Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[Henry]

In my game, we have a fighter type (Ranger actually) that performs all kinds of cool feats of derring do. This is a C&C game.

To be more explicit, though, what is the armor class of said ranger, and does he get hurt badly often because of it?

 

[Numion]

Wrong. What you mean is "if you want a fighter with a bunch of modifiers to skills and a scad of feats to make him seem like a swashbuckler on paper". In my game, we have a fighter type (Ranger actually) that performs all kinds of cool feats of derring do. This is a C&C game.

Oh, you've houseruled feats into your game. Kinda makes a rules discussion moot. But in core C&C, wouldn't my point stand?

Sadly, since Im pretty sure you havent played, you will probably continue to come in and snipe away at a game which you havent experienced. If you can find a game, you should try it. Discuss with your GM what your vision is for your PC, and then come back and report your experiences. Of course, if its more fun to come in here and occasionally take a swat at the game, be my guest.

The thread was 'Tell me about C&C', and I made a valid point what you'll get, but whatever. Isn't it kinda counterproductive to disregard all negative comments?

 

[bolie]

You might want to wait for the M&T to come out before you make such bold assertions. I see no evidence at all that these things won't be added to the M&T. About the monster height, same thing, no evidence currently exists that such information will be omitted from the official monster guide. Why make snap judgements in the absence on any legitimate information?

I've asked about this on the Troll Lords game site and been assured that monsters won't have attributes. I've checked out the sample monsters PDF and from what I understand M&T is already finished. To add attributes and include attribute bonuses would require that every monster be rewritten. I doubt they'll do that.

I don't harp on this because I am just trying to be mean. I think this is a relatively important issue and could have a big affect on a game. I believe that this makes it more difficult and more complicated for a DM to modify monsters. Yes, you can just change the stats, but it's nice to have guidelines. Also, all monsters make all attribute checks with a bonus equal to their HD vs 12 or 18 (depending on their primes). An obscenely strong, but clumsy monster with physical primes will have the same chance of making a Dex save as a Str save. This doesn't feel right to me.

In addition, a character who polymorphs (and my wizard right now would love polymorph) has no attributes for monster forms to gain benefits from. His checks don't change. You could add the monster form HD but would you add that to checks that are also the character's prime? In thos cases would you also add the character's level? If not, what if the monster's HD are less than the character's level? You could use the greater of the two bonuses, I suppose. Having monster attributes would render the above questions moot. You'd use the monster's attribute bonus.

From a simplifying 3e standpoint, giving monsters attributes doesn't really hurt you. It doesn't make the game more complicated. Default monster stats would still be pre-calculated in the stat block and a DM would have to do no more work to use monsters listed in M&T.

And using the attributes from 3e isn't necessarily straightforward since the bonuses vary and monsters aren't the same.

For someone asking about C&C, if they only look at the PHB, they won't see this. M&T isn't out, yet. As I've asked about this and looked into it, I feel it's important to bring up.

I've also said elsewhere that I like having six saving throws (I've always thought having special attribute checks for Dex, Con, and Wis in 3e was silly) in C&C. If the CK handbook has optional, mondular rules, too, then that would be cool. But I don't think that an optional modular rule in the CK book will be able to give monsters attributes...

I will also state again that I'm having fun playing C&C with Mythmere as my DM. Even someone who doesn't particularly like the system can have fun playing with the right group.

Bolie IV

 

[Henry]

In my game, we have a fighter type (Ranger actually) that performs all kinds of cool feats of derring do. This is a C&C game.

Oh, you've houseruled feats into your game.

I don't think he meant THOSE kinds of "feats."

 

[Breakdaddy]

Oh, you've houseruled feats into your game. Kinda makes a rules discussion moot. But in core C&C, wouldn't my point stand?

No, you misunderstood. I didnt house rule any skills or feats into my game at all. I was saying I have a good working swashbuckler WITHOUT them.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Isn't it kinda counterproductive to disregard all negative comments?

Absolutely NOT! I welcome negative feedback as a means to intelligent discourse on the subject. What I DONT find as compelling is UNINFORMED negative comments that are seemingly meant to invalidate the system sight unseen.

 

[Breakdaddy]

To be more explicit, though, what is the armor class of said ranger, and does he get hurt badly often because of it?

His AC is currently 15 due in part to a nice DEX score. He wears studded leather and a leather coat. He DOES take a beating, but then again so does most of the party at this level (1, every one of em!). I pretty much agreed with the player that as long as their encumbrance stays at unencumbered they will be allowed to use their DEX prime as a reasonable guage of their ability to perform DEX related actions in combat (such as swinging from a rope attached to a yardarm for a swipe at an enemy that might normally be out of reach, etc.). The same discussion would be necessary for a 3.x group, imo, because the GM and the Players would need to discuss the limitations and boundaries of their skills (tumble, etc.) within the framework of this "swashbuckling" theme.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

No, you misunderstood. I didnt house rule any skills or feats into my game at all. I was saying I have a good working swashbuckler WITHOUT them.

A good working swashbuckler with a good AC?

Or a "good working swashbuckler" who does a lot of cool combat maneuvers that aren't in the book, are houseruled by the GM to provide bonuses... and don't change the fact that he's wearing inferior armor and can't boost his Dex the way he could in 3e?

I'm not saying his AC "needs" to be equal to that of a fighter in full plate, but I'd wager it "needs" to be at least in the same range - say, 18 vs. 20 rather than 13 vs. 20 - if he's going to survive.

Also, isn't making a ranger into a swashbuckler stepping on archetypes?

EDIT: Oh, question answered. Aside from the archetype thing.

New question: what would the AC of a "typical" stat plate armored fighter be?

 

[Breakdaddy]

I've asked about this on the Troll Lords game site and been assured that monsters won't have attributes. I've checked out the sample monsters PDF and from what I understand M&T is already finished. To add attributes and include attribute bonuses would require that every monster be rewritten. I doubt they'll do that.

If this is true, then I agree with your analysis completely. I would be a bit dissapointed to see no optional or core method to reasonably assess monster attributes. Not that I cant come up with something on my own, but it would be nice to have things like this codified, especially since the spell you cited has a distinct reference to the monster's attributes as part of the spell effect.

 

[Breakdaddy]

A good working swashbuckler with a good AC?...
Also, isn't making a ranger into a swashbuckler stepping on archetypes?

LOL! His AC is decent, but he is only level 1, so we shall see! I didnt houserule anything to allow for his style of play, I use the SIEGE engine with varying degrees of difficulty (usually the opposing NPCs hit dice (if any) in the absence of any other major circumstances that would modify the number). As for stepping on Archetypes, It's my game, so they can sue me if this is against the law!