Combat Maneuvers, Conversions, etc

[AntiquarianAspirant]

Greetings!

I recently picked up Castles & Crusades as a means to get a taste of what old-school gaming is like in a format that'd be easier for someone who cut their teeth on 3.5 to understand. I like a lot of what I'm seeing, especially the SIEGE Engine's simplicity, but I'm having a little trouble with some things and a little help would be greatly appreciated.

Firstly, how would one approach combat maneuvers in C&C, such as Trip, Sunder, Feint, Overrun, or Aid Another? I presumed that d20's Bull Rush is covered well by C&C's Push manuever, but I was looking at C&C's take on Disarm for inspiration on the others and immediately was stumped, I do not know if I was missing something but the math on that maneuver looked like it would be impossible to actually Disarm an enemy worth trying the maneuver out on (a higher level foe that desperately needs to be made vulnerable). I can think of ideas of how to adjudicate things in my head already, but as I've never played the game before I'm concerned about not breaking things.

Secondly, how would one convert character classes to C&C, specifically from AD&D and 3.5? I'm desperately curious to run some campaigns set in Netheril, so I'd love to be able to get a C&C-friendly Netherese Arcanist up and running, and I'd also love to tinker with back-porting some of the 3.5 (and/or Pathfinder) classes I was fond of.

Beyond that I'd appreciate any link to analyses of the game math so I can better understand how and why C&C works (right now it strikes me like a 1st level character could expect something like a 40-55%ish chance of success on a class skill with a prime attribute, which strikes me as absolutely hecking incompetent), or any guides on how to smartly and effectively play or run the game- I've never played in an old-school system before and once I get C&C up and running I'd like to be able to give any players I get an experience that feels authentically set in an AD&D tone and not just the 3.5 feeling I'm used to with different rules (and if I get to play, to know how to actually be effective in such a style of game).

Thank you!

[Grandpa]

C&C is a SIMPLE rule set.Basic fighting is covered under you attack bonus and Dex bonus. Something like a feint is done CONSTANTLY in a fight and isn't separate from the fight. E.g. blocking with a shield isn't a separate roll. It is part of the AC bonus of the shield. If you want to do something unusual you tell the CK what you want to do and he uses the Siege Engine to determine difficulty and has you roll vs. the appropriate attribute. If it isn't covered in the rules like the Combat Chapter. For instance a "Trip" during a sword fight is switching from armed combat to unarmed attack in my game and uses the overbearing combat rules. "OVERBEARING - This type of attack is used to knock an opponent down."

Disarm is covered under combat manoeuvres in the PHB page 176 I think. Have you read the combat chapter in the PHB?

[AntiquarianAspirant]

True, but so is dodging, and there are maneuvers for spending a turn focusing on that. Could I not in a similar manner have a character devote their turn to, say, trying to throw an enemy off balance so that his companion could get an easier hit in?

I did see the Overbearing maneuver but I wasn't sure if it was what I was looking for, as it was bundled in with the unarmed rules. (But it looks like the hook sword can do that and Disarm too so I may get that.)

I saw the Disarm maneuver's description (and read the CKG for those maneuvers too) but I was a little confused on the math there; I'm still new to this but it looks like the roll to beat is about what you'd have to roll for a non-Prime, but only martial classes can do it anyway? I was unsure if I was missing something there.

I do like how simple and unified C&C looks so far but after ages of being bored every time I tried 3.5's martial classes (save for the Tome of Battle ones) I've become a little obssessed with making sure I always have more to contribute than just melee attacks (my last group seemed very amused when I took Quick-draw for my barbarian and bought him some of every alchemical item and every weapon with a unique effect I could get my hands on).

[Grandpa]

True, but so is dodging, and there are maneuvers for spending a turn focusing on that. Could I not in a similar manner have a character devote their turn to, say, trying to throw an enemy off balance so that his companion could get an easier hit in?

Yes, it is the overbearing maneuver. You are physically trying to put down a person.

I did see the Overbearing maneuver but I wasn't sure if it was what I was looking for, as it was bundled in with the unarmed rules. (But it looks like the hook sword can do that and Disarm too so I may get that.)

What you described WAS unarmed. As you saw certain weapons can disarm.

I saw the Disarm maneuver's description (and read the CKG for those maneuvers too) but I was a little confused on the math there; I'm still new to this but it looks like the roll to beat is about what you'd have to roll for a non-Prime, but only martial classes can do it anyway? I was unsure if I was missing something there.

I don't use those as it just complicates combat. I just have the player tell me what they are trying to do if unusual and rule on it b ased on the situation.

I do like how simple and unified C&C looks so far but after ages of being bored every time I tried 3.5's martial classes (save for the Tome of Battle ones) I've become a little obssessed with making sure I always have more to contribute than just melee attacks (my last group seemed very amused when I took Quick-draw for my barbarian and bought him some of every alchemical item and every weapon with a unique effect I could get my hands on).

You have to have a DM that isn't in the restricted 3.x mindset. In C&C you can try ANYTHING. You need a Ref that knows how to play C&C. My players can try anything they want. As the Ref I decide what % change they have of success and have them roll using the Siege engine (which is nothing more that a % chance of success engine tailored to attribute primes.) GMs that never played the original D&D may have a problem a they are used to following tight rules that disallow more than they allow. There is no "throw sand in opponent's eyes" combat maneuver but in C&C the ref can use the Siege engine to allow it.

Learn the Siege Engine (calculate the % chance of success for some of the examples given in the book to get a feel of the ranges) and you are set.

Example. The Thief wants to throw sand in the eyes of the Orc that is coming at him. You decide that is a Dex based roll and that PC should have a 10% chance of pulling it off. You set the Difficulty so that only a roll of 19 or 20 by the player will result in success. On something like that. I just tell the player to roll and I tell them it succeeds if they rolled a 19 or 20 or they failed if they roll lower. The game needs to be fast paced and creative. Swinging from chandeliers by their ankles while throwing flaming oil. Make it possible and the players will have fun.

[AntiquarianAspirant]

Okay, I like the sound of that; I'll use what's in the PHB and CKG as a base of reference and wing it from there. Thank you!

Edit: Oh, and do you know of anyone I could message or whose posts I could go over for help with converting AD&D or 3.0 classes to C&C? I can find conversion guides for monsters and campaigns easily but not so much for player content (and IIRC some of the stuff I'm curious about like Dark Sun came with uniqur options even back in the AD&D days).

[Grandpa]

Not any guide type of thing that I've seem. Start by search for something like "3rd ed classname conversion" or, "3rd edition classname to C&C"

[Captain_K]

Go to the other website Knights of the Crusade and download the Domesday #8 I think (if not 8 it was 7 or 9) there is a conversion write up in there, but I fear you will not find it math rich, more concept oriented. Those Domesday do have some math in them for you though...

Happy hunting... the CKG does go into shifting the Prime +6 with the 18 vs 12 target a bit.

Welcome to CnC.... do not forget the first principal of engineering.... KISS

[AntiquarianAspirant]

Sounds great to me, anything that can help me understand the game better is good.

Thank you for the pointer; I'll check the website out and look through those issues!

Edit: Maybe I was a little too forward about asking about game balance and math and stuff. I don't really want to make the game more complex; I just want to get a good handle on it. You know, the old adage about having to know the rules before you can break them, and all that.

[Captain_K]

There is a great deal of value in letting math, logic, and statistics into the game (behind the scenes), if more of that occurs, things only get better.

[Captain_K]

Here is one for you, "offensive focus", is that melee combat only, or for ranged attacks too?

[Grandpa]

When looking at 1st level skill success rates look at 1st level success rates at hitting opponents in in combat... Also with skills, if you start 1st level with 90% success where do you go as you rise in level?

Class "balance" is NOT a D&D thing. That fallacy was introduced after Gygax and crew left the game. Originally PCs were supposed to be like a special forces TEAM; work TOGETHER or fail. The guy with the small anti-tank weapon has more firepower than the medic with the M4. (it is the PC TEAM vs. monsters; not PC vs PC) The XP progression was made to show that. 3.X screwed the pooch by making Wizards level as fast as a rogue (VERY stupid move) and thus further erasing the team concept. This is why Gygax said that C&C is what 3rd Edition SHOULD have been. He helped design the system after all.

[AntiquarianAspirant]

Here is one for you, "offensive focus", is that melee combat only, or for ranged attacks too?

I would rule either; I can see someone putting all of their attention into one really well-aimed attack just as much as I can see someone going hog wild and doing their best to just land a solid strike on the enemy.

When looking at 1st level skill success rates look at 1st level success rates at hitting opponents in in combat... Also with skills, if you start 1st level with 90% success where do you go as you rise in level?

Class "balance" is NOT a D&D thing. That fallacy was introduced after Gygax and crew left the game. Originally PCs were supposed to be like a special forces TEAM; work TOGETHER or fail. The guy with the small anti-tank weapon has more firepower than the medic with the M4. (it is the PC TEAM vs. monsters; not PC vs PC) The XP progression was made to show that. 3.X screwed the pooch by making Wizards level as fast as a rogue (VERY stupid move) and thus further erasing the team concept. This is why Gygax said that C&C is what 3rd Edition SHOULD have been. He helped design the system after all.

I got the impression success rates wouldn't go up very much since challenge level goes up with enemy HD, or is that another presumption I should get rid of when running C&C? I saw the PHB discussing the possibility of two first level characters going up against a chimera, the Fighter specifically has an ability to better fight 1 HD creatures over his whole career, and the AD&D modules I was looking through for ideas had a pretty great variance in the level of monster power (or HD, anyway) they used. I assume that going by monster CR, or HD or whatever, is another thing that 3.0 introduced?

True, I noticed the varied XP progression right away and presumed that this was going to feel very different, and with multiclassing and class 'skills' handled the way they were that parties would have to be a whole lot more interdependent (which I welcome, thinking of my old parties). I'm more nervous that I'd end up allowing players to get away with too much and not feel challenged, or too little and have them feel stifled.

[Grandpa]

I got the impression success rates wouldn't go up very much since challenge level goes up with enemy HD, or is that another presumption I should get rid of when running C&C?

The thief's ability to climb that smooth wall gets better each level he goes up. Same type of wall, better chance each level up. The caster vs. HD of monster yes, it matches. But, as a 6th level party you are not going to be going up against groups of 6 HD monsters one after another, in the main. You will going against maybe a 6 HD leader with lots of lower HD stuff. Even in 3.x going up against equal power opponents results in possible TPK a fair % of the time. So, you will get more powerful in the main vs. opponents. But not all obviously.

I saw the PHB discussing the possibility of two first level characters going up against a chimera, the Fighter specifically has an ability to better fight 1 HD creatures over his whole career, and the AD&D modules I was looking through for ideas had a pretty great variance in the level of monster power (or HD, anyway) they used. I assume that going by monster CR, or HD or whatever, is another thing that 3.0 introduced?

No, HD is something that has been a guide for DMs since day one. It was emphasized a lot more in 3.x because new DMs needed more guidance to keep from wiping out party's. When I went from AD&D to 3.x I didn't use the guidelines because I was experienced enough to just look at a monster and know how it would play against a given party. If I had started as a DM rather than a player I would have like the guidelines.

True, I noticed the varied XP progression right away and presumed that this was going to feel very different, and with multiclassing and class 'skills' handled the way they were that parties would have to be a whole lot more interdependent (which I welcome, thinking of my old parties). I'm more nervous that I'd end up allowing players to get away with too much and not feel challenged, or too little and have them feel stifled.

An old rule for DMs. If you make it too easy you can just adjust the next game to make it harder and a challenge. If you give away too much treasure there are ways to nibble it down and maybe give out less in the next few caches of treasure. That is easier than resurrecting a whole party because you made it WAY too tough.

[AntiquarianAspirant]

Do you think the CKG 'epic fantasy' SIEGE engine variant for primary/secondary/tertiary challenge bases (10/14/18) would be too much of a change from by the book C&C to start new players with, then? That was my initial thought of what I could use to help gently introduce fellow 3E veterans (and even moreso the Pathfinder vets) to C&C.
Hrm, that wasn't my experience in 3E; my experience was that DMs had to really push us to challenge us. Of course, I don't recall a time (outside of high school) where I didn't play with incredibly jolly powergamers so that may have had something to do with it!
What you say makes me wonder about how I could use really low HD enemies effectively against adventuring parties; I know Tucker's Kobolds are a great example of how to make even 1HD creatures absolutely terrifying so I suppose I could start there. Is it difficult to take orcs and bugbears and the like and turn them into genuine threats to mid and high level characters with C&C?

Alright, I wasn't sure- HD and CR weren't very closely related in 3E as it were so I wasn't sure if they were something that were even bothered with in AD&D and the Basic days.

I suppose that's a pretty self-explanatory point, yeah; you can always make things harder but you can't really handwave an accidental TPK.

[Grandpa]

Do you think the CKG 'epic fantasy' SIEGE engine variant for primary/secondary/tertiary challenge bases (10/14/18) would be too much of a change from by the book C&C to start new players with, then? That was my initial thought of what I could use to help gently introduce fellow 3E veterans (and even moreso the Pathfinder vets) to C&C.
Hrm, that wasn't my experience in 3E; my experience was that DMs had to really push us to challenge us. Of course, I don't recall a time (outside of high school) where I didn't play with incredibly jolly powergamers so that may have had something to do with it!
What you say makes me wonder about how I could use really low HD enemies effectively against adventuring parties; I know Tucker's Kobolds are a great example of how to make even 1HD creatures absolutely terrifying so I suppose I could start there. Is it difficult to take orcs and bugbears and the like and turn them into genuine threats to mid and high level characters with C&C?

Alright, I wasn't sure- HD and CR weren't very closely related in 3E as it were so I wasn't sure if they were something that were even bothered with in AD&D and the Basic days.

I suppose that's a pretty self-explanatory point, yeah; you can always make things harder but you can't really handwave an accidental TPK.

It is EASY to wipe out mid -level 3.x PCs with 1HD creatures. You don't even need a lot to do it. I once did it to a bunch of "power gamers". One little boulder slide trap on a narrow trail was all it took for the Orcs to TPK. Orcs peppering MUs from a distance with bows, etc. All kinds of simple ways to wear down a powerful party with 1HD creatures. It was just an object lesson to show them that they had not yet learned to play D&D as they were helpless w/o tons of magic. You just didn't have an experienced DM.

[AntiquarianAspirant]

Well, I'm skeptical (that we could have been wiped by low level creatures), but not totally so. Do you have any general advice for making weaker adversaries more threatening to a party?

[Grandpa]

Well, I'm skeptical (that we could have been wiped by low level creatures), but not totally so. Do you have any general advice for making weaker adversaries more threatening to a party?

Sure. Have them use TACTICS. YOU as the DM have to think. What if you and 4 other guys who only had pistols were going up against 5 guys with RPGs? You had a "lair" in the wilderness that they were going to pillage. What would you do? How would you engage them? Would you use your pistols as the PRIMARY attack? What supplies would you stock to help you fight them? What traps would you set? A 6th level PC that gets a 1 ton boulder dropped from 20' right on top of them is DEAD. Squished, pulped dead. Think about it.