C&C 2.0

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

Found another article on it where they were talking with someone at WotC about it being 'backwards compatible', yet, they were going to be putting out all new PHB, DMG, and MM for it...which, even the article creator noted, sounds like some possible mechanic changes at some level, particularly around character classes which is what he gathered from his conversation with WotC. Oh well...I'll stick with C&C. ;) If I were to go back to playing AD&D, it would be 2nd or OD&D by preference.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 3:02 pm
Both are mere exceptions to what was stated rather than substantive exceptions to what was stated. In such a case then, all related skills of the lower primary and the opportunity cost of the skills you did not otherwise take suffer. So now you get mediocre skills at the cost of better ones. Depending on your race, you get 3 or 2 primaries. The fact that all you have is an attribute that models the skill prevents precise mapping. It's like me attempting to represent 10 analog waves but for some I am permitted to use 8bit precision and with others 128bit. It's an inherent problem with the abstraction. The modelling is only as precise as it is precise, anything you try to do to adapt it will still remain only that precise.

An example of a system that still remains simple and elegant while still modelling variegation of skills is Worlds Without Number.
Well unlike when RPGs aborned, creating a new one and publishing at DriveThru only takes sweat equity. Sound like you have the theory down pat. Just pick up the D20 license if needed and put a small game out there. Who knows, it might snowball and become popular. Seriously.

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Neuroschmancer »

Grandpa wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:41 pm
Neuroschmancer wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 3:02 pm
Both are mere exceptions to what was stated rather than substantive exceptions to what was stated. In such a case then, all related skills of the lower primary and the opportunity cost of the skills you did not otherwise take suffer. So now you get mediocre skills at the cost of better ones. Depending on your race, you get 3 or 2 primaries. The fact that all you have is an attribute that models the skill prevents precise mapping. It's like me attempting to represent 10 analog waves but for some I am permitted to use 8bit precision and with others 128bit. It's an inherent problem with the abstraction. The modelling is only as precise as it is precise, anything you try to do to adapt it will still remain only that precise.

An example of a system that still remains simple and elegant while still modelling variegation of skills is Worlds Without Number.
Well unlike when RPGs aborned, creating a new one and publishing at DriveThru only takes sweat equity. Sound like you have the theory down pat. Just pick up the D20 license if needed and put a small game out there. Who knows, it might snowball and become popular. Seriously.
Thank you sir that is very kind. I've have recently been investing a lot of time in this for an adventure I'm running from Raging Swan Press for a local group of friends, and I've been ironing out the kind of rules and game I want it to be. Perhaps I will one day. Right now though, I am one of those few people who has a day job they also thoroughly enjoy.

User avatar
kreider204
Unkbartig
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: NE Wisconsin

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by kreider204 »

I left C&C because of the terrible editing. If they ever decide to take that seriously, out of respect for the customers who spend their hard-earned money to buy their products and expect some minimal effort from them to make sure their products are as professional as possible, then I'd consider C&C again.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

kreider204 wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 7:23 pm
I left C&C because of the terrible editing. If they ever decide to take that seriously, out of respect for the customers who spend their hard-earned money to buy their products and expect some minimal effort from them to make sure their products are as professional as possible, then I'd consider C&C again.
Oook.. So outside of re-editing the materials.. is there any way that C&C can be improved? Or features that could be folded into the core? There's always room for houserules; but I mean things that could/should be part of the published game?

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Neuroschmancer »

kreider204 wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 7:23 pm
I left C&C because of the terrible editing. If they ever decide to take that seriously, out of respect for the customers who spend their hard-earned money to buy their products and expect some minimal effort from them to make sure their products are as professional as possible, then I'd consider C&C again.
Such a claim requires specific examples. Since you make it sound as though the books are replete with them, I am sure you have some on hand. Please let us know what they are.

If you are going to use stylistic concerns for the editing, I would like to point you to an article by Geoffrey Pullum from the University of Edinburgh and co author of Cambridge's grammar book. He also has a blog in which he goes into further detail about these grammatical "problems" as they are called and many others people like to prescriptively state are "not proper English".
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/50years.pdf

If you have found actual editing problems with the book, I would be interested to hear them, and why they are so glaring that they prevent you from enjoying material that you might have otherwise been able to take more seriously.

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

kreider204 wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 7:23 pm
I left C&C because of the terrible editing. If they ever decide to take that seriously, out of respect for the customers who spend their hard-earned money to buy their products and expect some minimal effort from them to make sure their products are as professional as possible, then I'd consider C&C again.
I'm looking at the last two PHBs and don't see any terrible editing. Care to elaborate?

User avatar
Tadhg
Cleric of Zagyg
Posts: 10878
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Time

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Tadhg »

kreider204 wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 7:23 pm
I left C&C because of the terrible editing. If they ever decide to take that seriously, out of respect for the customers who spend their hard-earned money to buy their products and expect some minimal effort from them to make sure their products are as professional as possible, then I'd consider C&C again.
Really?? Then u need to perhaps re-consider what u wrote!

An RPG/D&D game is either good or bad having nothing to do with editing. Have you played OAD&D? If not, then I might understand your comment about editing.

Because those books/games were riddled with editing errors . . AD&D PH ~ so many prints with corrections (all good, IMO).

TLG is a smaller company than was TSR and so less resources were available for editing among the many books. All that seems to be gone now and their books look fantastic and professional!

So, back to C&C ~ their early books had many probs and we all got together and addressed them. TLG has done a great job removing errors and editing the books so they look fabulous now.
Lord Tadhg - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Ardmore

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

Yeah. The editing thing is weird to me too and really such a minor thing to drop a game over. I see enough bad grammar and english in the technical reports and engineering studies I've had to review for work. I won't even get started on survey and field note atrocities. lol

My take on it is that the mechanics, consistency, and easy understanding of the rules and method of play are far more important than a few grammatical or format errors. And the fact that I don't have to sink money into new books every few years is also a major plus.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
BigJackBrass
Mist Elf
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:35 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by BigJackBrass »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 3:42 am
Yeah. The editing thing is weird to me too and really such a minor thing to drop a game over.
The problem to my eyes has always been that if a given book is full of multiple mistakes—especially ones such as “See Page XX” which even a cursory check with a word processor would catch—then it raises a serious question as to how accurate the numbers are. For a core rulebook that’s a serious issue. Victorious, to take an example outside of C&C, is severely hampered by the very poor editing, which initially seems like an annoyance when reading but then reveals itself further with incorrect and contradictory figures in the rules. It’s harder to trust something that appears to have been put together in a slapdash manner.

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Those with long experience with RPGs will remember actual terrible editing of a core rule book. Mega Traveller. C&C doesn't come close to ever being "terrible". Which is why the lack of an erudite response from the OP.

Anyway, back to the story; I'm not sure how to improve C&C. Could "power" deficiency of high level fighter types and rouges (if one feels it a problem) be addressed by the GM via magic items. Like SR granting items or DR items? Stuff of that nature.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Grandpa wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 1:10 pm
Those with long experience with RPGs will remember actual terrible editing of a core rule book. Mega Traveller. C&C doesn't come close to ever being "terrible". Which is why the lack of an erudite response from the OP.

Anyway, back to the story; I'm not sure how to improve C&C. Could "power" deficiency of high level fighter types and rouges (if one feels it a problem) be addressed by the GM via magic items. Like SR granting items or DR items? Stuff of that nature.
I'm thinking the "advantages" concept from the CKG (cough:feats:cough) wouldn't be bad if they were very limited in number (and no trees or chains) and mostly reserved for martial characters. Btb, fighters would get a new advantage at L1, 3, 6, 11, 15 and 20. That may or may not be too many. I'd possibly want to give thieves a few as well.

I'm also thinking of adapting the ASI (stat increases) concept, ala 3e. Every 4-or-so levels, characters get to increase One stat by +1. Martial characters would get this in addition to advantages; casters would need to sacrifice an ASI to get an advantage. So Gandalf Jr. could swing Glamdring in combat, but it would cost him!

I don't think that would OP characters too much or add too much complexity. Thoughts?

User avatar
Persimmon
Ulthal
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:11 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Persimmon »

Personally, I loathe the idea of feats and automatic stat increases. So I'd say don't add them. But I don't use them so it doesn't matter to me. We do add extra attacks for martial types at 10th & 15th level, but not many PCs get high enough for that to matter.
Behind closed eyes, realize your sight....

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Neuroschmancer »

paladinn wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 4:09 pm
Grandpa wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 1:10 pm
Those with long experience with RPGs will remember actual terrible editing of a core rule book. Mega Traveller. C&C doesn't come close to ever being "terrible". Which is why the lack of an erudite response from the OP.

Anyway, back to the story; I'm not sure how to improve C&C. Could "power" deficiency of high level fighter types and rouges (if one feels it a problem) be addressed by the GM via magic items. Like SR granting items or DR items? Stuff of that nature.
I'm thinking the "advantages" concept from the CKG (cough:feats:cough) wouldn't be bad if they were very limited in number (and no trees or chains) and mostly reserved for martial characters. Btb, fighters would get a new advantage at L1, 3, 6, 11, 15 and 20. That may or may not be too many. I'd possibly want to give thieves a few as well.

I'm also thinking of adapting the ASI (stat increases) concept, ala 3e. Every 4-or-so levels, characters get to increase One stat by +1. Martial characters would get this in addition to advantages; casters would need to sacrifice an ASI to get an advantage. So Gandalf Jr. could swing Glamdring in combat, but it would cost him!

I don't think that would OP characters too much or add too much complexity. Thoughts?
I think first and foremost we should look for ways to give fighters the ability to shutdown wizards without overlapping Barbarian or Ranger distinct abilities, and that the answer is not to simply increase their power or tweak some lever X, Y, or Z.

In order to shutdown a mage or cleric, this is what fighters need to be able to do:
1. Close in distance to get into melee range
2. Prevent them from casting spells
3. Render the mage ineffective for the round

For #1, I don't think fighters are going to have as good options here without borrowing from another class. Do they sneak by like a thief/rogue to close distance? Do they use increased mobility and speed like some ranger versions and barbarian versions? Do they have built-in magic resistance like some barbarian versions? I think the fighter's only option here is a ranged weapon. You would have to make a rule that damage inflicted in that round to a spell caster counts against the mage's concentration. I would think getting harpooned by a javelin would tend to distract a mage from casting a spell.

For #2, this requires the fighter to act BEFORE the mage. I think having rules that make spells cost more initiative points to cast or in some way act in a later phase are good here. This also requires the parties to strategically place units so that their back lines are effectively protected. In addition, I think you need AOO for spells with somatic components, and I think you also need concentration rules for casting spells. The fighter also needs to be able to perform combat maneuvers against the mage to shut them down, which takes us to #3.

For #3, you need combat maneuvers like knockdown, trip, head concussion, and grappling to prevent mages from casting spells. If fighters can't do things like this, you make it much more difficult for them to shutdown a mage if all they can do is 1d8 damage when they are adjacent to the mage.

While magical items can be good, they are more so a patch to the problem rather than creating options for the fighter and making combat more interesting. I would rather give the fighter better combat options and techniques to shutdown mages rather than merely make them more powerful. You aren't making the game any more interesting by doing that. All you do is have the fighter do 1d8 points of damage each round plus now they might resist the spell with MR, prevent some damage with DR, or resist with increased saves against X. That's boring. Great turn based strategy games like Xcom or the newer Gears of War turn based have such interesting combat because of the options they provide the player to shutdown or adapt to what the other side is doing.

You need ASYMMETRICAL options for balance if you want combat to be interesting. Otherwise you need to accept what you will have is a very generalized abstraction whose purpose is to outline the entire combat encounter rather than represent the actions of the combatants within that encounter. This discussion of mages vs. fighters is always going to force you down the road of adding complexity if you want to add interesting options. Unless, your table just decides to make combat more freeform and in actual effect has rulings that essentially give fighters the kind of options and mages the kind of checks that I just described. This conversation of "rules vs rulings" has always seemed problematic to me. Because in so much as the rulings represent a systematic and consistent approach to represent action, they are rules. If they are not systematic, inconsistent, and thus lack coherence, then they are bad rulings.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 5:38 pm
I think first and foremost we should look for ways to give fighters the ability to shutdown wizards without overlapping Barbarian or Ranger distinct abilities, and that the answer is not to simply increase their power or tweak some lever X, Y, or Z.

In order to shutdown a mage or cleric, this is what fighters need to be able to do:
1. Close in distance to get into melee range
2. Prevent them from casting spells
3. Render the mage ineffective for the round

For #1, I don't think fighters are going to have as good options here without borrowing from another class. Do they sneak by like a thief/rogue to close distance? Do they use increased mobility and speed like some ranger versions and barbarian versions? Do they have built-in magic resistance like some barbarian versions? I think the fighter's only option here is a ranged weapon. You would have to make a rule that damage inflicted in that round to a spell caster counts against the mage's concentration. I would think getting harpooned by a javelin would tend to distract a mage from casting a spell.

For #2, this requires the fighter to act BEFORE the mage. I think having rules that make spells cost more initiative points to cast or in some way act in a later phase are good here. This also requires the parties to strategically place units so that their back lines are effectively protected. In addition, I think you need AOO for spells with somatic components, and I think you also need concentration rules for casting spells. The fighter also needs to be able to perform combat maneuvers against the mage to shut them down, which takes us to #3.

For #3, you need combat maneuvers like knockdown, trip, head concussion, and grappling to prevent mages from casting spells. If fighters can't do things like this, you make it much more difficult for them to shutdown a mage if all they can do is 1d8 damage when they are adjacent to the mage.

While magical items can be good, they are more so a patch to the problem rather than creating options for the fighter and making combat more interesting. I would rather give the fighter better combat options and techniques to shutdown mages rather than merely make them more powerful. You aren't making the game any more interesting by doing that. All you do is have the fighter do 1d8 points of damage each round plus now they might resist the spell with MR, prevent some damage with DR, or resist with increased saves against X. That's boring. Great turn based strategy games like Xcom or the newer Gears of War turn based have such interesting combat because of the options they provide the player to shutdown or adapt to what the other side is doing.

You need ASYMMETRICAL options for balance if you want combat to be interesting. Otherwise you need to accept what you will have is a very generalized abstraction whose purpose is to outline the entire combat encounter rather than represent the actions of the combatants within that encounter. This discussion of mages vs. fighters is always going to force you down the road of adding complexity if you want to add interesting options. Unless, your table just decides to make combat more freeform and in actual effect has rulings that essentially give fighters the kind of options and mages the kind of checks that I just described. This conversation of "rules vs rulings" has always seemed problematic to me. Because in so much as the rulings represent a systematic and consistent approach to represent action, they are rules. If they are not systematic, inconsistent, and thus lack coherence, then they are bad rulings.
Well first of all, I disagree that the main/primary role of a fighter is to "shut down mages." Granted, it would be great if s/he can do that; and yes, a ranged weapon works well for that. It's good that C&C allows multiple weapon specializations as one levels-up; in this case, maybe a sword and a javelin. In my game, any damage a mage suffers will spoil a spell. But there is so much more to a fighter than that. Maybe in a tactical video game, a fighter might be pigeon-holed into that role. In 4e, a fighter was a "defender", and was very much locked into that role. I'm not one for pigeon-holing. One of the best things that came out of 5e was dropping the "role" idea that was so baked-in.

Second, you seem to believe that in order for combat to be interesting, it has to be tactical. That, again, was very much to attitude in 4e, to the point that a mat and minis were really a requirement for play. Neither I nor a sizable part of the gaming community agreed with that; thus 5e. C&C is not really a tactical game. And sometimes a player just wants to hit things.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Persimmon wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 5:21 pm
Personally, I loathe the idea of feats and automatic stat increases. So I'd say don't add them. But I don't use them so it doesn't matter to me. We do add extra attacks for martial types at 10th & 15th level, but not many PCs get high enough for that to matter.
Do you have any other options to help fighters be more effective at lower levels? Besides, "just play DCC" :)

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

Well...some of this is a result of over simplifying initiative and spell casting. I remember in 1e & 2e spells had variable casting times rather than the 1 that is now typical. So if the wizard rolled a 4 on initiative and chose to cast a fireball (CT 3 seg.) it wouldn't trigger until 7...giving the fighter who rolled a 6 for initiative a chance to close/throw to disrupt it rather than the spell fired on 5 due to now having a CT 1.

If a mage is hit or forced to move/break concentration before the spell goes off...then the spell is ruined. Or at least that was the case (and still how I tend to run things) back when. So all the fancy stuff really is just fancy stuff, not necessarily meaningful beyond window dressing for the less creative. Or be in possession of an item that creates a magic null zone making the fighter impervious to spells since they'll fizzle out on contact.

Closing the range...depends on what range we're talking about. Charging can be a good way to do this if in the sweet zone. Otherwise...taking advantage of cover and concealment can avoid direct targeting by the mage forcing them to rely on AoE spells...which can mess up their allies if locked in a melee engagement already. Possession of magic items that allow rapid movement such as Boots of Speed or Ring of Flight are potential rapid range closures as well.

The fighter is not broken or lacking beyond not being flashy or inherently set up to pull those cool movie/novel scene moves. It's just suffering from a lack of player creativity like many other classes tend to. The only place it starts losing out on is in mass combat since they lack any AoE type stuff...which the mage has but pays for by being easily squished. Also if against even moderately intelligent monsters...the healer and mage are going to be their primary targets...another something that seldom happens.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

paladinn wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 4:09 pm
Grandpa wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 1:10 pm
Those with long experience with RPGs will remember actual terrible editing of a core rule book. Mega Traveller. C&C doesn't come close to ever being "terrible". Which is why the lack of an erudite response from the OP.

Anyway, back to the story; I'm not sure how to improve C&C. Could "power" deficiency of high level fighter types and rouges (if one feels it a problem) be addressed by the GM via magic items. Like SR granting items or DR items? Stuff of that nature.
I'm thinking the "advantages" concept from the CKG (cough:feats:cough) wouldn't be bad if they were very limited in number (and no trees or chains) and mostly reserved for martial characters. Btb, fighters would get a new advantage at L1, 3, 6, 11, 15 and 20. That may or may not be too many. I'd possibly want to give thieves a few as well.

I'm also thinking of adapting the ASI (stat increases) concept, ala 3e. Every 4-or-so levels, characters get to increase One stat by +1. Martial characters would get this in addition to advantages; casters would need to sacrifice an ASI to get an advantage. So Gandalf Jr. could swing Glamdring in combat, but it would cost him!

I don't think that would OP characters too much or add too much complexity. Thoughts?
Feats with no chains and trees could indeed be simple enough solution. Should be able to be taken multiple times if appropriate as you level like SR so you can increase it. This would also make it possible have fighters at higher levels be a different based on what they take.

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 5:38 pm

In order to shutdown a mage or cleric, this is what fighters need to be able to do:
1. Close in distance to get into melee range
2. Prevent them from casting spells
3. Render the mage ineffective for the round
I like this outline.
My thoughts:

#1 could be anything from invisibility magic to really good long range weapon ability.

#2 Spells that take a round to cast go off at the very end of the round. Therefore, any successful melee attack is going to hit the caster and completely ruin the spell before casting completion.

#3 as you state. A spell cannot be cast while the caster is being physically mauled about. Maybe a totally verbal simple spell like Feather Fall but noting else. I once used this tactic back in AD&D days where I had a fighter with 18 (75) Str. I rolled to grab a high level mage by the throat. I was successful and he couldn't cast any spells and wasn't strong enough to make me let go. I strangled him over a few rounds and he died.

User avatar
Persimmon
Ulthal
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:11 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Persimmon »

paladinn wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 8:31 pm
Persimmon wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 5:21 pm
Personally, I loathe the idea of feats and automatic stat increases. So I'd say don't add them. But I don't use them so it doesn't matter to me. We do add extra attacks for martial types at 10th & 15th level, but not many PCs get high enough for that to matter.
Do you have any other options to help fighters be more effective at lower levels? Besides, "just play DCC" :)
How are they ineffective RAW? They can deliver and take more punishment than pretty much any other class at low levels. We do use a cleave rule that allows fighters extra attacks to any within 5 feet if they drop a foe. We also use Crits & fighters & barbarians have a better crit range than other classes. That's about it.
Behind closed eyes, realize your sight....

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Persimmon wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 12:25 am
How are they ineffective RAW? They can deliver and take more punishment than pretty much any other class at low levels. We do use a cleave rule that allows fighters extra attacks to any within 5 feet if they drop a foe. We also use Crits & fighters & barbarians have a better crit range than other classes. That's about it.
I've replaced Combat Dominance with Cleave. A fighter can make a number of attacks up to his/her level as long as his foes keep dropping dead. It's a bit more effective and versatile than CD.

Fighters aren't completely ineffective; but the power gap between casters and martials is still the most common complaint about D&D-ish games. I'm trying to work out ways to buff them without rewriting the game, making it overly complex or overly tactical, and definitely without bogging down combat.

There are a few fighter class features from the Haunted Highlands setting I'm looking at too.

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by serleran »

I'd first remove the marriage between "all non-combat rolls" and the SIEGE Engine so things like "Hearing Noise" are not an attribute check nor use the Prime system which eliminates a good portion of the naysaying about the game. Instead, an "everyman" method would be used, based on the lonely and oft-forgot d12. Classes with a "good ability" would get a bonus where others would not, again to remove the "clerics cannot be surprised much better than rangers" type argument. Having Prime could still improve the chance but class/native ability would be more impressive. As the character gained levels, their chance would improve, but likely never higher than 8 or 9 in 12.

SIEGE would still be in place but only for abilities that are class-specific or when the Castle Keeper feels the odds are less "predictable" in a sense.

Of course, this would all be explained well with several examples to showcase what the full intent is - I figure around 3/4 a page would be enough, with 4-8 specific examples.

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

serleran wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 3:49 am
I'd first remove the marriage between "all non-combat rolls" and the SIEGE Engine so things like "Hearing Noise" are not an attribute check nor use the Prime system which eliminates a good portion of the naysaying about the game. Instead, an "everyman" method would be used, based on the lonely and oft-forgot d12. Classes with a "good ability" would get a bonus where others would not, again to remove the "clerics cannot be surprised much better than rangers" type argument. Having Prime could still improve the chance but class/native ability would be more impressive. As the character gained levels, their chance would improve, but likely never higher than 8 or 9 in 12.

SIEGE would still be in place but only for abilities that are class-specific or when the Castle Keeper feels the odds are less "predictable" in a sense.

Of course, this would all be explained well with several examples to showcase what the full intent is - I figure around 3/4 a page would be enough, with 4-8 specific examples.
That would eliminate something that I don't quite like with the system. That is stuff like a swimming roll v. str and adding levels. First off, someone with an 18 str but not brought up swimming is going to suck compared to a Polynesian (of 200 years ago) with a 10 str when swimming. I don't see level add as adding to that ability roll. I don't mind attaching "bend bars/lift gates" type stuff to an attribute but most stuff, like a hearing roll, doesn't work well that way. Although a class connection might. Like a Rouge and Ranger.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Grandpa wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 1:00 pm
serleran wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 3:49 am
I'd first remove the marriage between "all non-combat rolls" and the SIEGE Engine so things like "Hearing Noise" are not an attribute check nor use the Prime system which eliminates a good portion of the naysaying about the game. Instead, an "everyman" method would be used, based on the lonely and oft-forgot d12. Classes with a "good ability" would get a bonus where others would not, again to remove the "clerics cannot be surprised much better than rangers" type argument. Having Prime could still improve the chance but class/native ability would be more impressive. As the character gained levels, their chance would improve, but likely never higher than 8 or 9 in 12.

SIEGE would still be in place but only for abilities that are class-specific or when the Castle Keeper feels the odds are less "predictable" in a sense.

Of course, this would all be explained well with several examples to showcase what the full intent is - I figure around 3/4 a page would be enough, with 4-8 specific examples.
That would eliminate something that I don't quite like with the system. That is stuff like a swimming roll v. str and adding levels. First off, someone with an 18 str but not brought up swimming is going to suck compared to a Polynesian (of 200 years ago) with a 10 str when swimming. I don't see level add as adding to that ability roll. I don't mind attaching "bend bars/lift gates" type stuff to an attribute but most stuff, like a hearing roll, doesn't work well that way. Although a class connection might. Like a Rouge and Ranger.
If/when we start tacking on other systems and mechanics, what's the point of playing C&C? The best thing about the game is that you Don't need a bunch of other mechanics, systems, subsystems, tables, etc. Otherwise we might as well be playing 1e.

Having a skill system, outside of actual class features, I think adds complexity to a wonderfully simple-yet-versatile game. It seems very acceptable to just give a bonus for swimming if a player can makes the case that their PC is a Polynesian.

As for the clerics-vs-rangers-surprise thing, I usually give rangers the barbarian's Combat Sense class ability. I don't much care for "barbarian" as a class (it's more of a background); and giving it to rangers fits well with the class fiction ("What's this? A ranger caught off his guard?").

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 4:59 pm
If/when we start tacking on other systems and mechanics, what's the point of playing C&C? The best thing about the game is that you Don't need a bunch of other mechanics, systems, subsystems, tables, etc. Otherwise we might as well be playing 1e.

Having a skill system, outside of actual class features, I think adds complexity to a wonderfully simple-yet-versatile game. It seems very acceptable to just give a bonus for swimming if a player can makes the case that their PC is a Polynesian.

As for the clerics-vs-rangers-surprise thing, I usually give rangers the barbarian's Combat Sense class ability. I don't much care for "barbarian" as a class (it's more of a background); and giving it to rangers fits well with the class fiction ("What's this? A ranger caught off his guard?").
True and that is part of the problem for me. I guess giving listen as a class ability decoupled from an ability score would work. Allow other classes to make such a roll but not add Class level and never be as successful as a Ranger or Rogue even if the check is successful.

An interesting note. According to the PHB the CK should NOT allow PCS to try something that is a class skill of another class but not on their class skill list. Barbarian's have swimming as a class skill. Thus other PCs without it should NOT be allowed to try to swim making a check... :D

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Grandpa wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 8:47 pm
paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 4:59 pm
If/when we start tacking on other systems and mechanics, what's the point of playing C&C? The best thing about the game is that you Don't need a bunch of other mechanics, systems, subsystems, tables, etc. Otherwise we might as well be playing 1e.

Having a skill system, outside of actual class features, I think adds complexity to a wonderfully simple-yet-versatile game. It seems very acceptable to just give a bonus for swimming if a player can makes the case that their PC is a Polynesian.

As for the clerics-vs-rangers-surprise thing, I usually give rangers the barbarian's Combat Sense class ability. I don't much care for "barbarian" as a class (it's more of a background); and giving it to rangers fits well with the class fiction ("What's this? A ranger caught off his guard?").
True and that is part of the problem for me. I guess giving listen as a class ability decoupled from an ability score would work. Allow other classes to make such a roll but not add Class level and never be as successful as a Ranger or Rogue even if the check is successful.

An interesting note. According to the PHB the CK should NOT allow PCS to try something that is a class skill of another class but not on their class skill list. Barbarian's have swimming as a class skill. Thus other PCs without it should NOT be allowed to try to swim making a check... :D
See previous comment about barbarians:)

I would let anyone who wants to try swimming across a racing river to try, ability mod included, but Not adding level. Never add level if it's a class ability of a different class.

Another possibility.. the AD&D3e game from Chris Perkins (scruffygrognard.com) borrows a Lot of concepts from C&C. It also has a "common bonus" concept besides the regular "proficiency bonus" (class level in C&C). If you're not dealing with a class ability, but your GM thinks you should do better than No bonus, you can add like 1/2 of your level/bonus rounded down. I don't think it would convolute things too much.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Grandpa wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 8:47 pm
paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 4:59 pm
If/when we start tacking on other systems and mechanics, what's the point of playing C&C? The best thing about the game is that you Don't need a bunch of other mechanics, systems, subsystems, tables, etc. Otherwise we might as well be playing 1e.
True and that is part of the problem for me. I guess giving listen as a class ability decoupled from an ability score would work. Allow other classes to make such a roll but not add Class level and never be as successful as a Ranger or Rogue even if the check is successful.
Oy, away for a couple days and i miss so much discussion... heh.

I too am torn on this. The simplicity of C&C is that it's one mechanic, and thus easy to learn. But one mechanic is not the best tool for modelling every situation.

Personally, i think that any feature that should be available to any class is better modelled as a skill. This is where C&C could use a secondary skills or proficiencies system. Swimming for example ought to be available to everyone. But skills that are class-specific, are kept as-is. And class skills should not be simple that anyone can try, rather abilities that require extensive training or background. This would also allow thief skills to be restored to their former glory (it should be Climb Sheer Surfaces, not just Climb, etc).

This thread was started under the premise of designing a 2nd edition of C&C. So to proceed, we would first have to establish what C&C is. What is absolutely vital to the identity of C&C? What changes would make it unrecognizable as C&C? Once those are established, then the details of a 2nd Ed can be sorted.

-Fizz

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:51 pm
I would let anyone who wants to try swimming across a racing river to try, ability mod included, but Not adding level. Never add level if it's a class ability of a different class.
Sure, that's the correct way to do it per the core rules. I think what Grandpa is saying that it doesn't make sense that only barbarians can add level to swimming. Why couldn't a ranger become a strong swimmer? Or a thief who lives in a port city? Not every character should be able to swim, but perhaps every class should have the option to learn. Hence a skill system.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 10:18 pm
paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 9:51 pm
I would let anyone who wants to try swimming across a racing river to try, ability mod included, but Not adding level. Never add level if it's a class ability of a different class.
Sure, that's the correct way to do it per the core rules. I think what Grandpa is saying that it doesn't make sense that only barbarians can add level to swimming. Why couldn't a ranger become a strong swimmer? Or a thief who lives in a port city? Not every character should be able to swim, but perhaps every class should have the option to learn. Hence a skill system.

-Fizz
Maybe that's where the "common ability bonus" could come in. If the CK agrees, if a given skill/talent/whatever could be considered part of a character's background, or a reasonable part of the class, but Not a class ability, allow 1/2 the level (rounded down).

So rangers are physical outdoorsy types, so things like swimming would deserve 1/2 the ranger's level

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 27, 2022 10:54 pm
Maybe that's where the "common ability bonus" could come in. If the CK agrees, if a given skill/talent/whatever could be considered part of a character's background, or a reasonable part of the class, but Not a class ability, allow 1/2 the level (rounded down).

So rangers are physical outdoorsy types, so things like swimming would deserve 1/2 the ranger's level
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, it is certainly a workable system. But it would still beg the question of why a ranger could not ever be as strong as a barbarian. The real question is this: should there be certain skills that are not class-specific, and be learned at full level?

Perkins's ADD3 is a nice work, a nice combination of different systems / ideas. But the skills system is too akin to 5e for my liking, because they are connected to class abilities (which started with 3e), so i don't think it's the answer to this question.

-Fizz

Post Reply