C&C 2.0

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 4:49 pm
I'd almost see divine magic as better suited to spell checks. It's not dependent on the caster's anything (except level, for spell levels). It's not a matter of the cleric's spell points because it comes from his/her deity.
Well this is why i think spellpoints work for priests. The deity is entrusting their disciple with a certain amount of power. As they prove themselves (level up) they are granted more power. Because the power is granted, how could it fail? That a god's power has a chance of failure doesn't make sense to me.
Arcane spells, OTOH, are Definitely better with spell points. Wizards have to channel arcane power through themselves, and there's only so much they can handle in a given day.
Exactly, the wizard only has himself to rely upon. They are delving into ancient arts and practices that are not normal. They have to learn the craft. If it's something they have to learn, it makes sense there is a chance of failure. And if they fail too often or badly, then they may have repurcussions (damage or other side effects). That's why spellchecks work for wizards.


-Fizz

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Neuroschmancer »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 9:35 pm
Neuro...re: the illusionist class...that may be what they intend now but that is NOT what the original creator of the class intended at all when he wrote it up. He intended it as a mage focused on deception and tricking the mind which is why the original spell list was what it was. The class has been badly warped from its original intent as a late OD&D add-on class and its adoption in 1e with how it has been portrayed in 3.5e and later versions. This was noted not only by the originator but by Gary himself when he made some changes with the intent to make it a bit more popular and easy to play class; because at its outset, it was the most difficult class to both play and DM for.

Frankly, as an OD&D illusionist player, I find the new version of the class rather sad in how it caters to the gamer rather than being the creative challenge it was to play and when played well, was THE most powerful class available in D&D. Now it's just another mage by any other name. Fizz is actually more correct.

The Illusionist class is probably one of the most polarized topics around...at least until us grognards start kicking the bucket and the origins get lost in time and revision. lol
Ahhh ok. That makes sense then. It was originally something else and then they had to force it into another concept with different mechanics, so the contradictions and incoherence of the class description comes from that troubled history. It looks like they needed to drop the illusion idea altogether then, because they are trying to make a square circle with that class description. I had to reread the description a few times just to ensure I wasn't being obtuse, because it is in such stark contrast to the other much more comprehensible class descriptions I thought at first I was misunderstanding or missing something. When in reality, the problem was the class description itself.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Persimmon »

In the case of clerical spell failure, it's not the god failing, it's the cleric/vessel. Maybe they've not properly followed their deity's tenets so they've incurred disfavor. Or they aren't versed enough to channel certain energies. Or they simply have only so much power their mortal body can handle in a day.

And I suppose a god's power could fail when confronted with a more powerful entity. Do they still use the level limits for spells granted by deities in 5e? I recall that in 1e demigods could grant up to 5th level spells; lesser gods 6th level; and greater gods 7th. I thought that made sense in delineating power levels for deities.
Behind closed eyes, realize your sight....

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Persimmon wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 12:43 pm
In the case of clerical spell failure, it's not the god failing, it's the cleric/vessel. Maybe they've not properly followed their deity's tenets so they've incurred disfavor.
I am totally in favor of the notion that a deity might cutoff the priest from the powers if he misbehaves. But in a spell check system, failure is ultimately random. One spell may fail, and a moment later the next spell succeeds, then the third fails... If the priest has lost the deity's favor, then nothing should work. It's like a paladin losing his powers: paladin powers don't randomly fail every day, the paladin either has the deity's trust, or doesn't. It's determined by roleplaying and CK judgement. The same should apply to priests (though to a lower standard than a paladin).
Or they aren't versed enough to channel certain energies. Or they simply have only so much power their mortal body can handle in a day.
Recall the saying... gods never give us more than we can handle... ;)

Also, what would failure say of the deity? The priest says "I smite thee with the power of Haelyn..." and then the spell sizzles... wouldn't exactly convince the opposition that Haelyn is powerful, does it? It'd be rather embarrassing for both priest and deity. "Ha ha- your deity abandoned you!" or "Ha ha- your deity is weak!"
And I suppose a god's power could fail when confronted with a more powerful entity. Do they still use the level limits for spells granted by deities in 5e? I recall that in 1e demigods could grant up to 5th level spells; lesser gods 6th level; and greater gods 7th. I thought that made sense in delineating power levels for deities.
Yes, and this works for any spellcasting system. We'd just need a tweaked system for this since C&C spells go up to 9th. Maybe 5th, 7th, 9th respectively?

-Fizz

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Persimmon »

Fizz wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 1:12 pm
Persimmon wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 12:43 pm
In the case of clerical spell failure, it's not the god failing, it's the cleric/vessel. Maybe they've not properly followed their deity's tenets so they've incurred disfavor.
I am totally in favor of the notion that a deity might cutoff the priest from the powers if he misbehaves. But in a spell check system, failure is ultimately random. One spell may fail, and a moment later the next spell succeeds, then the third fails... If the priest has lost the deity's favor, then nothing should work. It's like a paladin losing his powers: paladin powers don't randomly fail every day, the paladin either has the deity's trust, or doesn't. It's determined by roleplaying and CK judgement. The same should apply to priests (though to a lower standard than a paladin).
Or they aren't versed enough to channel certain energies. Or they simply have only so much power their mortal body can handle in a day.
Recall the saying... gods never give us more than we can handle... ;)

Also, what would failure say of the deity? The priest says "I smite thee with the power of Haelyn..." and then the spell sizzles... wouldn't exactly convince the opposition that Haelyn is powerful, does it? It'd be rather embarrassing for both priest and deity. "Ha ha- your deity abandoned you!" or "Ha ha- your deity is weak!"
And I suppose a god's power could fail when confronted with a more powerful entity. Do they still use the level limits for spells granted by deities in 5e? I recall that in 1e demigods could grant up to 5th level spells; lesser gods 6th level; and greater gods 7th. I thought that made sense in delineating power levels for deities.
Yes, and this works for any spellcasting system. We'd just need a tweaked system for this since C&C spells go up to 9th. Maybe 5th, 7th, 9th respectively?

-Fizz
The way DCC handles it is that the cleric has a base 1 in 20 chance of spell failure. But if they do fail, they can make a Charisma check to avoid incurring deity disfavor IIRC. If that fails, the base chance of failure becomes 2 in 20 & continues to go up by one with each failure. But the cleric can perform services to atone and it resets every day or adventure, depending upon the GM.

They also do healing & turning unclean differently as these are based on alignment. For healing, all clerics make a skill check, but the amount you can heal is based on the target's alignment (Law, Neutral, Chaos). If they are closer to you, you can heal more. If they are diametrically opposed, it's less and you can incur deity disfavor. But theoretically there's no limit to how much you can heal per day if you make your checks because it's an ability granted by your deity, not a spell.

As for turning, all clerics can turn unholy, but that varies by alignment too. They have a table (of course) listing what is unholy for each alignment.

I think all of this adds flavor, but it can also slow down play. For me, the biggest plus of C&C is how fast and smooth the Siege Engine generally works once you figure it out. If you've got your character sheets handy, you hardly ever need to consult tables, though you might need to look up spell descriptions/effects like in almost any other game. So I appreciate things these other games do, but we always seem to get pulled back to C&C.
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:
Sun May 22, 2022 2:39 pm
The way DCC handles it is that the cleric has a base 1 in 20 chance of spell failure. But if they do fail, they can make a Charisma check to avoid incurring deity disfavor IIRC. If that fails, the base chance of failure becomes 2 in 20 & continues to go up by one with each failure. But the cleric can perform services to atone and it resets every day or adventure, depending upon the GM.

They also do healing & turning unclean differently as these are based on alignment. For healing, all clerics make a skill check, but the amount you can heal is based on the target's alignment (Law, Neutral, Chaos). If they are closer to you, you can heal more. If they are diametrically opposed, it's less and you can incur deity disfavor. But theoretically there's no limit to how much you can heal per day if you make your checks because it's an ability granted by your deity, not a spell.

As for turning, all clerics can turn unholy, but that varies by alignment too. They have a table (of course) listing what is unholy for each alignment.

I think all of this adds flavor, but it can also slow down play. For me, the biggest plus of C&C is how fast and smooth the Siege Engine generally works once you figure it out. If you've got your character sheets handy, you hardly ever need to consult tables, though you might need to look up spell descriptions/effects like in almost any other game. So I appreciate things these other games do, but we always seem to get pulled back to C&C.
I think someone would be pleased if the forum had a DCC section

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Continuing on the spellcasting theme.. the Amazing Adventures game (also Siege-based) has an Arcanist class that is kind of a catch-all for arcane and divine casters, and it seems to be a mix of spell points and slots. For points, arcanists have 1d4 + Con bonus + casting-stat-bonus at L1, then get 1d10 more (plus stat bonus) each level. I believe this actually imparts even more spell points/day than just converting the spells/day chart, which is probably more than some folks would want.

AA has the typical spells/day chart, where a L10 wizard gets 9 cantrips and 5-4-3-2-1 spells. Converting to points, that's 35 (without any stat bonus). By AA rules, points could potentially be over 100.

I know everyone here hates 5e; but it limits the number of spells known to stat bonus+ caster level. So at L10, with an 18 Int would have a total of 13 spells known/prepared/whatever. In AA, there would be a total of 15, not too dissimilar.

If we assume a spell-point system, I assume we would at least want a maximum spell level. Is that the only limitation besides total spell points? Do we assume that all casters "know"/can access all the spells on their lists for their allowed spell levels? I think that might work for clerics especially; but would wizards still be limited by what's in a spell book? If so, do we assume that they "know" everything in the spellbook? In 3e and 5e, sorcerers don't have spellbooks or prepare spells, but they are still limited in what they "know." They also can't change things up like wizards can.

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 don't hate 5e. hate is such a pathetically light word...then again...it may be moot since WotC has recently released news about 6th Ed. being released in 2024 as a 'new evolution' in gaming. Get your wallets ready to replace all of your rule books yet again. (another reason I abandoned D&D...their adopting the Games Workshop, aka The Evil Empire, business model) ;) lol

If you're needing to create new mechanics to do what you feel is better, then you are inevitably cluttering up the game and that will put some folks off...just something to consider. Over the decades I've seen a lot of folks come in new to the game...then start wanting things changed to be like X or like Y saying they did things better... At which point the only thing I can say in my head is; then why did you stop playing X or Y if you like it so much?

Limits on what a character can know or learn should be very well rationalized or avoided because it will cause a bit of heartburn to players or simply cause the class to be avoided in time...F&F Vancian is a good example of this given how many alternatives pop up to replace it, either in house rules or official game rule systems. Which is why I went to using mana points for arcane casters as soon as that type of system was defined officially simply because it had better flexibility for the casters and gave me more opportunities to toy with their little imaginary existences. (cue diabolical laughter and distant thunder).
"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 »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:42 pm
I don't hate 5e. hate is such a pathetically light word...then again...it may be moot since WotC has recently released news about 6th Ed. being released in 2024 as a 'new evolution' in gaming. Get your wallets ready to replace all of your rule books yet again. (another reason I abandoned D&D...their adopting the Games Workshop, aka The Evil Empire, business model) ;) lol

If you're needing to create new mechanics to do what you feel is better, then you are inevitably cluttering up the game and that will put some folks off...just something to consider. Over the decades I've seen a lot of folks come in new to the game...then start wanting things changed to be like X or like Y saying they did things better... At which point the only thing I can say in my head is; then why did you stop playing X or Y if you like it so much?

Limits on what a character can know or learn should be very well rationalized or avoided because it will cause a bit of heartburn to players or simply cause the class to be avoided in time...F&F Vancian is a good example of this given how many alternatives pop up to replace it, either in house rules or official game rule systems. Which is why I went to using mana points for arcane casters as soon as that type of system was defined officially simply because it had better flexibility for the casters and gave me more opportunities to toy with their little imaginary existences. (cue diabolical laughter and distant thunder).
Not sure what your point is. I think everyone who's been contributing here loves C&C, at least the basic chassis. At the same time, we're all thinking of ways things might be done better/differently. The spellcasting system is definitely one of those. Whether you call it a spell-point or "mana" system or go with spell-checks, they are alternatives.

While I do love C&C, especially the simplicity of it, there are good ideas to be found in other system, especially those in the D&D food chain. 5e borrowed some concepts from C&C, even if they were implemented differently. All of this is theorycraft.

I confess, I'm a little concerned about "6e", especially given the recent tendency toward more "woke" attitudes toward monsters and classes. The attitude could be foreshadowing a debacle close to what happened with 4e. But that really is irrelevant; whatever options we may consider, we play C&C for a reason!

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 »

Rumors are saying that 6e may be pushing strongly towards a VTT-exclusive type system as well...or strong support therefore.

My point above is basically that you need to stay within existing mechanics of the game rules. Not import bits and pieces of rules into things and expect it to work. Folks wanting to change the rules towards more of X or Y game that they played before...should go back to playing those games and not screw up the mechanics that are working smoothly. Ideas are fine...use those as a guideline within the existing...not as a substitute to add in as is. The problem with being old is I've seen far too many of those instances happen and watched as a perfectly good game self-destructed. 4e is a great example of that...Amazing Engine is another...though to be fair, it was built with the assumption of being modules around a core mechanic...unfortunately the modules did not adhere to that core very closely and only one or two actually worked reasonably well.
"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: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 8:59 pm
1. Switch the skills system to a Fantasy Age or Worlds Without Number using 3d6 or 2d6+1d8(a better distribution in some cases because it has approx 10% increments in the middle of the distribution, thus is more amenable with a D20 5% increment). I won't go into a long diatribe, but it more accurately models a character who is skilled at what they do and create a statistical floor against failures and in-competent results only a beginner would have.
This is actually something i've experimented with in my own game. I agree i prefer how it models success. People usually perform at a particular level. That is, people accomplish tasks at a particular level most of the time, and major successes and massive failures are much more rare. So the 3d6 (or 2d6+1d8) models that bell curve. However, i prefer 2d10, it's not as restrictive as 3d6 (where two-thirds of results are between 8 and 13), and is a bit simpler to adapt.

With such a shift though, i think it's important to modify the value of primes. Currently, primes effective give a +6 bonus. I suspect that value is used because it's roughly the standard deviation of 1d20. The standard deviation of 2d10 is almost exactly 4, and approximately 3 for 3d6 (slightly higher for 2d6+1d8). So in those systems you might want to tweak the benefit of primes to effectively +4 or +3. Else they've be proportionately much more important.

That said, would such a change belong in a hypothetical C&C 2nd ed? The d20 is such a staple going back a long time, so it would definitely take getting used-to for many players. And would there be demand for it? I like it, but i suspect such a change is probably left as a house rule.

-Fizz

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 10:31 pm
Rumors are saying that 6e may be pushing strongly towards a VTT-exclusive type system as well...or strong support therefore.

My point above is basically that you need to stay within existing mechanics of the game rules. Not import bits and pieces of rules into things and expect it to work. Folks wanting to change the rules towards more of X or Y game that they played before...should go back to playing those games and not screw up the mechanics that are working smoothly. Ideas are fine...use those as a guideline within the existing...not as a substitute to add in as is. The problem with being old is I've seen far too many of those instances happen and watched as a perfectly good game self-destructed. 4e is a great example of that...Amazing Engine is another...though to be fair, it was built with the assumption of being modules around a core mechanic...unfortunately the modules did not adhere to that core very closely and only one or two actually worked reasonably well.
I completely agree with the VTT thing. If they go that route, I doubt it'll last that long.

I find your "point" a bit amusing considering we are playing and enthused about a game that is a "simulacrum" of existing D&D editions, mainly 3e. C&C came to be Exactly because someone looked at the "current edition" and had other thoughts. The Siege Engine is very different than what was "current", and is streamlined and simplified, comparatively. Ditching feats and skills was a Big departure, but it works really well. WotC saw how well the Siege mechanic worked and fit parts of it into 5e. If we're leaving the C&C "core" alone, I don't see anything wrong with conjecturing about various other parts of the game. Especially when the CKG itself suggests alternatives.

For me, C&C is the best D&D available. Especially when it's Way more "tweakable" than 5e!

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 10:56 pm
Neuroschmancer wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 8:59 pm
1. Switch the skills system to a Fantasy Age or Worlds Without Number using 3d6 or 2d6+1d8(a better distribution in some cases because it has approx 10% increments in the middle of the distribution, thus is more amenable with a D20 5% increment). I won't go into a long diatribe, but it more accurately models a character who is skilled at what they do and create a statistical floor against failures and in-competent results only a beginner would have.
This is actually something i've experimented with in my own game. I agree i prefer how it models success. People usually perform at a particular level. That is, people accomplish tasks at a particular level most of the time, and major successes and massive failures are much more rare. So the 3d6 (or 2d6+1d8) models that bell curve. However, i prefer 2d10, it's not as restrictive as 3d6 (where two-thirds of results are between 8 and 13), and is a bit simpler to adapt.

With such a shift though, i think it's important to modify the value of primes. Currently, primes effective give a +6 bonus. I suspect that value is used because it's roughly the standard deviation of 1d20. The standard deviation of 2d10 is almost exactly 4, and approximately 3 for 3d6 (slightly higher for 2d6+1d8). So in those systems you might want to tweak the benefit of primes to effectively +4 or +3. Else they've be proportionately much more important.

That said, would such a change belong in a hypothetical C&C 2nd ed? The d20 is such a staple going back a long time, so it would definitely take getting used-to for many players. And would there be demand for it? I like it, but i suspect such a change is probably left as a house rule.

-Fizz
One thing that I really appreciated about 3e was how almost everything was settle with d20's. I appreciate the same about C&C. If there was a good way to roll stats with a d20 and still get the same range, I'd do that too!

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:42 pm
...it may be moot since WotC has recently released news about 6th Ed. being released in 2024 as a 'new evolution' in gaming.
They were as hyped about 4E. Doesn't bode well.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 12:29 am
One thing that I really appreciated about 3e was how almost everything was settle with d20's. I appreciate the same about C&C. If there was a good way to roll stats with a d20 and still get the same range, I'd do that too!
I had that feeling too: the elegance of a single mechanic. But over the years i've come to think that d20 is not suited to the resolution of everything. For example, attribute checks, and thief skills: i think i prefer AD&D 2nd ed rules for those.

Note i'm not suggesting we change the core C&C mechanic; the simplicity of it does make for a fast-paced game, but i don't feel bound to it.

-Fizz

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Grandpa wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 12:43 am
Go0gleplex wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 8:42 pm
...it may be moot since WotC has recently released news about 6th Ed. being released in 2024 as a 'new evolution' in gaming.
They were as hyped about 4E. Doesn't bode well.
Last i heard suggested that the next revision would be compatible with 5e. So maybe it was going to be like 5.5e? Or has there been a more specific annoucement recently?

-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:
Mon May 23, 2022 1:33 am
paladinn wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 12:29 am
One thing that I really appreciated about 3e was how almost everything was settle with d20's. I appreciate the same about C&C. If there was a good way to roll stats with a d20 and still get the same range, I'd do that too!
I had that feeling too: the elegance of a single mechanic. But over the years i've come to think that d20 is not suited to the resolution of everything. For example, attribute checks, and thief skills: i think i prefer AD&D 2nd ed rules for those.

Note i'm not suggesting we change the core C&C mechanic; the simplicity of it does make for a fast-paced game, but i don't feel bound to it.

-Fizz
Having worked with everything up to and including 5e, I like the C&C way, especially for attribute checks and thief skills. And other class abilities. But that's just me.

I'd love to mashup C&C and Basic/Classic somehow, because I prefer the Classic "power level". But it'd be mostly C&C

anvil242
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:04 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by anvil242 »

It's really starting to sound like fighters aren't under powered, mages are overpowered. I enforce spell component rules to caster classes, which at least makes them think about stuff before hand. Casting time can also be a pain.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Fizz wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 1:35 am
Last i heard suggested that the next revision would be compatible with 5e. So maybe it was going to be like 5.5e? Or has there been a more specific annoucement recently?

-Fizz
Now, that is interesting from a design standpoint considering the hype description.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

anvil242 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 11:21 am
I enforce spell component rules to caster classes, which at least makes them think about stuff before hand. Casting time can also be a pain.
What I've done is similar. Significant components are tracked and have to be paid for and, purchased/obtained only where they would logically be available. Components that are very low/no cost, very easy to source are not tracked unless you are long in an area where they aren't available. Like a chicken feather while you are deep into a desert or underwater adventure, etc. Casting times are observed especially anything > 1 round. Spells must be completed in one continuous uninterrupted action so one cannot dodge attacks (use Dex bonus to AC) or move away. Any damage automatically ruins spell if taken while casting. Magical armour confers its magic bonus to A.C. vs. magic touch attacks.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Neuroschmancer »

paladinn wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 1:55 am
Fizz wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 1:33 am
paladinn wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 12:29 am
One thing that I really appreciated about 3e was how almost everything was settle with d20's. I appreciate the same about C&C. If there was a good way to roll stats with a d20 and still get the same range, I'd do that too!
I had that feeling too: the elegance of a single mechanic. But over the years i've come to think that d20 is not suited to the resolution of everything. For example, attribute checks, and thief skills: i think i prefer AD&D 2nd ed rules for those.

Note i'm not suggesting we change the core C&C mechanic; the simplicity of it does make for a fast-paced game, but i don't feel bound to it.

-Fizz
Having worked with everything up to and including 5e, I like the C&C way, especially for attribute checks and thief skills. And other class abilities. But that's just me.

I'd love to mashup C&C and Basic/Classic somehow, because I prefer the Classic "power level". But it'd be mostly C&C
Any ruleset in addition to being elegant and easy to use, is also using those same mechanics as a means to model the behaviors and characteristics of the character. One of the limitations of the C&C primary/secondary attribute model for everything, even though it is simple and elegant, is that it fails to account for skills that you are trained in but not exceptional at. It also creates spikes in ability. Where in other system like 2e, 3e, or 5e where the character could have mediocre saves or mediocre skills, they now have bad saves and bad skills. You will always be at a 30% deficit(6 increments of 5% on a d20) in probability for a secondary check no matter what you do.

The other effect it has, is that the modelling is overly broad and it makes it so that character who play the same class, to be much more like each other than what other systems would give you. Thus, you do not have variegated characters represented by the mechanics themselves. The variegation comes from the way the character is played by the player, BUT even then, they are still limited by the mechanics themselves and its overly broad modelling.

I think this gets at one of the major reasons why newcomers prefer systems like 2e, 3e, and 5e, because even though they have some serious problems and suffer from the illusion of choice, they present varied mechanical options, variety in modelling behavior, and both variety and distinctness in flavor. I think C&C needs to find a way to provide this same kind of variation and distinctness, and account for more variegation in what it models.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Persimmon »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 1:58 pm
paladinn wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 1:55 am
Fizz wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 1:33 am
paladinn wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 12:29 am
One thing that I really appreciated about 3e was how almost everything was settle with d20's. I appreciate the same about C&C. If there was a good way to roll stats with a d20 and still get the same range, I'd do that too!
I had that feeling too: the elegance of a single mechanic. But over the years i've come to think that d20 is not suited to the resolution of everything. For example, attribute checks, and thief skills: i think i prefer AD&D 2nd ed rules for those.

Note i'm not suggesting we change the core C&C mechanic; the simplicity of it does make for a fast-paced game, but i don't feel bound to it.

-Fizz
Having worked with everything up to and including 5e, I like the C&C way, especially for attribute checks and thief skills. And other class abilities. But that's just me.

I'd love to mashup C&C and Basic/Classic somehow, because I prefer the Classic "power level". But it'd be mostly C&C
Any ruleset in addition to being elegant and easy to use, is also using those same mechanics as a means to model the behaviors and characteristics of the character. One of the limitations of the C&C primary/secondary attribute model for everything, even though it is simple and elegant, is that it fails to account for skills that you are trained in but not exceptional at. It also creates spikes in ability. Where in other system like 2e, 3e, or 5e where the character could have mediocre saves or mediocre skills, they now have bad saves and bad skills. You will always be at a 30% deficit(6 increments of 5% on a d20) in probability for a secondary check no matter what you do.

The other effect it has, is that the modelling is overly broad and it makes it so that character who play the same class, to be much more like each other than what other systems would give you. Thus, you do not have variegated characters represented by the mechanics themselves. The variegation comes from the way the character is played by the player, BUT even then, they are still limited by the mechanics themselves and its overly broad modelling.

I think this gets at one of the major reasons why newcomers prefer systems like 2e, 3e, and 5e, because even though they have some serious problems and suffer from the illusion of choice, they present varied mechanical options, variety in modelling behavior, and both variety and distinctness in flavor. I think C&C needs to find a way to provide this same kind of variation and distinctness, and account for more variegation in what it models.
I would disagree here since you can choose your primary attributes after the main one to suit your character concept. And there's no reason your primes need to be your highest attribute scores. So you could deliberately select primary attributes that are lower scores to balance things out. And variety in flavor should come from roleplaying, not just embracing whatever archetype the game designer decides they like. That's why you really don't need martial types beyond a basic fighter/warrior. Rangers, barbarians, etc. have evolved over time within various rpgs, but there's no reason a B/X fighter couldn't be played as any of those things at least in terms of flavor. And in this case, one could choose primes to get that feel, selecting Dex for a ranger type or whatever.
Behind closed eyes, realize your sight....

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 1:58 pm
One of the limitations of the C&C primary/secondary attribute model for everything, even though it is simple and elegant, is that it fails to account for skills that you are trained in but not exceptional at.
Not necessarily. You can have skills for which you don't have a matching Prime attribute. Especially if playing a demi-human.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

A question, since someone brought up casters being OP (which I hear about Every edition ever published): In the current-edition-of-D&D-that-most-here-despise, spell effects are limited to the spell's level or the level of the "slot" that is used to cast. They are Not based on the caster's level. So a fireball (L3 spell) in C&C does 1d6/caster level in the target area. For a L10 wizard, that's up to 60 hp. In the "current edition", a fireball does a fixed amount (8d6). It can't do more than that unless it's cast with a higher-level slot; then it's an extra 1d6 per slot-level over 3. So the L10 wizard would only do 8d6, a max of 48 hp, unless it's upcast.

Granted that the "current edition" starts at a higher damage level, if the starting point always started at the spell level (i.e. 3d6) and was limited to the spell-slot-level Or the number of spell points burned, would this not limit a caster's power and even the playing field a bit? If you want a more powerful fireball, you can do it, but you have to burn more points. At the least, you wouldn't have L20 wizards doing 120 points of damage.

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

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Neuroschmancer »

Persimmon wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 2:29 pm
I would disagree here since you can choose your primary attributes after the main one to suit your character concept. And there's no reason your primes need to be your highest attribute scores. So you could deliberately select primary attributes that are lower scores to balance things out. And variety in flavor should come from roleplaying, not just embracing whatever archetype the game designer decides they like. That's why you really don't need martial types beyond a basic fighter/warrior. Rangers, barbarians, etc. have evolved over time within various rpgs, but there's no reason a B/X fighter couldn't be played as any of those things at least in terms of flavor. And in this case, one could choose primes to get that feel, selecting Dex for a ranger type or whatever.
Grandpa wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 2:31 pm
Not necessarily. You can have skills for which you don't have a matching Prime attribute. Especially if playing a demi-human.
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.

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 »

Speculation is that 6e will be more VTT oriented/based; said speculation being fueled by their buy up of D&D Beyond. Also, saying that it will be "an evolution in gaming not seen before" strongly hints as some core changes in mechanics or such. I live a few hours south of WotC HQ, or what was in the 90's in the UW District of Seattle...and how they've let the on-site gaming premises sort of decay (last time was there a half-dozen years ago) doesn't fill me with the warm fuzzies at all.
"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: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 5:09 pm
Speculation is that 6e will be more VTT oriented/based; said speculation being fueled by their buy up of D&D Beyond. Also, saying that it will be "an evolution in gaming not seen before" strongly hints as some core changes in mechanics or such.
But was there an announcement from WotC / Hasbro to that effect? If so where is it? Or is just people making inferences?

Saying "evolution" is actually vague. "Evolution" could suggest small steps. 2nd Ed AD&D was an evolution of 1st Ed, but the two were very interchangable. Now had they added an "r", for "revolution in gaming", that would certainly imply some major changes.


-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 »

it was announced during a livestream of its D&D Celebration event in Sept 2021; both confirming that it would launch in 2024 to mark the 50th anniversary of D&D in 1974 and 10 yrs since 5th ed.; It was furthermore quoted as being an evolution with an article published in Wargamer.

Is that what you're looking for?
"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: 1439
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 6:49 pm
it was announced during a livestream of its D&D Celebration event in Sept 2021; both confirming that it would launch in 2024 to mark the 50th anniversary of D&D in 1974 and 10 yrs since 5th ed.; It was furthermore quoted as being an evolution with an article published in Wargamer.

Is that what you're looking for?
Yeah, just checking how recent the news was (making sure i didn't miss something in the last couple weeks). It sounds like it's the same annoucement where i heard it would be "compatible" with 5e with changes based on on community feedback. (See https://www.ign.com/articles/dnd-6e-announcement )

To me, it reads like it would be more of an interim revision, a 5.5e so to speak. But I too suspect there will be a strong VTT component as part of it.


-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:
Mon May 23, 2022 7:17 pm
Go0gleplex wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 6:49 pm
it was announced during a livestream of its D&D Celebration event in Sept 2021; both confirming that it would launch in 2024 to mark the 50th anniversary of D&D in 1974 and 10 yrs since 5th ed.; It was furthermore quoted as being an evolution with an article published in Wargamer.

Is that what you're looking for?
Yeah, just checking how recent the news was (making sure i didn't miss something in the last couple weeks). It sounds like it's the same annoucement where i heard it would be "compatible" with 5e with changes based on on community feedback. (See https://www.ign.com/articles/dnd-6e-announcement )

To me, it reads like it would be more of an interim revision, a 5.5e so to speak. But I too suspect there will be a strong VTT component as part of it.


-FIzz
I don't mind VTT as long as it's an accessory to the game and not baked-in. Same with mats and minis

Post Reply