Castles and crusades Questions:

[JeffB]

Here is a link to a free C&C/CZ download that contains one version of dual/multiclassing rules for C&C

linkage

As for Magic Items. I don't feel C&C is anywhere near as dependant as 3.x is.

There are plenty of feats that will tack on no prob. As Treebore suggested, head over to the Troll Lord forums or the Dragonsfoot.org C&C forum.

 

[Greylock]

Treebore-wasn't multi-classing covered in an issue of the Crusader? I'm not at home right now so i can't check.

Issue #4. The rules option there is by Davis Chenault, but to be honest, I don't think they are very well done. Kinda overpowered. The rules we use in our game for multi-classing are the ones by Dan Buter. Much more balanced.

 

[Treebore]

Actually issue 4 and 5 and it was not written by Steve, but by someone who goes by Seig on line. They are more of a merging of classes into one rather than true multi classing. The Witch is being played in my current game.

True to old school gaming the Witch is powerful, but progresses significantly slower than "standard" classes. So being one or two levels behind the rest of the group does keep her in line with the rest of the party power level. So far. We move on to the "Against the Giants" series next. That will really show everyones power levels very well.

Personally I have always liked the 1E rules best for multi-classing, with a couple of house rule modifications thrown in.


Still, one of the best things about C&C is you use whichever rules you like best, from whichever version of D&D or RPG you want to take it from. Its why I like C&C the best.

 

[S'mon]

I like Simon Washbourne's Netbook classes like the Spellsword (Fighter-Wizard) or Friar (Cleric-Rogue) that are effectively multiclassed, but no more powerful than single class PCs.

Item dependency is much less than 3e, ie you don't need items to fight monsters. However I do suspect that if you eliminated all magic items but kept standard rules on spell acquisition the spellcaster classes would be overpowered at high level.

 

[Sitara]

I was thinking about removing the spellcasters from CnC and replacing them with the Warlock and the Brother of the Crystal Star (from lonewolf d20). Also, I was thiking about adding in the Duskblade from PHBII.

Also, I will make the pladins Smite a per encounter ability, and make it available from level 1. At level 9 they can use it 2wice per encounter.

Thoughts on how well these changes would go?

 

[Treebore]

I was thinking about removing the spellcasters from CnC and replacing them with the Warlock and the Brother of the Crystal Star (from lonewolf d20). Also, I was thiking about adding in the Duskblade from PHBII.

Also, I will make the pladins Smite a per encounter ability, and make it available from level 1. At level 9 they can use it 2wice per encounter.

Thoughts on how well these changes would go?

As I said before:

"Still, one of the best things about C&C is you use whichever rules you like best, from whichever version of D&D or RPG you want to take it from. Its why I like C&C the best."

 

[Sitara]

The soon to be released castlekeepers guide also seems to add in something similar to feats every other level or so! (why didn't they just do that in the main rulebook)

 

[Clavis]

The soon to be released castlekeepers guide also seems to add in something similar to feats every other level or so! (why didn't they just do that in the main rulebook)

Part of the point of C&C was creating a simple base system that however would support modular add-ons. For many DMs who have made the change, 3rd edition style Feats were one of the things we were trying to get away from. Therefore, I for one was delighted that Feats excluded them from the main rulebook. Feats can be added back in, if you're one of those people who like them, but nothing in the system depends upon them. Unlike 3rd edition D&D, for example, where adding or subtracting from the system is asking for a world of problems.

 

[Mystaros]

I really, really, hate this fallacy. The reality of "You can add it yourself!" does not make options and rules that are not present in a game, as-written, in any way, shape, or form part of a game's core design. If there aren't rules for something in a game, the rules are absent. If rules are absent, they are not present. If rules are not present, then they aren't part of the game. Is saying "If a game doesn't include rules for X, then X is not part of the game." really that much of a stretch?

Yes, it is. Especially in the case of Castles & Crusades.

But then, that is not, however, even what you said. You said

By design, multiclassing is not allowed (i.e., the game contains absolutely no rules for it).

Something that is not allowed is forbidden, and cannot be added in; that is not the case with multiclassing in C&C.

Under your philosophy, anything that is not expressly allowed by the rules of the game is forbidden... that's not true at all. "Not Present" is not equal to "Not Allowed."

In C&C, anything not specifically covered by the rules is at the discretion of the judge and the players:

From p 109 of the PHB
"...the rules are the servant of the game, not its master. These rules are designed to be amened, changed, adjusted, added to and customized in order to better serve the wants of its player's needs and desires. The Castle Keeper and the players are encouraged to consult with one another and make decisions concerning changes or amendments to the rules provided in this book."

 

[Treebore]

Well said, Mystaros, well said. I've been trying to figure out how to get that point across for many months.