My house rules

[rickyh]

Tell me what you think
http://www.setel.com/~nuttybuddy/cnchouse.pdf

I used the format of someone house rules online, but edited them to make my own.

One thing I didn't like about C&C was the dead lift and military press.

Random NFL people can press like 400+ lbs. A fighter with 18 Str can do 180 lbs. I don't want powergaming/munchkin, but I do want my fighters with 18 to feel similiar to Conan and not like the average guy who works out at the gym.

Feel free to ask questions, and to make comments, good or bad.

[seskis281]

That, of course, is the beauty of C&C - not 100% happy with something, adapt it.... it's one of the few systems that captures the one essential factor of O & AD&D - "make the rules your own," and it's the only system I've met that says you should make changes to suit your opinions.

"Rules were made to be broken." http://johnwright281.tripod.com/
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

[Treebore]

Looks good. I think I will use your weights table.

[moriarty777]

I think the weights table helps put things into perspective a bit more.

Thanks for sharing.

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

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

[Arioch]

NIce

Ken
_________________
Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics

Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you

Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour

WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ?
http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html

[Combat_Kyle]

Hehe, its funny how people think similar I have been using a attribute generation method nearly identival to your for over a year now. The only difference is that I give the players 4 points to add to their stats instead of 3. Of course the players typically need those, as most monsters in my game have max HP.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

[Treebore]

Nothin game breaking. That kind of stuff is fine. It all depends on what you find worth worrying about.

Heck, I usually give max starting gold, don't track spell components unless they are worth 5 GP or more, I presume normal clothes, I do have them buy carrying equipment such as back packs, I don't do encumbrance, I just require "sensible" amounts of equipment.

So the only thing I wouldn't do is not require memorizing spells before hand. I find that a key element of spell control at high levels. If you expect only low level play I wouldn't worry about it either. But if you think you might get up to 14th level or higher you may want to worry about it.

[phadeout]

Beowulf wrote:
I'm planning on running a campaign soon, and I want the rules to be a tad simpler than normal, so I had some ideas.

No encumbrance rules....the CK will decide what all the character can carry.

Characters start out with a complete set of clothes, and don't need to buy them at creation.

No need for carrying devices, such as backpacks, pouches, and scabbards. Those are assumed.

Spellcasters need not prepare their spells beforehand.

What do you all think? Any of it sound terribly unwise?

It all sounds good. For spell casters (just to keep things a little in control) is just say: You need a good night's sleep (decided by CK), and 1 hour of study or prayer afterwards. Then all your spell slots for the day are "regenerated".

[irda ranger]

All sounds fine to me.

I like keeping track of EV, but that's because my players are pack-rats, and would carry every weapon and suit of armor from every enemy they killed (to sell once they get back to civilization) if I let them. Having EV, and enforcing rules for backpacks, saddlebags and wagons is the only way I can keep that under control. I also find the EV system to be fairly easy and low maintenance, but not keeping track at all is obviously easier. Just make sure you're consistent & fair.

The change to spells is pretty big, but I do something similar myself (you can check the link in the sig). As Treebore mentioned, this could be a problem as the number of spells available mushrooms at higher levels.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Omote]

Nothing to worry about there at all, except for the possibility of spellcasting. As mentioned above, you have to put some limit on it, possibly based ona specific time of day, spells points, can only cast a number of spells = to CON attribute or some thing like.

..................................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Maliki]

Other than the spellcasters , I don't think anything will have a big impact on the game, not having to prepare spell ahead of time is a big boost in power for spellcasters, in a higher level game it could really impact play.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[Tadhg]

Your initiative rules sound interesting. I'll have to see if my group might be interested in that method.

Thanks for posting.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[imneuromancer]

I find that in "round" systems where you only roll once, it turns into (or devolves into, if you don't like it this way): OK, you guys go, then they go. Then you guys go, then they go.....

And if you like that way adjudicating initiative (it is, after all, very easy). Then making it look like a SEIGE check is a great, great idea. Basically, you are making a way to either go before the monster or after in the first round; after that, it doesn't matter much since end of round one goes into beginning of round 2, etc.

Personally, I have always had affection for a Shadowrun-esque initiative system.

The basic idea there is that you roll initiative, and you get an extra action for every 10 (or so) points you roll. You then just go down the line of initiative numbers and when you get to 0, everyone rerolls.

For example, lets say three people are fighting each other. They roll and get:

A = 23

B = 12

C = 8

the initiative order would be:

23 A

13 A (23-10)

12 B

8 C

3 A (23-20)

2 B (12-10)

This system would adjudicate multiple actions from monks and fighters since they would simply get a bonus of some type to initiative.

You could even (shock!) add weapon speeds or spell casting time as a factor into the initiative roll to make faster but lighter weapons get more attacks, but at the corresponding less damage.... same with spells. You might get a big whopper of a 6th level spell in, or you may want to get several 1st level spells in, depending.

Obviously the mechanics would have to be worked out for CnC, but I think it is an interesting idea that doesn't devolve into a series of back-and-forths of "normal" initiative systems.

[maasenstodt]

Rhuvein wrote:
Your initiative rules sound interesting. I'll have to see if my group might be interested in that method.

Thanks for posting.

You're quite welcome.

Interestingly, I think, I came to that method for determining initiative after becoming smitten by the quirky Holmes edition of D&D and Meepo's expansion to it. There's lots that I like about Holmes' work, one of which is its own unique initiative system. For those who don't know, in Holmes D&D, characters essentially act by comparing DEX attributes and proceeding from highest to lowest. All monsters, therefore, also have DEX scores, these being determined by the GM ahead of time or rolled once at the beginning of combat.

While I strongly considered converting my game to Holmes D&D along with my own variant on Meepo's work, in the end I decided to stick with C&C. Desiring to bring some of Holmes' simplicity and charm into C&C, however, I experimented a bit and my initiative rules are one result.

While there's no doubt that it's not for everyone, I've found that using these rules simplifies things for players and GM alike. Players can forget the additional (and unique) die rolling mechanism for standard C&C initiative, and in combat, they'll often reduce the number of different dice that they need by 50% to a d20 and whatever their weapon's damage dice is. GMs have vastly less rolling and record keeping to do, resulting in substantially faster paced combats.

Finally, I should add that when a character's turn comes up in this system, the creative use of SIEGE checks (i.e., stunting) can be used, at GM discretion, to improve one's order in a round or force an opponent to have his action delayed. For example, say a PC decides not to attack a foe but to trip him instead. He makes a SIEGE check and, if successful, the foe may lose his action that round, have his initiative score reduced by the PC's margin of success, or both. Such possibilities ensure that combat isn't always a static back and forth, but it is fast paced and exciting.
_________________
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? -- Henry David Thoreau

[maasenstodt]

Seesh. Looking again at my original post, it occurs to me that I omitted my oldest (and perhaps my most successful) C&C house rule, originally posted here.

That's an interesting lesson in that sometimes house rules become so ingrained that they are difficult to distinguish from the "by the book" rules.
_________________
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? -- Henry David Thoreau