More Castles & Crusades details

[Particle_Man]

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.

Also possible (it matches my "virtual" idea that I had in an earlier post, and seemed to exist in the Basic D&D halfling). I think it comes down to whether you want a 16 in Dex, for instance, to mean the same thing for humans, elves, etc., or whether you are ok with a 16 in Dex in an elf being "better" objectively speaking than a 16 in Dex in a human. I don't have a strong preference either way, but would want to see the C&C books (especially the monster book) to see if I would want to have, for instance, a giant with a 25 strength or a giant with a "really strong" version of 16 strength.

Anyhow, since the book is listed as "tinker friendly", I will still be interested in looking at C&C. I would suggest that after the rules come out, TLG start posting favorite house rules on their site (and maybe in a future supplement), as players chime in with their own ideas. It could be called Unearthed Arc...that is...Arcana Unear...er...well I'm sure a name will be found.

 

[Henry]

It could be called Unearthed Arc...that is...Arcana Unear...er...well I'm sure a name will be found.

Last call for the name "Exhumed Esoterica".

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.

Actually, I was just joking. I actually agree with you, but my dream build would be to go back to the 1st edition ranger (2d8 start dice, wizard and druid low lvl spells, humanoid bonus), but fix the tracking issue - make it more skill-based in some fashion. I'll look forward to see what you guys have put together, because probably as you say, going back to sources from Robin Hood to Daniel Boone to Aragorn is probably the best one, because you at least have a definable archetype to point back to and say, "LOOK! THERE it is."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Apparently it is special because this time it's been done right. Compared to all the other times that it's been done wrong.

I seriously doubt that the C&C ranger will be considered "right" by even most C&C players. It seems to be a curse that follows the ranger that it will never be right. We will see this one be good and maybe innovative, but "right"..? Next year we'll be up over our ears with C&C rangers that are done "really right this time!".

Fact of life. But I promise you this, if C&C does manage to do a ranger that people in general feel is "right", I''ll buy the book, just to celebrate that the elusive ranger has been tracked down.

Cheers!

Maggan

I've been a member of C&C since just about the beginning, and, while, I llove most of the stuff they are doing, I am not happy with the ranger. I will say this, however, if you are looking for a woodsman/tracker C&C has a damn good one. It's just not my idea of a ranger.

IMO, the reason no one has gotten the ranger right, thus far, is because it was done right the first time. Compared to all others, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, Monte's version, Monte's version 2.0, Necromancer Games version, Wheel of Time, Dragonlance, AEG, etc, etc - they all pale by comparison to the original, first edition ranger. I doubt anyone will ever do one better, but then, no one has improved upon the wheel in long while either.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

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.

The only possible problem with that is it can make Demi humans very powerful as now a 10 in the hands of an elf is as powerful as a 13
Ken

 

[Particle_Man]

Also possible (it matches my "virtual" idea that I had in an earlier post, and seemed to exist in the Basic D&D halfling). I think it comes down to whether you want a 16 in Dex, for instance, to mean the same thing for humans, elves, etc., or whether you are ok with a 16 in Dex in an elf being "better" objectively speaking than a 16 in Dex in a human. I don't have a strong preference either way, but would want to see the C&C books (especially the monster book) to see if I would want to have, for instance, a giant with a 25 strength or a giant with a "really strong" version of 16 strength.

I now figured the in-game difference: Ability Drain! If there are creatures, spells, monsters, etc. that drain/damage ability scores then it makes a HUGE difference whether the giant has 25 str or a "really strong" 16 str. So given that, my personal preference would be for my house rule over the Rolemasteresque house rule. Oh, and as to the post about making the elf too powerful, remember that bonuses and penalties both have an effect under my house rule. Under the old system, it is possible to pick a race that gives a bonus but no effective penalty, because the dex might be 15, and the con 11, making an elf a dex 16 con 10 character (improved dex effects, no significant reduction in con effects (except ability drain resistance). Under my house rule, the same elf would have dex 16, con 8, which make a difference to dex and con. Sio elves would be fast but sickly, either under my house rule or the Rolemasteresque house rule.

 

[Henry]

Just a slight observation:

Roger Moore once wrote an editorial in Dragon Magazine (It was either him or Kim Mohan, but I'm inclined to say it was Roger). He discussed the revision of AD&D into a second edition of the game, and one of the topics in his editorial (concerning the "cleaning up and polishing" of the game) was whether AD&D's popularity was in spite of the errors, loopholes, cracks & stress marks, etc. - or in part BECAUSE of them. He recalled a business in his hometown that posted a HORRIBLE advertisement for its store - mismatched columns, poor layout, etc. all in preparation for a large sale. The ad did very well, and they figured when they ran it again, a corrected ad would attract even MORE people. They did, and sales dropped like a stone. It was the haphazard nature of the ad that promised a no-frills atmosphere, a store full of hidden bargains - almost like an "antique shop" atmosphere.

I wonder how much truth is in that editorial when I think about discussions of game balance, of good and poor design, of class/race combos too powerful, etc. In truth, a lot of people LIKE to tinker with their games, look for the loopholes, find the hidden combo that's a little better than the rest. So if there are "hidden" bonuses in playing an elf with odd ability scores, or if there is a class ability that's a bit more powerful, then that's OK. It's part of the charm that there are "hidden goodies" or an unsung advantage. Game balance still has its place, but only inasmuch as making sure that one concept or "combo" does not make the game boring for all the other players.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to get someone interested in a game because it has some hidden rewards.

 

[MerricB]

Good points, Henry.

OTOH, I don't think any version of D&D is so "balanced" so as to be perfect and thus dull.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

I like the 3.5E Ranger.

Anyway...

If there's one thing that I believe makes 3E complex, it's that monsters are treated the same as characters - especially with their possessing ability scores.

If you only have a 3-18 range for PCs (and do not allow values above that), and monsters have no scores at all, you simplify the game incredibly and fix a bunch of scaling issues I have with 3E.

However, you also reduce the "power" of the game at the same time - it's no longer as simple to run a monstrous character. In addition, spells that are based of an ability score of a monster no longer function properly.

It's one of those trade-offs that I'll be very interesting to see how C&C resolves.

I note that in Basic D&D, monsters were never given an intelligence score... until the Master set because there was a spell (Maze, I think) that required you to know it!

Cheers!

 

[johnsemlak]

I note that in Basic D&D, monsters were never given an intelligence score... until the Master set because there was a spell (Maze, I think) that required you to know it!

Hmm, interesting tidbit. DId the Master's set restat every monster in the D&D system? That would have taken a bit of space.

 

[MerricB]

Hmm, interesting tidbit. DId the Master's set restat every monster in the D&D system? That would have taken a bit of space.

As I recall, there's a page or two that lists every monster from the rulebooks and gives their intelligence scores.

Cheers!