Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[bolie]

He'd lose his BAB as a fighter and gain the BAB of a troll (as determined by hit dice).

The description of the polymorph spell explicitly states that the character retains his base to hit and primes. As written, polymorph does not change your to hit chance at all. The only thing polymorph does is grant you some of the abilities of the creature (vision, etc...) and th natural attacks.

Bolie IV

 

[Akrasia]

One thing to keep in mind when discussing how well C&C can emulate certain 'character types' (e.g. swashbuckers) is that there will some optional rules in the CKG along these lines (or rather, there are very strong indications that there will be -- I am not a playtester myself).

That is, for players who want/need some 'mechanics' in order to realize their vision for a distinctive character, such mechanics will be available in the CKG (e.g. skills, maybe rules for creating class variants, etc.).

The C&C PHB gives people the basic framework. Things can be 'added' to it, depending on the goals of the group in question.

 

[Melan]

And the 3.5 swashbuckler has extensive room to improve - he could take monk levels, for instance, or arcane duelist, or even plain old unfettered - as he gains levels. Can the C&C swashbuckler improve his AC, outside of my personal 3.x bugaboo, buckets o' magic items?

But is that character a regular swashbuckler still, or some sort of ... well, I got nothin'. What is a character who starts as a fighter, progresses as a monk, or a "plain old unfettered"? I admit I can't wrap my mind around it. And that's one of the reasons I like C&C - I don't have to worry about it. A fighter is a fighter, an elf is an elf and an illusionist is an illusionist. I am only loosing what I didn't want in my campaign anyway...

 

[Mythmere1]

I think there's no question that C&C doesn't permit as much character specialization as 3E, at least not in terms of specialization that impacts the die-rolling mechanics of the game. In order to lighten the framework rules of the d20 system in any way, you've either got to not apply the rules to the monsters (C&C does this, too, to a degree) or cut back on player options to some degree).

Example: To have a large selection of feats, you need the feats to do something. In 3E, feats can affect spells, skill results, Aoo, hps, movement, ROF, damage, or any of the various in-combat tactical options such as bull rush.

Whether you think the complex system came first and permitted the player options, or whether you think the designers built the complexity as a vehicle for player options, or some combination, it's intuitive that the complexity of the 3E mechanics are integrally tied into the variety of options for players.

Like it or hate it or not care, I don't think it's a compelling argument that C&C's system supports player options equivalent to 3E - if you're talking about having a specific die roll modifier resulting from a player's choice.

This is one instance of where people are arguing past each other without understanding what's being said, I think. And it covers two areas.

1) C&C players are often saying that such player complexity and specialization comes from non-die roll mechanics just as easily as from the 3E rules. 3E players think this is a ludicrous statement, and resent the implication that they don't roleplay distinctions between characters as WELL as what they're talking about. What the C&C players MEAN, though, is that there's a style of gaming in which, because the player has stated that the character is of a particular type, he gains modifiers on an ad-hoc basis. "My fighter's a swashbuckler type. Can I get a +1 to hit since I'm drawing the orcs down the stairs in a running fight?" If the answer is yes, you've got one kind of gaming going on. If the answer is "no, that's not one of the modifiers you gain from your specializations," it's another kind of gaming. Both are valid - what I'm pointing out is what's meant by the apparently strange statement that C&C permits the same kinds of character specialization as 3E. It's not about roleplaying, it's about ad-hoc discussions in a rules system that's designed to hang loosely, rather than tightly, around the events of the story.

2) Some C&C players have said that you can easily house-rule in anything from 3E. 3E players point out that if you have to house rule it, it isn't there to begin with. Again, there's a miscommunication based on a basic difference of game philosophy. C&C is designed to have house rules built into it. The xp system is a basic points-per-monster system, with no adjustment for the level of the party that fights it. Such returns to AD&D mechanisms have been derided as "nostalgia," but they aren't. There's an important reason for avoiding a CR-type system - the DM (CK) doesn't have to worry that if he makes a party more or lesss powerful using house rules that he is throwing off the xp calculations for the monsters. In 3E, changing a party's overall power level with house rules can require the DM to recalculate CR, EL, etc. Lots of the precalculated balancing of 3E can be thrown off by aggressive houseruling, which is why there is so much discussion of "broken" this or "broken" that.

This is why C&Cers don't necessarily accept as final the argument that "if you can house rule up to it with C&C, you can house rule down to it from 3E." It's true as a theoretical statement, but C&C has been designed as a platform for house ruling, whereas each component of 3E is much more highly tied in with the other components. Again, neither system is inherently better or worse - 3E is designed to be comprehensive, where C&C is designed to allow easy tinkering.

 

[cleaverthepit]

I'll attempt to address the swashbuckling buccaneer reaving across the seven seas of delight as it plays into a few aspects of C&C's design and philosophy.

What makes a swashbuckler a swashbuckler?

Our answer is that a swashbuckler is defined by his actions and lifestyle. He (or she) crosses the seven seas wreaking havoc wherever he/she may be. The swashbuckler steals from the rich and gives to the whore and aleman. The swashbuckler harries merchants from sunrise to sunset and sets the imperial navy on end. Or something akin to that. They also tend to be good looking and charming. Eryl Flynn and Johnny Depp anyone? I doubt anyone thought redbeard was good looking or charming. But maybe that is the difference between a swashbuckler and just your everday garden variety pirate.

Thomas "The Spleen" Foster from his youth loved to get into the middle of the fight. As soon as the plank is dropped, he leaps across the space in giant lopes and right in the middle of a pack of imperial troopers wreaking havoc and dismay.

Malory "The Fist" Nester, known from one end of the seas to the next for the punch that killed Captain Swaggar. The emporer, it is rumored, has a gallows and rope built and waiting his neck. With a dagger and pair brass knuckles, The Fist's makes for the captain first.

Egdar "Bull Nose" Firstson leaps forth from the gangway with a mighty yell and plopls into the middle of the nearest sea of swarming men. His thirst for revenge is great and he slaughters without haste any who are near. His friends and family even keep their distance.

Sam "The Shark" Nikel is a dastardly villeinous sort even his compatriots are wary of. He prefers going over in the second wave and cleaning up or dropping unnoticed into the captains quarters. He roots out the hidden passengers and depends on his handy crossbow to solve many a problem.

Father Riskin "The Cobra" is a ring leader, goading his compatriots into battle and driving them to ever nastier deads of piracy. And more successful to boot. He calls upon the gods for good luck and inspiration for a soul ravaged crew while dealing death to all those who ignore him - or irritate him - or deny him - or who might just have a gold crown hidden in their boot.

Margret Thetcher the "Nooser" is the vilest of lot. Her charming ways have lured many a man to their death. For pay, for revenge or for fun the Nooser is feared. She slips in with the second wave and noisily goes for the throat. Her penchant for hanging her enemies has earned her the most appropriate of names.

Eyeball Makaney sits upon the crow's roost night and day reading the sun moon and stars and, incidentily, keeping a sharp eye out for potential "trading partners." He's been fighting the imperials since he was a wee tyke and loves nothing more than to add another ear to his collection.

So what we have are a fighter, monk, barbarian, rogue, cleric, assassin and ranger. All swashbucklers aboard the "Wanton Wave." Or, are they all fighters, all rogues, all clerics?

In brief, C&C is geared in a particular direction. The first is that the character is defined, not by their abilities but by their actions. With this comes a particular understanding of rules in general. The more rules one uses to reference a character and their actions, the more that character is defined by those rules. C&C is an attempt to mvoe away from that.

For some gamers this works. This is all they need. A basic framework (the class) and all else follows. It keeps play simple and, by reducing options actually engenders imaginative thinking.

For other gamers, this is not the case. The options and detailed rules help to expand imaginative thinking and clearly define a character. It is simply the inverse of the above.

Neither is right nor wrong in any objective sense. It is simply two paths to same point. What C&C attempts to do is address the first path as it had not been adressed (at least to our satisfaction) in recent years.

Again,I would like to say no one is right or wrong in this. Their is no objectively criteria by which to judge a games 'value.'

Now, to address the issue of rules and options, the CCCKG is being written. This is the book of options of options. Where one gets to pick and choose differing abilities, replace one ability with another, combine differing class elements. Skill systems are opted. Even the 3e skill system will be presented as an option as well as feat acquisition. Differing critical hit tables, to hit tables damage tables, etc etc etc.

From this, one may find the level of detail one desires.

OK, sorry to have taken your time. Retrun to your regualrly schedules source of enjoyment. If you are at work. I am sorry, IT IS FRIDAY THOUGH!!! is all I can offer you.

Davis

 

[Henry]

FRIIIIIDAAAAAY!

Anecdote: My boss saw me drinking a diet Pepsi this morning. He said, "For a second, I thought that was a beer."

I said, "It's not that part of Friday yet."

----------------------------

One thing that I am noting of supreme value to me is game philosophy, especially as regards to the way people USED to play AD&D. In my camp, We took the rules as law back then in the early 80's. No one would have wanted to play a fencing-fighter because he would get slaughtered without his heavy weapon and his chain mail / plate mail and shield. After all, Morgan Ironwolf was no bloody SWASHBUCKLER! Neither was Silverleaf, or Black Dougal. And Dougal died to a poison trap!!! It would have never ocurred to players or DM to alter the rules to fit a character concept that was not there.


Apparently, some DMs and players of older editions were makeshifting stuff all the time and loving it. Can't be a swashbuckler because the armor's too flimsy? Give them the bonus anyway! Want to be a priest who turns animals instead of undead? SURE!

It wasn't until 2nd edition that we started customizing characters to concepts, and thanks to Player's Option, we had the inventive tools to do that.

I had never known of this whole pre-1985 culture that were upgrading the heck out of Basic and AD&D. We considered ourselves sophisticated when we used a d10 for initiative! Other games than AD&D? Pheh! What are those? Though I must admit I was always curious what the heck Rolemaster and MERP was in the back of all those Dragon magazines...

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

But is that character a regular swashbuckler still, or some sort of ... well, I got nothin'. What is a character who starts as a fighter, progresses as a monk, or a "plain old unfettered"? I admit I can't wrap my mind around it. And that's one of the reasons I like C&C - I don't have to worry about it. A fighter is a fighter, an elf is an elf and an illusionist is an illusionist. I am only loosing what I didn't want in my campaign anyway...

He's a swashbuckler. Everything else is words on a character sheet that neither the character nor anyone else in his entire plane of existence knows anything about. In fact, IMC, only the GM and the player would know; the other players would only see what the PC is capable of.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'll attempt to address the swashbuckling buccaneer reaving across the seven seas of delight as it plays into a few aspects of C&C's design and philosophy.

What makes a swashbuckler a swashbuckler?

Our answer is that a swashbuckler is defined by his actions and lifestyle. He (or she) crosses the seven seas wreaking havoc wherever he/she may be. The swashbuckler steals from the rich and gives to the whore and aleman. The swashbuckler harries merchants from sunrise to sunset and sets the imperial navy on end. Or something akin to that.

Actually, that's what makes a buccaneer a buccaneer.

Some (though not all) buccaneers are also swashbucklers, but not all swashbucklers are buccaneers.

If we're talking about the character's profession, I agree. Any one of the characters you describe is indeed a pirate of the seven seas, sailing about, raiding, plundering and generally making of himself a nuisance to the shipping lanes. As far as any other character knows, he's exactly that - a pirate, or, if the commentator is being generous, a buccaneer. He might be anything from a fighter to a wizard to a ranger to (in 3e, anyway) a monk/shou disciple/drunken master.

Similarly, any number of characters could be technically a swashbuckler - a bard, a rogue, a (suicidal) fighter, or the aforementioned three-part of inebriate flurry of rapier goodness. But in this case, he's defined not by his profession but by his fighting style (and, perhaps, his lifestyle).

You can just as easily have land-based swashbucklers who are in the service of king and country and pirates who are far from swashbucklers.

Is all this germane to C&C?

Maybe.

I'm convinced that many C&C classes can adopt the profession of buccaneer. I'm also convinced that you can houserule an effective swashbuckling class into C&C or modify an existing one, and that the CKG will make this much easier if it doesn't provide one already.

I'm convinced that such a class or combination of classes doesn't exist already (the fighter/monk, fighter/rogue or ranger/rogue would be the core 3e options for it) and that it would be work for the GM to create it.

 

[Akrasia]

... I'm convinced that such a class or combination of classes doesn't exist already (the fighter/monk, fighter/rogue or ranger/rogue would be the core 3e options for it) and that it would be work for the GM to create it.

Yes, it was really hard work!

It took me an entire minute to create it. (Including checking to see that it was 'balanced' etc.)

I'm exhausted.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Whether you think the complex system came first and permitted the player options, or whether you think the designers built the complexity as a vehicle for player options, or some combination, it's intuitive that the complexity of the 3E mechanics are integrally tied into the variety of options for players.

Silhouette Core is a much simpler system than either 3e or C&C, and it permits a level of mechanical character customization almost equal to the former. Simple doesn't have to equal limited.

1) C&C players are often saying that such player complexity and specialization comes from non-die roll mechanics just as easily as from the 3E rules. 3E players think this is a ludicrous statement, and resent the implication that they don't roleplay distinctions between characters as WELL as what they're talking about. What the C&C players MEAN, though, is that there's a style of gaming in which, because the player has stated that the character is of a particular type, he gains modifiers on an ad-hoc basis. "My fighter's a swashbuckler type. Can I get a +1 to hit since I'm drawing the orcs down the stairs in a running fight?" If the answer is yes, you've got one kind of gaming going on. If the answer is "no, that's not one of the modifiers you gain from your specializations," it's another kind of gaming. Both are valid - what I'm pointing out is what's meant by the apparently strange statement that C&C permits the same kinds of character specialization as 3E. It's not about roleplaying, it's about ad-hoc discussions in a rules system that's designed to hang loosely, rather than tightly, around the events of the story.

This is what I don't understand, though. This is much more work for the GM.

In my game, I answer the question you pose with a single, consistent answer that's essentially always true: you can add an action point to your attack and/or damage for that.

That's not core 3.5 - remember, I consider d20 Modern a much, much better game than any incarnation of D&D - but it's core to a form of d20 compatible with 3.5.

If I had to ad hoc rule every attack, that would slow combat down more than any amount of AoOs. Having players ask me if they can take an interesting action is also something I never want to hear. Of course you can, and there is a consistent way to adjudicate it.

2) Some C&C players have said that you can easily house-rule in anything from 3E. 3E players point out that if you have to house rule it, it isn't there to begin with. Again, there's a miscommunication based on a basic difference of game philosophy. C&C is designed to have house rules built into it. The xp system is a basic points-per-monster system, with no adjustment for the level of the party that fights it. Such returns to AD&D mechanisms have been derided as "nostalgia," but they aren't. There's an important reason for avoiding a CR-type system - the DM (CK) doesn't have to worry that if he makes a party more or lesss powerful using house rules that he is throwing off the xp calculations for the monsters. In 3E, changing a party's overall power level with house rules can require the DM to recalculate CR, EL, etc. Lots of the precalculated balancing of 3E can be thrown off by aggressive houseruling, which is why there is so much discussion of "broken" this or "broken" that.

This is why C&Cers don't necessarily accept as final the argument that "if you can house rule up to it with C&C, you can house rule down to it from 3E." It's true as a theoretical statement, but C&C has been designed as a platform for house ruling, whereas each component of 3E is much more highly tied in with the other components. Again, neither system is inherently better or worse - 3E is designed to be comprehensive, where C&C is designed to allow easy tinkering.

I don't buy this in any way, shape or form.

I've run a fairly straight 3.0 to 3.5 game, played in several with various house rules, and am currently running one based more on the Conan rules. Among the changes and/or house rules:
Armor as DR, class defense bonus, totally rewritten action and AoO structure, no spellcasting PCs, essentially all non-spellcasting PrCs and feats from any source available, action points, expanded diplomacy rules, and more.

I put together those house rules in about four hours. They have yet to "break" the game or make it play poorly. Obviously, not everyone will like the changes, but they don't cause any problems.

CR, EL... I've never 'recalculated' those in my life, and never would. I don't judge anything but XP off them, either, because I've learned how to read PCs more precisely than the printed system ever could, designed as it is as a rough estimation. For that matter, they're not terribly consistent. When I do award XP for combat, I use the values in the books, and it's no problem at all.

A system flexible enough to encompass Blue Rose, Conan, Babylon 5, Star Wars, d20 Modern, OGL Steampunk, Warcraft, Black Company, Grim Tales, Forgotten Realms, Call of Cthulu, Eberron and my homebrew with its attendant house rules is so interwoven that it can't be houseruled?