Moving to C&C... need help

[SavageRobby]

Talk about passive-aggressive. Yeesh.


The SIEGE engine is built, and described in the rulebook, as a mechanic to allow players to describe what they want to do, the DM to rate its difficulty (and decide if it even needs a roll - often they won't), and then adjudicate the player's roll based on the roll vs. the difficulty. The key is that it is built around the concept of DM judgement.

So, if you want to claim that the system doesn't handle feats, claim away. In your game, it might not. But that doesn't mean the system isn't built to do it, it is built with that flexibility, whether you choose to use it or not (or even acknowledge that flexibility or not). You might decide a 4th level Fighter couldn't try to use the momentum from his killing blow to swing into an adjacent opponent. I might, asking for a Strength SIEGE roll first.

You might consider reading pages 109-112 of the PHB (at least, in the 2nd edition). It'd help your case if you had a better understanding of what you were arguing. Assuming, of course, you're actually interested in a better understanding.

 

[Treebore]

Wait... you were asserting earlier that the ability to "do anything" was inherent to the SIEGE mechanic. If so, why would it make a difference what the GM's attitude was, if he was using the SIEGE mechanic?

Would you like to put that back into context? IE the part of "if the CK is willing".

 

[ST]

Although I don't know if we will end up with everyone agreeing, I think this raises some kinda interesting questions about game systems and how they're viewed.

I don't know the rules of either system from memory so I'll try an example (correct me if I get something wrong, please).

Bob wants to play a tough barbarian to play in two different campaigns, one using C&C and the other in D&D 3.x. He wants him to be an axe user who's going to steadily get better at it, and learn more techniques.

In C&C, he's going to be making SIEGE checks to use special techniques. He'll take a Prime that supports this. As he becomes more powerful, between being able to hit heigher SIEGE DCs and the GM using some kind of "repeated stunts get easier" system, he goes from things like hitting two enemies in one attack to being a whirlwind of steel, hitting everyone around him.

In D&D 3.x, he's taking new Feats as he levels. Power Attack, then Cleave, then Whirlwind Attack.

Both games describe his character as a barbarian learning and growing to become a mighty warrior. Both games will allow him to do this and have fun playing the game. But they're doing it differently. The play experience is going to differ.

It's a good piece of the system to break out and discuss like this, I think, because you can get similar in-game result from two very different systems.

 

[Treebore]

Although I don't know if we will end up with everyone agreeing, I think this raises some kinda interesting questions about game systems and how they're viewed.

I don't know the rules of either system from memory so I'll try an example (correct me if I get something wrong, please).

Bob wants to play a tough barbarian to play in two different campaigns, one using C&C and the other in D&D 3.x. He wants him to be an axe user who's going to steadily get better at it, and learn more techniques.

In C&C, he's going to be making SIEGE checks to use special techniques. He'll take a Prime that supports this. As he becomes more powerful, between being able to hit heigher SIEGE DCs and the GM using some kind of "repeated stunts get easier" system, he goes from things like hitting two enemies in one attack to being a whirlwind of steel, hitting everyone around him.

In D&D 3.x, he's taking new Feats as he levels. Power Attack, then Cleave, then Whirlwind Attack.

Both games describe his character as a barbarian learning and growing to become a mighty warrior. Both games will allow him to do this and have fun playing the game. But they're doing it differently. The play experience is going to differ.

It's a good piece of the system to break out and discuss like this, I think, because you can get similar in-game result from two very different systems.

Very true, the play is very different. Like in 3e, to attempt the Whirlwind you have to build a feat chain. I think there is one or two more than what you have listed, but I haven't played 3E in two years. The good thing is you can do it no matter what once you earn it (I think).


In C&C you can attempt to do a "Whirlwind" like attack from level one, you just have to hit the TN set by the CK who is willing to let you. Say I have a player facing off against 4 1 HD Orcs, and the player tells me he wants to try and hit all of them with one swing (IE whirlwind). The PC is a fighter type so I set the base TN at 12 + 1/HD of opponents. So 4HD is a CL 4, so TN is 12+4 for TN 16 to beat. If he rolls successfully then he gets to roll the attack, because the SIEGE check said he "set up" the maneuver. He will have to hit the highest AC in the group (which is likely all the same AC anyways), but if he does he applies damage to all of his opponents.

So the drawback here is you have to make two successful rolls to do a "whirlwind" type of attack, but the cool thing is you can do it at level one.

It just so happens that in my games if you roll enough successful maneuvers of a specific type, say Cleave, or Great Cleave, I'll award that as a "character specific ability", which are called feats by 3E players. So in my game you can earn these character abilities, which will negate the need for a roll. I limit this to creatures no more than 3 HD above your PC's level. In the case of Whirlwind I would have to add some more "limits" to it, since it is pretty darn powerful. Probably only have it work without a roll versus cretures half your PC's HD in their own HD, as well as be fewer in number than your PC's HD.

Example: The PC is a 10th level fighter, he is fighting 5th level human fighters. They number 10 or less he gets to do a Whirlwind without rolling a SIEGE check, just the "to hit". 11 or more he would have to also do a SIEGE check. Which would be impossible to make unless you allow nat 20's to always succeed.

So looking at that I would probably change the house rule to: Opponents must have half the PC's HD or less, and be fewer in number than half the PC's level. Meaning the above example would be 5th level fighters and numbering 5 or less in order for the PC to not have to roll a SIEGE check. 6 or more would require a check that is still impossible [(5x6)+12= TN 42], but at least its within 12 of the tenth level fighters max possible roll.

 

[Ourph]

Would you like to put that back into context? IE the part of "if the CK is willing".

It seems to me that "if the CK is willing" and "Doing actions, that are covered by feats in 3E are inehrent to the SIEGE mechanic, not something I imported" (a direct quote of your comments earlier in the thread) are mutually exclusive statements. Which is it?

 

[Treebore]

It seems to me that "if the CK is willing" and "Doing actions, that are covered by feats in 3E are inehrent to the SIEGE mechanic, not something I imported" (a direct quote of your comments earlier in the thread) are mutually exclusive statements. Which is it?

Its classic to argue somantics when you feel you haven't won whatever argument it was that you wanted to win.

 

[Treebore]

It seems to me that "if the CK is willing" and "Doing actions, that are covered by feats in 3E are inehrent to the SIEGE mechanic, not something I imported" (a direct quote of your comments earlier in the thread) are mutually exclusive statements. Which is it?

Now if your really interested in seeing how C&C's SIEGE engine handles feat like actions, inherently, read my last post previous to yours.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Its classic to argue somantics when you feel you haven't won whatever argument it was that you wanted to win.

The evangelism of C&C has become quite "classic" in its own right.

Starting a semantic argument over every minor criticism of C&C will soon be next to "my hat of 3e nos no limit" and "OD&D is the only true game" in the top ten of enworld "classics".

There are no feats in C&C. In the PHB RAW (rules as written), there are no skills or rules for multiclassing. However, you can houserule them in, be happy without them, or use interpretive dance to resolve dice mechanics.

You can also houserule C&C to play Ghostbusters, Chill or Vampire.

You can houserule D&D 3.5 to play Paranoia, HoL or C&C.

It all depends on how much you want to deviate from the RAW and how much work you want to put into it. However, people new to the game should be given honest assessments of how C&C plays straight "out of the box" before taking personal game development or house rules into account.

 

[Treebore]

The evangelism of C&C has become quite "classic" in its own right.

Starting a semantic argument over every minor criticism of C&C will soon be next to "my hat of 3e nos no limit" and "OD&D is the only true game" in the top ten of enworld "classics".

There are no feats in C&C. In the PHB RAW (rules as written), there are no skills or rules for multiclassing. However, you can houserule them in, be happy without them, or use interpretive dance to resolve dice mechanics.

You can also houserule C&C to play Ghostbusters, Chill or Vampire.

You can houserule D&D 3.5 to play Paranoia, HoL or C&C.

It all depends on how much you want to deviate from the RAW and how much work you want to put into it. However, people new to the game should be given honest assessments of how C&C plays straight "out of the box" before taking personal game development or house rules into account.

Did you read my post about Whirlwind? I clarified the mechanics as for how I would do it, but before that I illustrated how the SIEGE engine itself would handle it. Without my further building house rules on it, purely as a SIEGE mechanic, the Whirlwind would only be possible against substantially lower, and substantially fewer opponents than are possible with the 3E rules. I then add in how I would work out firm houserules if I were to award such an ability as a character ability.

So I demonstrated exactly how the SIEGE engine would handle it, and then how I would house rule it. Two different things. Before and after personal development.


So I am giving honest assessments to people who completely read what I wrote.


See? SIEGE engine:

"In C&C you can attempt to do a "Whirlwind" like attack from level one, you just have to hit the TN set by the CK who is willing to let you. Say I have a player facing off against 4 1 HD Orcs, and the player tells me he wants to try and hit all of them with one swing (IE whirlwind). The PC is a fighter type so I set the base TN at 12 + 1/HD of opponents. So 4HD is a CL 4, so TN is 12+4 for TN 16 to beat. If he rolls successfully then he gets to roll the attack, because the SIEGE check said he "set up" the maneuver. He will have to hit the highest AC in the group (which is likely all the same AC anyways), but if he does he applies damage to all of his opponents.

So the drawback here is you have to make two successful rolls to do a "whirlwind" type of attack, but the cool thing is you can do it at level one."


Then how I worked out house ruling it:


"It just so happens that in my games if you roll enough successful maneuvers of a specific type, say Cleave, or Great Cleave, I'll award that as a "character specific ability", which are called feats by 3E players. So in my game you can earn these character abilities, which will negate the need for a roll. I limit this to creatures no more than 3 HD above your PC's level. In the case of Whirlwind I would have to add some more "limits" to it, since it is pretty darn powerful. Probably only have it work without a roll versus cretures half your PC's HD in their own HD, as well as be fewer in number than your PC's HD.

Example: The PC is a 10th level fighter, he is fighting 5th level human fighters. They number 10 or less he gets to do a Whirlwind without rolling a SIEGE check, just the "to hit". 11 or more he would have to also do a SIEGE check. Which would be impossible to make unless you allow nat 20's to always succeed.

So looking at that I would probably change the house rule to: Opponents must have half the PC's HD or less, and be fewer in number than half the PC's level. Meaning the above example would be 5th level fighters and numbering 5 or less in order for the PC to not have to roll a SIEGE check. 6 or more would require a check that is still impossible [(5x6)+12= TN 42], but at least its within 12 of the tenth level fighters max possible roll."


Plus may I repeat that I use 3E feat terminology because its a "commonly understood language". If I was explaining this to people without knowledge of 3E and feats I would just call them "actions" that you can take. I do not use the feat words because they are used in C&C.

So I am not starting an argument. I am giving an honest assessment with accurate examples.

 

[tankschmidt]

Real life example:

Last night the party was taking on a bunch of bugbears in the Mines of Chaos. The half-orc fighter, Blarg, attacked a wounded bugbear, finishing him off with a nasty shot from his bearded axe. The player asked me if he could cleave through the first bugbear to attack a second next to it. I said sure and quickly calculated a CL of 21 (18+3 for a 3HD bugbear). Blarg easily hit the CL with his strength prime and took down the next bugbear in one blow.

The bottom line is this: the player dropped one bugbear, as a result getting a free attack on another - a technique known in D&D as "cleave." We are playing C&C by the book. None of our houserules affected this combat in the least. How can this be?