C&C - My "Battlemat" rules

[Mythmere1]

The other possibility is to use Scadgrad's spellcasting rules.

As to using 3e with simpler monsters, no. There's more to it than that. Skills, long hang-time on player actions because of calculations, difficulty of planning adventures to handle DC numbers, etc. Also as an aesthetic thing, I don't like all the half-races and prestige classes.

 

[der_kluge]

I like the lack of skills in C&C. I was skeptical at first, but it does eliminate certain weird things from occurring.

Like, in our game, we struggled because we didn't know a particular ancient language. When Scadgrad ran it for a group before us in 3.5, the players got around this problem by spending 1 measly point on the language the next time they leveled up. As a GM, I would be totally annoyed at something like that happening. In our game, we simply recruited a "paladin" (really a ftr/clr) who knows the language, and so far he's been very helpful. It's more realistic in this way.

So, I'm kind of in favor of the complete lack of skills, actually.

 

[KenSeg]

I have to agree to the comment about skills. I do not like the way you can learn new skills on the fly in 3.0/3.5. Our DM under the old rules had a computer program we used to do character generation with a number of skills you could buy using a point-buy system. These are the ones you know. Learning new skills took considerable time, expense and required finding a teacher.

-KenSeg
Gaming since 1978

 

[Treebore]

Sounds way to 3E ish to me. I think I would handle such maneuvering as opposed rolls with dex as prime. That way a high dex character would be likely to pull such things off, but still have a highly random chance even for non dex prime characters to succeed. It isn't as if you should see a lot of this kind of maneuvering anyway, unless you like movie/anime style combat. "Realistic" combat doesn't see much of this kind of maneuvering. Of course such complicated maneuvering in combat can be seen as a "sign" of the higher level fighters, such as what Achilles did in the Troy movie.

As for casting in combat, I treat spellcasting as an armed attack. Interupting is possible, but you would have to win initiative against the spellcaster and be within range of hitting with the weapon that is in hand, then hit their AC. Then I would allow the caster a save to maintain their concentration despite the painful injury they just recieved, assuming they were hit. Much like I did it back in 1E.

If I can't keep C&C relatively simple I may as well stay with 3E.

So I wouldn't use these house rules.

 

[Mythmere1]

Hey, Treebore, good to see you back! (where were you, btw)?

It might seem a bit 3e-ish, but I've always given my characters the ability to influence combats with a few manuever possibilities. What I don't like about 3e is that there are so many calculations and diverse modifiers involved - if I can get the same richness of combat without the mathmatics and character-sheet referencing, I'm good with it. In actual combat, I like to have the rules as consistent as I can get them (not complex, but clear and consistent).

The proposed rules use SIEGE engine checks, not specific feats or skills, which makes them quicker to calculate.

My group is still debating these rules, with some different suggestions coming out last session... I'll post the results when we have some.

 

[Treebore]

What I am seeing is an attempt to keep things too complicated.
The issue seems to be the players want to keep the combat complicated, when the reality of the game is that it is all fair enough when either no one can pull off these maneuvers or everyone can. The only reason to really have rules for detailed moving in combat is to micro manage the combat, when standing there hacking at each other is just as likely to come up with the same end result.

I agree flanking and such moves can be critical in an rpg combat, but only because you make the combat rules that complex/realistic. Being more abstract/simplistic doesn't necessarily change the final outcome, it just streamlines the game mechanics process for getting to the end result. The biggest variable in rpg combat is the lucky rolls, with stat and level modifiers coming in second.

So I would just settle such questions of flanking, moving around behind, etc.... by doing a simple opposed roll. So if they succeed the CK gives a bonus of some type, usually +1 or +2, to their next attack/AC/whatever, based on what outcome the player was trying for.


I know you wanted simplity out of C&C, but if you let the players keep adding more and more house rules, you won't be very far away from 3E.

Importing feats or skills are not necessary. Just figuring out a reasonable and predictable (by the players) opposed roll system modified by not/being prime, stat bonus, and level bonus, will cover most feat and skill type situations. Is the mechanic behind all of this being spelled out by lists of feats and skills? No. It is being resolved in a fair and equitable manor though.

So, because of how detailed your first post is, I get the feeling that your players don't like having such general and abstract rules that are perfectly capable of achieving the same end result as the detailed lists of feats and skills 3E has.

So I suggest you just use the oppsed roll or TN system as is, and give written examples (preferably common ones) for your players to refer to and get an idea of how to expect you to use the rules in situations that are not spelled out in black and white.

Eventually, I think everyone will realize that everyone can do everything they could in 3E, but it won't be determined by feats or a skill system. It is determined by a much more abstract system that is modified primarily by not/is prime, stat modifiers, and level modifiers.

Thinking/refering back to 3E feats and skills to realize what you can do with a system as abstract as C&C is all well and good, but to create house rules that make C&C just as rules laden as 3E is not good.

 

[Treebore]

As to where I have been, I have been around, just not nearly as much because I am between houses and states, and will be until October. So I only post when I am in a hotel that has free wireless, such as the Hyatt/AmeriSuites that I am staying at here in Phoenix.
Tomorrow night I will be in AlbuQ., New Mexico. I don't know what the internet access will be like there, so I may not post for a few days. I should be in Ohio by Monday or Tuesday, and I'll be staying there for a month or two, until my closing for the house here in AZ occurs and the occupants move out.

So that is what I have been up to.