Castle and Crusaes Paladin

[Blackwind]

So the monk doesn't get any fighting styles or something? He can't trip/throw opponents jujitsu style? No flying kicks (technically speaking) that cause opponents to go prone? So basically he walks up to opponents unarmed and whacks them.

Bit boring, but oh well.

And the paladin, how many smites does he get? One per day every 5 levels?

Thanks!

Actually, the Monk does get Stunning Attack, Deflect Missiles, Ki Strike, Quivering Palm, and several other class abilities.

Paladins of level nine or higher can smite evil once per day.

 

[Sitara]

Thats cool about the monk. The dnd monk is cool in concept, but flawed in execution (the whole becoming an outsider, slowfall etc made little sense)

But the paladin, ouch. Smite evil ONLY once a day. That is treh weak.

 

[S'mon]

That is treh weak.

I suspect that C&C is not the game for you.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't wholly disagree with you, but I think it kind of depends on the situation. If C&C is everything you're looking for, save that it doesn't have a skill system (example), then you might as well go with it and just add some skills.

Sure, that makes sense. I just wanted to add my two cents because I often see posts like "C&C is everything that I wanted from a fantasy RPG. . . after I added feats, skills, a unified XP chart, and several other elements from standard d20." after which I'm thinking "If you had to add a few dozen things to turn C&C into the game that you wanted it to be, why didn't you just go with X that has all of those added elements to begin with?"

 

[Sitara]

I suspect that C&C is not the game for you.

No you misunderstand me. And I worded it wrongly Its not 'weak' in the sense paladins can do uber stuff (they can't in 3E as well, splatbooks not included ofcourse). I mean one smite a day...thats ridiculous. Thats no fun; ifyou give a pc a cool trick, at least make sure there are options to use them rather than have the player hoard it, expend it once and boom thats it.

Anyhow paladins get one measley smite, lay on hands and a mount. They should have simply collapsed the class togather with the knight then.

 

[jdrakeh]

No you misunderstand me. And I worded it wrongly Its not 'weak' in the sense paladins can do uber stuff (they can't in 3E as well, splatbooks not included ofcourse). I mean one smite a day...thats ridiculous. Thats no fun; ifyou give a pc a cool trick, at least make sure there are options to use them rather than have the player hoard it, expend it once and boom thats it.

Actually, I suspect that he's right -- you seem to want a wide range of different mechanical variables for characters and, in that respect, C&C is very limited. C&C has a lot in common with AD&D in this regard -- each class has a set of pre-determined special features with the only potential variables being level, ability scores, and the selection of 'Prime' abilities (due to Primes, it does actually have three mechanical variables to AD&D's two).

 

[Dragonhelm]

Sure, that makes sense. I just wanted to add my two cents because I often see posts like "C&C is everything that I wanted from a fantasy RPG. . . after I added feats, skills, a unified XP chart, and several other elements from standard d20." after which I'm thinking "If you had to add a few dozen things to turn C&C into the game that you wanted it to be, why didn't you just go with X that has all of those added elements to begin with?"

Hehe! Yes indeed.

Of course, the flipside is that if you have a system that you're going to modify to take a bunch out to make it more rules-lite, why not go to a rules-lite system and add what you want in?

It's a double-edged sword, really. You make an excellent point, and I don't disagree. If you add a bunch of stuff from d20 to C&C, why not go with d20? If C&C is it for you save for one little change, why not go with C&C?

Now here's the million dollar question. What if what you want lies somewhere in the middle? What if you want a game that has the same simplistic feel of C&C but the options of D&D? Which way do you go?

 

[Sitara]

Now here's the million dollar question. What if what you want lies somewhere in the middle? What if you want a game that has the same simplistic feel of C&C but the options of D&D? Which way do you go?

Wait for 4e!

 

[Blackwind]

Wait for 4e!

And then reverse engineer it into a rules-light RPG.

On a more serious note, it depends on what kind of 'options' you want. Feats? Skills? PrCs? Those are all fairly easy to add into C&C.

I could also see using C&C as a base and then adding in something like Aspects from Spirit of the Century.

 

[Jackelope King]

Hehe! Yes indeed.

Of course, the flipside is that if you have a system that you're going to modify to take a bunch out to make it more rules-lite, why not go to a rules-lite system and add what you want in?

It's a double-edged sword, really. You make an excellent point, and I don't disagree. If you add a bunch of stuff from d20 to C&C, why not go with d20? If C&C is it for you save for one little change, why not go with C&C?

Now here's the million dollar question. What if what you want lies somewhere in the middle? What if you want a game that has the same simplistic feel of C&C but the options of D&D? Which way do you go?

The more I think on it, the more I become convinced that C&C is to old-school gamers what a "fixer-upper" is to a handy couple going house-shopping. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely on your tastes. For me, it's a bad thing only in that C&C decided to gum up a workable and very interesting simple resolution mechanic (the SIEGE Engine) with what feels like too many old-school-ism.

I think the difference between "why not go to a rules-lite system and add what you want in?" and "if you have a system that you're going to modify to take a bunch out to make it more rules-lite" is one of intent. I would vastly prefer a complete system which would let me yank out parts I didn't like than a rules-lite system which tells me to "do it myself" when it has a gap. The contradictory subsystems from older games are something I disliked, and I much prefer a unified approach which would provide guidance as to how to take a basic mechanic (such as d20 + modifier vs. DC) and use that foundation to apply it to novel situations (such as resolving how to throw sand in your enemy's eyes and making it fair).

It's more likely that someone will pick the former (C&C) when they already have a bunch of subsystems from disparate games in their libraries that they want to add to it.