[Engines & Empires] New Update

Jack Daniel

dice-universe.blogspot.com
arscott said:
What about using this instead. It's much the same thing, but it's open content.

I don't suppose I have any real choice in the matter.

I don't like the UA aspects of nature quite as much as PHB2 shapeshifting, since it is slightly more complex (and I'm shooting for "simple" here)... but, on the other hand, it does seem to fit the flavor of a shaman class really well. All I have to do is call them "totems" rather than "aspects", and boom, it's shamany. In any case, aspects are still less of a mess than wild shape (but then, everything is less of a mess than wild shape).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mhensley

First Post
Vigilance said:
I think the real problem with a lot of the current "retro recreations", like C&C, for me, is that the originals HAVENT GONE ANYWHERE.

If I'm in the mood for retro, why would I not just play 1e? Or if I'm in even more retro a mood, why not break out the Rules Compendium?

OSRIC isn't really a system. It's a vehicle to allow new 1e material to get out there via the SRD.

But C&C never grabbed me cause I don't need a new game to go old school.


QFT
 

Treebore

First Post
mhensley said:

??

I always feel when I see posts like this that people didn't really look at C&C. How is it like 1E? IT has AC's like 3E. Its to hit progressions is level based like 3E. Its spell save system is much more in line with 3E than 1E. There are no racial limits or class restrictions. There are no weapon speeds. There are no modifiers to hit based on armor worn by opponent. Spells are based off of 3E OGL, despite errors.

About the only things that are 1E is that there is a Illusionist class, rather than specialists, and that there is a Assassin class.

The Bard is a totally different take/direction than any edition of D&D, and the Monk is much more like the 3E version than the 1E version.

The only thing I find that C&C takes from 1E is that I haven't had this much fun running a D&D game since my 1E days.




As for the OP's redesign, I see it as just a large scale house ruling of C&C. Its directions I don't have an interest in going in, but it looks to me like your doing a good job and with a year or so of use you should have it working well for you. If you do some kind of final document when you have everything worked out let me know, via an ENWorld PM, and I'll be happy to look at it again.

IT probably wouldn't hurt to llok at BFRP, FATE, and FUDGE for alternate ideas to help you decide on how you want to try and do things.
 

mhensley

First Post
Treebore said:
I always feel when I see posts like this that people didn't really look at C&C.

In this case you are wrong. I was a playtester of C&C and own both the boxed set and the PHB & MM. I ran several weeks of C&C and enjoyed it. I just feel that if I want the kind of play that it offers that I might as well just play AD&D or Basic D&D. There's nothing like the real thing, IMO. I had the same problem with HackMaster.
 

Jack Daniel

dice-universe.blogspot.com
Treebore said:
??

I always feel when I see posts like this that people didn't really look at C&C. How is it like 1E? IT has AC's like 3E. Its to hit progressions is level based like 3E. Its spell save system is much more in line with 3E than 1E. There are no racial limits or class restrictions. There are no weapon speeds. There are no modifiers to hit based on armor worn by opponent. Spells are based off of 3E OGL, despite errors.

About the only things that are 1E is that there is a Illusionist class, rather than specialists, and that there is a Assassin class.

The Bard is a totally different take/direction than any edition of D&D, and the Monk is much more like the 3E version than the 1E version.

The only thing I find that C&C takes from 1E is that I haven't had this much fun running a D&D game since my 1E days.

It's not just the rules. It's the way the book looks. The way it reads. These things are part of what make up the "feel" and "tone" of an RPG. I think you'd have a hard time getting people to disagree with the statement that "Castles & Crusades was intentionally modeled on 1st edition AD&D."

Treebore said:
As for the OP's redesign, I see it as just a large scale house ruling of C&C. Its directions I don't have an interest in going in, but it looks to me like your doing a good job and with a year or so of use you should have it working well for you. If you do some kind of final document when you have everything worked out let me know, via an ENWorld PM, and I'll be happy to look at it again.

True enough, perhaps, not so long ago... but then I started to notice that at very high levels, the C&C-style SIEGE mechanic can really start to break down. So I decided to scrap it.

One thing that everybody used to complain about before 3e is that skill/ability checks didn't take the difficulty of an action into account, and that only thief skills really imrpoved with levels. After taking a look at this, I realized that (at least IMHO) 3e really takes things way too far. If a particular task is DC 30, a 1st level character doesn't have a prayer of succeeding, while a 20th level character can probably yawn and do it with his eyes closed. I can see how this is important for something like an attack roll or a saving throw, but for a skill check? Too hard at low levels, too easy at high levels, and I can't go back to the AD&D system, because that doesn't account for difficulty.

Inspiration struck when I remembered WoD. For the record, I friggin' hate Vampire, Mage, Hunter, and all of 'em. Just for the record. But I was kind of impressed with how the d10 system works to resolve (out of combat) tasks. Then, when I was browsing through Unearthed Arcana, I noticed the rules for complex skill checks. And that was it! Halleluja, my prayers were answered. It was a simple matter of coverting skill checks to simple ability checks, with a "DC" ranging from 1 to 4+ that gives the number of successful checks rolled against a base target of 10 that you need to successfully use the skill. It's my holy grail: level is mostly taken out of the equation, but difficulty is still there, and experienced characters can still spent multiple proficiency slots to add +3 bonuses to the checks, thereby keeping some sense of "my 12th level rogue with expertise in Stealth is far better than your 1st level rogue who only has basic proficieny in Stealth."

I've also decided to take things in a bit of a different direction. I always loved how those old basic, expert, etc. D&D books just detailed a few levels of character advancement. Kept things neat and easy to read (and actually, easier to sort through as well). So that's what I'm doing here. My first document will just describe all the core rules, and character advancement up to 5th level only. Should make things less of a monstrous read for those of you who would actually like to take a look at this and offer some criticism.
 


Treebore

First Post
Jack Daniel said:
It's not just the rules. It's the way the book looks. The way it reads. These things are part of what make up the "feel" and "tone" of an RPG. I think you'd have a hard time getting people to disagree with the statement that "Castles & Crusades was intentionally modeled on 1st edition AD&D."



True enough, perhaps, not so long ago... but then I started to notice that at very high levels, the C&C-style SIEGE mechanic can really start to break down. So I decided to scrap it.

One thing that everybody used to complain about before 3e is that skill/ability checks didn't take the difficulty of an action into account, and that only thief skills really imrpoved with levels. After taking a look at this, I realized that (at least IMHO) 3e really takes things way too far. If a particular task is DC 30, a 1st level character doesn't have a prayer of succeeding, while a 20th level character can probably yawn and do it with his eyes closed. I can see how this is important for something like an attack roll or a saving throw, but for a skill check? Too hard at low levels, too easy at high levels, and I can't go back to the AD&D system, because that doesn't account for difficulty.

Inspiration struck when I remembered WoD. For the record, I friggin' hate Vampire, Mage, Hunter, and all of 'em. Just for the record. But I was kind of impressed with how the d10 system works to resolve (out of combat) tasks. Then, when I was browsing through Unearthed Arcana, I noticed the rules for complex skill checks. And that was it! Halleluja, my prayers were answered. It was a simple matter of coverting skill checks to simple ability checks, with a "DC" ranging from 1 to 4+ that gives the number of successful checks rolled against a base target of 10 that you need to successfully use the skill. It's my holy grail: level is mostly taken out of the equation, but difficulty is still there, and experienced characters can still spent multiple proficiency slots to add +3 bonuses to the checks, thereby keeping some sense of "my 12th level rogue with expertise in Stealth is far better than your 1st level rogue who only has basic proficieny in Stealth."

I've also decided to take things in a bit of a different direction. I always loved how those old basic, expert, etc. D&D books just detailed a few levels of character advancement. Kept things neat and easy to read (and actually, easier to sort through as well). So that's what I'm doing here. My first document will just describe all the core rules, and character advancement up to 5th level only. Should make things less of a monstrous read for those of you who would actually like to take a look at this and offer some criticism.


I agree the skills aspect of the SIEGE kind of breaks down, and having things require a DC 30 to be beat really tests your ability to "believe". In my games it gets to a point where you just roll to see if you roll a one. No matter how good you are you can still screw it up. Just the higher the level the less severe I'll have failures be.


Your "different direction" looks interesting to. Again, I like it for ideas on alternative ways to handle things, its just not directions I want or need to go. Not yet, anyways. Which is why I like a system like C&C, we can all easily tailor it to be exactly what we want. So even though your going in a different direction, it is the same spirit C&C was made in. So it isn't like I don't like what your doing, its just different from what I want right now.
 

Jack Daniel

dice-universe.blogspot.com
Treebore said:
I agree the skills aspect of the SIEGE kind of breaks down, and having things require a DC 30 to be beat really tests your ability to "believe". In my games it gets to a point where you just roll to see if you roll a one. No matter how good you are you can still screw it up. Just the higher the level the less severe I'll have failures be.


Your "different direction" looks interesting to. Again, I like it for ideas on alternative ways to handle things, its just not directions I want or need to go. Not yet, anyways. Which is why I like a system like C&C, we can all easily tailor it to be exactly what we want. So even though your going in a different direction, it is the same spirit C&C was made in. So it isn't like I don't like what your doing, its just different from what I want right now.

Eh, well, I don't really expect this to be anything other than what *I* want. I'm just looking for tips and comments that will help me improve upon what I've got. (So far, this thread has been invaluable, so thanks to all who've commented.)
 


Turanil

First Post
I did read the latest version. Interesting things in it! Just I don't really like the word association between "psychic" and "black magic". I also would ike to see level progression at least up to level 10. In any cae, with a nice layout and art, this would make a great book at LuLu.com...
 

Remove ads

Top