Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[Akrasia]

...
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.

Well many people don't like 3e multiclassing system. For one thing, it does not work perfectly -- a player who wants to run a fighter/wizard will end up with a substantially weaker character than a player who runs simply a fighter or a wizard. Similarly, since some classes are front-loaded, there is often a temptation to pick up only one or two levels in a single class (e.g. ranger or rogue, though this problem is somewhat less acute in 3.5 than it was in 3.0).

More fundamentally, though, the notion that a character can radically 'switch gears' from, say, a lifetime as a fighter, and pick up a bunch of wizard abilities on the drop of hat seems implausible IMO. Many people find the old approach to multiclass and dual class characters more plausible, as they interpret classes as 'approaches to life' and not, say, college credits.

...
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 .

If a character is going to radically alter his/her lifepath, then the dual-class approach seems to be the way to go IMO.

(In any case, if you really want to go with 3e style multiclassing, I think you could revamp the experience charts to be unified.)

 

[gideon_thorne]

Well. I could suggest that there are plenty of systems out there that aren't as strongly 'archtype' based as C&C. It is a game about strong archtypes after all. I'd guess what C&C is trying to get at with it being difficult to MC...is that its difficult to MC.

One of those funny style things I guess?

It seems to me to be perfectly simple to port over a 3.5 PrC class with the various feats (turned into class abilties) for it, however. Just as it was perfectly simple to create a new class from a 2e Kit.

I doubt highly that I'll ever used MC, in my own game/characters again since it takes all of 30 minutes to cobble together a new class for whatever I need. Even IF i need one that I can't get out of the existing archtypes with a tweak or two.

Course PrC's are things I found to be a complete waste of text myself. Its just so much easier to make up a class for these exotics or simply rp the character the way needed with the blessing of a cooperative game master. The whole mess of information on PrC's is just one more level of stuff I have no desire to keep track off. But hey. Whatever works for someone else.

Pete

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.

 

[maddman75]

Well many people don't like 3e multiclassing system. For one thing, it does not work perfectly -- a player who wants to run a fighter/wizard will end up with a substantially weaker character than a player who runs simply a fighter or a wizard. Similarly, since some classes are front-loaded, there is often a temptation to pick up only one or two levels in a single class (e.g. ranger or rogue, though this problem is somewhat less acute in 3.5 than it was in 3.0).

More fundamentally, though, the notion that a character can radically 'switch gears' from, say, a lifetime as a fighter, and pick up a bunch of wizard abilities on the drop of hat seems implausible IMO. Many people find the old approach to multiclass and dual class characters more plausible, as they interpret classes as 'approaches to life' and not, say, college credits.

I see them as collections of abilities, and find it absurd that a character can't decide to study some different abilities. This isn't a 'good' or 'bad' thing, this is an 'I don't like' thing. If you can tell me exactly what my character's abilities will be at 20th level when I make him at first, I have a problem with that.

Just another reason that I'm not going for C&C. I like the idea of a rules-lighter D&D. I just feel they took out some of the most elegant parts of the system and made things in this respect more complicated than 3e.

 

[RFisher]

The problem with this "system" of ad hoc rulings made on the fly is that it makes it difficult for a player to plan ahead.

This is true, but not necessarily a bad thing. (In real life, you often have to make plans without knowing all the variables.)

In my experience, this has never been a significant problem unless the participants are just being argumentative. (In fact, I find that the detailed the rules, the more I enjoy arguing about them. That's one of the reasons I prefer more minimal systems these days. They don't feed by rules lawyer habit.)

Reading through the PHB, C&C seems to have been intentionally written so that it is incomplete and the DM must fill in the blanks.

This was one of the things that drew me back to classic D&D. I found it left details open for individual DM interpretation rather than me having to house rule a bunch of details covered by the manual. Players are encouraged to ask the DM about the details rather than assume that details in the manual hold.

 

[Akrasia]

I see them as collections of abilities, and find it absurd that a character can't decide to study some different abilities.

I agree that a character should have the ability, at some point in her/his career, to switch paths. That is why I expect decent dual classing rules to be included in the CKG.

OTOH, I view a class as analogous to an advanced degree -- a PhD or MD. It takes years of training to become a specialist. Sure you can 'switch gears' at some point, e.g. decide to pursue a JD or LLB, but that is not done lightly.

The notion that you can just pick up a bunch of rogue abilities here, and then become a holy priest there, and then a skilled warrior ... well, it is not the approach that C&C took.

(More generally, I personally think that the 3e approach to multiclassing is a bit incoherent. If you want to use easy multiclassing to build unique characters, it would have made more sense to have simply used the class system found in d20 Modern. Otherwise, keep the class archetypes a la C&C. All IMO of course.)

I just feel they took out some of the most elegant parts of the system and made things in this respect more complicated than 3e.

As I mentioned, though, it would be pretty easy to revamp the C&C experience system and use 3e style multiclassing. The only thing you would have to prevent is players choosing to take only one level of a class in order to get all the benefits, and then subsequently not advancing in that class at all.

 

[bolie]

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.

Then we disagree, because I feel like there aren't options for some things. Polymorph, monster attributes, and spell casting are all incomplete with rules that are internally inconsistent.

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. :\

True enough. C&C isn't my favorite system. And having light rules is fine with me. My problem, though, is that some of the rules are internally inconsistent, have built-in conflicts, and require house rules to work. I can't even play C&C as is without running into problems.

Bolie IV

 

[bolie]

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.

The Druid's shapeshifting abilities are so minor that they don't really give you much of an advantage over starting from scratch. I'd rather spend my time making my character and not his class.

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.

If that one sentence is "New strength, dexterity, and constitution scores may affect final attack bonsues." then I agree with you. But using your suggestion leads to the following.

If my wizard polymorph a 1st level fighter, an 8th level fighter, and a 12th level fighter into Hill Giants, the 1st level fighter is suddenly much more powerful. The 8th level fighter is pretty close to the same, and the 12th level fighter is substantially weaker. If monster attack bonuses are used, then they all three have the same attack bonus? If not, then they all three have exactly the same base to hit as they had before. Actually, they don't. Any fighter with a strength bonus to hit loses that. Or keeps it, which would mean his strength didn't change even though he was now twice as tall and presumably much stronger.

Primes do not affect hit points, ac, to hit rolls, or damage. Presumably, being polymorphed into a stronger form or a faster form would affect some of those.

Monsters do not use a different system. They use the SEIGE engine for saving throws and checks, just like players. They even get their HD where players get their level. The only difference is that all monsters effectively have attributes in the 9-12 range. It's very easy to determine this based on the fact that all of the rolls they make are identical to the rolls players make and the bonuses correspond. HD -> level, 12/18 based on primes, etc...

Also, does my wizard lose his Int prime when he polymorphs into a Hill Giant? He keeps his mental abilities according to the spell...

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.

It's more than I started with when I played Basic D&D or Man to Man. But I'm not critiquing those systems.

I understand that it's a game. But rules that are internally inconsistent and incomplete don't get out of my way. They get in my way by forcing me to deal with them. With 3e, I can house rule or not. It generally has rules for everything. With C&C, I can't just play along. I must make house rules for things. I have to take time to talk to my DM and come up with rules for situation that are covered in 3e that I can't ignore, like spellcasting. Spellcasting is not an optional rule. The polymorph spell is a pretty cool spell. Having to make up house rules just to use it is annoying.

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.'

I'm sure that's what was intended. That's not what it felt like to me.

Bolie IV

 

[Akrasia]

... My problem, though, is that some of the rules are internally inconsistent, have built-in conflicts, and require house rules to work. I can't even play C&C as is without running into problems.

Bolie IV

I am not seeing the rules inconsistencies. Maybe some of the rules leave it up to the CK and group in question to decide how to resolve particular situations (e.g. concentration checks for casters in combat). But where are the inconsistencies?

My impression is that you don't like the way C&C handles polymorph, given your desire to play some kind of shape shifter. Fair enough. But keep in mind that the M&T book hasn't even been released yet, or the CKG. Those might include guidelines and options to help you out. In any case, picking on one particular thing -- polymorphing -- as decisive in determining the quality of a game, seems a bit excessive.

As for rules ambiguities, well I remember when I was DM'ing 3E a few years ago. We had a 40+ page print out of 3E rules errata and clarifications. :\

 

[bolie]

I am not seeing the rules inconsistencies. Maybe some of the rules leave it up to the CK and group in question to decide how to resolve particular situations (e.g. concentration checks for casters in combat). But where are the inconsistencies?

Polymorph is one example.

Spellcasting is another. The rules for casting warn of having your concentration interrupted. But for a 1 round spell, there is no way to interrupt spellcasting, apparently. Also, if someone does try to interrupt you, then the spell is lost... or not, you may get to roll... against Int or Dex or something. That's a pretty pitiful rule.

Movement is another. You can move up to 1/2 your move and attack. Or you can charge and move your full move or more and attack. But you can't attack if you move between 1/2 and full move. So there's a safe donut around anyone that grows in size as speed increases. These rules are fairly specific and have a big hole in them.

Under grappling, there is a size and strength modifier. If you're fighting a monster, they don't get the strength modifier. You could add HD, but that's going to treat all high hit die monsters as very strong regardless of whether they are and all low hit die monsters as weaker. While HD may be a proxy for strength, it's not necessarily a good one. And the rule as written calls for strength modifiers, only. So grappling a giant is much easier than it would be if it had an appropriate strength score.

Yes, you can fix all of the above, but as written in the book, the rules are broken or inconsistent.

Bolie IV

 

[Treebore]

All you posters seem to really be proving is that 3E is by no means the end all be all game sytem for everyone, and neither is C&C.

I do not care which system who thinks is better and why. I like C&C, I like the freedom I perceive it gives me. I like D20. I like the details and the guidelines. There are things I dislike about both systems. But I will use both systems, just like I use Traveller, Shadowrun, GURPS, and any other system.

Why? Because I have fun with any system, and I like the different "flavors" the various systems bring to a game. The various mechanics, whether d20, 2d6 Classic Traveller), 3d6 GURPS, a bunch of d6's (Shadowrun), percentile (many systems), d10's (L5R), do help give a specifc game a very different feel from the others. Each system has various strengths and weaknesses.

So I look at C&C as just a different flavor of RPGing. I like it, I will use it, just like I will continue to use d20, and any of the other fun game systems, when I can.

I find this "which system is better" argument tedious. They are not both apples. One is an apple and the other is a cherry. If you like apples and hate cherries then you'll only eat apples, and vice versa. If your really lucky you like both apples and cherries. You'll get the best that both have to offer.

I like apples and cherries. Plus oranges and grapes and rasberries and blackberries and banana's, etc.... So I guess I am really lucky. I get everything.