More Castles & Crusades details

[cleaverthepit]

I think Maggan may be on to something. The Ranger is nigh impossible to do correct. everyone has their favorite conceptionn of the ranger. There is dissention in the ranks again. But hey, they are just adding what they want.

We will start posting more details on the classes late next week as there is still some tweaking to do, sorry.

Another problematic class - the bard,

oh yeah - the monk

The real problem classes are problems because they have a 'DnD' mythology and their archetype comes from within the gaming community and has never really been clarified. Suffice it to say, our Ranger goes back to a literary outside archetype.

 

[Henry]

Suffice it to say, our Ranger goes back to a literary outside archetype.

AHA! He's been done wrongly, then!

Looking forward to it, D.

One question, though it may be too early to know: Given Gary's recent concerns, is there any anticipation of any sort of alteration in the Castle Zagyg releases timeline? Or since his Yggsburgh part has been submitted, is it more up to Rob's schedule than Gary's, now?

We haven't seen him 'round the boards, and I hope he's still improving, but I was curious if mention of any of these factors came up last time you spoke.

 

[dsfriii]

Yes, but only if you play: a fighter, paladin, or something real easy like that. Rogues have tons of skills that need sorted out, casters take time to pick spells, etc. Yeah, fighters have feats, but a human fighter at level 1 only has 3, and players usually know what combo they want to start with, i.e. dodge+mobility+spring attack (hmmm... am I missing one in that chain?) point blank shot+rapid shot+precise shot, ambidexterity+weapon focus shortsword+something else (just wanted to negate my -2/-2 down to -1/-1, he he he)

Sorry to burst your bubble but yes I have created a theif in five minutes. As for casters picking spells will you not have to do that in C&C. But personal in either 3E or C&C I would like to take my time in creating a chracter only so I could design his personality and the person itself.

 

[Ron]

I may not be able to stop min maxing, but I can certainly contain it. Let's see how modular and tinker-friendly C&C is.

Using the 3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-17, 18 system:

Particle_Man House Rule #1: A racial ability bonus raises that ability to the lowest number in the new penalty/bonus category. [...]

Wouldn't be easier to use the old Rolemaster system, where races assign modifiers to the bonus, instead of to the abilities? As such, if I assign a 13 to dexterity and choose an elf, I would have an ability modifier of +1 plus another +1 of being an elf, for a total of +2. Not the traditional way of doing it, but a clever design option.

 

[cleaverthepit]

Wouldn't be easier to use the old Rolemaster system, where races assign modifiers to the bonus, instead of to the abilities? As such, if I assign a 13 to dexterity and choose an elf, I would have an ability modifier of +1 plus another +1 of being an elf, for a total of +2. Not the traditional way of doing it, but a clever design option.

That's interesting. that option never came up. h,mmmm

Henry

all right, in a very general way, what is the perfect ranger? and I won't disagree because, as I noted, I don't think it is possible to 'get it right' - but I like it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I like the way that the d20 system (ability -10)/2 can be scaled to high levels, but I don't understand the merits of the 3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-17, 18 system.

Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Staffan]

I like the way that the d20 system (ability -10)/2 can be scaled to high levels, but I don't understand the merits of the 3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-17, 18 system.

Can anyone enlighten me?

It's the way it was done in Basic D&D. Plus, it creates the nifty effect that roughly half the rolled scores (on 3d6) get a 0 modifier. I think it's technically 48% or something like that, but that's close enough.

 

[MerricB]

First

WHY DIDN"T SOME OF YOU JOIN THE C AND C SOCIETY? ARRRRGH

Three reasons:
* I'm happy with my current D&D 3.5E game.
* I have confidence in TLG to get it right without me.
* There are people in the C&C society that I hate with a passion. I will not associate with them.

Cheers!

 

[Walter_J]

That's interesting. that option never came up. h,mmmm

Henry

all right, in a very general way, what is the perfect ranger? and I won't disagree because, as I noted, I don't think it is possible to 'get it right' - but I like it.

If you don't mind my butting in, I think the best resource to define a ranger is the same source that was used to define the other classes (call it, earth, history, the dictionary, etc...) That leaves the ranger as someone who is trained to survive in the wilderness, gather information, conduct raids (i.e. guerrilla) and act as a guide and scout. With that core concept, a player can then, using whatever options the rules allow, customize the character to taste just like any other class. For example, if a ranger with druid spells does it for you, then you could play a "ranger/druid". But if you prefer Ranger as in "Rambo" you have that (OK, a little silly, but you get the idea.)

One of the catches, though, is you have to have a system, or DM, that is "friendly" toward players taking an active role in the wilderness. One of the reasons I had written Into the Wilds was to give DMs a system that allowed wilderness oriented characters to take as active a role as "thieves in a dungeon".

 

[johnsemlak]

* There are people in the C&C society that I hate with a passion. I will not associate with them.

That's a thing about C&C being created by a community. This 'retro-edition to 1e D&D' concept obviously stokes a lot of passion with some people. It must be hard to manage such varying opinions.