.

enjoy

IMP

Definitions & Study Terminology

In the effort to help practitioners apply a more accurate vocabulary and formal lexicon of Historical Fencing, ARMA presents a brief list of key terms, phrases, concepts, principles, and ideas from the works of a variety of major Medieval & Renaissance masters at arms. This list is frequently updated.

Western Swordsmanship Today - Defining Historical Fencing

Medieval and Renaissance Fencing Terminology from the Historical Source Manuals

Rapier Fencing Terminology

Medieval & Renaissance Sword Forms and Companion Implements

Fundamental Sword Parts

...Man muss fleissig nachdencken

("You must study this dilgently")

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medieval & Renaissance Sword Forms and Companion Implements

In the continuing effort to bring greater learning and scholarship to the serious study and practice of European weaponry, ARMA, as the premier Internet site for Medieval and Renaissance martial arts, presents the following general definitions. This brief list is intended to aid studnets in study and dispel some of the many myths and misconceptions surrounding the subject.

Medieval Swords

Medieval swords existed in great varieties over a number of centuries. Both experimentation and specialization in design was constant. But certain common characteristics can describe the "generic" medieval sword as a long, wide, straight, double-edged blade with a simple cross-guard (or "cruciform" hilt). It might be designed for one or two-hands. The typical form was a single hand weapon used for hacking, shearing cuts and also for limited thrusting. This style developed essentially from Celtic, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and late Roman (the spatha) forms. The Viking and early Frankish forms (the "spata") are also considered to be more direct ancestors. Medieval swords can be classified (typically by hilt design) into a great many categories by curators, collectors, and military historians. However, students & re-creationists today should prefer the actual historical terms. At the time, long bladed weapons were simply referred to as "swords", or for the longer ones often a "sword of war", "war-sword" (French Espe du Guerre or Epee du Guerre), or even a "long-sword". Various languages might call them by schwert, svard, suerd, swerd, espada, esapadon, or epee. When later worn on the belt by mounted knights they might be called an Arming-sword. Arming-swords were also considered "riding-swords" (also parva ensis or epee courte). It is this single-hand form which is so closely associated with the idea of the "knightly sword" (c. 1300). The challenge of armor in the Age-of-plate, forced many blades (both single-hand and longer) to be made narrower and pointier, but also thicker and more rigid. Ffrom at least the late 1300s in England, a single-hand blade of this form was referred as a "short swerde". In 15th century Germany it was the Kurczen swert. At this same time, as a result of the increased use of thrusting techniques some blades adopted guards with knuckle-bars, finger-rings, and/or sides-rings which lead to the compound-hilt. In later Elizabethan times, older one-handed medieval type blades became known as "short-swords" while the larger variety were still referred to as "long-swords". The term "short sword" was used later by 19th century collectors to refer to any style of "shorter" one-handed swords typically from ancient times on.

The Broadsword

A term popularly misapplied as a generic synonym for medieval swords or any long, wide military blade. The now popular misnomer "broadsword" in reference to Medieval blades actually originated with collectors in the early 19th century -although many mistranslations and misinterpretations of Medieval literature during the 19th & 20th centuries have inserted the word broadsword in place of other terms. They described swords of earlier ages as being "broader" than their own contemporary thinner ones. Many 17th-19th century blades such as spadroons, cutlasses, and straight sabers are classed as broadswords as are other closed hilt military swords. The weapon known as the true broadsword is in fact a form of short cutlass. The term "broadsword" does not appear in English military texts from the 1570s - 1630s and noes not show up in inventories of sword types from the 1630's, and likely came into use sometime between 1619 and 1630. Descriptions of swords as "broad" before this time are only incidental and the word "broad" is used as an adjective in the same way "sharp" or "large" would be applied. Leading arms curators almost always list the broadsword specifically as a close-hilted military sword from the second half of the 17th century. Those cage and basket hilted blades used by cavalry starting in the 1640's were in form, "broadswords". During this time a gentleman's blade had become the slender small-sword, whereas the military used various cutting blades. Today, arms collectors, museum curators theatrical-fighters, and fantasy-gamers have made the word broadsword a common, albeit blatantly historically incorrect, term for the Medieval sword.

Long-Swords

The various kinds of long bladed Medieval swords that had handles long enough to be used in two hands were deemed long-swords (German Langenschwert/ Langes Swert or Italian spada longa). Long-swords, war-swords, or great swords are characterized by having both a long grip and a long blade. We know at the time that Medieval warriors did distinguished war-swords or great-swords ("grant espees" or "grete swerdes") from "standard" swords in general, but long-swords were really just those larger versions of typical one-handed swords, except with stouter blades. They were "longer swords", as opposed to single-hand swords, or just "swords". They could be used on foot or mounted and sometimes even with a shield. The term war-sword from the 1300's referred to larger swords that were carried in battle. They were usually kept on the saddle as opposed to worn on the belt. A 15th century Burgundian manual refers to both "great and small swords". As a convenient classification, long-swords include great-swords, bastard-swords, and estocs. In the 1200s in England blunt swords for non-lethal tournaments were sometimes known as "arms of courtesy". There is a reference to an English tournament of 1507 in which among the events contestants are challenged to "8 strookes with Swords rebated". Wooden training weapons were sometimes called wasters in the 1200's or batons in the 1300's and 1400's. Knightly combat with blunt or "foyled" weapons for pleasure was known as plaisance, combat to the death was luutrance.

Great-Swords

Those blades long and weighty enough to demand a double grip are great-swords. They are infantry swords which cannot be used in a single-hand. Originally the term "great-sword" (gret sord, grete swerde, or grant espe), only meant a war-sword (long-sword), but it has now more or less come to mean a sub-class of those larger long-swords/war-swords that are still not true two-handers. They were even known as Grete Swerdes of Warre or Grans Espees de Guerre. Although they are "two hand" swords, great-swords not are the specialized weapons of later two-handed swords. They are the swords that are antecedents to the even larger Renaissance versions. Great-swords are also the weapons often depicted in various German sword manuals. A Medieval great-sword might also be called a "twahandswerds" or "too honde swerd". Whereas other long-swords could be used on horseback and some even with shields, great swords however were infantry weapons only. Their blades might be flat and wide or later on, more narrow and hexagonal or diamond shaped. These larger swords capable of facing heavier weapons such as pole-arms and larger axes were devastating against lighter armors. Long, two-handed swords with narrower, flat hexagonal blades and thinner tips (such as the Italian "spadone") were a response to plate-armor. Against plate armor such rigid, narrow, and sharply pointed swords are not used in the same chop and cleave manner as with flatter, wider long-swords and great swords. Instead, they are handled with tighter movements that emphasize their thrusting points and allow for greater use of the hilt. Those of the earlier parallel-edged shape are known more as war-swords, while later the thicker, tapering, sharply pointed form were more often called bastard-swords. One type of long German sword, the "Rhenish Langenschwert", from the Rhenish city of Cologne, had a blade of some 4 feet and an enormous grip of some 14 to 16 inches long, not including the pommel.

Bastard Swords

In the early 1400's (as early as 1418) a form of long-sword often with specially shaped grips for one or two hands, became known as an Espe Bastarde or "bastard sword". The term may derive not form the blade length, but because bastard-swords typically had longer handles with special "half-grips" which could be used by either one or both hands. In this sense they were neither a one-handed sword nor a true great-sword/two-handed sword, and thus not a member of either "family" of sword. Evidence shows the their blade were typically tapered. Since newer types of shorter swords were coming into use, the term "bastard-sword" came to distinguish this form of long-sword. Bastard-swords typically had longer handles with special "half-grips" which could be used by either one or both hands. These handles have recognizable "waist" and "bottle" shapes (such grips were later used on the Renaissance two-handed sword). The unique bastard-sword half-grip was a versatile and practical innovation. Although, once again classification is not clear since the term "bastard-sword" appears to have not been entirely exclusive to those swords with so-called "hand-and-a-half" handles as older styles of long-sword were still in limited use. Bastard-swords varied and they might have either a flat blade or narrow hexagonal one for fighting plate-armor. Some were intended more for cutting while others were better for thrusting. Bastard swords continued to be used by knights and men-at-arms into the 1500's. Their hilt style leads toward the shorter cut & thrust sword forms of the Renaissance. Strangely, in the early Renaissance the term bastard-sword was also sometimes used to refer to single-hand arming-swords with compound-hilts. A form of German arming sword with a bastard-style compound hilt was called a "Reitschwert" ("cavalry sword") or a "Degen" ("knight's sword"). Although these might have been forms of single-hand estoc.

The familiar modern term "hand-and-a-half" was more or less coined to describe bastards swords specifically.The term "hand-and-a-half sword" is often used in reference to long-swords is not historical and is sometimes misapplied to other swords (although during the late 1500's, long after such blades fell out of favor, some German forms of this phrase are believed to have been used). While there is no evidence of the term hand-and-a-half having been used during the Middle Ages, either in English or other languages, it does appear in the 16th century. In his 1904 bibliography of Spanish texts, D. Enrique de Leguina gives a 1564 reference to una espada estoque de mano y media, and a 1594 reference to una espada de mano y media. In the Ragionamento, the unpublished appendix to his 1580, Traite d Escrime (Fencing Treatise), Giovanni Antonio Lovino describes one sword as una spada di una mano et mana et meza (literally hand and a half sword) which he distinguishes from the much larger spada da due mani or two-handed sword (the immense Renaissance weapon). The term spadone was used by Fiore Dei Liberi in 1410 to refer to a tapering long-sword and Camillo Agrippa in 1550 called the spadone a war sword. Later it was defined by John Florio in his 1598 Italian-English dictionary as a long or two-hand sword.

Two-handed Swords

The term "two-hander" or "two-handed sword" (espe a deure mains or spada da due mani) was in use as early as 1400 and is really a classification of sword applied both to Medieval great-swords as well Renaissance swords (the true two-handed swords). Such weapons saw more use in the later Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Technically, true two-handed swords (epee's a deux main) were actually Renaissance, not Medieval weapons. They are really those specialized forms of the later 1500-1600's, such as the Swiss/German Dopplehander ("double-hander") or Bidenhander ("both-hander") or Zweihander / Zweyhander are relatively modern not historical terms. English ones were sometimes referred to as "slaughterswords" after the German Schlachterschwerter ("battle swords"). These weapons were used primarily for fighting against pike-squares where they would hack paths through lobbing the tips off the poles. In Germany, England, and elsewhere schools also taught their use for single-combat. In True two-handed swords have compound-hilts with side-rings and enlarged cross-guards of up to 12 inches. Most have small, pointed lugs or flanges protruding from their blades 4-8 inches below their guard. These parrierhaken or "parrying hooks" act almost as a secondary guard for the ricasso to prevent other weapons from sliding down into the hands. They make up for the weapon's slowness on the defence and can allow another blade to be momentarily trapped or bound up. They can also be used to strike with. The most well-known of "twa handit swordis" is the Scottish Claymore (Gaelic for "claidheamh-more" or great-sword) which developed out of earlier Scottish great-swords with which they are often compared. They were used by the Scottish Highlanders against the English in the 1500's. Another sword of the same name is the later Scots basket-hilt broadsword (a relative of the Renaissance Slavic-Italian schiavona) whose hilt completely enclosed the hand in a cage-like guard. Both swords have come to be known by the same name since the late 1700's. Certain wave or flame-bladed two-handed swords have come to be known by collectors as flamberges, although this is inaccurate. Such swords developed in the early-to-mid 1500's and are more appropriately known as flammards or flambards (the German Flammenschwert). The flamberge was also a term later applied to certain types of rapiers. The wave-blade form is visually striking but really no more effective in its cutting than a straight one. There were also huge two-handed blades known as "bearing-swords" or "parade-swords" (Paratschwert), weighing up to 12 or even 15 pounds and which were intended only for carrying in ceremonial processions and parades. In the 1500s there were also a few rare single-edged two-handers such as the Swiss-German Grosse Messer or later sometimes called a Zwiehand sabel.

The Estoc

A form of long, rigid, pointed, triangular or square bladed and virtually edgeless sword designed for thrusting into plate-armor was the estoc. Called a stocco in Italian, estoque in Spanish, a tuck in English, Panzerstecher or Dreiecker in German, and a kanzer in Eastern Europe. They were used with two hands and similar to great-swords (but were unrelated to later rapiers). They were used in two hands with the second hand often gripping the blade. Some were sharpened only near the point and others might have one or two large round hand guards. Rapiers are sometimes mistakenly referred to as tucks, and there is evidence that during the Renaissance some rapiers may have been referred to as such by the English. In French "estoc" itself means to thrust.

The Claymore

Identified with the Scot's symbol of the warrior, the term "Claymore" is Gaelic for "claidheamh-more" (great sword). This two-handed broadsword was used by the Scottish Highlanders against the English in the 16th century and is often confused with a Basket-hilt "broadsword" (a relative of the Italian schiavona) whose hilt completely enclosed the hand in a cage- like guard. Both swords have come to be known by the same name since the late 1700's.

The Falchion

A rarer form of sword that was little more than a meat cleaver, possibly even a simple kitchen and barnyard tool adopted for war. Indeed, it may come from a French word for a sickle, "fauchon". It can be seen in Medieval art being used against lighter armors by infidels as well as footman and even knights. The weapon is entirely European and not derived from eastern sources. More common in the Renaissance, it was considered a weapon to be proficient with in addition to the sword. The falchion is similar to the German Dusack (or Dusagge), and has been dubiously suggested as possibly related to the Dark Age long knife, "seax" (scramanseax), and even later curved blades such as sabres (or sabels). Similar to an Arabian "scimitar", the falchion's wide, heavy blade weighted more towards the point could deliver tremendous blows. Several varieties were known, most all with single edges and rounded points. A later Italian falchion with a slender sabre-like blade was called a "storta" or a "malchus". Another similar weapon in German was the saber or machete-like Messer. Large two-hand versions, called Grosse Messers, with straight or curved single-edged blades were known by 1500.

Renaissance Swords

Cut & Thrust Swords

The term "cut and thrust sword" is a general one which can be applied to a whole range of blade forms (field swords, side swords, arming swords). However, the Renaissance military sword is generally characterized by a swept or compound-hilt, a narrow cut-and-thrust blade with stronger cross-section, and tapering tip. A direct descendant of the medieval knightly sword, the cut and thrust sword was used by lightly armed footmen as well as civilians in the 16th and 17th centuries. During this time they were employed against a range of armored and unarmored opponents. They were popular for sword & buckler and sword & dagger fighting. They utilized an innovative one-handed grip fingering the ricasso (a dull portion of blade just above the guard). Renaissance cut & thrust swords should not be referred to as "early Renaissance swords" since they were actually in use throughout the period. Military and civilian forms of them existed before, during and after the development of the rapier. For example, similar blades (with and without ricassos and compound hilts) saw use in the English Civil War and even later. They should also not be referred to as "sword-rapiers" or "early rapiers", although in a sense, some of them were. Renaissance cut & thrust swords were their own distinct sword type. Although sometimes considered a "transition" form, this is inaccurate as they were both the ancestor and contemporary of the rapier for which they are often misidentified. Some forms of cage & basket hilts blades are occasionally referred to as "riding swords" by collectors and curators, and sometimes even as "broadswords". However, the 16th century Italians did sometimes distinguish between spada da cavallo, or a blade for horsemen, spada da fante, an infantry sword for foot-soldiers, and later spada da lato (side sword), a civilian cut-and-thrust sword, a form of which only later became the rapier (in modern times sometimes called a stricia).

The Back-Sword

The back-sword or Backe swerd was a less-common form of single-edged renaissance military cut & thrust blade with a compound-hilt (side-rings or anneus, finger-rings, knuckle-bar, etc.). Most popular in England with a buckler or target from at least the 1520s, it was long enough for both mounted and infantry and favored because its single-edge designed allowed for a superior cutting blow. It was also popular in Germany. Back-swords may be related to later single-edged European blade forms and came in a variety of hilts and lengths. They also include later Hangers and hunting swords, as well as Mortuary-hilt and Walloon-hilt broadswords.

The Schiavona

A form of agile Renaissance cut & thrust sword with a decorative cage-hilt and distinctive "cat-head" pommel. So named for the Schiavoni or Venetian Doges Slavonic mercenaries and guards of the 1500s who favored the weapon. They are usually single edged back-swords but may also be wide or narrow double edged blades. Some have ricasso for a fingering grip while others have thumb-rings. The Schiavona is often considered the antecedent to other cage hilt swords such as the Scottish basket-hilted "broadsword".

The Katzbalger

A form of one-handed sword with a shorter blade and "S" shaped guard. It was favored by pikemen and the Swiss/German Landesknetchs for fighting close in amidst pike-squares. Many were originally longer, wider blades which were cut down and remounted. The name likely derives from a word associated with cat- gut or cat-skin. THeir lengths varied from short to mid-sized.

The Rapier

Popular in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the rapier was a dueling weapon whose form was developed from cut and thrust swords. Its use was more brutal and forceful than the light sport fencing that we know of today. Originally, starting about 1470, any civilian sword was often referred to as simply a "rapier", but it quickly took on the meaning of a slender, civilian thrusting sword. There is also an English document from the 1500's that uses the term "rapier-sword" for advising courtiers how to be armed, indicating the understanding that there were new slender blades coming into civilian use. Eventually developing into an edgeless, ideal thrusting weapon, the quick, innovative rapier superseded the military cut & thrust sword for personal duel and urban self-defense. Being capable of making only limited lacerations, earlier varieties of rapier are still often confused with the cut and thrust swords which gave gestation to their method. As a civilian weapon of urban self-defense, a true rapier was a tip-based thrusting sword that used stabbing and piercing, not slashing and cleaving. True rapier blades ranged from early flatter triangular blades to thicker, narrow hexagonal ones. Rapier hilts range from swept styles, to later dishes and cups. It had no true cutting edge such as with military swords for war.

The "Sword Rapier"

The so-called "sword-rapier" is actually a term invented by collectors in the last century and is not a historical one. Increasingly, many Renaissance cut & thrust swords are mistakenly labeled as such. With the ascendancy of rapiers over swords in personal duel and private quarrel, there were many attempts to combine the slashing and cleaving potential of a traditional military sword with the quick, agile thrust of a dueling rapier. This lead to a great deal of experimental blade forms, many of which were dismal failures with neither the cutting power of wider swords, nor the speed and lightness of true rapiers. Made to do both, they typically did neither very well and few examples of these blades forms survive. They do appear to have been popular with high-ranking military officers during the mid 17th century (who of course, would be among those least likely to engage in battlefield hand-to- hand combat). They are also sometimes mistakenly called "cutting rapiers" or assumed to be some form of "transition" blade between swords and rapiers.

The Flamberge

An unusual waved-bladed rapier popular with officers and upper classes during the 1600s. It was considered to look both fashionable and deadly as well as erroneously believed to inflict a more deadly wound. When parrying with the flamberge, the opponent's sword was slowed slightly as it passed along the length. It also created a disconcerting vibration in the other blade. The term flamberge was also used later to describe a dish-hilted rapier with a normal straight blade. Certain wave or flame-bladed two-handed swords have also come to be known by collectors as "flamberges", although this is inaccurate. Such swords are more appropriately known as "flammards" or "flambards".

The Small Sword

Sometimes known as a "court-sword", a "walking-sword", or "town-sword", small-swords developed in the late Renaissance as a personal dueling tool and weapon of self-defense. Most popular in the 1700's it is sometimes confused with the rapier. It consisted almost exclusively of a sharp pointed metal rod with a much smaller guard and finger-rings. Its blade was typically a hollow triangular shape and was much thicker at the hilt. Most had no edge at all, and were merely rigid, pointed, metal rods. They were popular with the upper classes especially as decorative fashion accessories, worn like jewelry. In a skilled hand the small sword was an effective and deadly instrument. Until the early 1800s it continued to be used even against older rapiers and even some cutting swords. It is the small-sword rather than the rapier which leads to the epee and foil of modern sport fencing.

Curved Blades

While it is the straight-bladed cruciform sword style that for both war and duel was perfected in Europe as no where else, curved swords were hardly unknown. Many forms were known from the ancient convex-bladed Greek kopis and Iberian falcatta, to the laengsaex curved Viking blade, as well as the short-sword/long-knife seax or scramsax. There is also the Medieval falchion and the German curved Messer, Grossmessr, and bohemian Dusask The Italians used the curved storta, the straight bladed but curved-edge braquemart and the curved badelair (baudelair, bazelair, or basilaire) as well as the short curved braquet. Finally, wide varieties of sabers, sabres, sabels, and cutlasses were used from at least the mid-1500s. Indigenous European curved sword forms such as the Czech tesak, Polish tasak, and Russian tisak were used since at least the 7th century.

Daggers

A common long dagger, "poignard" (poniard), or "pugnale" was a favored companion, carried en-suite with a sword or rapier as a backup weapon or even on its own. The dagger was lightweight, deadly, and elegant. Used primarily as a defensive weapon, dagger fighting was an art itself. Technically, a poniard was square or triangular shaped with no edge, while a dagger had a knife-like blade. Generally, daggers in the Middle Ages were employed point down, pommel up, while those in the Renaissance were used point up with the thumb placed on the hilt. Many later daggers for use with rapiers had elaborate guards and were specially designed for trapping and parrying.

Bucklers

The buckler (or Italian "rondash" or "bochiero") was a small, agile hand-shield. Used since medieval times, bucklers were round or even square, approx. 8-20" and made of metal, wood, or metal trimmed wood. A single handle (or enarme) was used to hold it in a fist grip and smack, deflect or punch at blows and thrusts. The edge could also be used to strike and block. Some had long metal spikes on the front to attack with. On some later bucklers metal hooks or bars were placed on the front to trap the point of an opponent's rapier. More popular for a method of 16th sword & buckler fighting, they declined in use during the early 17th century as they were inconvenient for urban wear and faster rapiers outmaneuvered them.

The Targe

A targe/targa (or Italian "rondella") was a small wooden shield with a leather cover and leather or metal trim. Some were also covered with metal studs or spikes. Unlike bucklers, targes were worn on the arm as with typical shields. They were also usually flat rather than convex. Though associated with the Scots, the word "targe" actually comes from small "targets" placed on archery practice dummies. Some forms of medium sized steel shields from the Renaissance are often classed as targes. In England in the 1500s & 1600s, "target" was a common term for any small shield.

Sword Parts

Hilt - The lower portion of a sword consisting of the cross-guard, handle/grip, and pommel (most Medieval swords have a straight cross or cruciform-hilt). Called the Handhabe in German. In Old French the crosspiece was called helz, the grip called poing, the pommel called pom, and the handle might be bound with metal rings called mangon.

Cross - The typically straight bar or "guard" of a Medieval sword, also called a "cross-guard". A Renaissance term for the straight or curved cross-guard was the quillons (possibly from an old French or Latin term for a type of reed). Fiore Dei Liberi in 1410 referred to it as the crucibus.Fillipo Vadi in the 1480s termed it the cross-guard or "crosses", Elza term. Called the Gehiltz or Gehultz in German. Called the Kreuz in German and Croce in Italian.

Quillions: A Renaissance term for the two cross-guards (forward and back) whether straight or curved. It is likely from an old French or Latin term for a reed. On Medieval swords the cross guard may be called simply the "cross", or just the "guard".

Pommel: Latin for "little apple", the counter-weight which secures the hilt to the blade and allows the hand either rest on it or grip it.

Forte': A Renaissance term for the lower portion on a sword blade which has more control and strength and which does most of the parrying. Also called prime or fort.

Foible: A Renaissance term for the upper portion on a sword blade which is weaker (or "feeble") but has more agility and speed and which does most of the attacking.

Fuller - A shallow central-groove or channel on a blade which lightens it as well as improves strength and flex. Sometimes mistakenly called a "blood-run" or "blood-groove", it has nothing to do with blood flow, cutting power, or a blade sticking. A sword might have one, none, or several fullers running a portion of its length, on either one or both sides. Narrow deep fullers are also sometimes referred to as flukes. The opposite of a fuller is a riser, which improves rigidity.

Grip - The handle of a sword, usually made of leather, wire, bone, horn, or ivory (also, a term for the method of holding the sword).

Lower end - the tip portion of a Medieval sword

Pommel - Latin for "little apple", the counter-weight which secures the hilt to the blade and allows the hand to either rest on it or grip it. Sometimes it includes a small rivet (capstan rivet) called a pommel nut, pommel bolt, or tang nut. On some Medieval swords the pommel may be partially or fully gripped and handled.

Ricasso - The dull portion of a blade just above the hilt. It is intended for wrapping the index finger around to give greater tip control (called "fingering"). Not all sword forms had ricasso. They can be found on many Bastard-swords, most cut & thrust swords and later rapiers. Those on Two-Handed swords are sometimes called a "false-grip", and usually allow the entire second had to grip and hold on. The origin of the term is obscure.

Shoulder - The corner portion of a sword separating the blade from the tang.

Tang - The un-edged hidden portion or ("tongue") of a blade running through the handle and to which the pommel is attached. The place where the tang connects to the blade is called the "shoulder". A sword's tang is sometimes of a different temper than the blade itself. The origin of the term is obscure.

Upper end - The hilt portion of a Medieval sword

Waisted-grip - A specially shaped handle on some bastard or hand-and-a-half swords, consisting of a slightly wider middle and tapering towards the pommel.

Annellet/Finger-Ring: The small loops extending toward the blade from the quillions intended to protect a finger wrapped over the guard. They developed in the middle-ages and can be found on many styles of Late-Medieval swords. They are common on Renaissance cut & thrust swords and rapiers they and also small-swords. For some time they have been incorrectly called the "pas d`ane".

Compound-Hilt/Complex-Guard: A term used for the various forms of hilt found on Renaissance and some late-Medieval swords. They consist typically of finger-rings, side-rings or ports, a knuckle-bar, and counter-guard or back-guard. Swept-hilts, ring-hilts, cage-hilts, and some basket-hilts are forms of complex-guard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[irda ranger]

Quote:
Have you taken a look at the weapon weights?

Yes. They made me laugh. I ignore them.

Quote:
the Weapon list has some goofy things on it, as I've pointed out.

The Weapons & Armor section of the C&C PHB is hands down the weakest section. I love C&C absolutely for its rules and feel, but I have to ignore this whole section. I just use the weapons and armor section from the Iron Heroes book (ignoring the "Power" and other descriptors).

Quote:
I see your point on the Primes, but at the same time the Weapon list ...

The Primes are the core of the system. They make C&C good. The weapons list a poor add-on, and should never be allowed as a justification for nerfing a viable fighter character just because his strength is too low to wield a particular weapon (in your system). All Fighters should be able to wield all weapons. The benefits (or penalties) of a particular strength score are already accounted for in the BtH and damage modifiers. There is no reason to pile on the benefits (and penalties) further.

And I still think you're nerfing the bard for no particular reason. He's got a decent BtH and weapons and armor selection. There's no reason he can't be the first into the breach, stepping back from the fray (only for a moment) to encourage his comrades as needed. Remember, the best leaders lead by example; they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. Could you really be inspired to fight by a man afraid to fight himself?

Quote:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother

Emphasis on "with." Not "for."
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Nagisawa Takumi]

irda ranger wrote:
Yes. They made me laugh. I ignore them.

I can't there are too many weapons with the same damage code but cost more.

irda ranger wrote:
The Weapons & Armor section of the C&C PHB is hands down the weakest section. I love C&C absolutely for its rules and feel, but I have to ignore this whole section. I just use the weapons and armor section from the Iron Heroes book (ignoring the "Power" and other descriptors).

I may have to do that, because as you say, as cool as all the toys are in the weapon list (Part of what sold me on the game, actually) there are some silly discrepancies.

irda ranger wrote:
The Primes are the core of the system. They make C&C good. The weapons list a poor add-on, and should never be allowed as a justification for nerfing a viable fighter character just because his strength is too low to wield a particular weapon (in your system). All Fighters should be able to wield all weapons. The benefits (or penalties) of a particular strength score are already accounted for in the BtH and damage modifiers. There is no reason to pile on the benefits (and penalties) further.

I don't want to pile anything on, but again, I may have to pare down the list considerably, otherwise...

irda ranger wrote:
And I still think you're nerfing the bard for no particular reason. He's got a decent BtH and weapons and armor selection. There's no reason he can't be the first into the breach, stepping back from the fray (only for a moment) to encourage his comrades as needed. Remember, the best leaders lead by example; they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. Could you really be inspired to fight by a man afraid to fight himself?


Emphasis on "with." Not "for."

So a D8 makes one afraid to jump into combat? Don't tell that to the Cleric player in my last 3.x campaign. He was messing things badly, with a combination of divination spells and outright mace hits. And his armour at the time was a breastplate.

[irda ranger]

Quote:
So a D8 makes one afraid to jump into combat?

No, I just don't see why you're taking the D10 HD away from the Bard with no corresponding boost elsewhere. Normally you pare down a class like that when you think it's too good as is. Do you think this Bard is too powerful? I don't think that's what you're saying. This isn't a DM seeking to balance a class, it's just a kick in the nuts.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Nagisawa Takumi]

irda ranger wrote:
No, I just don't see why you're taking the D10 HD away from the Bard with no corresponding boost elsewhere. Normally you pare down a class like that when you think it's too good as is. Do you think this Bard is too powerful? I don't think that's what you're saying. This isn't a DM seeking to balance a class, it's just a kick in the nuts.

It doesn't need it. It's already a boost that makes it better than most classes. It's got the Assassin's XP track, giving it a better progression, so why should it get only advantages? I don't see why it should get the bonus dice for when all of his abilities, not one of them, are not meant to be used when fighting a weapon.

That's my thing. I don't see why it should gain a D10 when it has a good XP progression, and all of it's skills are support ones.

[Treebore]

I look at this Bard as the singing fighter. Doesn't get to wear great armor, but it is a solid fighter type who sings while he slays.

I have been very surprised at how effective they are in combat. Of course that game is only approaching 6th level, but so far I don't see it as a support character and it certainly hasn't been played that way. The Bard has been hanging on the front line of battle and has been accounting for itself very well so far.

Plus I have been allowing them to do their "bardic thing" while fighting, and the Legend Lore and fascinate can come in extremely handy for non-combat uses. I am actually very pleased with how this Bard is playing out. I think I am going to like the Bard for the first time since 1E.

[moriarty777]

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
I agree the Combat Marauder is appealing. It's TOO appealing. Most of my players looked at me when I showed them the book and one said, and I quote, "And so why play a Fighter? I'd rather hit hard with a guaranteed bonus to damage than hoping to hit twice and having to role two dice."

I Guess what I'd suggest is similar and comparable but different enough to perhaps give the fighter enough of an edge so that a player would have to thing *REAL* hard on whether to play a Fighter or a Ranger. That being said, I have no solid advice on what that would be.

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
I'm not sure I want to add yet another die type to a weapon. AD&D 2e did that and it was clunky. Also the average sword was about 36-39 inches, while what we call a Bastard sword (Which was often called a long sword) was about 40-48 inches in length from tip to pommel.

That's certainly something I didn't miss from AD&D. In fact (since this was for fighting Larger creatures) we almost always forgot it or ignored it. This is the only weapon that I've chosen to go this path for. I suppose you could always drop it to 1d8+1 instead (regardless of one or two-handed use) but that might not achieve what you're looking for.

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
One last thing:

What does the Monster stat blocks look like for C&C? I need something to work off of when translating my books.

As I see this was provided, a tip of advice is generally given when converting 3.x monsters to C&C:

Under the HitDice for the creature, a good chuck of them has you roll and add a bunch of HP after that... Generally speaking, you'd want to drop this additional number as C&C characters are lesser powered (and pack less of a punch) than their 3.x counterparts.

Hmm... at one point I had a link to an online AD&D Monstrous Compendium (not necessarily legal but complete)... I wish I still had the link to pass it on (unless it got pulled down). This could have provided a good resource to use -- anyone still have it?

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Metathiax]

This is the link but for some reason Planet AD&D's site (all of it) is currently down, though it might be only temporary...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

[Treebore]

The Trolls have a monster download in their downloads section on the Trolllord.com website.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

First off, I want to say that I may be coming off a bit strong here, and I'd like to apologize for it. I am not in anyway saying your way is 'wrong'. It's not, it's just your way. And I just happen to disagree with it.

Treebore wrote:
I look at this Bard as the singing fighter. Doesn't get to wear great armor, but it is a solid fighter type who sings while he slays.

I have been very surprised at how effective they are in combat. Of course that game is only approaching 6th level, but so far I don't see it as a support character and it certainly hasn't been played that way. The Bard has been hanging on the front line of battle and has been accounting for itself very well so far.

Plus I have been allowing them to do their "bardic thing" while fighting, and the Legend Lore and fascinate can come in extremely handy for non-combat uses. I am actually very pleased with how this Bard is playing out. I think I am going to like the Bard for the first time since 1E.

This is where I'm going to say, what about the Rogue, would let him use his Listen skill to hear something, while in combat with an Orc or other beast? Or say Sneak Attack and then attack again?

I wouldn't. Once you use your skill that's your action for the round, unless you have more than one. At least as I understand the rules. I like the game but the layout...

Also, I may have a lousy voice (And I do, I wish I could sing...) but when one orates or sings, you put EVERYTHING into it. You can't split your attention when fighting like that. Hell, half the time, you have a hard time doing more than shouting single words or grunting in a fight. When you see the Knight shout commands is when he's got no foes near him. And for ME, Bards need to be out of combat, or at least in a 'safe zone' so they can do their thing.

So, that's MY reasoning for the 1d8 hit die. Besides he has the Assassin's and Knight's XP and Bonus to Hit track, on top of his skills, I think he has a fair amount of advantages as it is.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

moriarty777 wrote:
I Guess what I'd suggest is similar and comparable but different enough to perhaps give the fighter enough of an edge so that a player would have to thing *REAL* hard on whether to play a Fighter or a Ranger. That being said, I have no solid advice on what that would be.

Well, I'm going to try it out. I make no promises this'll work though. Then again, if I had Monsters and Treasure, I'd be able to gauge it better. I mean from what I have a 3d4 + 12 + Strength (Assuming a 16 for a +2) doesn't really mean that much on paper compared to a 1d4 or 1d6 x4 or a direct damage spell (Who uses Fireball anyway at level 12?) which gets 12d6 at 12th level.

moriarty777 wrote:
That's certainly something I didn't miss from AD&D. In fact (since this was for fighting Larger creatures) we almost always forgot it or ignored it. This is the only weapon that I've chosen to go this path for. I suppose you could always drop it to 1d8+1 instead (regardless of one or two-handed use) but that might not achieve what you're looking for.

I was thinking... How about we give the Fighter a choice of +1 with certain weapons used two handed, but base damage when used one handed, while any other class or player that doesn't have Strength as a Prime gets the base damage, but can only use the weapons in two hands?

It adds a layer of complexity, but at the same time it does help give a reason to use a Longsword over a Bastard Sword.

(For the record, I am only picking on those two, although I can make the same argument with the Scimitar and Falchion, in fact, they are interchangeable here.)

Nagisawa Takumi wrote:
One last thing:

What does the Monster stat blocks look like for C&C? I need something to work off of when translating my books.

As I see this was provided, a tip of advice is generally given when converting 3.x monsters to C&C:

Under the HitDice for the creature, a good chuck of them has you roll and add a bunch of HP after that... Generally speaking, you'd want to drop this additional number as C&C characters are lesser powered (and pack less of a punch) than their 3.x counterparts.

Hmm... at one point I had a link to an online AD&D Monstrous Compendium (not necessarily legal but complete)... I wish I still had the link to pass it on (unless it got pulled down). This could have provided a good resource to use -- anyone still have it?

Moriarty the Red[/quote]

Thanks, for trying. And I see about the Monster HD.

Also, thanks to you all, I may have something for my 'skill' based magic system. I'm hammering it out in my head, and I'll put it down on paper (so to speak) soon.

[Treebore]

The reason I let the bard use their ability during battle is because a "battle cry" is one of the things listed as to how they can give their aid.

Plus I imagine a Bard practices their "song" to the point where they can recite it without much thought. That his "song" is such that it actually aids his ability to focus. A varying rhythm with which he moves his body and strikes with his weapon.

Plus I don't require, or even think/expect for their singing to be of a quality worthy of being recorded. Just good enough to get the job done.

So those are the reasons why I let them use their song. Plus I don't look at it as being any kind of magical effect, just a common method used to inspire the troops, so to speak.

I wouldn't allow this effect to be dispellable or negated by an anti magic spell.

The 9th level ability I haven't decided on yet.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Treebore wrote:
The reason I let the bard use their ability during battle is because a "battle cry" is one of the things listed as to how they can give their aid.

Plus I imagine a Bard practices their "song" to the point where they can recite it without much thought. That his "song" is such that it actually aids his ability to focus. A varying rhythm with which he moves his body and strikes with his weapon.

Plus I don't require, or even think/expect for their singing to be of a quality worthy of being recorded. Just good enough to get the job done.

So those are the reasons why I let them use their song. Plus I don't look at it as being any kind of magical effect, just a common method used to inspire the troops, so to speak.

I wouldn't allow this effect to be dispellable or negated by an anti magic spell.

The 9th level ability I haven't decided on yet.

You're right in that it's not magic, and I wouldn't let magic dispel the effects short of a Silence spell or similar illusion effect, however. FOR ME, whenever I see the guy on the horse inspiring his troops to greater effort, I note that he is far from combat, giving him time to shout or whatever.

Also, most of those skills require the Bard to keep them up, meaning that either he stops his Exalt and attacks, or keeps the ability up.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Okay, here's my thought on creating a 'skill' based magic system without adding a skill system.

First of all, seeing as which the Primes of the caster classes are ALREADY primary I'm going to assume a base difficulty of 12.

Now each spell adds their level to the difficulty, in other words a third level spell would be 15. However to cast a spell, the proper caster rolls and adds his level and his Casting attribute bonus to it. Which if my calculations are right, means most Wizards and Clerics (And their subset classes) should have a bigger chance of success than failure.

Now, the Spells Per Day lists are the castings you have per level without penalty. Subsequent casting of that level gets a cumulative +1 to the difficulty for each.

Example: You have 4 second and 3 third level spells per day. You can cast the third level spells 3 times without penalty, but when you need to cast Fly again, it's at a +1. However, if you haven't used you level 2 spells yet, you don't get the penalty until you've spent all those.

I'll right up a chart for myself in a bit.

What do you think?

[Treebore]

I agree, but like I said, I don't think it needs concentration like a spell does. So if he stops for a second here or there, no big deal. So I have no problem with Exalt working in combat. Greater Exaltation I might require it to be treated as a full action. I'll make that decision if the Bard ever makes it that high.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Treebore wrote:
I agree, but like I said, I don't think it needs concentration like a spell does. So if he stops for a second here or there, no big deal. So I have no problem with Exalt working in combat. Greater Exaltation I might require it to be treated as a full action. I'll make that decision if the Bard ever makes it that high.

Fair enough, I just have a different idea.

And no one has any comment on the magic system?

[Treebore]

I have never used such a system, so I can't say how it will work. I can say I have never used such a system because I think the spellcasters chance of failure is covered by saving throws. So by using this system you are effectively giving the opponents two chances to save.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

I suppose you're right... Hmm...