Castles & Crusades (box set) playtest report

[Akrasia]

... Now those are easy and I remember those in 3e, but whats the conceptual difference that makes you remember different spells in C&C, but not in 3e?

Well, I certainly would not want to suggest that C&C "magically" (heh) gets rid of all the headaches involved with spells and spell-like abilities found in 3.x. And any answer I give you here will be somewhat speculative, as the "full rules" have not been published yet. (The spell descriptions in the box set are only a few lines each! They seemed to work fine IMO.)

But I would say that there are simply fewer spell-related variables in C&C (e.g. no different kinds of defensive bonuses; different kinds of magical attacks -- like energy drain, fear, and gaze attacks -- will generally be resolved with the same mechanic, though not the same ability score of course; etc).

And there are fewer non-spell variables with which spells might interact (e.g. no feats or skills mean that there is no need to address the various ways in which different spells might affect different feats or skills; a simpler combat system means that there is no need to check whether a spell affects combat maneuvers like tumble or attacks of opportunity, etc.).

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm glad it does! I will be looking into it for I am intrigued by the promises made by the trolls and various playtesters.

 

[Turanil]

About Role-playing or Roll-playing bluff and Diplomacy

Several people here mention that they prefer their players role-play their Bluff and diplomacy (and other similar) attempts, rather than make a skill check.

I must say I am baffled to read this. I don't see the point to play a game where a player is going to say: "Well, I make a Bluff check to let the bandit let us pass without incident". In my games, a PC or NPC who attempts to bluff (or else) always role-play it. Then, the skill check is used to see if the attempt convinced the person. When, I DM a NPC bluffing, I secretely make a roll, and according to the result I will roleplay the bluff attempt appropriately.

IMO: saying that there is no need for a skill check as long as you roleplay the bluffing attempt, is like saying there is no need to roll for an attack (and see if you hit or not) as long as you roleplay it.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Oh. I don't see it that way at all. If I role-play a bluffing attempt a check only slows down play and risks making the answer non-sequiteur. The dice will not make allowances for good arguments. Perhaps the DM will adjust the result a bit but that only slows down play even more. Rolling dice in conversation is a bit too Monty Python-esque for my tastes.

You can't be serious comparing attack rolls and diplomacy? Just because I enjoy doing my own talking doesn't mean I like to do my own fighting.

 

[Voadam]

Could you give a sample monster stat block from the game?

 

[Frostmarrow]

Could you give a sample monster stat block from the game?

-Good question! Let's have it.

 

[MeepoDM]

Could you give a sample monster stat block from the game?

Certainly!

Example: Gnoll; HD 2d8; HP 11; AC 15; SV P, Equip: Battleaxe, Shortbow, Leather Armor; 6 GP

All monsters battle as though they were a fighter of that level, so a 2HD Gnoll fights as a level 2 Fighter. Coincedently, all Fighters get a Bonus to Hit equal to their level, so the Gnoll gets a +2 to hit.

 

[fuindordm]

Oh. I don't see it that way at all. If I role-play a bluffing attempt a check only slows down play and risks making the answer non-sequiteur. The dice will not make allowances for good arguments. Perhaps the DM will adjust the result a bit but that only slows down play even more. Rolling dice in conversation is a bit too Monty Python-esque for my tastes.

You can't be serious comparing attack rolls and diplomacy? Just because I enjoy doing my own talking doesn't mean I like to do my own fighting.

I forget when and where, but I read a nice little article on this subject not long ago. Its thesis was that many D&D players and campaigns rely heavily on combat to solve problems because their combat skills are well-defined and reliable, while their social abilities were not and to some extent always depended on DM fiat. For example, a rogue needing to escape an area and make their way past a guard could choose to bluff or hide, and sneak attack. If they bluff and are forced to role-play and await the DMs judgement on how believable their lie was, then the outcome is highly uncertain from the player's point of view. On the other hand, if they sneak attack the player has an excellent idea of what their chances are of taking out the guard (and they're probably quite high). If the player wishes to survive they probably choose the sneak attack, and similar arguments can be made for choosing a combat solution over any other social interaction.

If, on the other hand, they know that this kind of bluff has a DC of 15 and they've maxxed out their bluff ranks, and can trust the DM to acknowledge their investment by calling for a roll regardless of their role-play effort (maybe they just aren't feeling very creative that night, or the player might just be lousy with words) and abiding by the results, then bluffing becomes an equally attractive option.

In short, if they players trust that investing points in social skills will yield reliable in-game results then they will use those skills to good effect. Calling for skill rolls in challenging social situations actually encourages role-playing, because it encourages players to invest in and use these skills.

--Ben

 

[Voadam]

I'm with Frostmarrow.

I use bluff in my games when the character wants to feint or cause a distraction so they can hide.

Social interactions are roleplay situations and are better roleplayed without dice IME. I found I was constraining myself to acting according to the dice in nonsensical ways to no benefit to my game so I stopped using social skill checks during actual conversations and just roleplayed them as I always had in previous editions modifying interactions based on the character involved. The game seems more enjoyable and more logical now.

Social interactions are something a PC can do in character. Combat is something physical that we are saying we are doing but are not actually doing. Therefore the need for mechanics for resolution. If you want to skip roleplaying the interactions then social skills can resolve those attempts, or DM fiat could.

 

[Voadam]

Certainly!

Example: Gnoll; HD 2d8; HP 11; AC 15; SV P, Equip: Battleaxe, Shortbow, Leather Armor; 6 GP

All monsters battle as though they were a fighter of that level, so a 2HD Gnoll fights as a level 2 Fighter. Coincedently, all Fighters get a Bonus to Hit equal to their level, so the Gnoll gets a +2 to hit.

"SV P" What does this part mean?