D&D 4th ed/5th ed/Pathfinder GM Considering C&C

[JohnLynch]

I was putting together some houserules to make D&D 5th edition feel more like AD&D when it was pointed out the direction I was headed was very much replicating Castles & Crusades. I've read reviews for C&C before and moved on because of the wonky DC 12/18 (except when a GM says it's not) mechanic. I finally decided to buy the PHB and gave it a read through (another game I really like is ACKs which I also bought the core rules for. Unfortunately it's a bit too retro for my liking). Having a read through C&C definitely seems to be what I was aiming to try to replicate and the explanations make much more sense. Surprisingly the disparity between Fighter and Wizard doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level it is in Pathfinder. Common wisdom here, one poster at Dragonsfoot and the internet in general is that the C&C wizard is much more powerful than the C&C Fighter at high levels. Now looking at the PHB I see high levels is defined as level 12 with a footnote on how to sort of continue past level 12 (and I realise the Castle Keeper's Guide also has additional high level option rules). When people say high level wizards are more powerful than high level wizards, are we talking about level 15? Or are we talking level 10?

Looking at the PHB I can see a lot of factors that would completely change the dynamic of the game. I'm talking about the very base rules with no optional ones included. So:

• Straight 3d6 (arrange to taste) which statistically will create an array of: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
• Ranged weapons do not get an ability score modifier added.
• There is no such thing as a critical hit.
• Initiative is rolled round by round with the wizard (and everyone else?) declaring before initiative is rolled what they're doing that round.
• Any damage to a wizard while casting wastes the spell.
• No multiclassing

Using these rules, I'm not seeing how a wizard is overpowered at level 10. The wizard might be able to shutdown or help the party avoid certain fights. But once combat is initiated the wizard has a fifty/fifty chance on not getting a ranged attack against them and wasting the spell (cover and the shield spell will obviously buff the wizard's AC).

So how is class disparity in C&C? I'm not expecting D&D 4th ed levels of balance. Just close enough that playstyles and smart tactics can make the difference in determining which characters are more powerful than others (something not really possible in Pathfinder in my experience and yet definitely possible in 5th edition).

[Treebore]

Well, some board members pretty much agree with you, I would be one of the ones who don't. However, that being said, one of the great things about C&C is you can House Rule things to be how you like your game to be. Which is what I have done with the Fighter, so I am happy with it when my House Rules are applied.

So my advice to you would be, don't worry about it right now. Run a game, get some experience with it under your belt, observe things for yourself. Then, if you see things you don't like, House Rule them into something you do like. The great thing is, there are a fair number of CK's around here who have written up their House Rules, and freely share them. Like if you want to see mine, go to the Online Games forum, and look for any game I have ran, and on the first page of the game thread, you will see my House Rules.

Others, such as Omote and Rigon, have links to their House Rules in their sig areas. So just check that area whenever you find a post by them.

So when your trying to figure out how to change the rules to get precisely the game you want, you will have plenty of ideas to pick and choose from, then try them out, and if you don't like the results, try other ideas.

[Aramis]

I was putting together some houserules to make D&D 5th edition feel more like AD&D when it was pointed out the direction I was headed was very much replicating Castles & Crusades. I've read reviews for C&C before and moved on because of the wonky DC 12/18 (except when a GM says it's not) mechanic. I finally decided to buy the PHB and gave it a read through (another game I really like is ACKs which I also bought the core rules for. Unfortunately it's a bit too retro for my liking). Having a read through C&C definitely seems to be what I was aiming to try to replicate and the explanations make much more sense. Surprisingly the disparity between Fighter and Wizard doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level it is in Pathfinder. Common wisdom here, one poster at Dragonsfoot and the internet in general is that the C&C wizard is much more powerful than the C&C Fighter at high levels. Now looking at the PHB I see high levels is defined as level 12 with a footnote on how to sort of continue past level 12 (and I realise the Castle Keeper's Guide also has additional high level option rules). When people say high level wizards are more powerful than high level wizards, are we talking about level 15? Or are we talking level 10?

Looking at the PHB I can see a lot of factors that would completely change the dynamic of the game. I'm talking about the very base rules with no optional ones included. So:

• Straight 3d6 (arrange to taste) which statistically will create an array of: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
• Ranged weapons do not get an ability score modifier added.
• There is no such thing as a critical hit.
• Initiative is rolled round by round with the wizard (and everyone else?) declaring before initiative is rolled what they're doing that round.
• Any damage to a wizard while casting wastes the spell.
• No multiclassing

Using these rules, I'm not seeing how a wizard is overpowered at level 10. The wizard might be able to shutdown or help the party avoid certain fights. But once combat is initiated the wizard has a fifty/fifty chance on not getting a ranged attack against them and wasting the spell (cover and the shield spell will obviously buff the wizard's AC).

So how is class disparity in C&C? I'm not expecting D&D 4th ed levels of balance. Just close enough that playstyles and smart tactics can make the difference in determining which characters are more powerful than others (something not really possible in Pathfinder in my experience and yet definitely possible in 5th edition).

Welcome John. I've never played pathfinder/4th/or 5th (although I did play 3.5 a bit). C&C allows me to emulate the "feel" of AD&D without the AD&D subsystems etc.. The key benefit of C&C if you are going for a retro feel is the unified SIEGE mechanic makes playing the game so easy you can do it on the fly, without looking at the books very much. Something I hated in 3.5. Even playing old school modules is a breeze, or (I assume) pathfinder etc. modules. You just SIEGE whatever ability the monster stat block says on the fly.

As to the wizard/fighter disparity. It is definitely there. But, remember a few factors. Almost all C&C games are played at the lower levels, so there is not a lot of high powered stuff going on (when magic gets really wacky). I would say the wizard starts to pull ahead a bit in the late single digits. But, like I said, you will spend most of your time levels 1-10. We have been playing together for about 9 years through many campaigns, and hardly ever get into the 2 digit levels.

The discrepancy between spellcasters and non spellcasters is primarily because of the way saves work. Non primes mean a (roughly) 80% failure rate, other factors being equal (and they scale with level), so eventually, you're going to be hit with a charm, or a hold, or something you are not prime on. In 1st edition, (as I vaguely recall) it felt more like the PCs got gradually more and more resistant to magic (and the monsters did too, especially with SR). This also means that smart PC spellcasters will get a feel for which monsters are prime in what stat. An experienced mage with a feel for what primes the bad guys have is much more deadly.

There are many ways to address this. Change the prime save numbers (say 10/15), boost the fighting classes by e.g. giving them multiple attacks (only fighters get multiple attacks in C&C, and only at 10th level), use the CKG advantages which tend to do more for fighting types, etc.

Another common thing people do is allow feat like actions on a SIEGE roll. So, instead of gaining the feat cleave at 5th level, you can attempt a cleave if you kill an adjacent foe right from 1st level, roll a SIEGE vs the monsters HD and if succesful you can cleave the next one.

You could even import the save method you prefer wholesale into the game. You might decide we are playing C&C but using 1st ed save charts, or 3rd ed fort/ref/wis. C&C is very modular and can accomodate any of that

As to your specific suggestions:

• Straight 3d6 (arrange to taste) which statistically will create an array of: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
• Ranged weapons do not get an ability score modifier added.
• There is no such thing as a critical hit.
• Initiative is rolled round by round with the wizard (and everyone else?) declaring before initiative is rolled what they're doing that round.
• Any damage to a wizard while casting wastes the spell.
• No multiclassing

High stats tend to help fighting types (and especially stealthy types) more than spellcasters I would guess.

Ranged weapons also tend to be used by fighters more than spellcasters. Most rolls are modified by a high stat, so I would think ranged weapons would make sense to benefit from high dexterity

No crits is a common rule. Others allow max damage on a 20, and lose a turn on a fumble.

Initiative round by round can really slow the game down, but if you can get a smooth system going, go for it.

Spell declarations sound like a good idea but they can get a bit bogged down as well

Damage to a wizard wasting the spell is fine but those tricky wizards usually manage to avoid damage, first by staying back, and later with invisibility and the like

Multiclassing does not work like 3e (a series of careers). I think the two most common systems are Gygaxian (two classes at once) and class and a half (2nd class progresses at 1/2 the rate of the first), this latter one is usually done for flavour reasons


It sounds like you have many good ideas to make the game your own. What I would recommend is to play the game straight vanilla first, and then tweak as you go. You may find you like how it plays straight out of the box.

[pawndream]

Agree with what Treebore said above: don't worry about all that game balance and class disparity stuff. Just play the game out of the box to begin with and tweak things as you go. C&C is much less of a mathematical equation than found in games like 3.5/PF/4e and there is much less emphasis on things like "builds" and the like. Classes fill niches and archetypes. They are not balanced against one another.

The fighter is responsible for wading into battle to keep the front lines engaged. Wizards are responsible for blasting foes at distance, using useful spells to help turn the tide of battle, or to avoid it altogether. They fill two completely different, but complementary roles.

At any rate, C&C is an incredibly fun, easy game to play and I think you will really enjoy the freedom gained from not having to overthink all that behind-the-scenes mechanics stuff that sometimes comes up in the other games you mentioned above.

[JohnLynch]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I'm definitely liking what I'm seeing thus far.

An experienced mage with a feel for what primes the bad guys have is much more deadly.

Fair enough. For the first campaign I should be able to slip it past them without it being an issue and then go from there.

There are many ways to address this....What I would recommend is to play the game straight vanilla first, and then tweak as you go. You may find you like how it plays straight out of the box.

That's definitely the plan to begin with. I've done the same with D&D 5th edition (hence why I was looking at houserules for it).

High stats tend to help fighting types (and especially stealthy types) more than spellcasters I would guess.

I was surprised at the fact 3d6 is used as default, although there's nothing strictly wrong with that and it could be an overcorrection of 3.5e. I'm happy to play by the book and see how it works out.

Most rolls are modified by a high stat, so I would think ranged weapons would make sense to benefit from high dexterity

I was expecting a composite long bow to have something applied to the damage roll but couldn't find any actual rule to say it did. Do you know of any?

Initiative round by round can really slow the game down, but if you can get a smooth system going, go for it.

Spell declarations sound like a good idea but they can get a bit bogged down as well

I'm really keen on seeing how it works along with no minis and battlemat. I've tried no minis and battlemat with 5th edition and I found the rules were written from the basis of someone who assumes they'll be used and then tried to alter the rules to remove them. C&C's rules seem much simplified. I'm hoping with the simpler rules and round by round initiative I can remove the battlemat and speed up gameplay. I've found in 3e+ initiative players tend to try to make the optimal decisions in battle (and dislike it when others don't). This can cause turns to bog down as players debate what to do and reach a consensus. In theory combat will go like this:

DM: There are five orcs down the corridor ahead of you, close enough to be reached in melee and attacked, although the corridor only allows two abreast of each other. Sam and Greg are at the front while Sandra and Alice are behind them. Greg what do you?
Greg: I charge the orcs and and hit the closest one.
DM: Sam what do you do?
Sam: I'm not sure.
DM: Sandra?
Sandra: I shoot my bow.
DM: Alice?
Alice: I cast magic missile at the one right at the back.
DM: Sam?
Sam: I walk up and hit one.
DM: Alright roll initiative... Anyone acting on a 10? 9? 8? Sam great. You walk up and hit the closest orc give me an attack roll.
etc, etc.

I've found the longest thing is getting everyone to decide what to do. If you have to declare your actions at the start of the round then the game by necessity becomes less tactical. I'm hoping this will result in players not agonising over every decision and the others relaxing when less than optimal choices are made. We'll have to wait and see how it actually works out. I'm also hoping it will help with running a game without a battlemat (I've found it doesn't work in 3e/4e/5e style initiative because you have to redescribe the situation on every single turn rather than every single round).

Damage to a wizard wasting the spell is fine but those tricky wizards usually manage to avoid damage, first by staying back, and later with invisibility and the like

Yeah I'll be really interested in seeing how it works.

Multiclassing does not work like 3e (a series of careers). I think the two most common systems are Gygaxian (two classes at once) and class and a half (2nd class progresses at 1/2 the rate of the first), this latter one is usually done for flavour reasons

Yeah I saw that. I actually offered AD&D style multiclassing in my 5th ed game (downside was a slower XP table). No-one took me up on it surprisingly. No multiclassing for the first C&C game though just to see how single classed PCs work.

The fighter is responsible for wading into battle to keep the front lines engaged. Wizards are responsible for blasting foes at distance, using useful spells to help turn the tide of battle, or to avoid it altogether. They fill two completely different, but complementary roles.

I'm happy with different roles for different classes. In Pathfinder the job the wizard is to do everything the fighter does PLUS everything else as well. I'm definitely intrigued by the fact some classes are just not combat builds whatsoever.

I think you will really enjoy the freedom gained from not having to overthink all that behind-the-scenes mechanics stuff that sometimes comes up in the other games you mentioned above.

Hopefully I can get a group together of people from my gaming groups who will be interested enough to give it a go (I already know one player who won't be). One more under the hood question: How do I know how many foes a group can face at one time? I know pre-3e games don't have encounter guidelines. But the problem I have is if I throw 4 kobolds at a level group in 4e I know it's going to be a moderate fight. In Pathfinder I know there's an outside chance of it being a moderate fight and in 5th ed I know it's going to be a cakewalk. I don't know what it's going to be like in a C&C game, are there guidelines or a rule of thumb to use (total HD of opponents = PC group's level)? I know there'll be large variation but knowing a ballpark figure would be a good place to start.

[Captain_K]

Just try a game with some quick PCs at say 3rd lvl then "jump in time" to say 9th lvl. and compare.

Many of your comments seem to be around wizards and power level balance. I feel wizards are still a bit weak without getting spells back quicker so I house rules faster return of spells (hours not overnight) and I allow the "spell pool" idea meaning they memorize a pool of spells they can then cast from in any order or repeatedly. I allow same rule for all spell casters. I do this because most of my new players tend toward fighter types and I want to entice them to spell casters, plus I like the breath and depth it adds. But we rarely worry about "balance" or comparing.. just not much of an issue for me and my group.

To your comments:
•Straight 3d6 (arrange to taste) which statistically will create an array of: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. House rule what you want - easy.
•Ranged weapons do not get an ability score modifier added. DEX to hit, STR when thrown, purchase "mighty" bow for STR add; it can or is done.
•There is no such thing as a critical hit. House rule it.. most do.
•Initiative is rolled round by round with the wizard (and everyone else?) declaring before initiative is rolled what they're doing that round. Big topic, stay on these boards and talk with TREEBORE.
•Any damage to a wizard while casting wastes the spell.
•No multiclassing - not true, see back of PH.
Using these rules, I'm not seeing how a wizard is overpowered at level 10. The wizard might be able to shutdown or help the party avoid certain fights. But once combat is initiated the wizard has a fifty/fifty chance on not getting a ranged attack against them and wasting the spell (cover and the shield spell will obviously buff the wizard's AC).

So how is class disparity in C&C? I'm not expecting D&D 4th ed levels of balance. Just close enough that playstyles and smart tactics can make the difference in determining which characters are more powerful than others (something not really possible in Pathfinder in my experience and yet definitely possible in 5th edition).

[JohnLynch]

Many of your comments seem to be around wizards and power level balance.

This is traditionally where the most obvious problems are as both can (and often are) designed to win fights and yet in some editions one can be much more powerful than the other.

No multiclassing - not true, see back of PH.

What I meant as they're an optional rule and aren't part of the base default rules. I'm looking to run a bare bones game with no bells and whistles just straight default rules to see how the game works. I might then look at introducing some optional rules (possibly feats), etc down the road depending on how my group finds the bare bones rules.

I allow the "spell pool" idea meaning they memorize a pool of spells they can then cast from in any order or repeatedly. I allow same rule for all spell casters.

D&D 5th edition also does this and it's something I'm quite fond of. I'll not be using it to begin with but it will definitely be on my list of potential houserules.

[Buttmonkey]

One more under the hood question: How do I know how many foes a group can face at one time? I know pre-3e games don't have encounter guidelines. But the problem I have is if I throw 4 kobolds at a level group in 4e I know it's going to be a moderate fight. In Pathfinder I know there's an outside chance of it being a moderate fight and in 5th ed I know it's going to be a cakewalk. I don't know what it's going to be like in a C&C game, are there guidelines or a rule of thumb to use (total HD of opponents = PC group's level)? I know there'll be large variation but knowing a ballpark figure would be a good place to start.

C&C isn't fine-tuned in terms of encounter strength like some of the other games you have played. As a general rule of thumb, I would start by comparing total hit dice to total party levels. All other things being equal, a fight with total hit dice equaling total levels should be challenging. I recommend starting out with smaller encounters and then throw in a second wave of opponents if the fight is turning out to be too easy. Reinforcements are a pretty safe way to hedge your bets while you are getting a feel for encounter strength. Also, take a look at what kind of weapons and armor your PCs are running around with. A bastard sword, especially at low levels, can actually be a little imbalancing when compared to an orc wielding a short sword. If your party is walking around with relatively bad-ass equipment, throw some more or tougher monsters at them.

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

As far as class disparity goes in C&C, I think it's better balanced than, say AD&D. For example, the thief isn't well-nigh useless at 1st level. But there still are situational disparities.

I agree, smart tactics and a CK willing to say "sure, give that a try" make a real difference.

In my experience, C&C is way more freeing than Pathfinder - you have fewer optimization options, if that's your thing, but you also have fewer restrictions (which was what drove me from 3e to C&C originally).

[slimykuotoan]

You sound much like I did JohnLynch when I first came to these boards from 3.5: I had questions about stats, leveling modifiers, saving throws and the like.

Well, the good news is that you can pretty much throw all of those rules concerns out the window.

C&C uses the siege engine to take care of most things, so the piddly ruley issues from pathfinder etc. are non concerns.

While this doesn't answer your classes question, know that once you make the mental shift to C&C, you'll wonder how it was you played such largely inflexible systems as 4E.

[slimykuotoan]

And as a GM, the switch to C&C will seem a breath of fresh air.

[Rigon]

John, welcome to the Forums. I hope you are getting all the info you need.

As Buttmonkey said, encounter levels are not an exact science in C&C. I'm currently running a Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign for some of the blokes on here and I'm finding that I have to increase adversary numbers just because of the number of party members. At one point the group was 8 players and what I thought was going to be a large-ish and challenging encounter turned out to be a cakewalk because of numbers and smart tactics by the players. If you have a group of smart players, they can turn most encounters from a challenge into a cakewalk. Heck, they are 3rd/4th level and took out 3 hill giants (which I thought would be insane and expected them to run), but they handled them in short order. So, you just have to kind of feel your way.

R-

[pawndream]

I will echo what others have said about encounter building in C&C: it is largely an eyeball-it sort of thing. Start out by totaling up character levels in the party and then throwing an equivalent (or even less) HD of monsters at the party. At low levels, I always like to keep the damage output of enemies relatively low (d4), especially if I want to use a horde of goblins, kobolds, etc. in an encounter. I might give the boss a d6 or d8 inflicting weapon, but I generally try to avoid using weapons that can result in a one-hit kill on even the weakest party members.

I've also seen 1st level parties take out 4 HD monsters before, so it really comes down to more of an art than a science in figuring out how to build challenging encounters. You'll figure this stuff out though, it's not too difficult.

As far as getting others to try out C&C, just let your players know you want to try out something different and offer up a game. Assuming your a decent DM (which I am assuming you are, otherwise you wouldn't be asking these questions), everyone will still have fun. It might initially be difficult for players to get out of the grid counting, math-crunching tendencies that seem to pervade 3.5/4e, but this too works out once players figure out they are no longer bound by what their character sheet says, or even what is listed as being possible in the book. Basically they can attempt anything they can imagine as being possible, then it's up to the DM to adjudicate that action based on a SIEGE check (or not, another core idea of this game, is to not have players roll for every action they attempt...let them automatically succeed on stuff if you think it will make the game funner/cooler/more cinematic, etc.).

Save the dice rolling for the important, tense moments of the game.

[Rigon]

PD, brought up a great point about not having players roll all the time. Sometimes they just succeed. It's really a liberating notion for a CK.

R-

[jdizzy001]

Welcome john. I cut my teeth on 3.5. I have dm'ed 3.5, 4e and I beta'ed 5e. I have also dm'ed pathfinder. CnC is great. Yes, there is a disperity between classes, but that is a part of the system. 4e did a great job creating a game balance that was uncomparable to other games. Despite that, CnC is by far my favorite. The 12/18 took some time to get used but you get used to it. In a very good way. After I was accustomed to the system I shifted from a 12/18 to a 12/15/18. This allows for a bit more customization. That aside, I will give you the same advice I was given. Try the game as written. Is it highly brewable? Yes. Are there great house rule scripts floating around these forum? Yes! Are they worth trying? Yes! Before you do though, try the game Rules as written. It may surprise you.

[Treebore]

Just to let you know, I've been playing D&D for 25 years, and that includes 5 years of 3 and 3.5E, a few months of 4E and a few months of 5E. I've never ran or played Pathfinder, but I own enough of it you would think I was a HUGE fan, which I am, but just for the quality of writing and rules ideas, I could care less about the game itself.

One of the possibly HUGE differences between C&C and all those, it certainly is big to me, is in those systems, in order to do anything, you have to have the skill, feat, class ability, etc... in C&C all you really, ultimately, HAVE to have, is the CK's permission to attempt to succeed.

Now C&C does differentiate between being of a given class, and not, by NOT allowing you to add levels to any checks that are specifically a Class skill, ability, power, whatever you want to call it. So at the beginning, the differences between the classes are very minimal, its the Primes versus the non Primes that really define how good your character is and isn't. Then, as you level, you become head and shoulders above those not of your class.

Now how does one Rogue make themselves unique compared to another? Or how does one Wizard make themselves unique compared to another? The same way a policeman makes themselves different from everyone else wearing blue, or how any given General Practitioner of Medicine makes themselves unique compared o everyone else in the same field. By defining what kind of person/character you are. IE ROLE play. How honest are you? Do you have integrity? What is your work ethic? How much professionalism do you have? Are you a jerk, a slime ball, and so on. IE, assuming you are in a profession, where you and everyone you work with has very similar training, education, etc... what makes you stand out? What makes you not be a faceless clone? Same things apply in C&C.

[Aramis]

One more under the hood question: How do I know how many foes a group can face at one time? I know pre-3e games don't have encounter guidelines. But the problem I have is if I throw 4 kobolds at a level group in 4e I know it's going to be a moderate fight. In Pathfinder I know there's an outside chance of it being a moderate fight and in 5th ed I know it's going to be a cakewalk. I don't know what it's going to be like in a C&C game, are there guidelines or a rule of thumb to use (total HD of opponents = PC group's level)? I know there'll be large variation but knowing a ballpark figure would be a good place to start.

Sounds like you are getting lots of good replies John. You will find the people on these boards pretty helpful.

Encounter levels are more a feel, than an algorithm, but I would not make party HD=monster HD the standard. As others noted above, that is a challenging encounter. If Mike Tyson fights himself, he only wins half the time! Also, remember that magic changes the equation substantially. So, 3/4 party HD might be a good standard encounter, but 3/4 party HD plus 1 shaman could well result in a TPK. Also, having a few cakewalks and a few "run away!" encounters adds to the organic feel of the game.

Something else I should mention. We often find DMs on these boards, bruised and battered from the heavy toil of running games like 3e and pathfinder, eager to try a simple game like C&C but their players are reluctant. One thing to keep in mind is a lot of the crunch of these other games can pretty easily be simulated in C&C. If they want to try feats, or use class abilities, or even spells and items from other games it can all be incorporated. And, to keep it simple, you can make the successful execution of these skills and feats a matter of a simple SIEGE check vs the opponent's HD. Fail the SIEGE check, and you do not get to attack at all that round.

So, the players might think C&C is very "limited" because it does not allow all the crunch and builds of the other games. But in fact, C&C is very open. Just have the players narratively describe what they want to do, or even describe it in full 3e type terms, and then you (on the fly) come up with a suitable SIEGE check and target number and the game plays similarly to what they are used to, but runs far far more simply for you

[slimykuotoan]

Oh, and if you want to up the crunch, check out the CK Guide, which has the feat-like stuff.

[Treebore]

In C&C you have to look at the same factors they look at to determine CR ratings in 3E, 4E and even 5E. The big 3 are the BtH, the AC's, and the HP. Then there is spell casting, which I look at as a entirely different game. It all comes down to statistics, how likely are they to be hit? How likely are they to hit their opponents? How many hits are they likely to take before being taken out of action? Spells come down to saves, how likely are they to be made, and what is the effect? Does it cause damage? Will it be enough to kill them or make them unconscious? Will it hold them, charm them, and what effect does that have on the groups survival against what is left? In 3E through 5E, they do a pretty good job of determining all of this for you, but pure luck can radically change even those projections.

So in C&C your going to have to learn to make these judgments and calculations for yourself. Looking at over all HD versus over all party level is a good starting point, but it is far from the only factor that needs to be looked at to get good at estimating encounter risks. As levels increase, and spells and magic available increases, the variables increase as well. However, its not impossible to get good at it, and just remember, no matter how good you get at doing it, the dice can always throw it all out the window. I've seen groups survive encounters they shouldn't have, and I have seen them get trashed by things they should have easily wiped out. When those dice decide to roll like crap for all of you, your in trouble, no matter how balanced the encounter is, and when they decide to love you, your party can over come odds they should never be able to over come, which is precisely what makes RPGs so exciting, the fickle probabilities of the dice rolls, no matter how good you get at balancing encounters, the dice are the final arbiters.

[jdizzy001]

I would say, just throw some characters together, abandon story, for the time being (add it back in once you are comfortable with the system), and do some dungeon delving. That is how I learned not to use a group of goblins to attack a two person level 1 party. My initial thought was, "goblins. How hard can they be?" AC 15 was just too high for them. The fighter did an okay job (as his atk score was a +4 [2 for str, 1 for class and 1 for specialization] I believe) but the ranger couldn't hit anything, there +2 atk (2 from dex) just wasn't enough. We all learned our lesson. I say forget what you know, or what you think you know, and just start playing that game! You'll be glad you did.

[Captain_K]

JL, Sorry, I totally forgot to welcome you. As you can see from the above, lots of opinions/options. The folks of this boards above are, as you can tell, happy to share, usually constructively, their advice, their beliefs, and their welcome to new comers. Decades, if not centuries, of "DM" experience right on this page alone. Folks who really love something, love to talk about it, and share it.

So try, have fun, use the boards, we're here for you man!

I would say, start simple, have the base classes picked as the players WANT. You sound like a capable DM/GM/CK, so you can make simple challenges for whatever your players are... then based on your group and your game play introduce one new "house rule" and see how it plays... and keep tweaking to suite you. Add a rule, don't like it, strike it.

[JohnLynch]

Thanks for the help with the "average fight" advice. It gives me a starting point and I can ramp up or tailor down as needed (or not given that C&C uses an atrophy over an adventuring day of resource management vs the 3.5e Wands of Cure Light Wounds/4th ed healing surges encounter based resource management). I'm not particularly interested in fine tuning the balance as I would in 4th ed or Pathfinder. I've been GMing 5th edition since it came out and I'm now at the stage where I just wing it (although take note to be careful of monsters with a CR higher than the PCs) and it's worked out pretty good. I'm seeing a lot of 5th edition groups adhering to the encounter guidelines and then complaining that 5th ed is too easy. For me they're simply a starting point (once you move away from encounter based resource management and move to daily based resource management level appropriate fights become a lot less important). I just need that starting point to then build upon.

As for getting a group together, it shouldn't be too difficult. I know one player will be out because learning another ruleset when the current one works fine for them isn't going to have a selling point (and another started gaming with 3.5e and has no interest in ever leaving 3.5e). However I've got quite a large group of players to draw from (I play both D&D 5th ed and Pathfinder with separate gaming groups) that getting enough people together won't be an issue. The only issue will be finding the time to play The fact C&C also has all the bells and whistles of other games should be enough to cajole any reluctant players to give it a chance with a promise of "we'll start adding in extra rules once we learn what we're doing" and then gives them a chance to give it a fair shake and see if they even want those extra rules.

Thanks everyone for the welcome It sounds like C&C matches my gaming style (I'm a very "Yeah that sounds reasonable. Let's see how it works out" kind of GM). It'll just be a matter of retraining away from "everything is fine. Don't worry about running away, everything can be defeated" and the playing down of tactics due to the lack of battlemat and change in initiative.

Now how does one Rogue make themselves unique compared to another? Or how does one Wizard make themselves unique compared to another? The same way a policeman makes themselves different from everyone else wearing blue, or how any given General Practitioner of Medicine makes themselves unique compared o everyone else in the same field. By defining what kind of person/character you are. IE ROLE play. How honest are you? Do you have integrity? What is your work ethic? How much professionalism do you have? Are you a jerk, a slime ball, and so on. IE, assuming you are in a profession, where you and everyone you work with has very similar training, education, etc... what makes you stand out? What makes you not be a faceless clone? Same things apply in C&C.

The part that stands out for me in helping this is the ability to freely choose your own prime attribute (limited only by race? I tend to use humans as my baseline). You want a smart fighter? Strength/Intelligence is the way to go. You now have a fairly reasonable chance at being just as good as the Wizard. This was somewhat present in D&D 4th ed but really isn't viable in Pathfinder. A wizard will always be ridiculously better than a fighter in Int checks (and a wizard can afford to have training in ALL of the Int skills whereas a fighter will have 1 or 2). In C&C to me it looks like a Wizard is at best going to have an extra +1 or +2 higher than a fighter who hasn't dumped Int. To me that really opens up character concepts rather than shutting them down.

[serleran]

Hi.

As for monster to character ratio == there is no magic formula and there should never be one as there are simply too many factors (making it needlessly complex) to consider. Instead, decide you want 30 goblins, for example. Done. All 30 come to the fight. However, like a classic Kung Fu film, they only attack one-to-one. After 3 fall, 20 of them say "holy dwarf smoke!" and run off... leaving 7. They get creamed quickly but the other 20 are still out there. Probably planning a better attack strategy.

The same holds for even a single monster. It starts to get beat too badly... it leaves.

As the Castle Keeper you need to decide if that should or should not happen based on however the situation is. Also, players have to be scared... so throwing 30 goblins at them makes them pause, hopefully, and think before they engage. Plus, they might be the ones who run away. Let them. Or don't. Capturing can be a different adventure.

Anyway, the point is to do what works best for the moment. Planning it all out only leads to your frustration and a sense of impending choo-choo.