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 »

I'd say the higher levels need work in pretty much most game systems. Once you get past 12th or so...a lot of the old assumptions were that you'd be more political/kingdom building delegation type play than direct conflict. So yeah, not a lot of ability planning got done most likely. To be honest, since few of my games get into those levels before everyone loses interest or has their characters setting up seats of power and all then rolling up new characters as younger-distant relations or just plain something different...it's not been much of a need or issue for us.

The fighter...yeah...some of that just seemed weak sauce. I have an alternate build I give my players the option of taking. Weapon Spec is retained. Reaper at 3rd Lvl (the famed horizontal, multi-kill attack...as long as the enemy HD are equal or less than attacker and in front). Extra Attack at 4th (vs any foe...no HD limits). and Indomitable at 10th (1x day/ rally fighting spirit and shrug off half of all physical damage and +3 sv vs breath and magical physical damage like fireballs, cone of cold: the fighter basically becomes a wall).

But now that I'm thinking about this; maybe the way to really improve the fighter is to build off of the weapon specialization. So a fighter specializes in Two-Handed Sword; they can gain Cleave, Sunder, Shield (use the blade as an impromtu shield), etc.; if taking Longsword; gain Disarm, Counter-strike, etc.; Mace: Crushing blow, Knock-back, etc... basically tailoring the more effective specialized attacks to the weapon type itself. Gives the fighter a LOT more flavor...makes weapons specialization a more essential and beneficial ability-one that grows...etc.
"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
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Intriguing.. I've been thinking of allowing "tactics" like that. But tying to weapon specialization actually makes them a little more like weapon mastery from BECMI. Which has issues of its own, but this idea seems less convoluted.

One thing about this.. and combat dominance/cleave in general.. they are very melee-centered. I'd want to provide a good option for ranged fighters too.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Re fighters and manuevers etc, i say leave that out. C&C is meant to be a basic game. Adding what amount to 3E feats i think ruins what makes C&C special. Of course you can add such things to your own game, that's a great feature of the system. But such complications don't belong in the core game, because if they do you lose not only the simplicity, but the customizability.

I'm fine with tweaking the fighter (i think an extra 1/2 attack per round every 5th level would help a lot), but i don't think feat-like chains are the way to go, not in the core.

-Fizz

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 »

There are actually classes for archer, sniper/marksman, slinger (?) out there I believe. I know the first two are...so the range specialized attackers are covered.

I don't see them as feats Fizz...or taking away from simplicity or customizing. More like weapon-centric sub-abilities. I mean; you're customizing by choosing a weapon specialization...at which point that specialization is just phffft into the wind...good enough...moving on. This idea would build off that by adding combat skills focused on the weapon. This both stays within the existing SIEGE Engine mechanics...but also builds customization into the initial ability. It would also make the players have to really consider weapon choices...do they want to focus on being damage dealers, all rounders, defenders, technical fighters, etc. It doesn't take away from other weapons and really few players bother with combat action type stuff...so some of it would just be putting those more visibly out front.

Feats would allow anyone in the class to perform the action with any weapon and I could see your points if such things were rolled into more of a catch-all ability. Sub-ability would not only be limited by weapon type, but also be a lot easier to mesh into things without breaking things like Feats did in 3.5e (I had a rogue I did a sniper build on...and once he got his Crossbow of Accuracy and +3 bolts...with the feats rolled into things...he only missed an AC of 15 or less on a roll of 1...and pretty much one shot anything of less than 3HD, if he got a back attack it was 5HD or less...at 8th level...that's a pretty dang broken system).

Really though, how you build the sub-abilities really determines things. Like Cleave...it's a full power attack with everything into doing damage and STR based...and dang tiring. So it could be a 1d4x+2 damage but with the downside of losing DEX AC bonus since focused on attack, not defense...and losing the next round attack as the fighter recovers from teh swing. Ya know....this has my interest up enough I think I may actually sit down and play with it for a while. I see too many advantages and not a lot of negatives to at least not invest some time into seeing how it would pan out.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 8:28 pm
I don't see them as feats Fizz...or taking away from simplicity or customizing. More like weapon-centric sub-abilities. I mean; you're customizing by choosing a weapon specialization...at which point that specialization is just phffft into the wind...good enough...moving on. This idea would build off that by adding combat skills focused on the weapon.
And this would be for fighters only correct? So they would become the weapon masters.
Feats would allow anyone in the class to perform the action with any weapon and I could see your points if such things were rolled into more of a catch-all ability.
Fair enough, and i knew you didn't mean that every class would have the option. Guess i should have said "feat-inspired".
Sub-ability would not only be limited by weapon type, but also be a lot easier to mesh into things without breaking things like Feats did in 3.5e (I had a rogue I did a sniper build on...and once he got his Crossbow of Accuracy and +3 bolts...with the feats rolled into things...he only missed an AC of 15 or less on a roll of 1...and pretty much one shot anything of less than 3HD, if he got a back attack it was 5HD or less...at 8th level...that's a pretty dang broken system).
I understand your meaning better now. Though i would still say our hypothetical 2nd ed fighter should be on the simple side. A particular specialization gives a particular advantage, and leave it at that. I'd be skeptical of separate progressions for each weapon type... strikes me like the subclasses of 5E.

-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:
Tue May 17, 2022 10:50 pm
Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 8:28 pm
I don't see them as feats Fizz...or taking away from simplicity or customizing. More like weapon-centric sub-abilities. I mean; you're customizing by choosing a weapon specialization...at which point that specialization is just phffft into the wind...good enough...moving on. This idea would build off that by adding combat skills focused on the weapon.
And this would be for fighters only correct? So they would become the weapon masters.
Feats would allow anyone in the class to perform the action with any weapon and I could see your points if such things were rolled into more of a catch-all ability.
Fair enough, and i knew you didn't mean that every class would have the option. Guess i should have said "feat-inspired".
Sub-ability would not only be limited by weapon type, but also be a lot easier to mesh into things without breaking things like Feats did in 3.5e (I had a rogue I did a sniper build on...and once he got his Crossbow of Accuracy and +3 bolts...with the feats rolled into things...he only missed an AC of 15 or less on a roll of 1...and pretty much one shot anything of less than 3HD, if he got a back attack it was 5HD or less...at 8th level...that's a pretty dang broken system).
I understand your meaning better now. Though i would still say our hypothetical 2nd ed fighter should be on the simple side. A particular specialization gives a particular advantage, and leave it at that. I'd be skeptical of separate progressions for each weapon type... strikes me like the subclasses of 5E.

-Fizz
I agree that these abilities (I would call them "tactics") would be limited to fighters and Maybe thieves.

In BECMI, there were 2 sets of such tactics. Combat Options were absolutely limited to fighters, and included things like Smash (a type of Power attack), Parry and Disarm. The first two are actually rolled into Martial Prominence in the C&C: Haunted Highlands setting. Then there was Weapon Mastery, which gives progressively greater attack and/or damage as well as various special effects. Two negatives about weapon mastery: it limited weapon proficiency, even for fighters; and the special effects really bogged down combat.

I think it's important to keep fighters' ability to use any weapon; that the tactics don't lead to development of "trees" or "chains"; and that combat isn't bogged down. And simplicity is Always a good thing.

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 »

Dang...I wrote a reply...but apparently it didn't post.

Yes...fighters only. And limited to only two to four special weapon based attacks. Since they are a growth under the Weapon Spec. Ability...which doesn't limit weapon use...they won't either...however, they can't be used with any other than the specialized weapon. I'd not call it weapon mastery either since it is limited in scope (and I tend to attach a negative to the positive-no free lunches here). More just learning how to use the weapon itself more effectively in combat. The Combat maneuvers are in the PHB and CKG-back section...and not really used a lot; mainly because players stop reading at the class pertaining stuff and miss it all.

I donated all of my 3e stuff to the Boys n Girls club years ago...so not even considering the feat thing. On the other hand...I tend to read a metric ton of fantasy novels (six between Sat & Sun alone...my natural reading speed is 4k words/min. with 90% comprehension/retention...though that testing was done in '84. lol) and a lot of those books have the fighter types doing cool moves in combat.

A long sword guy practiced thrusting repeatedly for the throat and weak points in his opponents armor and developed a Piercing Thrust skill. A Great Sword user used the sword as an impromptu shield and for power attacks (Cleave, sweep, sunder...). The dual scimitar guy in one actually used the back of the blade as a guide to thrust AROUND the enemy's shield to stab him (which could work as a surprise attack the first time attempted). But stuff like that would make the fighters seem more flashy and to be more effective than someone reading only few abilities that are somewhat less than inspiring when read thru.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 1:05 am
A long sword guy practiced thrusting repeatedly for the throat and weak points in his opponents armor and developed a Piercing Thrust skill. A Great Sword user used the sword as an impromptu shield and for power attacks (Cleave, sweep, sunder...). The dual scimitar guy in one actually used the back of the blade as a guide to thrust AROUND the enemy's shield to stab him (which could work as a surprise attack the first time attempted). But stuff like that would make the fighters seem more flashy and to be more effective than someone reading only few abilities that are somewhat less than inspiring when read thru.
Hmmm... Interesting ideas, but i don't know, those seem too specific for my liking (remember this is in the context of our hypothetical a 2nd ed core rules, so it shouldn't be too extensive). I was thinking something that would apply to classes of weapons: a benefit that applies to bows, a different benefit that applies to polearms, etc.

Another route i like is expanding on the fighter presented in Crusader #12. Maybe tweak it so the fighter has a weapon specialty and also a style specialty (mounted, archery, formation, etc). Re-reading it, the style specialty is an alternative to weapon specialization and dominance.

And i agree, it should be for fighters only, they're the ones dedicated to combat.

-Fizz

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

I know people here think 5e is anathema. But fighters in 5e get a feature called a "fighting style", which gives them different benefits than just a +1 to hit. 2-weapon, great weapon, marksman, sword-and-board, thrown weapon, dueling are all "styles." Sounds a lot like the "style specialty."

Also, I'm looking to adapt the old "exceptional strength" from 1e. Basically if you end up with 18 Str, you can roll to see if you get an additional +1 damage. No percentages, but just something to give a plain fighter a bit more ummph.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 3:59 am
I know people here think 5e is anathema. But fighters in 5e get a feature called a "fighting style", which gives them different benefits than just a +1 to hit. 2-weapon, great weapon, marksman, sword-and-board, thrown weapon, dueling are all "styles." Sounds a lot like the "style specialty."
Of the 7 styles listed in the 5E PH, 5 grant either bonus to either attack or damage. Also, styles in 5E are also available to more than just fighters. If the fighter needs extra flavour, then something different is needed. Just adding a +x bonus or manipulating die rolls just ups the power level.
Also, I'm looking to adapt the old "exceptional strength" from 1e. Basically if you end up with 18 Str, you can roll to see if you get an additional +1 damage. No percentages, but just something to give a plain fighter a bit more ummph.
What you do in your own game is your own business of course, but this is a thread about a hypothetical 2nd Ed. For that, being rid of exceptional strength is a good thing. Randomly granting an extra bonus is unfair and unnecessary; the plain fighter has plenty of extra ummph over other classes already. Between combat dominance, extra attack and specialization, the fighter can kick out a lot more damage in a round than anyone else.

-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:
Wed May 18, 2022 12:24 pm
Of the 7 styles listed in the 5E PH, 5 grant either bonus to either attack or damage. Also, styles in 5E are also available to more than just fighters. If the fighter needs extra flavour, then something different is needed. Just adding a +x bonus or manipulating die rolls just ups the power level.
The styles are actually available to rangers and paladins as well, which sort of echos back to when they were fighter subclasses. But I have no problem reserving those to "baseline" fighters. Just need to flesh them out a bit. In 5e a style is taken at L1; should that be later?
What you do in your own game is your own business of course, but this is a thread about a hypothetical 2nd Ed. For that, being rid of exceptional strength is a good thing. Randomly granting an extra bonus is unfair and unnecessary; the plain fighter has plenty of extra ummph over other classes already. Between combat dominance, extra attack and specialization, the fighter can kick out a lot more damage in a round than anyone else.
Understood. This is all theorycraft at this point. I'm looking at things that were features in earlier D&D editions; maybe they work, maybe they don't. I see so many complaints about how fighters suck, I didn't think it would be bad to throw out ideas.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 2:21 pm
Understood. This is all theorycraft at this point. I'm looking at things that were features in earlier D&D editions; maybe they work, maybe they don't. I see so many complaints about how fighters suck, I didn't think it would be bad to throw out ideas.
I've never understood that attitude. Fighters definitely don't suck, they dish out damage better than anyone. But they are often perceived as boring, that every fighter is the same as every other. That is a different issue and in that respect, i understand the desire to give them some flexibility to give a different feel.

However, i think it's important to note that this issue is not unique to the fighter. Every paladin is pretty much the same, every knight, bard, barbarian too. Clerics and druids have some flexibility in their spell choice each day, but are otherwise the same. Thieves, assassins and rangers are pretty much the same though choices of primes may affect their strengths. The most varied class is potentially the wizard, as spell choice results in very different types of powers and effects.

So i'm in favor of adding a bit of flexibility, but let's not pretend this is a fighter-only issue. The biggest factor in making an exciting character, regardless of class, is role-playing.


-Fizz

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 »

The Paladins can be tweaked by adjusting things in relation to their deity. One of my more successful Pally's followed a God of the Sea...so his warhorse was a Hippocampus, he could breath underwater in exchange for one of the other minor powers (definitely helped while wearing full plate after falling into the lake in Ravenloft), and had one other switch out that I don't remember.

Yeah...I don't mind fighters...I don't agree with their abilities btb...but overall I don't get the 'Fighter's suck' mentality either. Yeah...they can be improved on a bit but their existing combat power is no joke. Most of the issue is visual I think. Other classes have a veritable laundry list of abilities...fighters don't and the ones they have are fairly lackluster. But grunts don't need luster...just need to be able to whack the enemies and laugh at 'em when they whack back.
"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
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm
paladinn wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 2:21 pm
Understood. This is all theorycraft at this point. I'm looking at things that were features in earlier D&D editions; maybe they work, maybe they don't. I see so many complaints about how fighters suck, I didn't think it would be bad to throw out ideas.
I've never understood that attitude. Fighters definitely don't suck, they dish out damage better than anyone. But they are often perceived as boring, that every fighter is the same as every other. That is a different issue and in that respect, i understand the desire to give them some flexibility to give a different feel.

However, i think it's important to note that this issue is not unique to the fighter. Every paladin is pretty much the same, every knight, bard, barbarian too. Clerics and druids have some flexibility in their spell choice each day, but are otherwise the same. Thieves, assassins and rangers are pretty much the same though choices of primes may effect their strengths. The most varied class is potentially the wizard, as spell choice results in very different types of powers and effects.

So i'm in favor of adding a bit of flexibility, but let's not pretend this is a fighter-only issue. The biggest factor in making an exciting character, regardless of class, is role-playing.


-Fizz
Do you have any details you can share about the "styles" you mentioned from Crusader?

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 7:44 pm
Do you have any details you can share about the "styles" you mentioned from Crusader?
I'm sure you can find Crusader #12 online somewhere for the details, but in brief, the following options can be taken in place of Weapon Specialization and Combat Dominance:

Marksman: no chance of hitting ally when firing into a melee but with penalty to hit
Sword & Board: specific combination of sword and shield give bonus to hit and AC
Florentine: reduced penalties for fighting with two weapons
Tactician: gain insight into opponent vulnerability with Wis check

I like these (at least in principle if not in implementation) because they're not just bonuses to hit or damage. I've toyed with some of my own creations too: Mounted, Formation (for soliders), Charge, Sniping, and a form of Berserking.


-Fizz

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

So continuing on fighters.. Currently in C&C they have 3 main class features: Weapon Specialization, Combat Dominance and Extra Attacks.

Weapon Specialization I'd probably leave as-is. It's pretty straightforward and a nice buff. At L1, 7, 13 and 19 you can either choose another weapon to get a +1 attack and damage Or add +1 to an already-specialized weapon (according to the CKG). So a max of +4 if you choose. Not bad.

A fighter gets one straight-up extra attack at L10. Now in B/X it was suggested that fighters get an extra attack at L15, 20 and 25 as well. Currently in C&C, you can get another extra attack at L14 If you use a shield. But what if you don't have a shield? I would suggest either giving more extra attacks ala B/X or at least one more at L14 or 20 or so, shield not required.

Combat dominance is the C&C equivalent of the "mook rule." It's only effective against creatures < 1HD until you hit L16. It's good against 2HD at L16, 3HD at L20 and 4HD at L24. Regardless, you only get a max of 4 swings. In 1e, a fighter got a number of swings up to his/her level. I would propose merging all this with the Cleave ability. Regardless of HD, a fighter can attempt a number of swings up to his/her level until s/he fails to drop a foe.

Beyond that, at higher levels fighters get the "battlespace" ability, which grants a +1AC at L13, but increases to dodge, evasion, rear attack etc. at L17 and 22. The AC bonus I can see; but the others don't make that much sense to me, and seem to intrude on the abilities of thieves. Fighters also get a +1 Str at L15, and a +1 to either Str or Dex at L19. I can imagine that a lot of fighters might have Str maxed-out by then (by whatever means), so what happens to the Str gain?

One more thing: the PH for the Haunted Highlands gives a few more abilities available at L2, 5 and 8; but you have to spend XP to gain them. That in itself, I would not use; but the abilities are interesting: Favored Armor (a +1 AC for one suit), Horsemanship (like a knight), Stunning Attack and Reflexive Strike (a lot like Cleave). The one I rather like is Martial Prominence, by which a fighter can use part or all of his/her attack bonus to add to AC or damage or both. I like that flexibility quite a bit!

Other than maybe the styles mentioned before, is there anything that should be added/changed/skipped? I could see using the styles in addition to specialization or dominance, but I wouldn't want to replace.

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 19, 2022 3:49 am
So continuing on fighters.. Currently in C&C they have 3 main class features: Weapon Specialization, Combat Dominance and Extra Attacks.

Weapon Specialization I'd probably leave as-is. It's pretty straightforward and a nice buff. At L1, 7, 13 and 19 you can either choose another weapon to get a +1 attack and damage Or add +1 to an already-specialized weapon (according to the CKG). So a max of +4 if you choose. Not bad.

A fighter gets one straight-up extra attack at L10. Now in B/X it was suggested that fighters get an extra attack at L15, 20 and 25 as well. Currently in C&C, you can get another extra attack at L14 If you use a shield. But what if you don't have a shield? I would suggest either giving more extra attacks ala B/X or at least one more at L14 or 20 or so, shield not required.

Combat dominance is the C&C equivalent of the "mook rule." It's only effective against creatures < 1HD until you hit L16. It's good against 2HD at L16, 3HD at L20 and 4HD at L24. Regardless, you only get a max of 4 swings. In 1e, a fighter got a number of swings up to his/her level. I would propose merging all this with the Cleave ability. Regardless of HD, a fighter can attempt a number of swings up to his/her level until s/he fails to drop a foe.

Beyond that, at higher levels fighters get the "battlespace" ability, which grants a +1AC at L13, but increases to dodge, evasion, rear attack etc. at L17 and 22. The AC bonus I can see; but the others don't make that much sense to me, and seem to intrude on the abilities of thieves. Fighters also get a +1 Str at L15, and a +1 to either Str or Dex at L19. I can imagine that a lot of fighters might have Str maxed-out by then (by whatever means), so what happens to the Str gain?

One more thing: the PH for the Haunted Highlands gives a few more abilities available at L2, 5 and 8; but you have to spend XP to gain them. That in itself, I would not use; but the abilities are interesting: Favored Armor (a +1 AC for one suit), Horsemanship (like a knight), Stunning Attack and Reflexive Strike (a lot like Cleave). The one I rather like is Martial Prominence, by which a fighter can use part or all of his/her attack bonus to add to AC or damage or both. I like that flexibility quite a bit!

Other than maybe the styles mentioned before, is there anything that should be added/changed/skipped? I could see using the styles in addition to specialization or dominance, but I wouldn't want to replace.
I know I keep singing the praises of the forthcoming Swords & Chaos game, but their DCC-inspired tweaks to the fighter class add plenty of flavor without too many clunky additions to keep track of while making them more interesting & even deadlier in combat. The same goes for their adjustments to the barbarian class. And they have an alternate form of spell casting that incorporates spell points and spell check rolls. So for me at least, I'm seeing this as my C&C 2.0. We'll see when the game is (hopefully) released towards the end of the year.
Behind closed eyes, realize your sight....

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

Fizz wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm
paladinn wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 2:21 pm
Understood. This is all theorycraft at this point. I'm looking at things that were features in earlier D&D editions; maybe they work, maybe they don't. I see so many complaints about how fighters suck, I didn't think it would be bad to throw out ideas.
I've never understood that attitude. Fighters definitely don't suck, they dish out damage better than anyone. But they are often perceived as boring, that every fighter is the same as every other. That is a different issue and in that respect, i understand the desire to give them some flexibility to give a different feel.

However, i think it's important to note that this issue is not unique to the fighter. Every paladin is pretty much the same, every knight, bard, barbarian too. Clerics and druids have some flexibility in their spell choice each day, but are otherwise the same. Thieves, assassins and rangers are pretty much the same though choices of primes may effect their strengths. The most varied class is potentially the wizard, as spell choice results in very different types of powers and effects.

So i'm in favor of adding a bit of flexibility, but let's not pretend this is a fighter-only issue. The biggest factor in making an exciting character, regardless of class, is role-playing.

-Fizz
THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Ancalagon wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 10:10 pm
Fizz wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm
paladinn wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 2:21 pm
Understood. This is all theorycraft at this point. I'm looking at things that were features in earlier D&D editions; maybe they work, maybe they don't. I see so many complaints about how fighters suck, I didn't think it would be bad to throw out ideas.
I've never understood that attitude. Fighters definitely don't suck, they dish out damage better than anyone. But they are often perceived as boring, that every fighter is the same as every other. That is a different issue and in that respect, i understand the desire to give them some flexibility to give a different feel.

However, i think it's important to note that this issue is not unique to the fighter. Every paladin is pretty much the same, every knight, bard, barbarian too. Clerics and druids have some flexibility in their spell choice each day, but are otherwise the same. Thieves, assassins and rangers are pretty much the same though choices of primes may effect their strengths. The most varied class is potentially the wizard, as spell choice results in very different types of powers and effects.

So i'm in favor of adding a bit of flexibility, but let's not pretend this is a fighter-only issue. The biggest factor in making an exciting character, regardless of class, is role-playing.

-Fizz
THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
So technically we would only need 2 classes: a fighter and a caster. Everything else could be RP. I don't see much clamoring for that.

No one is interested in adding a bunch of complexity and superfluous classes. I just think what's there could use a little tweaking.

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

For a hypothetical C&C 2.0, leave out ALL 5e. If anyone wants to play 5e then more power to them but I don't want anything to do with incorporating 5e into C&C. Period.
Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 4:58 am
<snip>
Personally I'd rather keep anything and everything 5e mechanics related as far away as galaxy HD1...since it is nothing more than a power-munchkin's game anymore. Rules mechanic-wise...C&C is pretty close to perfect and unbreakable...close...not completely yet. The fact you can customize it across genres at the drop of a hat without any need for change in the mechanics of the rules is fairly unique among the dozens of rule sets I've read through and played over the last 40 years. I'd say the closest to being similar would be GURPS. <snip>
Agreed.
For a hypothetical C&C 2.0
1. I'd like is for the Mana Point system for spellers from the CKG replace the Vancian system as the standard.
2. I also like the notion of armor as DR from the CKG but I'd handle it bit differently.
3. I'd change hit points to reflect my house ruled system I've used in various campaigns since the early 90s when playing AD&D.

Grandpa wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:24 pm
In the latest printing of PHB it has been clarified. Pg. 211, section titled: "Adding Character Levels to Checks"
Good reference, Grandpa.
Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 4:33 pm
<snip>
I like the mana point system C&C has...though we ran into one we tried adapting into our 2e game back in the 90's that was based more on Attributes than just a set flat base and advancement...<snip>
My group from back in the late 80s to early 90s used a mana system based on a formula using attributes, one set for magic-users and illusionists and another for clerics and druids, to determine a starting amount at 1st level. A fixed amount of mana was gained every level (we tinkered with it over the years) and bonus mana could be earned based on the prime requisite of the class in question.
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Ancalagon »

paladinn wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 10:51 pm
Ancalagon wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 10:10 pm
Fizz wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm
paladinn wrote:
Wed May 18, 2022 2:21 pm
Understood. This is all theorycraft at this point. I'm looking at things that were features in earlier D&D editions; maybe they work, maybe they don't. I see so many complaints about how fighters suck, I didn't think it would be bad to throw out ideas.
I've never understood that attitude. Fighters definitely don't suck, they dish out damage better than anyone. But they are often perceived as boring, that every fighter is the same as every other. That is a different issue and in that respect, i understand the desire to give them some flexibility to give a different feel.

However, i think it's important to note that this issue is not unique to the fighter. Every paladin is pretty much the same, every knight, bard, barbarian too. Clerics and druids have some flexibility in their spell choice each day, but are otherwise the same. Thieves, assassins and rangers are pretty much the same though choices of primes may effect their strengths. The most varied class is potentially the wizard, as spell choice results in very different types of powers and effects.

So i'm in favor of adding a bit of flexibility, but let's not pretend this is a fighter-only issue. The biggest factor in making an exciting character, regardless of class, is role-playing.

-Fizz
THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
So technically we would only need 2 classes: a fighter and a caster. Everything else could be RP. I don't see much clamoring for that.

No one is interested in adding a bunch of complexity and superfluous classes. I just think what's there could use a little tweaking.
Emphasis mine.
It is a Role Playing Game. Focusing on porting over ever-increasing powers, abilities, and bonuses from 5e leaves adds complexity which isn't needed to make for a more exciting character. Your assertion for only a fighter and caster class seems a tad disingenuous but you're certainly free to see it as you wish.
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 10:51 pm
So technically we would only need 2 classes: a fighter and a caster. Everything else could be RP. I don't see much clamoring for that.
Sure. In fact there are systems that work that way: True20 and Fantasy AGE. But neither I nor Ancalagon is suggesting that.

None of the classes have "flexibility" on their own. Every class feels different from every other class. But within a class, there is little flexibility: every fighter has the same set of abilities as every other fighter. And every bard has the same set of abilities as every other bard, etc.

Thus fighters are no more boring or inflexible than any other class, and modifying only the fighter because it is "boring" or "inflexible" would be based on a false premise. (That is, if one feels the need to modify the fighter for this reason, one should also feel the need to modify every other class.)

But it is role-playing that makes the primary difference in how one fighter is different from another fighter, and the same for any class.


-Fizz

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 »

Technically speaking...you can do away with classes and class levels all together if you go to a skill purchase/level type system, which could still work under the SIEGE Engine (which is why the SE is so dang awesome...flexibility in spades) though I understand folks just don't like doing that. Too much to keep track of...

Like I mentioned earlier; the reaction to the fighter is based on visual impression (lacking more than a couple abilities...sort of like folks not taking human as a preference due to same) and preferring AoE spamming over one on one or one on a few combat; though this sort of ignores survivability which the fighter also tends to excel at with higher HP and AC available.
"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
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Soo.. is the consensus that C&C is perfect as-is and my suggestions shouldn't be more than house rules?

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 1:47 am
Soo.. is the consensus that C&C is perfect as-is and my suggestions shouldn't be more than house rules?
No, i think the consensus is that extra bonuses for the fighter don't make the game better. I think Go0gleplex is correct: fighters (like humans) are oft considered "ordinary". This perception is not the fault of the fighter, but of unimaginative minds.

A few tweaks to the class is fine (i like ideas of the option of styles in place of a specialty, and 3/2 attacks at 5th to bridge the gap of 1 and 2 attacks per round, etc). But no one wants to see fighters become the monstrosity of 5e. In C&C, less is often more.

And this is all for a hypothetical 2nd edition, so it's purely academic anyways.

-Fizz

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Ancalagon wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 10:56 pm
Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 4:33 pm
<snip>
I like the mana point system C&C has...though we ran into one we tried adapting into our 2e game back in the 90's that was based more on Attributes than just a set flat base and advancement...<snip>
My group from back in the late 80s to early 90s used a mana system based on a formula using attributes, one set for magic-users and illusionists and another for clerics and druids, to determine a starting amount at 1st level. A fixed amount of mana was gained every level (we tinkered with it over the years) and bonus mana could be earned based on the prime requisite of the class in question.
Most mana systems that i have seen have result in an absurd number of points. It's like they want to be able to reproduce the Vancian system- making sure that a wizard could cast a complete Vancian table's worth of spells. I've seen systems that have hundreds or thousands of spell points. I think that's the wrong approach. A spellpoint system gives a huge amount of flexibility, so you don't need to account for every spell from the Vancian table.

The best spell point system i know of is from the Midnight setting. A spell costs a number of spell points equal to its level. A caster has a number of spell points equal to their level plus ability modifier. Yes, that's far fewer spells (it's a lower magic setting), but this is easily tweaked by doubling the number of spell points available.

Though personally, i like a spellcheck system better, at least for wizards, as i consider spellcasting a skill. Thus casting a spell should not be automatic. Just as a fighter has to roll to hit an opponent, a wizard has to roll to make his spell work. But that's just me. Heh.

-Fizz

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Ancalagon wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 11:11 pm
It is a Role Playing Game. Focusing on porting over ever-increasing powers, abilities, and bonuses from 5e leaves adds complexity which isn't needed to make for a more exciting character. Your assertion for only a fighter and caster class seems a tad disingenuous but you're certainly free to see it as you wish.
I think this is the heart of the matter. Once way back when in the dawn of D&D I joined a group that was playing ~2nd - 3rd level PCs and the DM started me with a 0 level soldier PC. I balked and the DM told me to REALLY pretend to be that PC and to forget about the rules and to just decide what I would do in any given situation and he'd worry about how to determine success/failure or what ever. Man, I was swinging from chandeliers (or trying); pinning orcs against a wall using a table in the room, all kinds of crazy stuff in and out of combat. I think at that point really first got RPing and what I was playing and how weak or powerful it was became a distant secondary consideration. Try playing a link bearer in a game. It kind of forces the RP angle because you have no class abilities. You have to keep alive and be useful.

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. Mana bloat is an issue when it comes to such systems. Just a different type of power creep. But then most don't really look at what mana is...or rather...how literature treats it. It's another form of life energy so, from what bits I remember, I think we took the CHA modifier x2 as the base and then added in the average of the CON, INT, and WIS modifiers which also became the by level increase...though that doesn't seem quite right; close enough for this discussion though. So basically force of will determines how much power modified by vitality, knowledge and visualization, and wisdom of how best to use that energy. HP isn't alone, nor even the first to summarize magic as willpower, visualization, and intent. We also allowed recovery of mana equal to the CON bonus +1 per hour of rest or 8 hrs rest for full, whichever came first (the +1 is due to most mages not even having a CON mod...so it allowed for some recovery by rest). Otherwise...yeah. Spells cost spell level +1 MP (mana point) to cast. We had also discarded the need for memorization as well...long before that option came out officially. I mean...if you spend all that time and money learning the spell and then transcribing it into a book...common sense would mean that it is unlikely you'd need to memorize it every morning; which just slowed the game down. So we changed it to a review the spell book for an hour each morning to refresh on details and avoid miscasts.

0-level option...that was fun in a way. OD&D had so little info to it or character abilities compared to now that going the chuuni route was the only way to really play the characters effectively. *sigh* The good ol' days. ;) lol
"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
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 3:13 am
But no one wants to see fighters become the monstrosity of 5e. In C&C, less is often more.
-Fizz
The funny thing is, in 5e, a lot pf people still have issues with the fighter (at least the champion, the "basic" fighter) not being powerful enough. In fact every martial class in 5e has to have a spellcasting subclass.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

On the matter of spell-point systems (I prefer not to use "mana" because of "manna" in the Bible. I'm weird that way)..

I agree that spell points would allow the most flexibility of any system, and can be tweaked easily for special circumstances.

So for a L10 mage.. Btb s/he has 6 cantrips. Putting those aside for now, s/he also has spells 5-4-3-3-2. Using the spells*level formula, s/he has a total of 343 spell points. But s/he still can't cast any spells over level 5, and will still be limited to the spells in the spellbook and/or spells prepared. Of course spells prepared is limited by one's Int score. Should a caster be able to prepare a number of spells/level as in the spell table, or ? Is the number of points excessive?

For mages, I'm considering making them dependent on both Int and Cha. Your spells prepared depend on your Int; but your spell points depend on your Cha. If you have a high Int, you can have more spells prepared, but a high Cha gets you extra spell points equal to your Cha bonus.

Clerics would depend on Wis of course, and no need to prepare spells so no limits other than the spell level. Cleric spells are "answers to prayer." Btw, I like the idea of upcasting at least some spells. A cleric shouldn't have to prepare X versions of Cure Wounds.. just cast with more spell points.

Post Reply