House rule "sets" for Castles & Crusades

[S'mon]

Is this like action points in Eberron? I'm adding this into my own game as well, with the idea that instead of having so many points to spend per level, there would be about 2 points to spend per game at 1st level, increasing by one every 4 levels.

Fate Points - from Conan & WHFRP, PCs start w 3, awarded only rarely, PCs spend them to avoid death at -10hp or get a lucky break. They don't add to die rolls like APs.

 

[Mythmere1]

I never read unearthed arcana, but it sounds like that is the concept.

Scadgrad's rules are "High" ruleset, fairly close to 3e with abilities and feats. They look very good, especially the combat side. I haven't really dug into them yet, but I will be very soon, since we're talking house rules for our party.

I think you could completely separate encumbrance rules from most other rulesets.
Combat rules have to take into account what feats (if any) might be available to change things around (or, conversely, the feats need to be designed around whatever level of detail the combat rules follow).

 

[S'mon]

Basically cap the world at 12th, any advancement beyond that would require epic quests etc. 12th levellers would get powers for XP, make magic items, etc.

Giving "powers for XP" - PCs spend XP, get powers - is a nice idea that doesn't work in 3e because in 3e the value of an XP varies with your level; and the system assumes all 4th levellers are of roughly similar power. In C&C 1 XP has a fixed value, which means that it can be used as currency to buy things without 3e's problems.

 

[scadgrad]

...Scadgrad's rules are "High" ruleset, fairly close to 3e with abilities and feats. They look very good, especially the combat side. I haven't really dug into them yet, but I will be very soon, since we're talking house rules for our party....

Thanks Mythmere. Yeah, I've always said that our version is Castles and Crusades, the Bride of 3.5. My group generally likes some of the elements of 3.X and so we found a way to add those in w/ out overpowering the core of C&C. After nearly a year of play at around 5-6 sessions per month, I think it's held up pretty well. IIRC your group consists of quite a few 3.X True Believers so you might want to run those rules or something similar by them. If they give you the same old "Why don't we just go ahead and play 3.5" line, just explain that you prefer the simplicty of the NPC and Monster stat lines, speed of combat, and flow of play. It should be a very happy "middle way" for all parties concerned.

The houserules document is meant to be used specifically in our setting, but I've also used it in a 3-month long Ravenloft C&C minicampaign. If you're running your own homebrew, you might want to take a look at my Cultural Packages document, not necessarily to use it, but to get some ideas on what I did to help establish background skills and the like. Drop me an email if you'd like to see it.

 

[Mythmere1]

Thanks Mythmere. Yeah, I've always said that our version is Castles and Crusades, the Bride of 3.5. My group generally likes some of the elements of 3.X and so we found a way to add those in w/ out overpowering the core of C&C. After nearly a year of play at around 5-6 sessions per month, I think it's held up pretty well. IIRC your group consists of quite a few 3.X True Believers so you might want to run those rules or something similar by them. If they give you the same old "Why don't we just go ahead and play 3.5" line, just explain that you prefer the simplicty of the NPC and Monster stat lines, speed of combat, and flow of play. It should be a very happy "middle way" for all parties concerned.

The houserules document is meant to be used specifically in our setting, but I've also used it in a 3-month long Ravenloft C&C minicampaign. If you're running your own homebrew, you might want to take a look at my Cultural Packages document, not necessarily to use it, but to get some ideas on what I did to help establish background skills and the like. Drop me an email if you'd like to see it.

Yes, you recall my group correctly.
I think the biggest issue for them is getting consistency in the core "wargame" rules more than anything else. They like to have their slate of abilities more robust, but when the basic wargame rules aren't set in stone - that's a true problem, not just an issue. They wouldn't mind seeing unusual issues treated situationally, but they deserve to know what the basic rules are for flanking, free attacks, firing into melee, etc. Like your group, we use minis and a higher tactical level of play than C&C RAW.

I may work on house rules today. I think I'm going to fire up your pdf again and see how close we are.

 

[Mythmere1]

Okay, I've been busy working on this. What feats do you allow?

So far, I've got power attack, cleave, point blank shot, and precise shot. I haven't yet given any thought to whether these destroy the fighter's class abilities, but a fighter getting extra feats is already rewriting the class abilities, so not much concern there.

What other feats?

 

[scadgrad]

Here's my list of feats (attached a .txt file). I haven't made any changes since M&T came out (I just got mine yesterday) so some of these may change, particularly the item creation feats.

I consider Weapon Spec and Combat Dom to be "freebie feats" and PCs can swap them out if they wish. In fact, I allow PCs to swap out any class ability for a feat if they wish. Fighters IMC get a slightly better feat progression than other characters.

As for your other points:

C&C rules for flanking and attacking from the rear work just fine and don't need any houseruling by my estimation (+ 1 to hit on the flank, +2 on the rear).
Firing into melee, I use the 3.0 method (so you can hit your buddy) though it occurs to me that I don't have that in our houserules PDF currently.
Free attacks occur when you try to run by someone or do a hasty withdrawal.
I actually allow DEX Prime characters to do some maneuvering against engaged or surprised opponents which I believe is spelled out in the houserules PDF.

 

[Mythmere1]

Here's my list of feats (attached a .txt file). I haven't made any changes since M&T came out (I just got mine yesterday) so some of these may change, particularly the item creation feats.

I consider Weapon Spec and Combat Dom to be "freebie feats" and PCs can swap them out if they wish. In fact, I allow PCs to swap out any class ability for a feat if they wish. Fighters IMC get a slightly better feat progression than other characters.

As for your other points:

C&C rules for flanking and attacking from the rear work just fine and don't need any houseruling by my estimation (+ 1 to hit on the flank, +2 on the rear).
Firing into melee, I use the 3.0 method (so you can hit your buddy) though it occurs to me that I don't have that in our houserules PDF currently.
Free attacks occur when you try to run by someone or do a hasty withdrawal.
I actually allow DEX Prime characters to do some maneuvering against engaged or surprised opponents which I believe is spelled out in the houserules PDF.

Yes, I'm going to adopt most, if not all, of your tactical rules, and use your feat progression for fighters (although that raises other issues - what about paladins and feats, given the fighter's fast xp progression - the feat every two levels might make fighters actually too powerful - not sure yet).

I'm going to use your dex check-to-manuever around, and rule that if a backstabber makes that roll, it's also good for the back attack - if you get around, the rogue also gets the +4 and the double damage.

I especially like using move silently to determine who can move past - it means rangers are mobile combatants outside, but not in a dungeon. Very cool.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Yes, I'm going to adopt most, if not all, of your tactical rules, and use your feat progression for fighters (although that raises other issues - what about paladins and feats, given the fighter's fast xp progression - the feat every two levels might make fighters actually too powerful - not sure yet).

I will be using some of these rules as well, although I will make a blanket 1 at 1st, 1 every level divisible by three across all classes (for feats). I also came up with a list of my own feats modified from the True20 rules, which seem slightly more flexible to me. I will be using this instead of the scadgrad list, but that list was invaluable in my endeavor and I thank him for it! I classified all the C&C classes into one of the three True20 groups (expert, adept, warrior) and allowed them all to choose general feats. I plan to test this out pretty soon and will report back on how it went. I like your multiclassing rules, scadgrad, they seem to be workable.

 

[Mythmere1]

Mine's shaping up. I've got a thought for you, Scadgrad. You've got a fairly nebulous description of spells that can be cast in melee without being subject to the con save. We use a house rule that might work better - we allow a five foot step before casting. This would allow a cleric to move up and cast cures, or a step-up to cast burning hands.

At the same time, I think spells that require a touch to function (shocking grasp, cause light wounds, cures) should not invoke the con check. This gives a very clearly defined set of spells (it leaves out burning hands and similar short range spells, though). I may go with that.

Also, since the melee con check is, unlike D&D, not the result of damage, I'm wondering if con is the right attribute. I think a wis check might be better, and wouldn't make it an absolute no-brainer for a wizard to take con as a prime.

What do you think?

EDIT - I should clarify for those who haven't read Scadgrad's rules that the house rule Scadgrad uses allows a wizard who wins initiative to cast while in active melee if he makes a successful con check against the opponent's HD used as the CL. Great rule (except possibly my comment on the attribute used might improve it, I think).

Certain spells can be used without invoking the check.