Moving to C&C... need help

[Irda Ranger]

hpwo do I convert 3.x material into C&C material. For instance my GH group is doing White Plume Mountain and heading for expedition to Castle Greyhawk and my eberron group is doing a homebrew.

Other than stats and level (which translate over seamlessly), I would not "convert" the characters, monsters or NPC's in a mathematical sense, but would try to boil all those characters down to their essence (what makes they what they are), and then attempt to recreate that essence from the ground up using C&C rules. Given how quickly characters can be built up in C&C (10th level is almost as easy as 1st level, other than for Wizards who have the additional spells to choose), this doesn't take long.

ALso more specifically, how do I do C&C conversion o shifters, Warforged, Kalashtar and Changelings.

You'll just have to do a write-up. Look at the races provided in C&C's PHB to get a feel for the relative power level of racial choices, and then convert over. The folks at the TLG forums are very friendly and helpful. I don't think it will be hard.

Frankly I think the hardest part about converting over Eberron to C&C will be the effects of the various Houses. D&D 3x (because it has a limited list of Feats, and you must choose among them) allows you to trade Feats which improve class abilities (like Metamagic or Weapon Focus) for House abilities. Since there's no equivalent mechanic in C&C, I don't know how you'd allow players to make this trade-off. You may have to simply ban House members (the ones with the Rune tatoos, anyway) from being PC's, which isn't very fun. If I can think of a better solution, I'll post it here.

For psionics I thought Id just make all psions and wizards effectively the same except for flavor.

If you say so. I'd make a seperate Int Prime caster class though, disallow the need for components of any kind, and fiddle with the Spell list to fit thematically. It's a little more work, but makes the Psion a real class and meaningful choice.

Lastly, I highly recommend that you use a universal CL of 18 (no 18/12 split) and just grant a +6 modifier for Primes. This is so much simpler to use in play, I think the only reason the Trolls didn't use it was to avoid looking like / infringing on the d20 mechanic.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I don't think anybody ever questioned whether or not you could have a character *do* something that would be a Feat in D&D -- any system will let you do anything, to an extent, even if you just have to houserule it.

Yeah, but C&C doesn't make you house rule anything to attempt most Feats. People who like C&C, and want to introduce it to new players, just want to make it clear that house rules aren't necessary in this context - just a little player imagination and GM good judgment. The system already has the SIEGE Engine, and that's pretty much all you need. The only two missing ingredients are a CL* and the relevant Stat.

Player: "I cast Fireball, but I change a word in the spell on the fly to make it explode Acid instead of Fire."
CK: "Ok. That's an Int check with a CL of 24. Roll."
Player: rolls. "I got an 9, plus 6 for Prime**, plus 2 for my Int, plus 7 for level - just made it!"
CK: "Cool. The asbestos-armored ogres do their best Wicked Witch impression and melt into little slimey pools."

The above example shows how a Feat can be replicated using the rules in the game. Since doing "arcane spell stuff" is almost always and Int check, really the only thing the game leaves to the GM is determining (a) whether that action is possible at all, given his world's game (meta)physics, and (b) what the CL is. For instance, if a player said "I jump from the ground up through the 3rd floor window", the GM needn't set a CL at all - he can just say it simply isn't possible.

Now, if the CK wishes, he can certainly "bolt on" additional rules, like specifying that failing rolls that resemble D&D metamagic feats triggers a wild surge, or whatever, but there's certainly no requirement that he do so.

*- CL is the C&C word for what D&D calls a DC, and just like in D&D, the DM determines the CL, often on the fly. There is no list anywhere in the C&C book which specifies what CL's are appropriate for changing Fire spells to Acid spells on the fly, but there's also no rule that says you can't do it sans the appropriate Feat. Rather than attempt to predict every possible action that the player's might attempt, C&C trusts its GM's to make up a CL (and grant modifiers or penalties appropriate to the circumstances) on the spot which are fair and fun.

** - a common house rule, and one I used when I ran C&C.

But does C&C have a system for letting you "bolt on" extra rules that apply to your character because of his specific training, no. You can have special training, and do stuff with it, but it doesn't add a modular rule (a Feat).

This is partly right, and partly wrong. It's incorrect insofar as characters do have "special training." It's represented by their Primes and their class. A Fighter with DEX Prime will be able to do certain things with greater ease than a character who isn't a Fighter and/or isn't DEX prime. No "bolting" necessary.

If you mean that C&C does not have rules allowing you to further distinguish class members who have the same Primes, then you're right. It does not provide that granular a level of detail. I thought it would be a cool house rule to allow people to spend XP on stuff other than level advancement (usually a permanent bonus to SIEGE Engine checks of a certain type, such as Turning Undead, or metamagic-like stuff, or a class ability), but that would be a house rule, and not core to C&C. I might recommend a XP cost equal to 5% of what you need to level up for each +1 to your roll, but that hasn't been playtested or anything.

This is one of the reasons I dropped out of C&C (that an demands on my time from non-RPG sources). It annoyed me that a CHR Prime Fighter or Rogue could never improve at Disguise beyond "CHR bonus +6", since Disguise was a class ability reserved for Illusionists. That and a few other "OD&D/AD&D anachronisms" which were retained for "feel" but I think are bad system designs. But that goes beyond our scope here.

 

[Ourph]

Given how C&C works, whether Hairfoot or Treebore allow their players to do "something that resembles the D&D 3.x feat 'Whirlwind Attack'" in the exact same way is immaterial, because as long as they're using a SIEGE Engine check. Because as long as they're both using a SIEGE Engine check, they're both doing it "the same way."

This has already been addressed upthread, so I'll quote the relevant parts here for clarity, first Treebore said...

C&C may not list "feats", but using the SIEGE engine allows anyone to do anything the CK is willing to allow, including feat actions such as power attack, cleave, whirlwind, and meta magic feats.

And I later replied...

The C&C rules provide the mechanical process for making a SIEGE check, but they unquestionably don't provide the mechanical effects of making a successful SIEGE check to do a "whirlwind attack" or any other feat-like action.

Treebore's assertion is false because the SIEGE engine provides the method for determining whether a character is able to perform a specific feat-like action, but provides no rules for the actual mechanical effects of success. The SIEGE engine produces a binary result (success or failure) but Feats aren't a binary mechanic. Selecting Feats is a binary mechanic (you either have them or you don't) and the SIEGE engine works just fine as a replacement for the process of Feat selection, but it does not replace the more complex function of feats which is detailing the mechanical effects of the binary result. Saying that the SIEGE mechanic replaces the function of feats is false, because it does not reproduce the entire function of that mechanic, only the simplest portion of it.

Can the SIEGE mechanic be used as part of a process to replicate the function of Feats in a C&C game? Absolutely. But the process of replication requires more than just the SIEGE mechanic, it requires creative input from either the player or the DM to define the mechanical effect of a successful SIEGE check. That creative input is not inherent to the C&C rules, the fact that the rulebooks give you permission to be creative notwithstanding.

I think you're stuck on the idea that there's only "one correct way" to do a "Whirlwind Attack."

Absolutely not, although I can see where you might get that impression from my reply to Treebore. The point is not that there should be only one correct way to handle the mechanical effects of a specific action, but that if the rules do actually provide that information there will be a common method for handling those mechanical effects. If two players who claim to be using the SIEGE mechanic as written are employing different mechanical effects, it indicates that the "creative input" I mentioned above is present and underscores that the "mechanical effect" function of Feats isn't replicated by the SIEGE mechanic.

I wish to focus on your use of the word "inherantly." Whirlwind Attack is inherently covered by the C&C's SIEGE Engine. However, it is not specifically described. There is no sentence or chart anywhere in the book that says "this is the CL of a Whirlwind Attack, and this is the effect."

Which is exactly my point. Feats provide a two-fold mechanic in 3e, they allow a player to know whether his character is capable of specific actions (yes or no, a binary result) and they describe the specific mechanical effects of those actions. The SIEGE mechanic produces a binary result which doesn't include any information about the mechanical effects of success. How can something be inherently "covered" by a mechanic that you admit provides incomplete information about the subject being "covered"? "Coverage" implies completeness, yet you specifically acknowledge that the C&C rules aren't complete when it comes to replicating the function of Feats in 3e.

Look, if PC's can "do stuff" that looks, smells and quacks like a Whirlwind Attack, why make such a fuss? When Treebore says C&C characters can "perform Feat-like actions", that's an accurate statement. For someone whose frame of reference is from D&D 3e, I think it's perfectly fair to say that "Players have access to the SIEGE Engine mechanic, which adjudicates any non-class-skill action they can imagine, including ones that D&D 3e might call a 'Feat.'" They can also try stuff that D&D 3e does not allow for.

First, I'd hardly call the discussion Treebore and I and now you and I are having a "fuss", it's just talk. Second, I never questioned the veracity of Treebore's position that C&C characters "can perform Feat-like actions" in his game. The point is that what occurs in his game isn't necessarily representative of something inherent to the C&C rules. It's merely representative of what you can do using the C&C rules as a base. PCs in a C&C game do not inherently and universally "have all feats". They can "have all feats" if that is something that the GM chooses to include in his game and willingly engages in the creative input necessary to provide information the actual C&C rules don't contain. Most players, I think, would consider that distinction significant (some, perhaps, even moreso than I would).

I don't think either system is better, just different strokes for different folks.

As someone who doesn't particularly like either C&C or 3e I find it strange to be "defending" one side of this debate and am frustrated that the automatic assumption by you and others is that I'm a huge fan of 3e. I'm not, far from it actually, and you wouldn't have to read many of my previous posts here at ENWorld to get that impression. To be clear, this was never a discussion about one system being "better" than the other on my part, it's a discussion about the accuracy of certain claims and the reasons behind the opinion that they are either accurate or inaccurate. As far as I'm concerned it's a value-neutral issue, whether the SIEGE mechanic replicates the function of feats is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the quality of the C&C rules. So if you want to continue discussing the issue, let's not make any unfounded assumptions about each other's preferences in playstyle or games and stick to the core issues. Agreed?

 

[Imaro]

To Ourph,

Just a quick question...

If my player says they want to perform a "Whirlwind Attack" then haven't they already set the parameters for what, if succesful, they're action will do? Of course this only happens if 3e terminology is even known by the player, otherwise they would say something like..."I want to give up my movement to make an attack against every opponent in range of my weapon"

Now by saying, make a siege check to see if you succeed, haven't both I and the player already mechanically defined what the result exactly is? Thus the only thing that needs to be determined is whether they succeed in attaining this result or not. Now the challenge rating will be set by different CK's in the same way that DC's are set by a DM, thus you will have some who rate the difficulty of pulling it off the same and some who differ.

 

[Treebore]

I'm going to try to explain the original concept from scratch, because I don't think we're talking about it directly any more.

The thread was originally asking how you could handle Feats -- which are character-specific, optional rules denoting special abilities -- into the C&C rules. (Think of a Feat like a card in Magic, kind of. It's something special you can do, mechanically, because you hold that card.)

The responses were mostly along the lines of "Oh, you can handle those abilities without adding character-specific, optional rules", which is not the same thing as "Yes, the system supports character-specific, optional rules".

I don't think anybody ever questioned whether or not you could have a character *do* something that would be a Feat in D&D -- any system will let you do anything, to an extent, even if you just have to houserule it. But does C&C have a system for letting you "bolt on" extra rules that apply to your character because of his specific training, no. You can have special training, and do stuff with it, but it doesn't add a modular rule (a Feat).

Hope this clarifies things. When people are talking about the "two schools" way of looking at it, that's good -- they work differently, and if how they work matters to you, choose based on that -- but obviously both will handle play just fine.

The reason we ahven't answered that question specifically is because there is no "official" or specifc answer. You can adapt it. How you do so is entirely up to you.

All I can tell you is how I adapted it. Which I think I already deescribed earlier in this thread. IF not I'll come back and copy/paste my house rules into this.




Ourph,

I did answer your question. TN is 12 + the HD of the opponent(s).

So for a Whirlwind you had better be doing it against low HD opponents or it will quickly become impossible to do.

A Whirlwind would be possible agains 6, maybe 10 1 HD creatures, but become nearly impossible, or at least highly unlikely against 2 HD creatures, since the CL would be either 6x2HD=CL12, so TN 24, or 10x2=CL 20, so TN 32.

In C&C no one is going to Whirlwing against creatures even close to their own level. Maybe against two creatures. IE your 10 th level and your fighting two 8th levels, so the CL would be 2x8HD=CL 16, so TN 28. You can "whirlwind" against both of them if you roll an 18 or higher on your SIEGE check.

Definitely not as powerful as it would be in 3E, but powerful in the power scale of C&C.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I'm going to try to explain the original concept from scratch, because I don't think we're talking about it directly any more.

The thread was originally asking how you could handle Feats -- which are character-specific, optional rules denoting special abilities -- into the C&C rules. (Think of a Feat like a card in Magic, kind of. It's something special you can do, mechanically, because you hold that card.)

The responses were mostly along the lines of "Oh, you can handle those abilities without adding character-specific, optional rules", which is not the same thing as "Yes, the system supports character-specific, optional rules".

I don't think anybody ever questioned whether or not you could have a character *do* something that would be a Feat in D&D -- any system will let you do anything, to an extent, even if you just have to houserule it. But does C&C have a system for letting you "bolt on" extra rules that apply to your character because of his specific training, no. You can have special training, and do stuff with it, but it doesn't add a modular rule (a Feat).

Hope this clarifies things. When people are talking about the "two schools" way of looking at it, that's good -- they work differently, and if how they work matters to you, choose based on that -- but obviously both will handle play just fine.

I'll go ahead and address this, hopefully to your satisfaction
You can add feats directly from the 3.5 SRD or PHB. Keeping in mind that the characters are relatively "balanced" against each other already, you might consider allowing a uniform number of D&D feats for any and all characters in your C&C game. I would probably try 1 feat at level 1 +1 at every level divisible by 3. I would disallow any feats that specifically address AoOs, but otherwise feel free to add feats. This will not hurt the C&C game in the slightest, I've seen it done successfully before!

-Jason Alexander
Troll Lord Games I.T. guy and general worker bee

 

[Ourph]

To Ourph,

Just a quick question...

If my player says they want to perform a "Whirlwind Attack" then haven't they already set the parameters for what, if succesful, they're action will do? Of course this only happens if 3e terminology is even known by the player, otherwise they would say something like..."I want to give up my movement to make an attack against every opponent in range of my weapon"

If you are borrowing the mechanical effect from another game (like the effect of Whirlwind Attack from 3e), then I think it's pretty obvious that the SIEGE mechanic is not providing you with the entirety of the information being used to handle the mechanics of the situation. If the situation is as described by the underlined part above, then YOU the player or GM are providing the mechanical effect information, which is really no different than borrowing the information from another game. In both cases, the necessary rules information to adjudicate the complete situation isn't being provided by the C&C rules. The SIEGE mechanic is inherently incapable of providing that information to players. For example, the SIEGE mechanic is not telling you that you should trade movement for the ability to make those extra attacks, that's a rule cooperatively created on the spot between you and the GM.

Now by saying, make a siege check to see if you succeed, haven't both I and the player already mechanically defined what the result exactly is?

Yes, and that's exactly my point. The SIEGE mechanic doesn't provide you with the mechanical effect, YOU provide that. The SIEGE mechanic just provides you with the binary result of the attempt.

Thus the only thing that needs to be determined is whether they succeed in attaining this result or not.

I would be the first to agree that the SIEGE mechanic gives a succeed or fail result. That's not the point in contention. What it doesn't do is set the parameters of the mechanical effect of a success or failure. Since the significance of Feats in 3e is primarily that they describe the mechanical effects of different actions, it seems pretty obvious that we've just established the SIEGE mechanic in no way replicates the function of Feats for C&C characters without significant creative input either from other games or the people playing the game.

Saying that "in C&C all characters have all feats" implies that the customer is somehow purchasing information that provides them with the ability to incorporate 3e mechanical effects in their game without reference to the 3e rules when they buy the C&C rulebooks, which is absolutely false. With C&C, the customer is paying for a resolution mechanic and the permission to borrow rules from other games, which is a completely different thing than actually being provided with the necessary information to replicate those rules.

 

[seskis281]

Ourph,

Keeping polite and simple:

Why does a system HAVE to put down in rules or PHB, in specific detail, all mechanics for it to be "well designed?"

 

[Treebore]

If you are borrowing the mechanical effect from another game (like the effect of Whirlwind Attack from 3e), then I think it's pretty obvious that the SIEGE mechanic is not providing you with the entirety of the information being used to handle the mechanics of the situation. If the situation is as described by the underlined part above, then YOU the player or GM are providing the mechanical effect information, which is really no different than borrowing the information from another game. In both cases, the necessary rules information to adjudicate the complete situation isn't being provided by the C&C rules. The SIEGE mechanic is inherently incapable of providing that information to players. For example, the SIEGE mechanic is not telling you that you should trade movement for the ability to make those extra attacks, that's a rule cooperatively created on the spot between you and the GM.


Yes, and that's exactly my point. The SIEGE mechanic doesn't provide you with the mechanical effect, YOU provide that. The SIEGE mechanic just provides you with the binary result of the attempt.


I would be the first to agree that the SIEGE mechanic gives a succeed or fail result. That's not the point in contention. What it doesn't do is set the parameters of the mechanical effect of a success or failure. Since the significance of Feats in 3e is primarily that they describe the mechanical effects of different actions, it seems pretty obvious that we've just established the SIEGE mechanic in no way replicates the function of Feats for C&C characters without significant creative input either from other games or the people playing the game.

Saying that "in C&C all characters have all feats" implies that the customer is somehow purchasing information that provides them with the ability to incorporate 3e mechanical effects in their game without reference to the 3e rules when they buy the C&C rulebooks, which is absolutely false. With C&C, the customer is paying for a resolution mechanic and the permission to borrow rules from other games, which is a completely different thing than actually being provided with the necessary information to replicate those rules.

I answered your Whirlwind question.

As to why C&C cannot say anything about importing feats, you would have to understand the legalities of OGL and copyright for the answer to be obvious.

So we, the fans, who have figured out how the SIEGE engine allows you to adjudicate any kind of action, are the only ones who can legally tell you that 3E feats can either be adapted as written rules, or simply used as examples of the kinds of things that can be resolved by SIEGE checks.

Thats why adapting feats and skills from other game systems is not spelled out in black and white. How close they come to telling you how to adapt rules from "other" systems is skirted, we'll find out with the CKG in November

 

[Ourph]

I answered your Whirlwind question.

Actually, you are correct, C&C does contain specific rules that semi-replicate the old 1e rules about Fighters getting multiple attacks against 1HD creatures (which I believe the 3e Whirlwind Attack feat is based on). It's probably not the best example to use. Since you claim that in C&C "all characters have all feats" then it shouldn't matter what example we use. Let's focus instead on a metamagic feat, like Empower Spell. Where are the rules that cover the mechanical effects of Empower Spell in C&C? Note that I'm not asking for the rules that cover how to determine success or failure (it's the SIEGE mechanic which I understand quite well and don't need explained again), I'm asking for the rules that tell you the mechanical effects of succeeding at the SIEGE check.

As to why C&C cannot say anything about importing feats, you would have to understand the legalities of OGL and copyright for the answer to be obvious.

I understand the OGL perfectly, thanks and this interpretation is, in fact, quite inaccurate. Since the feat descriptions for core D&D are part of the SRD it's actually quite acceptable for a 3rd party OGL product like C&C to include those descriptions in its text verbatim if the publishers desire. That is beside the point, however, because I'm not arguing in any way that C&C should incorporate those descriptions or would be a better game for it. I am pointing out that, since it doesn't, it's inaccurate to assert that "all characters in C&C have all feats". C&C doesn't have a feat system, nor does it contain enough information to replicate the mechanical effects of the 3e feat system without importing information from other games or creating new rules from whole cloth. I hoped that I had repeated that premise enough that we would all be clear about what I am and am not saying by now. :\