Using Monte Cook's "stunts system" in Castles & Crusades

Turanil · Jul 27, 2005

Those who prefer D20 over C&C often mention that combat in C&C is dull, as the lack of feats only makes for attack rolls against AC values. However, I just read about the next Monte Cook book (pun intended): Iron Heroes. It seems to be an heavier system than D&D 3.5 to me, BUT the stunt system sounded as something that could be imported into C&C. I don't know how this stunt system will work, but here is what they say about it:

"<...> The stunt rules give you a flexible system for adjudicating a broad range of combat actions. They offer players a tool to put the vivid, imaginative ideas come up with during a fight into practice.

The stunt system is built around a set of generic maneuvers that cover the basic benefits and options that you might want to gain via a stunt, such as a bonus to your attack or damage, the ability to move farther than normal for 1 round, a bonus to defense, and so forth.

When you attempt a stunt, you make a skill or base attack check. (You can use any skill relevant to the situation.) When you decide to try a stunt, first you describe what your character does to complete it. For instance, if you're attempting an attack stunt, you might say, "I leap into the air to grab the chain hanging from the ceiling and swing over to kick the demon in the face." Your DM then picks a skill that most closely fits the action you want to attempt. If you want to gain a bonus to attacks against an ogre by grabbing onto its club as it attacks and scrambling up the weapon to strike it, your DM could ask for a Climb check. The aforementioned chain-grabbing attack stunt might require a Jump check.

The DC of the skill check depends on several factors. In most cases, your opponent makes a base attack check that opposes your skill check. You can choose to take a penalty to your skill check to gain a greater bonus from the stunt. An attack stunt normally gives you a +1 bonus to attacks. If you opt for a -6 penalty to your stunt skill check, you gain a +4 bonus to your attack.

While increasing the penalty gives you an advantage, it comes with a price. If you fail at the stunt, you might take a penalty of some sort. In the case of an attack stunt, you simply fail to gain a bonus to your attacks or damage. A defensive stunt grants your foes a bonus to attack you. Other stunts carry drawbacks based on the benefits they provide.

The key to the stunt system lies in its flexibility. Since you can use any skill to attempt a stunt, you simply need to come up with actions or descriptions that play to your PC's strengths.

Hopefully, the stunt rules give you the flexibility to run a wide range of actions that fall outside of the standard combat rules."

So, it looks like the Stunt system has some C&C style in it: player imagines and describes something special he would like to try, and the CK allows it on the fly. However, it needs a few rules to not become pure DM's fiat, and the Stunt System could be very appropriate. With that, C&C combat could become very cinematic and varied without adding feats or complex rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am now trying to imagine what could be a few stunts:

-- Barrel Throw: Combat is happening amidst a fair or a basement. Then, Jubal notices that he is fighting right besides a barrel. So he forfeits an attack and instead throws the barrel into the legs of Klorgut, his opponent.

So, how would that work, and what would be the benefits? I guess it just requires a Dexterity check. Now, if the barrel is full of something, it will also require a Strength check, but will impose an increased penalty to Klorgut. So, as Jubal is successful in swiftly throwing the barrel into Klorgut's legs, the latter loses his balance. This results in the next round for Klorgut, is to suffer a -4 penalty to AC and BtH if he fails a Dex save, or -2 if the save is successful.

Any comments?

scadgrad · Jul 27, 2005

Yeah, it seems possible. I'll reserve judgement until I actually get my hands on the book. Nothing wrong w/ adding a few options to combat for those who want to. I'd say my group, particularly Der_Kluge would be greatly intrigued by this possibility.

der_kluge · Jul 27, 2005

I'll be picking this book up at Gen Con. I'm interested to see how he pulls it off.

I like the C&C game we have currently, actually. I'd like it less so, without the feats that we're using, I'm sure of that.

Iron Heroes sounds quite a bit different from C&C, though.

Mythmere1 · Jul 27, 2005

Like I said on another thread, it's not so much the number of tactical alternatives in 3e that causes me a problem - it's the internal complexity involved in calculating them. For me, it completely would depend on the mechanic Monte uses for the stunt system.

scadgrad · Jul 27, 2005

Mythmere1 said:
...For me, it completely would depend on the mechanic Monte uses for the stunt system.

Precisely. If it's something that can be easily ported into C&C, I could see me giving some of the stunts a trial run. We'll see what it looks like pretty soon I think.

My biggest gripe w/ 3.X is that it kills the joy of the game for me as a DM because of the workload and many of the "innovations" that have moved the game too far away from its roots. At least IH seems to be trying to get back to the feel of REH, Lieber, and Moorcock.

JohnSnow · Jul 27, 2005

Funny, I'd have thought with the "open-ended" nature of the SIEGE Engine, C&C wouldn't NEED a mechanic for skill stunts. After all, what's the point of a Dex challenge? Isn't that just an attribute check?

Personally, I'm going to be running an Iron Heroes campaign for my group, and hopefully inspiring our DM to use some of the rules in our Midnight game as well. I think that Iron Heroes does away with enough of the goofy 3e rules (Spells and Magic Items) that its complexity in play will be trivial. And all the playtesters have said that high-level character creation takes no more than 15 minutes...tops! (some have alleged that, with the tools in the Iron Heroes Bestiary, it only takes 5!). So then it comes down to whether you like tactical combat or not.

Mythmere1 said:
Like I said on another thread, it's not so much the number of tactical alternatives in 3e that causes me a problem - it's the internal complexity involved in calculating them. For me, it completely would depend on the mechanic Monte uses for the stunt system.

Okay, I just don't understand this. What's so much easier about producing TNs in C&C vs. Difficulty Numbers in 3e? Maybe if I can get this, I'll be able to understand what people like so much about C&C (other than the streamlined character creation, which I TOTALLY get). Mostly what I see is a bunch of stuff that gets hacked out in favor of simplified characters and fewer options.

Scadgrad, since you run C&C with feats, what does C&C give you that 3e doesn't? Is it the simplified skill system? Or is it that C&C doesn't seem to "require" magic items the way 3e does (something else I'd certainly understand).

I really want to know. What does C&C really make easier?

Pulling that tangent back on topic, the stunt system allows characters to make a skill check to gain a bonus to their attack. The basic mechanic is a skill check to gain a +1 to attack rolls. Alternatively, you can make the skill check at a -6 penalty in order to gain a higher bonus (+4) to your attack. So it's only as complicated as your skill system is.

As an aside, since the book was written by Mike Mearls, it's not Monte's mechanic, it's Mike's.

Dav · Jul 27, 2005

It's not Monte's system, but Mike Mearls's ... Monte Cook is just presenting it. Just want to make sure people are aware of that (and Mearls showcases a stunts system in his "Book of Iron Might" but "Iron Heroes" is likely to have much more depth).

EDIT: I didn't see that JohnSnow had mentioned it (I had done a quick search for Mike's name, but it was messed up)--sorry!

Dragonhelm · Jul 27, 2005

JohnSnow said:
Funny, I'd have thought with the "open-ended" nature of the SIEGE Engine, C&C wouldn't NEED a mechanic for skill stunts. After all, what's the point of a Dex challenge? Isn't that just an attribute check?

I'm questioning this myself. Theoretically, any stunt is possible using the SIEGE Engine. Player says what he does, CK sets a target number, then roll to see if you succeed.

I guess it depends on what level of a C&C game you're playing. If you're doing a hybrid game, then stunts may be okay. I just don't see the need from a C&C viewpoint.

But, as the C&C philosophy goes, house rule all you want!

So then it comes down to whether you like tactical combat or not.

I'm not so big into tactical combat personally, but I think I'll like Iron Heroes nevertheless.

Okay, I just don't understand this. What's so much easier about producing TNs in C&C vs. Difficulty Numbers in 3e? Maybe if I can get this, I'll be able to understand what people like so much about C&C (other than the streamlined character creation, which I TOTALLY get). Mostly what I see is a bunch of stuff that gets hacked out in favor of simplified characters and fewer options.

The thing I notice is that in D&D, sometimes target numbers become a matter of "add X, subtract Y" and it becomes a bit of a formula. C&C leaves it up more to the CK. Granted, a person can use the D&D rules in a similar fashion if they wish. When I run D&D games, I set a target number that seems reasonable. I don't follow the PHB's guidelines.

Scadgrad, since you run C&C with feats, what does C&C give you that 3e doesn't? Is it the simplified skill system? Or is it that C&C doesn't seem to "require" magic items the way 3e does (something else I'd certainly understand).

I really want to know. What does C&C really make easier?

It should be noted that C&C doesn't really have a skill system, instead using attribute checks with class levels added in where appropriate. Essentially, your ability score checks, skill checks, and attribute checks are all combined into one. Certain classes have abilities that require a roll ala skill checks, but this is fairly minimal.

C&C tends to be more of an archetypal system, while d20 is more of a modular system. Any modular system will take more time. There's just more elements that can have different combinations. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages.

Pulling that tangent back on topic, the stunt system allows characters to make a skill check to gain a bonus to their attack. The basic mechanic is a skill check to gain a +1 to attack rolls. Alternatively, you can make the skill check at a -6 penalty in order to gain a higher bonus (+4) to your attack. So it's only as complicated as your skill system is.

That's cool. I'll have to check that out.

As an aside, since the book was written by Mike Mearls, it's not Monte's mechanic, it's Mike's.

Mike Mearls does some good stuff.

scadgrad · Jul 28, 2005

JohnSnow said:
Funny, I'd have thought with the "open-ended" nature of the SIEGE Engine, C&C wouldn't NEED a mechanic for skill stunts.

It doesn't really, but the stunts might give you a benchmark for doing certain things rather than just basing the DC on the HD of your opponent. I'm just trying to give the book a chance since it seems to be grounded in Sword and Sorcerery which I am obviously a huge fan of. I would understand perfectly if most C&C fans just dismissed the book out-of-hand though.

JohnSnow said:
And all the playtesters have said that high-level character creation takes no more than 15 minutes...tops!

That would certainly be a selling point for me.

JohnSnow said:
Okay, I just don't understand this. What's so much easier about producing TNs in C&C vs. Difficulty Numbers in 3e? Maybe if I can get this, I'll be able to understand what people like so much about C&C (other than the streamlined character creation, which I TOTALLY get). Mostly what I see is a bunch of stuff that gets hacked out in favor of simplified characters and fewer options.

For the most part, if the check in question is against an enemy critter (or NPC) , the TN is equal to the critters HD. So if the goblins are trying to sneak up on the PCs (let's say they're 3rd level), then the TN for the Gobbos is 15 (Goblins have P primes so 12+3). Simples as that, I don't have to know what the Skill # for the Gobbos is, essentially everything is based on the HD. The HD stat for monsters is much more important in C&C since it reflects not only hit points, but relative fighting ability, level of skill, and many other abstract qualities.

Other numbers to key off of for determining TNs are the particular level of the dungeon, or for instance in 3.X modules the CR of the trap, etc. On rare occasions the CK will need to assign a CL depending on whether the task is simple, routine, challenging, etc. I find that I rarely have to use this latter method. So the major benefit is that you never have to look up what a Hobgoblins Move Silently Skill mod is or any other skill mod for that matter.

JohnSnow said:
Scadgrad, since you run C&C with feats, what does C&C give you that 3e doesn't? Is it the simplified skill system? Or is it that C&C doesn't seem to "require" magic items the way 3e does (something else I'd certainly understand).

I really want to know. What does C&C really make easier?

There's a long list of things actually, but the biggest reason is that it's much easier for the DM to run the game and the game itself flows much quicker (with about 1/3rd of the Check the Books moments from my 3.X campaigns). Add to that the following all of which are major selling points:

It's 100% compatible on-the-fly with EVERY D&D product ever made or nearly so. This gives the over-taxed DM an incredible number of options. It's really a shame that the Trolls can't advertise this fact.

I abhor the way that the skill system for 3.X replaces role playing. Additionally, I've found that after running 3.X for 4 years of 5X-8X a month, that most players allocate their skill pts in a very predictable fashion.

It's definitively more Old School and does away w/ many of the distasteful trappings of 3.X that I strongly dislike (Dungeon punk, Goofy Weapons, Spiked Armor, Halfling Druids, Magic Items galore, Balance Uber Alles, PrCs, and much, much more).

Almost everything is simpler. Simple weapons, simple Monster stats. No AoOs, No 5-foot steps, everything stacks, no synergy bonus, again I could go on at length.

In short C&C takes all of things that I've always loved about D&D after some 27 years of continuous play (unlike some, I never left the fold and actually enjoyed 2nd ed, though I greatly prefer 1st ed.) and adds in the best improvements that were brought on by 3.X.

Turanil · Jul 28, 2005

"I really want to know. What does C&C really make easier?"
For me it is essentially easing and speeding the game as a DM. I have a much easier time running adventures above 11th level with C&C, something I am unable to do in D&D. And combats also take much less time.

"Funny, I'd have thought with the "open-ended" nature of the SIEGE Engine, C&C wouldn't NEED a mechanic for skill stunts. After all, what's the point of a Dex challenge? Isn't that just an attribute check?"
You and others don't understand. It's NOT about skill checks versus Siege attribute checks. It's about players who come up with creative ideas during combat. I want a frame for handling that, and it seems to me that this stunt system could do it.

And so the PC notices a barrel and decides to push it into the legs of his opponent. I know it's a Dex check to do it successfully, and maybe a Str check if the barrel is full of ale. What I don't know, is what reasonable effects it will have: does the opponent falls?, does the PC get a bonus to hit?, how much?, what? Normally it's just a matter of pure DM's fiat, which I don't like. I just hope this sytem gives me a frame in which resolve all non-standard combat procedures. I mean: the halfling wants to tumble under the table to strike the ogre from below? Okay, in C&C it's just a Dex check to tumble under the table. But THEN: what? What benefit can reasonably get the halfling?