Tell me about Castles and Crusades

die_kluge said:
You know, I can understand nostalgia, but let's face it, first edition had horrible balance issues, and lacked a ton of rules that forced people into creating and adopting a myriad amount of house rules. My own opinion is that if you're not happy with 3rd edition, and you think 1st edition is going to solve your problems, then I have some swamp land to sell you. Folks, there are other systems out there in the world.


I'll send you a check for the land. I love 1e and find absolutely no balance issues, whatsoever. Nothing like the 3e incantatrix exists anywhere in the bounds of 1e. 3e is a good game, but for me, nothing beats 1e, nor even comes close, not even C&C, though I really like it, too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

From play this weekend I feel that the grapple rules need to be rewritten. They are confusing. Is grappling a touch attack or is it against AC15? In the middle of grappling it goes into overbearing AC then it has a section later down the page about overbearing with that info in there again I believe. If a stirge is pulled off a PC, the stirge has an AC12 for such purposes according to the M&T .pdf. The PC rolls against AC12 and hits so he's got the stirge in his hand. Now the stirge's turn comes around, it tried to wiggle free. Is it just a STR check now? Is this opposed by the PC? For the stirge I'd roll a d20 and add in the hit dice? Or is it that opposed by the PC's STR save? We got a little mixed up in session on that. Of course we always had problems with 3e's grapple check. Thankfully neither are as bad as AD&D's system.
 

Flexor the Mighty! said:
From play this weekend I feel that the grapple rules need to be rewritten. They are confusing. Is grappling a touch attack or is it against AC15? .

Its against AC 15

Touch attack is the only one that operates against AC 10. Least according to the info on pages 116-117 :)
 


JRRNeiklot said:
I'll send you a check for the land. I love 1e and find absolutely no balance issues, whatsoever. Nothing like the 3e incantatrix exists anywhere in the bounds of 1e. 3e is a good game, but for me, nothing beats 1e, nor even comes close, not even C&C, though I really like it, too.

/me points at elven fighter/mages and laughs.

That's beyond anything 3e has. Not to mention the guy I knew that had a half-elven fighter/druid/mage. That was raw power.
 

Flexor the Mighty! said:
And that is modified by Dex I assume? Do opposed checks come into play?

It looks like it. For monsters its a function of # of HD rolled. Say a monster rolls 3d8 for HP.. They would get a +3 to their Prime check. At least thats how it reads to me. Addmittedly the explanation could be a bit more clear.
 

According to p. 116, grappling is a d20 roll vs. AC 15. The d20 roll is modified by strength and the AC 15 is modified by strength and dexterity. Base hit bonus is optional for the d20 roll. Size difference also modifies.

Monsters don't have strength or dexterity, so their AC is not modified. If a monster grapples, it has no strength, so it makes a straight d20 roll unless the CK deems that base to hit should be used as a modifier.

The troll/halfling example managed to completely avoid the issue of monster attributes and base to hit and only address the halfling's AC and the size differences.

Pummeling is equally vague, being a d20 roll vs. AC with strength as a bonus. Base to hit and other modifiers are up to the CK.

Overbearing is like grappling, only there is no dexterity bonus to AC.

Touch AC is always 10 modified by the dexterity of the defender and any magical effects. All monsters have a touch AC of 10. So according to the rules a hummingbird and a gelatinous cube have the same touch AC.

Bolie IV
 

bolie said:
Monsters don't have strength or dexterity, so their AC is not modified.

This isn't strictly true -- they have a 'strength' and 'dexterity', but these are not normally determined by the CK, since they are not normally relevant when statting up monsters. This is part of C&C's "dual system" approach to keep prep work for monsters to a minimum (rather than statting them up just like PCs, which takes a long time, as in 3E).

Hopefully there will be some stats or info in the M&T that cover situations like this (e.g. standard strength and dexterity modifiers for monsters that can grapple and pummel). Insofar as most 'average' humanoid monsters will have 'average' stats (e.g. the typical orc's strength and dexterity will be in the 9-12 range), this is not a problem. A few variations will be inevitable (I suspect the average ogre might have something like a +3 bonus to strength, and the typical kobold a -1), but are not hard to infer. Once the full info on the monsters is out in the M&T book, straightforward inferences like these hopefully will not be necessary.

I suspect that many/most of your complaints against C&C will be addressed by the additional information provided in the M&T and CKG books. (I sincerely hope they will be!) For some reason, though, you seem determined to preemptively declare the system unplayable because of these issues.
 

maddman75 said:
/me points at elven fighter/mages and laughs.

That's beyond anything 3e has. Not to mention the guy I knew that had a half-elven fighter/druid/mage. That was raw power.


Fighter 7/mu/11 max. That's with 18s in both intelligence and strength. They can't be druids at all inless you use UA. Even then, you have fighter 7/wizard 11/druid whatever. And he's splitting his exp in thirds. At 10,000 exp, he'd be 2/2/2 while a straigh fighter or druid is 4th and a wizard is 3rd. At 100,000 exp, he'd be 5/6/5 compared to single classes of 7,9, or 8, respectively. That's assuming an even split of exp, of course. And remember, he'd only attack on the best table, usually fighter in this case. His hit points would be crappy, too. And this theoretical character has a minimum wisdom of 12, charisma of 15, a strength of 17 to be a 6th level fighter, 18 to be 7th, a 17 intelligence to make 10th level wizard, and an 18 to make 11th.

So, to hit your maxes, you'd have scores of S:18 I: 18 W: 12 (no bonus druid spells) C: Any Cha 15. You are limited to druid weapons and armor and remember, no weapon specialization for multiclass characters. Even so, you start wasting 1/3 of your exp at 7th level, and 2/3 at 11th, or earlier without great scores.

I'd hardly call it powerful at any stage, but hell, he has 2 18s and a 15 in stats, he SHOULD be above the norm. What you have, I think, is a very versatile character, but hardly powerful. In fact, from a powergaming perspective, it seems rather weak, as the fighter level gives him nothing but a possible +2 or so to hit, as he can't wear anything better than leather armor, and his best weapon is a quarterstaff or scimitar.


I played a fighter mage in 1e, and was almost relieved when he was the first to get his soul sucked in the Tomb of Horrors. I had grown tired of wasting my experience points, as he was maxed out in both classes.\

I can easily build a much more munchkin character in 3e. A druid/wizard/mystic theurge comes to mind. Or the Fochlucan Lyricist. Or a Verdant Lord, a spellsword, eldritch knight, etc.

I'm not bashing 3e, I'm just saying that 1e pales mightily to the unbalancing stuff a truly dedicated min-maxer can come up with. In defense of 3e, the more supplements you have, the more likely to have unbalancing combos.


Edit: Just noticed the f/d/m was a half elf instead of an elf. That's even worse, as he's now limited to 10/U/8 with an 18/00 strength or 7/U/8 with a measely 18 strength.
 
Last edited:

JRRNeiklot said:
I can easily build a much more munchkin character in 3e. A druid/wizard/mystic theurge comes to mind. Or the Fochlucan Lyricist. Or a Verdant Lord, a spellsword, eldritch knight, etc.

Druid/Wizard/Mystic Theurge - practically crippled against CR appropriate foes from level 4 to 10, the most common range, not terribly strong afterwards, and bereft of benefits from his druid levels. He should be CR -1 in that range.

Fochlucan Lyrist - crippled basically his entire career unless used in combination with many other oddball options. He should be CR -1 almost his entire career.

Spellsword - without other PrCs, average at best and strictly inferior to a straight wizard.

Eldritch Knight - better than average but still strictly inferior to a straight wizard.

Verdant Lord - don't know this one.

These are not very munchy. ;)
 

Remove ads

Top