House rule "sets" for Castles & Crusades

[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.

That would certainly work, but my players would wonder "well, why can't the archer move five feet before he shoots, etc., ad nauseum." YMMV and I do agree that your idea would work fine. I'll run it by my players. That's how I usually decide what works best for our campaign.

..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.

Yeah, I don't see the list as being all that nebulous. Essentially the question is "was this spell designed as an alternate melee attack." If the answer's yes, than I think spellcasters should just be able to do it regardless of the Initiative count or Con check.

We actually put quite a bit of thought and debate into how this should work. As a CK, I didn't want to see a situation where an encounter w/ a Wizard ended in either a TPK or a total farce. As it stands now, the PCs know that if they can get to grips with the Wizard (ie melee), they can probably carry the day, and only need be concened by his HtH spells or what might happen if he wins initiative. IME, spellcasting in C&C is nasty, nasty, nasty. Allowing a simple, "I step back 5' and cast" makes the Wizard even more powerful. Of course, if that's what your group wants and it's proper for your setting then that's cool too. All those CHA save spells go into high gear at that point though I think.

..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.

As I see it, the Mage is locked in combat, dodging slashes from Bob the Drooling Barbarian and desperately fumbles for components, reagents, rosarie, and anything else that he might need to cast the spell, unless of course Happy Boy misses badly giving the Mage the opportunity to unleash Cicero's Spell of Ultimate Untidiness (ie if he can win init). Since it seems a fairly strenuous and taxing proposal to manage while the wild Cimmerian hacks at him with unbriddled ferocity, the Con check seems appropo.

Of course, you could just as easily say he's forced to concentrate intensely using his Wis. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Whatever you decide is fine really, and at some point, when the PCs get higher in level, I could see the Wizard being able to check either Wis or Con, which ever is better. I'd use this when he's fighting against mooks which, by that point in time, you'd think he would become more skilled at "combat casting" against such hapless combatants.

Either way though, I allow the Wiz or Cleric in question to add their level since it only makes sense that it's a "skill" they'd be reasonably good at.

...Great rule (except possibly my comment on the attribute used might improve it, I think). Certain spells can be used without invoking the check.

Thanks, and I'll see what the lads want to do about trying your idea in the future. Probably the next time we playtest.

 

[scadgrad]

... I like your multiclassing rules, scadgrad, they seem to be workable.

Actually, those are Jackal's mutliclass rules from over on the TLG forum. They are good though aren't they?

 

[Breakdaddy]

Actually, those are Jackal's mutliclass rules from over on the TLG forum. They are good though aren't they?

SORRY! Yes, those are really nice. I will use them until something official comes out. Nice work Jackal!

 

[dunbruha]

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.

In my game, the only spells that invoke a CON check are those that have a casting time of greater than one round. Thus, any spell with a CT=1 can be cast in melee without a check. I think that if a wizard wants to go toe-to-toe with a fighter, he is already at such a disadvantage that a CON check is too much. Plus, IME, it slows down combat too much to have all those checks.

-dunbruha

 

[Mythmere1]

In my game, the only spells that invoke a CON check are those that have a casting time of greater than one round. Thus, any spell with a CT=1 can be cast in melee without a check. I think that if a wizard wants to go toe-to-toe with a fighter, he is already at such a disadvantage that a CON check is too much. Plus, IME, it slows down combat too much to have all those checks.

-dunbruha

That's an interesting take on it. Definitely an example of how playing earlier editions can blinder you. I hadn't thought of it that way.

Thinking hard on that one.

Scadgrad, bolie, what do you guys think about that idea? It doesn't seem like it would screw anything up, and it's an excellent point that there's no wizard in his right mind who's going to deliberately put it to the test. A cleric might...

 

[scadgrad]

It took us a while to find an approach that we felt was still challenging, but didn't allow the enemy Wizard to simply smoke the PCs.

Prior to the release of the PHB, we allowed Wizards a 5-foot step then cast. No init or Con check was need, they simply fired away. The only way you could shut his spells down was to surround him or just slay him quickly. The BBEG Wizard doesn't have to be that high of a level to really nuke the entire party and I just wanted to tip the balance in the favor of the fighter-types. IME, it's not uncommon to find lone spellcasters as the BBEG in a lot of published modules (deja vu...look at my mod for Gazetteer). That guy is usually a couple of levels higher and sometimes, 3 or 4 levels higher. I don't know, I guess I'm just erring on the side of caution since the "Save or Dies" are back in the game and saves vs. spells are just so much more difficult.

Imagine a group of 4th and 5th level dudes and they encounter a 7th level Wizard. Not saying you'd put your guys up against something like that, but that's not that far of a stretch in certain mods. So, at any rate in that example, it just seems really darn harsh forcing all of those Wis saves at TN 25 when all the party can do to stop it is kill the guy.

YMMV, but spells in C&C are nasty and if you allow signature spells (from outside sources such as I do), I think you really need to make it a bit easier on the fighter types to stop the carnage.

 

[dunbruha]

Imagine a group of 4th and 5th level dudes and they encounter a 7th level Wizard. Not saying you'd put your guys up against something like that, but that's not that far of a stretch in certain mods. So, at any rate in that example, it just seems really darn harsh forcing all of those Wis saves at TN 25 when all the party can do to stop it is kill the guy.

Your experience is appreciated, scadgrad. I have only played at low levels so far. And wizards definitely get tougher as level increases. But I think you are going a bit overboard when you say that "all the party can do to stop it is kill the guy". There is silence , hold person, web, and entangle, plus illusions to fool the wizard into wasting spells. Even if these spells are not available, there is always grappling...

I guess I'll find out how it goes when (if) the party makes it to higher levels.

 

[scadgrad]

Your experience is appreciated, scadgrad. I have only played at low levels so far. And wizards definitely get tougher as level increases. But I think you are going a bit overboard when you say that "all the party can do to stop it is kill the guy". There is silence , hold person, web, and entangle, plus illusions to fool the wizard into wasting spells. Even if these spells are not available, there is always grappling...

I guess I'll find out how it goes when (if) the party makes it to higher levels.

All good points and all things that would work no matter who's houserule you use. Still, if I am going overboard, and I'll admit that you could be right, I'm doing so to make the game more enjoyable for the players. I'll run it by them again, and see what they say.

 

[dunbruha]

All good points and all things that would work no matter who's houserule you use. Still, if I am going overboard, and I'll admit that you could be right, I'm doing so to make the game more enjoyable for the players. I'll run it by them again, and see what they say.

Yes, and player enjoyment works both ways--if they play spellcasters and are always having to make CON checks...

I am thinking of a middle ground: no checks for CT=1 spells in melee against one opponent, but if the spellcaster is flanked or facing multiple foes, then a check would be required. And of course a check would be required for all spells requiring concentration after it is cast.

Also, I allow readied actions as well, so if a fighter wins iniative, and readys an action to hit the spellcaster if he casts a spell, then a CON check would also be needed if the attack is successful.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Yes, and player enjoyment works both ways--if they play spellcasters and are always having to make CON checks...

I am thinking of a middle ground: no checks for CT=1 spells in melee against one opponent, but if the spellcaster is flanked or facing multiple foes, then a check would be required. And of course a check would be required for all spells requiring concentration after it is cast.

Also, I allow readied actions as well, so if a fighter wins iniative, and readys an action to hit the spellcaster if he casts a spell, then a CON check would also be needed if the attack is successful.

To me, this might tend to add back some of the complexity that slows down 3.x games. In and of itself it seems fine, but add a few more rules like this and you just about might as well pick up 3.x and play it again. Of course, YMMV (obviously!).