Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[gideon_thorne]

Druids can only change into one shape at first, then two others on the next two levels. Then eventually a large version of one of the three other shapes. That's it. I doubt the M&T book will have any guidance for making large versions of animals. Maybe there will be a corresponding large animal for every type of animal.

But that's not important. I was trying to emulate the Shifter PrC (or Master of Many Forms). So using the C&C Druid as a basis wouldn't get me anything. I actually have a 20 level class made up with types and sizes and etc... But the lack of attributes issue was a problem.

I think ya missed the bit where i mentioned that one could 'make the shape shifting times per day. and even number of forms a function of level. That would get your shape shifter PrC more or less. I suggested the druid as a start point for the simple reason one could easily extrapolate a shape shifter class right from it. It would get you a 'starting point' so you 'dont have to work from scratch' Even import the 'feats' from the PrC as class abilties in the C&C version. Its not that big a stretch. Many C&C class abilties are feats in 3.5.

Uh. Huh? Those aren't attributes. Those are hit dice and primes. Go and read the polymorph spell description. Then read some monsters from the monster list published on the C&C web site. Then read some of my previous comments on monster attributes. Hit Dice and Primes don't help. Without attributes, polymorph is either a very weak spell or requires a custom ruling for each and every monster.

Ive read all the replies, descriptions and the spell. I read the spell when it was first written. The Physical and Mental primes are still the simple answer. Monsters dont need 6 attributes. They work on a system that involves HD and their primes.

"The polymorphed character aquires the physical and natural abilities of the creature polymorphed into while retaining his or her own mind."

I dont see it mentioning 'attributes', just physical and natural abilties. In other words, use the monster as written. For 'attrubute checks' use the monsters HD and Mental and/or Physical prime.

I could see one sentence that could be removed in the poly spells description that might clear up the confusion about 'attributes' but beyond that its quite clear.

I'm not talking about the basic ranged weapon to hit roll. I specifically referred to two tables, one in the C&C PHB and one in the 3.5 PHB. If you would look, both tables are of circumstance modifiers which modify the basic roll you described above. In 3.5, the table has two columns, one for ranged and one for melee. In C&C, the table appears to be geared towards melee without the ranged column.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Ive read the book endward to forwards, ive seen all the rules changes from the discourse on its creation over the last year and a half and there really isn't anything in there that is 'missing' to my mind. Bit too much info that I wont use (encumberance) in some places actually. But thats just me. The odd sentence could use restructuring here and there for over all clarity. But there is nothing overwhelmingly incomprehensable.


Its certainly more 'info' than I started with in the old Holmes and Moldov books and I was all of 7 or 8 when I got involved in gaming. Back in the day we didnt worry about fiddly bits. Like most folks I hear about who started when I did, and a bit before, it revolved around 'go raid the dragons layer and abscond with his stuff before ya become a pile of ash.' When we grew up a bit other priorities came to the fore. But through all that, one thing was never forgotten. Its a game, the object of the lesson is to role play, and have fun, the 'zen' of the rules so to speak simply gets the rules out of the way of the object of the game. Which can mean many things to many people.

Some of the "your CK will come up with how this is done" statements sound like copouts (as in "we couldn't think of a good way to do this, so we'll just suggest you come up with something").

No, it's more along the lines of 'its naturally assumed that gamers are creative people who can and most often do come up with their own way of doing things.'

Pete

 

[maddman75]

Ha! I remember arguing with you about this very subject over at Dragonsfoot's EW forum a few years ago. Glad to know you've finally seen the light. (just kidding!)

Ahh, those were the days. Yeah, intelligence allows for change, and these days I've stopped DMing D&D. I still like to play, but other systems call my name. And like I said, I've seen it happen in person.

That's actually excellent analysis and I agree 100%. It's incumbent upon any rules-lite game to make clear to both the referee and the players that the lack of rules don't imply that characters are limited, but just the opposite. The lack of specific rules should be described as freedom for the player to try anything that his character could reasonably do, and for the DM to use the framework to decide how to determine success or failure. Any rules-lite game that doesn't make this abundantly clear is shooting itself in the foot. Fortunately for C&C, the PHB (with all its flaws) does an excellent job of getting this message across (I only looked at the book for about 20 minutes and I got that message loud and clear).



This is where maddman's point becomes really valid. Yes, C&C asks you to give up some of the assurances you get with more defined rules. But it shouldn't stop you from planning ahead. Instead of thinking in terms of what's reasonable within the rules, C&C asks you to think in terms of what's reasonable for your character in the game world. C&C asks you to trust your DM to make fair and reasonable calls. C&C asks you to live with the risk that your character lives with (that carefully laid plans may, in the end, not work out exactly as you'd hoped they would). It's a HUGE paradigm shift from playing 3e, but it's also a great way to play if you can get past the fact that you're not working from the same expectations anymore and start thinking in terms of what's possible rather than what's allowed.

Yes its different, but I emphatically don't think that this makes D&D Bad and C&C Good, or vice versa. Its just different. D&D is a tactical game with a lot of resource management. Nothing wrong with that, and heck I like it! Its because that's what the rules allow and encourage. It encourages you to take a five foot step so that you're flanking the enemy, or to cast a Fort save against a wizard, etc. It doesn't really encourage you to swing on a rope through the horde of vile minions and swing with your other hand at the Villian. That's going to get you jump and tumble checks, AoOs, and probably a Circumstance penalty to hit the bad guy. In contrast, in Exalted (not that this is by any means a rules-light game!) a character gets a bonus for doing flashy moves like this. Now you can do it in D&D if your character has the right classes and feats - you have to be built for it. But that isn't what the game is focused on.

I've turned into a System Matters proponent. Now the GM isn't really constrained by the system - the GM is going to do what he wants to do anyway. But the players are, and the players will do what the rules are set up for them to do, or be horribly ineffective. And I'm lazy. Its far more work to take a system I know (D&D) and mash it around so it plays like I want. Its easier to get a game that already does what I want. And there's a ton of them out there. I'd venture to say there's more games on the market now than ever.

 

[maddman75]

I think ya missed the bit where i mentioned that one could 'make the shape shifting times per day. and even number of forms a function of level. That would get your shape shifter PrC more or less. I suggested the druid as a start point for the simple reason one could easily extrapolate a shape shifter class right from it. It would get you a 'starting point' so you 'dont have to work from scratch' Even import the 'feats' from the PrC as class abilties in the C&C version. Its not that big a stretch. Many C&C class abilties are feats in 3.5.

Man, I am getting Dragonsfoot flashbacks.

Being able to just make up whatever ability you dream up is not a feature of a ruleset. It applies to every RPG ever made. Heck, there isn't such a thing as a Shifter class in 3e - someone made it up. Sure it was someone at WotC and they put it in a sourcebook, but I could have done the same thing.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Yes its different, but I emphatically don't think that this makes D&D Bad and C&C Good, or vice versa. Its just different.

And I for one emphaticly agree. I have yet to meet a game that is intrinsicly 'bad'. Ive met some strange creatures who play games that wierd me out at times. But thats not the games fault.

ANY game can work with anyone who wants to make it work.

And Im the last person who's going to run arround and say 'our game is better'. It might have prettier art work *impish grin* but the game is what it is. Its designed to a certain philosophy and for those who enjoy that style.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Man, I am getting Dragonsfoot flashbacks.

Being able to just make up whatever ability you dream up is not a feature of a ruleset. It applies to every RPG ever made. .

Indeed it does. Some systems tend to be amenable to such things easier than others. The level of easy it is largely appears to be a function of subjective perspective as well.

I dont believe there is a 'right' answer on this one. Not 'right' for everyone anyhow.

 

[Akrasia]

... Okay. So C&C is explicitly an unfinished, incomplete role playing game designed to be completed by the DM and the players. ...

Well I completely disagree with this -- unless you mean, by "to be completed by the DM and the players", the fact that the group in question can choose from the suggestions and guidelines in the PHB how to resolve situations. So for some situations, only guidelines or suggestions are provided in the PHB. But what is wrong with that? It just lets the CK and her/his players choose the approach they like the best.

Aside from monsters and treasures (to be handled in the M&T book), and a few small exceptions (rules for poison, multiclassing), I think all the basics are all adequately addressed in the PHB.

Obviously you would prefer to have everything spelled out for you in the rules. Fair enough, and I am not knocking your preferences here. But in that case, C&C is just not for you. Move on. :\

I mean, I don't engage in long debates with GURPS players in which I complain about the lack of classes, levels, and attacks of opportunity.

 

[maddman75]

And I for one emphaticly agree. I have yet to meet a game that is intrinsicly 'bad'. Ive met some strange creatures who play games that wierd me out at times. But thats not the games fault.

They are out there. FATAL, RaHoWa, and Hybrid are disgusting, more disgusting, and absolutely insane. I mean really insane. Hybrid is most likely the result of a deranged mind, like the guy on Beatiful Mind focused on RPGs. Take a look here if you don't believe me. No, there's not a table of contents or an intro section, and no it doesn't make any sense. Its like the Necronomicon come to life.

 

[gideon_thorne]

They are out there. FATAL, RaHoWa, and Hybrid are disgusting, more disgusting, and absolutely insane. I mean really insane. Hybrid is most likely the result of a deranged mind, like the guy on Beatiful Mind focused on RPGs. Take a look here if you don't believe me. No, there's not a table of contents or an intro section, and no it doesn't make any sense. Its like the Necronomicon come to life.

*chuckles* UNFAIR. Its written in french. The rest of the site just sounds like a chap talking to himself about his view of the world.

But as for the rest of your comments, we are getting into the realm of the subjective again and its kinda off the track on this topic.

 

[maddman75]

Getting back on topic (though derailing the thread into a discussion of Hybrid is tempting ), I just don't see how saying 'okay, for your shifter character we'll give him the druid's abilities, except we'll lose the spell casting and let him turn into animals or even other things more often' and making a PrC in D&D. You're making up a class in either case, based on extending the abilities of an existing class. And I'd say that the PrC is superior, because that can be introduced as a goal of an existing character. In C&C the only way to do this is to make a new character entirely.

This is what I was talking about with character 'lock in'. Granted this always exists to some extent, but one of my requirements for an RPG is that the character can branch out after creation. The multiclassing rules may help when they come out, but with the (IMHO) unfortunate decision to go back to different XP charts its unlikely that it will be as flexible and useful as the 3e multiclassing system. I would predict lock in here too - you can be a fighter/mage, if you start as one at first level. Switching classes would probably be reminiscent of dual-classing in AD&D. I just don't see a way around it without consistant XP charts.

 

[Darkness]

There seem to be several Blue Rose/C&C comparisons going on on different forums.

That's a good thing, but I was asking about Blue Rose/D&D comparisons.

FATAL, RaHoWa, and Hybrid are disgusting, more disgusting, and absolutely insane. I mean really insane.

Much as I don't wanna, I grant you FATAL - but RaHoWa and Hybrid aren't even playable.