Monster conversions

vegabond · Post by **vegabond** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:59 pm

Hi all, another new convert here. I'm starting up a campaign soon, trying to get all my D&D buddies to make the switch too.

The monster stat blocks in M&T are way easier to read, but no attribute stats are given. It appears the stats listed were almost directly copied from the SRD, so I have just been using the MM instead.

Anyway on to my questions.

1) How is monster AC determined? Since there are no size modifiers in C&C and the attribute modifiers are different between D&D and C&C the AC should be different in the M&T from the MM, but they are the same. ODD.

2) If one of my players surprises or sneak attacks a monster, how do I know how much AC came from the monsters Dex score? They have no attributes.

Take the Ogre for example;

D&D: +8 to hit (+5 Str & +3 Bab), 16 AC, 4d8+11 HP (28 HP);

C&C: +4 to hit (4 hd creature), 16 AC (how?), 4d8 HP (20 HP).

By my figuring the C&C ogre should have a 17 AC, since there are no size penalties/bonuses. As a player I'd much rather go up against the second version. Sure he may be a little harder to hit, but he will hit less often and has less HP to wittle away.

And now a Kobold:

D&D: +1 to hit (-1 Str, +1 Bab & +1 Warrior), 15 AC, 1d8 HP (4 HP);

C&C: +1 to hit (1 hd creature), 15 AC (how?), 1d4 HP (4 HP).

By my figuring the C&C kobold should have a 14 AC, since there are no size penalties/bonuses. Not much difference here, but I'd still want to take on the second version because it would be slightly easier to hit.

I guess my main concern is, if you don't give creatures attribute stat (which i'm ok with) then they become weaker. In most cases there AC, To hit bonus and Hit Points are all lower than their D&D counterparts.

Are monsters supposed to be easier to kill in C&C? Just trying to get this figured out before my first game. As is I don't see how the monster stats in M&T can even be used.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:05 pm

Quote:
How is monster AC determined?

Armor worn, toughness, speed, and the like... basically: the description.

Quote:
If one of my players surprises or sneak attacks a monster, how do I know how much AC came from the monsters Dex score

Why does it matter? C&C doesn't apply a "the creature loses its Dex bonus." It says: +2 to hit and +4 damage." Done. You're applying the wrong rules to the right situation.

Quote:
In most cases there AC, To hit bonus and Hit Points are all lower than their D&D counterparts.

Did you also notice that C&C characters don't get very high BtH, HP, AC, and the like, as well? There are also no rules for criticals and other things demanding exponential HP. If monsters kept having d20-like values and the PCs did not, it would be stupid easy for the monster to win; in fact, the C&C monsters are harder to kill - they have much better saves on the whole, better attack rates (especially if they get more than one, since they suffer zero penalty for iterative attacks), and generally encountered en masse - I would rather face down 1 20 HD troll in d20 than 10 C&C hill trolls.

The montser stats work exactly as written.

vegabond · Post by **vegabond** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:56 pm

Ah good I have the expert.

a few more ?'s

1) So a surprised monster doesn't lose dex to AC, but a PC does?

2) What about Touch attacks? If a PC attacks a monster the rules say the AC is 10 plus the Dex and any magical items.

3) How does Spell Resistance work? In D&D a drider has a 17 SR and in C&C it has a 3. The M&T says the caster makes an unmodified SR roll which must beat the monster SR value. A dragon has a SR of 2 to 6. Doesn't seem that hard to beat (or the drider of 3 SR). Yet the PHB says the caster makes a SR roll modified by Int modifier. What is going on here? Either way won't be hard for a caster to beat a SR 2 to 6 dragon or SR 3 drider. Is this the way it was meant?

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:18 pm

1) A monster cannot lose what it does not have; if you want to modify the AC of a monster during a surprise situation, I suggest doing so by -2.

2) If the one attacked is not wearing magical armor (for example, some monsters state they wear armor, and of what type, in generalities), ignore the bonus granted by the armor itself (subtract the AC bonus; in the case of magical armor you subtract the base AC from the armor but leave the + for the magic) - everything left over is a combination of toughness (what d20 might call natural armor), agility (Dexterity adjustment, perhaps for monsters, and definitely for PCs) and whatever other modifiers might be happening based on however the CK decides the AC for that monster/NPC (PCs are fairly obviously easy to deal with) is what it is.

3) The original intent was to have SR be unmodified, and the values should be slightly higher for many monsters; there was miscommunication on the way Troll development was taking this, and so, I was not responsible for the final SR values (mine were usually 6-10 points higher.)

One of these days I'll compare the M&T print to the M&T original manuscript.

vegabond · Post by **vegabond** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:58 pm

1) I don't see (and my players won't either) how a monster would always have an unmodified AC. No surprise, sneak attack or touch attack adjustments. They will cry foul and I don't blame them.

2) That sounds good, but the armor worn isn't listed in the M&T. I know what it is, because I know where you got your info, but for people who aren't familiar with this game or D&D it would be very confusing.

3) I think I'll just stick with the SR in the MM and use SR like in 3.5. Roll d20 and add your caster level. Quick and easy and all the monster SR values are consistant.

Thanks for your time.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:29 pm

Quote:
I don't see (and my players won't either) how a monster would always have an unmodified AC.

Its your job, as a CK, to adjust as you see fit - it is not that of the rules to tell you what to do in every instance of every possible situation. Some creatures, for example, don't wear armor, and don't have any agility (like, an elephant, for example) so, what loss would it have when surprised? Its thick hide is just as tough to pierce when it doesn't know what is hitting it as it is at any other time. A general rule (and an overly bloated one) would be to assign everything a Dexterity rating (and then you'd need one for Strength and Constitution and Charisma and blah blah;) or, you can just decide on what's actually taking place - the latter is more dynamic and akint to the the style of play C&C wants to be.

Quote:
No surprise, sneak attack or touch attack adjustments.

During a sneak attack, the rogue gets a +2 to hit which, coincidentally, is the same as a -2 AC; who gets the modifier is rather irrelevant. A surprise, per force, is the same as a sneak attack (though only the rogue gets the +4 damage) so, therefore, with a little extrapolation, you have your rule for surprise. Touch AC is, well, as I already went over, so there is, obviously, no change for those not wearing armor... not that there are many spells or abilities in C&C that say "make a touch attack roll" so, this "rule" is, again, nearly pointless. Also, some creatures simply should not be touchable, like a wraith. What is its "touch AC?" Infinite? 0? Its neither - its "unratable."

Quote:
but the armor worn isn't listed in the M&T.

Sure is, and suggested for some. Does every monster? No, but, like before, not every monster wears it.

Quote:
but for people who aren't familiar with this game or D&D it would be very confusing.

I doubt it, since C&C doesn't call for a touch attack very often, so the need to explain it is near to zero likelihood; it is those who are familiar with d20 (and the rare time in AD&D) that need it, however.

C&C is a different paradigm than d20 and other game systems. Don't approach it like it is (A/O)D&D, because it is not.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:38 pm

I've tried converting dozens of monsters.

Monster AC is mostly a judgement call for the CK. If something is wearing rotten chainmail I give it the chainmail AC minus one. (or only a +5 for full chain suit.) Your going to be the sole judge on what CL different tasks are going to be for the rest of the game so you get used to it.

Sneak attacks are ,again, up to you. Was the creature asleep? Or just looking the other way? Sometimes a full fledged sneak attack autohits. Why? Because if you can't hit a snoring ogre you need to give up adventuring.

SR is different but easy (and easily houseruled). Just roll a d20 and beat the SR. Sounds too easy until you roll a one. (That'll happen )

It does seem like your making up most of the values during a game. This will feel a lot more natural as the game goes on until trying to use D&D3 rules will feel like your trying to roll dice underwater. Constrictive, that is.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

vegabond · Post by **vegabond** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:47 am

When using monsters or NPC's in C&C does anyone give bonuses to damage from high strength? Such as a strong barbarian or dwarf?

Witterquick · Post by **Witterquick** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:04 am

It seems that most high-strength monsters (like the ogre) get the "strength bonus" in the amount of damage (e.g. 1d10 Slam) that they do.
_________________
http://strangequests.wordpress.com/

GameOgre · Post by **GameOgre** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:38 am

If your looking for a C&C rule for everything your going to be disapointed. If something is too simple and unrealistic for your tastes change it.

C&C is made so the power is in YOUR hands. They dont force a trillion rules down your throat. They give you some good looking bones to use and tell you to steal or make up whatevr else you need.

Some people dont like this. They want the makers of the game to step in and have more control over the game. Often though thoe people are coming to try C&C BECAUSE of being unhappy with the makers of a game trying to control every little detail.

I know that when i 1st tried C&C I was disapointed. I wanted a simple easy to use game that had 30,000 rules for everything under the sun.

It was only after I was hit in the head by a post telling me to use C&C to make MY own perfect game that I started to see the light.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:51 am

Witterquick wrote:
It seems that most high-strength monsters (like the ogre) get the "strength bonus" in the amount of damage (e.g. 1d10 Slam) that they do.

Or, the creature can just use their # of HD as a damage bonus. Simplest way forward.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

GameOgre · Post by **GameOgre** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:53 am

Just as a example of what Im talking about.

with PC's,npc's and monsters I mod damage bonus,hp,move, and AC based on stats. I also have a crapload of house rules on movment and use a 2E/C&C skill mix that works for me and my players.

I also use a crit system that I house ruled back in D&D but lowered high end of it do deal with the hp of C&C.

I use a comination Weapon prof and spec based on 1E,2E as well as my own house rule on spell casting times.

Im sure I am forgetting a few things as well.

This system works GREAT for me and I know it well enough now that I can convert on the fly in most cases or with only a little prep time before hand on large store bought modules.

Is my C&C just like everyone elses? Nope. So its hard for me to tell you what YOU should do to make you and your players happy. I think you already know what to do. Just do it !! Dont be worried about what the correct way of doing things is because...its up to you to deside the right way.

Though posting questions is fine and I dont want to sound like im trying to blow you off. If you just wanting opinion or idea then awsome and please ask away!!
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

vegabond · Post by **vegabond** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:44 am

Well my first game hasn't started yet and I'm trying to nail down how I want things to run.

I was mainly asking because it seems the monsters aren't as lethal as in 3.5. So I didn't know if I should pump them up a little. I guess after we play a little I'll have a better feel.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:15 pm

vegabond wrote:
When using monsters or NPC's in C&C does anyone give bonuses to damage from high strength? Such as a strong barbarian or dwarf?

Sometimes we get hit with a high strength NPC (like a barbarian warlord). But these are rather uncommon. So, normally no.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:24 pm

vegabond wrote:
Well my first game hasn't started yet and I'm trying to nail down how I want things to run.

I was mainly asking because it seems the monsters aren't as lethal as in 3.5. So I didn't know if I should pump them up a little. I guess after we play a little I'll have a better feel.

Try the rules are written first, and you will see how lethal C&C monsters can be!

vegabond · Post by **vegabond** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:16 am

will do, thanks everyone.

Alcahaelas · Post by **Alcahaelas** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:05 am

As mentioned, the key is the flexibility of the system. The design intends to negate rule-mongering and keeping multiple volumes of reference material on the table for every situation.

The CK is the storyteller, the narrator, the expediter. Much of the mystery--and the magic--of a good gaming session is the "not knowing" exactly what to expect or how things fall out "by the rules"; the game flows at a good pace and the uncertainty, the fear if you will, gets the characters engaged in the action and more worried about the outcome. As they should be! If you reduce everything down to formula outlined in multiple volumes and hundreds of rules, you lose the essence of roleplaying. You may as well not have players, just roll dice for their actions and settle the disputes. A solo session with no emotional investment.

Personally I did not like 3.5 because of the overdetailization of the game. It lost the flavor of the old school D&D, became more an exercise of who could remember what rules the best, of players finding and exploiting loopholes and boldly thrusting the rules into the face of the DM. That is a tiresome and thankless job, being the DM in those situations.

The creativity and freedom of a rules-lite system is refreshing and enjoyable. House rule it to suit your needs but try not to over-indulge in the mechanics. As a CK you have to make decisions on the fly to suit the story and the flow of the gaming session. Better to have wiggle room than to be stuck to a board like a bug.

Of particular note, see my sig line for appropriate quotes.
_________________
I am not a hamster and Life is not a wheel.

gideon_thorne wrote:
There are lots of explanations that a clever CK can use to bullshit any roll.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:27 am

rabindranath72 wrote:
Try the rules are written first, and you will see how lethal C&C monsters can be!

Yes, tell your players your going to use a game that is base line rules. Your going to play them by the book, and as you go you, as a group, are going to work out whatever rules, from whatever system, you all want and agree to add.

Then, if your stuck on figuring out how to implement them, come here and ask us, I bet you'll get at least a half dozen different suggestions for how to go about doing it.

So present it to your players as a group effort to build a game that everyone can be "equally" happy with, because you all make and agree on the customized rules to suit your groups specific likes.

Just be sure to fight for the degree of rules you will still be happy being the game master of. The pay off for them will be game rules with which they can still have fun. Maybe not everything they want, but good enough that everyone is happy enough to just play a game.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:05 pm

Most gamers (though not all) that go from D&D3 to C&C really appreciate the change of pace. I just wish I could go back in time to when I got MrsCharlie into tabletop gaming and introduced her to C&C first. (I hadn't heard about C&C until somebody on another website went off on me and told me to go play it). When she first gave C&C a try she was very nervous. If you are rules-new to D&D3 you can suffer (in-game, of course) greatly for that lack of knowledge. She was afraid she would be overwhelmed trying something different. But, she liked it so much she CKs now.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

kelro · Post by **kelro** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:54 pm

What I have found in play is that any monster that requires a save will likely be more lethal in C&C then its counterpart in D20.

Otherwise, I find C&C monsters to be less lethal then their D20 counterparts in most cases. For example, I use ogres quite a bit in my campaign. If you just do a comparison numbers of a D20 ogre in the SRD versus a C&C ogre in MT, the D20 ogre is more powerful.

This lowered lethality of many monsters has actually helped me in running through our campaign that was published as D20.

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:16 pm

kelro wrote:
Otherwise, I find C&C monsters to be less lethal then their D20 counterparts in most cases. For example, I use ogres quite a bit in my campaign. If you just do a comparison numbers of a D20 ogre in the SRD versus a C&C ogre in MT, the D20 ogre is more powerful.

This lowered lethality of many monsters has actually helped me in running through our campaign that was published as D20.

I found quite the opposite