Help me with my Castles & Crusades dilemma

[Dragonhelm]

I'm going to be the odd duck out and vote for a Tolkienesque setting. I recommend Dragonlance, of course.

I guess I like the setting flavor of a Tolkienesque world the best. Greyhawk is well and good and I like that as well, but nothing like epic fantasy for me.

 

[Krieg]

Greyhawk hands down.

If there is a single setting that C&C fits perfectly it's Greyhawk.

If you are going all-out Warhammer, then there are D20/OGL products that do a better job of mimicking it's idiosyncrasies.

 

[Maester Luwin]

I too would vote for Greyhawk simply because of fond memories! But your Highlands campaign sounds interesting indeed. If you go that route you could just add the Germanic stuff as from the "Lowlands"- they are coming to war or trade with the Highlands. That way you could keep the Highlands the way you have it & now have two seperate cultures. Justmy two coppers. Thanks Maester Luwin

 

[Mythmere1]

For skills that are folded into class abilities (like climbing, tracking, rogue skills, etc) then the appropriate classes keep getting better because they get their level as a bonus; but you can't make your fighter get better and better at stealth, or spotting hidden rogues, or riding a horse, as you advance and that's what galls me.

I think a fighter would get better at riding a horse and spotting hidden rogues - the default in C&C is that you add your level to the roll. In terms of stealth, this is an area where C&C alters the "feel" toward the archetypes instead of just being rules-lite. It's definitely a system shock for anyone coming from 3E. It's worth thinking for a moment about the environment it creates - not in light of 3E, I mean, but in terms of the kind of fiction or your view of things. I didn't like this either when I first started Castles & Crusades, but then I realized that it seemed to make a more "heroic" feel to things when people are specialized. The only one of your three examples where I think C&C WOULDN'T have you add your level is the stealth attempt. Should your fighter really get better at stealth? If the answer is yes, then that's cool - but it's worth thinking about. If the rules-lite aspect of C&C still overrides, and you still prefer the C&C system, a good house rule is to give characters a bonus to certain types of "skill" checks as they advance. The stealthy Conan-type fighter might get a +1 to stealth rolls, while the wizard uses his for knowledge-like rolls.

And even if you have an 18 and a prime in your stat, you only succeed on a roll of 9+ and a 40% chance of failure seems pretty high. There's no way to beat that down if you're trying to develop a competence outside your core class, although one could introduce all sorts of things like skill backgrounds, feats, and non-weapon proficiencies to address the problem.

The system's definitely designed to de-emphasize non core competencies (though as I noted before, I think you've got the default set at no-level-bonus, when the default is actually to grant it. In other words, I think the appropriate issue may be puzzlement at why a wizard gets better at riding a horse, not puzzlement about why the fighter doesn't.

There are lots of nuances that C&C just doesn't try to achieve. These nuances are left for the CK to choose and house rule. Which isn't for everyone. But I *do* think you're evaluating it on one mistaken impression - that the siege engine's default is restrictive. It actually tends to make character classes more similar in the non-core competencies, not more distinct.

However, since the C&C system is less "elegant" than 3E, it tends to handle house rules better, with fewer cascading malfunctions when an element is altered. So fixing what you don't like is easier.

 

[fuindordm]

I think a fighter would get better at riding a horse and spotting hidden rogues - the default in C&C is that you add your level to the roll...

The system's definitely designed to de-emphasize non core competencies (though as I noted before, I think you've got the default set at no-level-bonus, when the default is actually to grant it. In other words, I think the appropriate issue may be puzzlement at why a wizard gets better at riding a horse, not puzzlement about why the fighter doesn't.

Thanks for clarifying this. So whether or not a character gets their level bonus to a check is usually an off-the-cuff judgement by the CK? Not that that's a bad thing. Or is it that anything not explicitly spelled out as someone's class ability elsewhere gets the level bonus.

Ben

 

[Turanil]

Ben, I can bring the C&C PHB with me some Monday night, for you to see. I have not proposed to run a C&C game to the group first because I don't speak English so easily, and second because there is already a score of DMs running campaigns or one-shots, so I don't see the need to add myself to the lot...

Note that in the near future I will upload a netbook with some houserules and other additions about C&C. Download it then, and it will give you some hints at how C&C works. But still much work to do on that however.

 

[dunbruha]

Thanks for clarifying this. So whether or not a character gets their level bonus to a check is usually an off-the-cuff judgement by the CK? Not that that's a bad thing. Or is it that anything not explicitly spelled out as someone's class ability elsewhere gets the level bonus.

It's my understanding that the only time a character does NOT get the level bonus is when she is trying to attempt an action that is a class ability of another class. For example, a fighter opening a lock or a wizard trying to track.

-dunbruha