New to C&C .. seems built for house-rules

[ziltmilt]

I just got the rules and some adventure modules, and I simply adore this game, but i don't think the designers completely scrubbed the mechanics of outdated ideas.

For example, and i'm sure someone's brought this up in the past, take hit points. It's never made much sense to me that a 50 hp character fights pretty much the same at 50 hp or at 1 hp. Systems that track damage instead of hit or health points make a little more sense to me .. i'm thinking of West End's Star Wars RPG and Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds. The old Star Wars is a great example, because each damage result meant you did all actions at a much lower proficiency. M&M is similar in spirit. Basically, your Saves against further damage are reduced, but you can still perform as well as if you're undamanged.

So, what if you could introduce a simple mechanic in C&C and simply replace hit points? The rough idea i had in mind was this: an attacker rolls d20 for Hit Dice and 1dX for Weapon Dmg at the same time. If the d20 roll + modifiers is a hit, then the defending opponent must Save vs Hit Roll + Weapon Dmg. The Save would consist of d20 + AC + Hit Dice (maybe ... i'm not sure about that last one).

Failing the save results in 1 Wound point. Each Wound point reduces d20 rolls cumulatively by 1. Failing the Save by more than 5 or more than 10 results in more serious effects: stunned, staggered, dying, etc.

Opponents aren't limited simply by how many hit points they carry as listed in the rulebook. Orcs can be potentially as lethal as dragons, as I think they should be. You can also layer classes onto Monsters, treating a Monster type as a very specialized race.

Another idea i'm not crazy about (and this isn't a problematic rule mechanic per se) is the idea that the PCs are supposed to slaughter everything that opposes them. I haven't read the rules exhaustively, but an idea comes to mind that Morale checks should come early in combat, perhaps upon first blood or with a fearsome appearence. If you choose (PCs or NPCs) to stand your ground, you suffer some condition (call it 'Frightened' or whatever) where all d20 rolls suffer -2 or -4 unless you can remove yourself from the menacing presence for at least a couple of rounds.

Another idea: some more options on character advancement. I'm not really thrilled with the class abilities as written. For example, 'Weapon Specialization' is kinda ... blah. What if, every other level, the character gets to choose where to put the +1. Maybe he even reduces his weapon speed (which would be another houserule ... a weapon's EV is how much it reduces a user's Initiative roll?). Or, take Rogues. Maybe with each increment of their BtH, they can add +1 to any one class ability.

Anyway, these are just some ideas i've had for awhile ... i'm sure some variation of this stuff has been discussed before. I'm curious as to any reactions out there, or if folks are already putting some of these types of rules to use.

[moriarty777]

Absolutely right! C&C is best suited for house rules -- and that's the way I like it. I find it works as it stands but easy enough to tweak to personal taste!

Welcome to the Crusade!

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

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

[Traveller]

Regarding hit points, there was a rationale given in the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide regarding them (in short, they're not solely a measure of physical health, but a combination of health and skill in avoiding damage). But there's nothing preventing you from eliminating the hit points if you wish, though in the case of monsters you'd have to adjust XP somehow, since XP awards are on a basis of X+Y/HP.

The C&C rules do mention about adding class levels to monsters, but it doesn't go into a great amount of detail.

Since the game is so easily house-ruled, anything you change or add will work, and all the ideas you have are decent. If it works for you, go for it. Don't hesitate to look at some of the house rules posted here and/or some of the links to house rule documents that are floating around.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[Luther]

ziltmilt wrote:
I just got the rules and some adventure modules, and I simply adore this game, but i don't think the designers completely scrubbed the mechanics of outdated ideas.

For example, and i'm sure someone's brought this up in the past, take hit points. It's never made much sense to me that a 50 hp character fights pretty much the same at 50 hp or at 1 hp...

Well, I think the problem of 'Hit Points' has little to do with how they work as much as how people see them. Over the years, as newer generations pick up the game, the orignal purposes of a lot of ideas behind 'old school gaming' have been lost and so some of those systems, like HP or XP for gold, seem to be outdated and bizarrely unrealistic to those who came to the hobby much later.

One of the things that you should understand about hit points is they are not 'life points,' as such, and never were intended to be. Despite the multitude of hoary old jokes about the fighter fighting on with 50 crossbow bolts sticking out of him like a human pincushion, a fighter with 50hp is not, medically speaking, any tougher than a fighter with 5 and will die from a sword in the heart just as easily.

The difference between the two is that the 50hp fighter is able to minimize damage from blows by turning aside at the last moment, parrying the blade from a vital spot to a non-vital one, using an extraordinary amount of effort to dodge the blow or even having a lucky break like an arrow glancing off of one of the buckles on his armour. In short, HP represent a combination of combat reflexes, fatigue, and luck/fate. The system itself is pulp sword & sorcery shorthand for recreating the difference between a guard, who can possibly take on one or two foes, and Conan, who can wade into dozens.

Quote:
Another idea i'm not crazy about (and this isn't a problematic rule mechanic per se) is the idea that the PCs are supposed to slaughter everything that opposes them. I haven't read the rules exhaustively, but an idea comes to mind that Morale checks should come early in combat, perhaps upon first blood or with a fearsome appearence.

Morale rules are easily adapted from BD&D, but in the end, it is CK judgement that decides when the creatures have had enough. Remember, almost every situation is unique and no set of rules could truly cover all the possibilities of why and when a monster will run without becoming 3.5e in complexity with tons of modifiers, table checking and all the other things that slow down the game and make it less fun. Better that the CK, who knows the big picture, make the decision on the spot based on the circumstances at hand using the rules only as a guideline.

Also, mix it up on occasion. It is your job as a CK to challenge the players and providing situations where slaughtering the monsters is actually a bad idea. You can discourage this behaviour by throwing in large groups or large monsters who are obviously too powerful to fight directly and must be avoided or defeated in some less direct manner (turning two tribes against each other, for instance) or making them a useful source of info on potential traps or other dangers.

Quote:
Another idea: some more options on character advancement. I'm not really thrilled with the class abilities as written. For example, 'Weapon Specialization' is kinda ... blah. What if, every other level, the character gets to choose where to put the +1. Maybe he even reduces his weapon speed (which would be another houserule ... a weapon's EV is how much it reduces a user's Initiative roll?). Or, take Rogues. Maybe with each increment of their BtH, they can add +1 to any one class ability.

This is where C&C is, in fact, designed for house rules. Because the rules are so simple, changing one or two to add a specific flavour to your game is easy and you don't have to worry about upsetting the balance of the whole shebang, unlike 4e where every rule is hyper-balanced by every other rule and changing one means heavy modifications of the others. In this way, C&C captures the feel of the OD&D toolbox and even I, Mr. RAW, couldn't resist tinkering with the system to add my own spin to my campaigns.

Finally, if you really want some old school schooling, I'd suggest giving this a read:
Quick Primer for Old School Gaming

It will give you a good idea of how the first RPGs were played and why the systems work as they do.

Hope all that helps...

[voynich]

i am new to castles and crusades as well and my reading makes me believe the rules are written as they are to allow one to customize and modify them. in an older thread i once read someone say something about "it is easier to add than to remove" and this game seems to have taken that as a staple of creation. for my taste, the proposed rule changes seem to make things a little more complicated, but that is not a good thing, or a bad thing. always interesting to read how someone else implements an idea.
_________________
the voynich manuscript is a mysterious illustrated book written in an indecipherable text. it is thought to have been written between 1450 and 1520. the author, script and language of the manuscript remain unknown.

[Lord Dynel]

I agree with voynich on this.

To each their own, of course, though. The following is just my opinion.

I think that adding too much could not only start bogging the game down, but it makes me start questioning why I'm playing C&C over another system. I've seen some really great ideas on this board or ones I've thought of implementing myself that would add to the system - weapon speeds, skill systems (I had been working on a system for some time, but gave up), wound/vitality instead of hp, action points, armor as damage resistance, spell points, feats, various multiclassing options, just to name some. The realizations I came to are this - if I want these options, why don't I just play 3.5? But of course, the average C&C player wouldn't add all these sub-systems, probably just one or two.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, for me, the system is pretty marvelous in its simplicity. The SIEGE engine can handle almost anything you need (feats/special action attempts, skill checks, and the like) or you can simply adjudicate actions (like in the old days ). I'm not knocking you at all zilt (Welcome the Crusade, btw! ), I'm just giving you my opinion - not that you asked or anything. I house rule the system, too (bumping the AC for monks and adding dexterity modifiers to initiative just to name two), it's just that I feel that the game works pretty well as it is. Ultimately, though, it's what you want to add; what you will have fun playing.

[Grey]

Quote:
Ultimately, though, it's what you want to add; what you will have fun playing.

....and there you have the reason I've really got into C&C! It's the only game I've come across recently that has a simple, coherent rule syste, but that allows the personal 'tweaks' to the rules I used to always love doing.

ziltmilt, like the adaption - as someone who used to really not like the HP progression idea, I've come to like it in C&C mainly because it (to me) represents experienced characters being able to deal with hits ect - personally I tend to feel that Con saving rolls against significant wounds (as suggested in the Players Handbook - I don;t have it to hand for page ref, but I recall a mention of such a roll when a character is hit by a giant to avoid broken bones) helps keep a simple method to adjudicate 'major' wounds. Although this does require a level of trust between players and ref as the criteria for such rolls is based on 'perceptions' of what type of damage may be 'major'.

As I said, the joy of C&C is that you can readily try out rules sub-systems without worrying about derailing the whole game

[Breakdaddy]

You're definitely on the right track. The idea behind C&C is pretty much to make the game your own and tailor it for your group's playstyle. Enjoy the game!

[ziltmilt]

I think i've got a potential alternate rule to replace hit points, for those of you interested in a way to facilitate declines in ability with an accumulation of damage.

It requires a couple of new stats in lieu of hp, Let's call the first Wound Threshold or WT. WT = your hit die (d4 or whatever) + your # of levels after the first. So, a 3rd level barbarian would have a WT of 14. The 2nd stat would simply be Wounds.

At attacker rolls his d20 hit roll and his damage at the same time. As usual, if the hit roll matches or beats the target's AC, he hits. The target then Saves (d20 + CON bonus + AC) vs the Total Attack (Hit Roll + Damage). If the Save fails, the target accumulats 1 Wound.

Each Wound then reduces any future d20 roll by 1, until healed.

If the difference in the Total Attack and the Save is more than the target's WT, then there's more serious effects. Look at the modified d20 Save roll (d20 + CON bonus):

less than 9 - you're Dazed - you lose a Move or Standard action on your upcoming turn

less than 6 - you're Stunned - lose all actions on upcoming turn

less than 3 - you're Helpless -

- 2 - Unconcious

- 1 - Dying - CON check each round vs 10, -1 cumul per round

- 0 or less - Dead

I realize i threw some D&D 3.5 stuff in there at the end, but you could come up with any combat conditions you'd like. I've played around w/ the numbers some, and I like this. You can take a lot of damage in combat, but you're going to gradually be less effective. Plus, the better your hit roll, the more damage you're doing. So, you don't need to fool with critical hit rules.

Plus, you can let players hammer a foe at the same time, and give them a little damage bonus as a result.

I think this fits into existing rules pretty well - cure spells work the same, regeneration works the same. Another thing i'm thinking of adding is that even a successful Save requires a check of some sort to see if the target's knocked backwards or prone. So, even if you're target Saves, you're still getting a tactical advantage from making a hit.

[Kress]

Interesting...might have to try it out.

Thanks for sharing ziltmilt!

[ziltmilt]

Well, i've been fiddling around with this some more, and actually, a lot of stuff would have to change to accomodate the Wound rules as I listed previously. For example, Cure spells would be too powerful as written with this alternate rule. Lots of little things would need to be changed, like a Bard's 'Exhort Greatness' or a Paladin's 'Lay on Hands'.

Hit Points are bound up in so many of the rules that removing them leaves a big hole requiring a lot of patches to fix. Here's what I'm thinking instead:

Keep HP, but introduce Wounds, with the same idea as I mentioned before ... a Wound reduces any d20 roll by 1. Here's the steps I had in mind, which aren't terribly different from the regular rules:

1) is Hit Roll >= the target's AC?

2) if yes, roll Damage normally and reduce HP

3) if Damage rolled > minimum (ie, you didn't roll a '1'), then target accumulates a Wound

4) In lieu of a Wound, the Target can opt to jerk back out of reach (kinda like a 5' step) but the attacker gets a free Trip attempt, which is merely a STR check, to also knock the opponent prone. If Tripped, the opponent is unable to also disengage (ie, doesn't move) if the Trip check is divisible by 3.

One combat option could be to wipe out a Wound via expending HP (d8 per Wound), which would be like resting for a full round, similar to taking a breather while exercising (which I do a lot on a tough run!!). I guess it might sound weird to split combat damage up into 2 different stats, but in my mind, they're representing 2 different things: Wounds are the reduction in your ability as a result of combat; HP shows how much punishment you can take before passing out or dying.

As much as I dislike adding another stat, 'Wounds', instead of outright replacing HP, it's less disruptive to the existing rules compared to what I previously introduced. And, when I was doing a little playtesting on the stuff from last month, comparing all those numbers wasn't as easy as I'd imagined.

In conjunction with this, I'll probably keep a set of rules I've developed for Morale ... which is that whenever certain conditions are met (one side suffers first blood, loss of a leader, etc), they either make a Morale check, flee/surrender, or are Frightened, like the Fear spell. I don't really like combat being a contest of extermination.

So, anyway, I'm always eager for any feedback. Thanks in advance, everyone.

[Treebore]

Personally I would just lift the wound and healing system/powers from Mutants and Masterminds, or True20, into C&C. That way you have guidance on how to apply damage and how to heal it.
_________________
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

[ziltmilt]

Yeah, I like M&M's damage system a lot, except for 1 tiny detail: accumulating Wounds only decreases future Damage Saves, not all your rolls. To me, this works for a superhero comic RPG, but for a fantasy RPG, I like characters that really feel it when they get hurt. It's got a grittier, more real-life touch. Decreasing performance via being hit isn't everyone's cup of tea, though. For many gamers, fighting as well at 1 hp as at 100 hp is one of those cornerstones of fantasy gaming.

One other thing about M&M ... you have to compare the difference between the attack damage and the save vs 5, 10 and 15. It's a very good mechanic, but a little awkward to get used to.

On a different topic: Is there a fantasy RPG out there that approaches magic in the same manner that M&M handles customizing powers? Wouldn't that be awesome?

[Treebore]

ziltmilt wrote:
On a different topic: Is there a fantasy RPG out there that approaches magic in the same manner that M&M handles customizing powers? Wouldn't that be awesome?

You haven't looked at their True 20? Its largely just a fantasy version of M&M.

Plus I have seen "fantasy" versions of M&M written up. Unfortunately I never saved or bookmarked them.
_________________
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

[Fiffergrund]

While making the game easy to customize was definitely a core design tenet, that wasn't the only one. The ability to use materials from other editions with C&C, especially older editions, was just as important.

You'll find the game is a balance between these two factors. If something seems antiquated, it's probably because there was more demand to be able to use C&C with, say, Temple of Elemental Evil than demand for "modernizations." Those voices were present, but in the end, tradition carried more weight.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back