C&C Spells

[Relaxo]

LIke everyone says, we can always use OD&D, OAD&D, AD&D 2nd Ed, etc etc spells or anything else...

But are there any sources of "Official" C&C spells outside the PHB?

[serleran]

Not yet. Bowbe has something which should be coming soon, and I am working on something of my own, as well. Also, M&T II should have a few new spells in it, if it all goes in.

[Omote]

As serleran says, look for Casey Christopherson's Black Librem of Nartarus book due out sometime for the Hanuted Highlands setting... if that is indeed what the book is still called.
-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Moorcrys]

I look to the 2e wizard's and priest's spell compendium for C&C. You have to spread the 7 levels of priest spells over 9 levels, or simply replace the druid and cleric spell progression in C&C with the 1st edition ad&d progression (which is what I do, but definitely not everyone's choice).
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[phadeout]

Moorcrys wrote:
I look to the 2e wizard's and priest's spell compendium for C&C. You have to spread the 7 levels of priest spells over 9 levels, or simply replace the druid and cleric spell progression in C&C with the 1st edition ad&d progression (which is what I do, but definitely not everyone's choice).

+1

This is my recommendation too.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[Julian Grimm]

I have filled in the gaps with the SRD and some 3e stuff I have. Though modified.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Relaxo]

Cool.

sort of a thread-drift:

Anyone feel like posting any of thier home-made spells here?

[serleran]

Here are a couple:

Backbite (Druid 5): Select weapons composed primarily of wood, whether arrows or wood-hafted weapons such as a spear or lance, within the area of effect become lethal instruments against those who wield them. When any attack with such a weapon is made, the Armor Class of the wielder is used to determine a successful strike, rather than that of the intended victim. If the attack is successful, the wielder of the weapon suffers damage as normal, with all appropriate modifiers added. Dropping the affected weapon does not save the wielder, as the weapon animates the following round, and attacks the original wielder of the weapon as though it were still being used (attacks and damage are calculated as though the original being were still holding and attacking the weapon.) CT 1, R 30 feet, AoE 1 weapon / 2 levels (10 arrows count as 1 weapon) D 1 round / 3 levels, Sv None, SR No, Comp V, S, M (steel nail)

Bend Space (Wizard 4, Illusionist 3): An object affected by the application of this spell is physically capable of existing in two locations simultaneously. The object and its duplicate can be separated, but cannot go beyond 30 feet from one another or the spell is immediately ended. If one of the objects is moved, its duplicate is moved in the same manner. It is possible to attack with a weapon through this spell, but doing so incurs a -3 penalty and deals only the weapons base damage without modification, including that granted by magic. CT 1, R 30 feet, D 1 round/level, Sv None, SR No, Comp V, S, M (the object)

[Omote]

I think a great many people would like to see a Spell Compendium for Castles & Crusades (I know I would). But it doesn't have the be like the v3.5 book.

I would love to see just such a book that is COMPLETE. By that I mean have every spell description (even ones already in the PHB) codified and in one place. New spell lists, charts, an expanded, clarified and recapped section on arcane magic and how it works in C&C, including (but not limited to), Scrolls, potions, magic item creation, alternative versions of spells, etc, etc, etc. A book like this would rock.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[phadeout]

Omote wrote:
I think a great many people would like to see a Spell Compendium for Castles & Crusades (I know I would). But it doesn't have the be like the v3.5 book.

I would love to see just such a book that is COMPLETE. By that I mean have every spell description (even ones already in the PHB) codified and in one place. New spell lists, charts, an expanded, clarified and recapped section on arcane magic and how it works in C&C, including (but not limited to), Scrolls, potions, magic item creation, alternative versions of spells, etc, etc, etc. A book like this would rock.

-O

It would be cool to have Schools for spells added back in, along with Specialists - tho since Illusionists have their own list, it prolly wouldn't work.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[Omote]

prolly right. I think I remember hearing somewhere, maybe from Steve, Serl, or somebody else that spell schools in C&C were abolished pretty early on as a design choice.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

Yes, they were considered unnecessary. That does not, however, mean they cannot be implemented.

I still want to finish a project I started tentatively called Malleus Occulte.

[Moorcrys]

Since C&C embraces 1e as its inspiration, I would at least like to see versions of all of the 1st Edition spells from the PHB and UA make their appearance in C&C. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[Buttmonkey]

I would be happy just to get a complete set of spell descriptions where the spells are sorted by class and level rather than alphabetically. 1E got that part right.

[phadeout]

Buttmonkey wrote:
I would be happy just to get a complete set of spell descriptions where the spells are sorted by class and level rather than alphabetically. 1E got that part right.

YES, thank you. Sorting by level was sooooooo much easier.

I think the reason they dropped this is Spell Overlap (a 6th level wizard spell Might by a 5th level Illusionist spell or even a 7th level Druid spell).

But I still like the "sorted by spell level". If the spell appears on more than one list, then when you get to that spell it should just say "see Page XXX for spell description". It wouldn't happen enough to be an issue...
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[Moorcrys]

I really appreciated Peter/the Trolls adding the page numbers to the spell-list pages in the 2nd+ printing. Very worthwhile addition.

As I said though, I've gone back to 1e spells and spell progression tables for C&C, with selected added spells pulled from the wizards and priests spell compendium, particularly 'domain' spells granted by each of the deities to their worshippers in my campaign world. I'm going through and adding appropriate Saving Throw Attributes and tweaking a few spells that I've always been a bit bugged by but otherwise it's pretty much dropped into my game in place of the current spell-list.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[Julian Grimm]

No Spell Schools and no specialist casters is possibly the one thing that I think I can honestly say I don't like about C&C and only one of two things I would say TLG did wrong. I think that this was one thing 2e did better than 1e and it should have been something C&C adopted. However, it was easily fixable as was the 'gaps' in the spell lists from the SRD distillation of C&C.

One thing I would pay for from TLG is a book that puts spell schools in, adds specialists and fills in the gaps in the lists. Also new spells would be nice but not necessary for a sale.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Moorcrys]

I actually loathed the specialist wizards in 2e -- they butchered the illusionist for one thing and ruined the theme of the class. Spells on the illusionist that were balanced for one casting class progression were thrown willy-nilly into the wizard's spell list and the illusionist, which was a theme that encompassed much more than simply casting 'illusion/phantasms', became much narrower in focus. There was nothing special about them to my mind,-- they got an extra spell per level and a minor bonus to saving throws. On top of it, the barred school system didn't make any sense to me -- some specialists were severely penalized while others were not.

That being said, I wouldn't mind enchanters, conjurers, necromancers, etc. as separate classes. I just didn't like how 2e did it.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[serleran]

Well, if I ever get to it, my MO will have such things.

[Treebore]

I never liked "specialty wizards". To me specializing is a frame of mind, not a class frame work.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Storm Queen]

I love alphabetical spell lists. It makes things so easier, especially with the overlap between classes...
_________________
Visit the Castles & Crusades wiki!
http://castlesandcrusades.wikispaces.com/

[Moorcrys]

serleran wrote:
Well, if I ever get to it, my MO will have such things.

Woohoo!

In the meantime, more monsters Serl. More more more.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[serleran]

Steve has the 'script for M&T II... or, my part of it.

[Aladar]

serleran,

Speaking of M&T II, is it going to have any devils or demons? Or are those going to be in the future "Gods & Whatever" manual?
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

[serleran]

Some fiends in M&T II and a thing similar to the "beings of the lower planes" from AD&D. You won't find named demons, though.

Which reminds me... must get that finished.

[phadeout]

Treebore wrote:
I never liked "specialty wizards". To me specializing is a frame of mind, not a class frame work.

I guess I liked them because it gave the wizard more options (at least for Second Edition). The Clerics had their Specialty Priests, plus the Druid. I would have found the Wizard lack luster if not for the Specialists. I also didn't mind how they were done because most people didn't use them, so they were rare. I.E. It was rare to ever see a Conjurer or Evoker running around.

I liked the Specialists from Spells and Powers (think that was the name of the Options book) which were a little different. These included the Alchemist (bonus to making Potions), Artificer (bonus to magic item creation) and Geomancer (I think this one was for Scroll creation). The Options books also better balanced the Specialists by giving the weaker ones a few extra bonuses over the more powerful ones - like how Abjurers got a +1 to AC, and specialists in general all had a few little things added to them which I think made them more viable in relation to the regular Wizard.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[adaen]

I also very much like the idea of specialist wizards. I'm not sure the "school" method is the way to go however. I think constructing specialist classes in the line of the Illusionist might be a better path (at least for me).

Another thought would be to include staples like "Fire-mage" or the Bard Games "Sorcerer" (not the 3E sorcerer, but a Force Mage of sorts).

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Treebore]

phadeout wrote:
I guess I liked them because it gave the wizard more options (at least for Second Edition). The Clerics had their Specialty Priests, plus the Druid. I would have found the Wizard lack luster if not for the Specialists. I also didn't mind how they were done because most people didn't use them, so they were rare. I.E. It was rare to ever see a Conjurer or Evoker running around.

I liked the Specialists from Spells and Powers (think that was the name of the Options book) which were a little different. These included the Alchemist (bonus to making Potions), Artificer (bonus to magic item creation) and Geomancer (I think this one was for Scroll creation). The Options books also better balanced the Specialists by giving the weaker ones a few extra bonuses over the more powerful ones - like how Abjurers got a +1 to AC, and specialists in general all had a few little things added to them which I think made them more viable in relation to the regular Wizard.

See my problem with the "Specialist" Wizards was that I already had them in my games. I guess this is because I have always gone "beyond the rules". For instance, I had a guy who wanted to play a Necromancer. We decided to have him start doing a lot of research into these specialized spells, which made him unique. I also had him show exceptional proficiency by allowing him to create undead with higher HP's, an extra HD, and a few other things I forget now.

So rather than create "specialists" I would rather have seen suggestions for allowing your players to earn customized specialization through how they play their character. I guess that is why I adapted feats into my C&C the way I did.

Like in my C&C system, they can make SIEGE checks to create "special effects". So if a player wanted their PC to become a Battle Mage they can actually learn to do so by making SIEGE checks to maximize spell damage, increase area of effects, etc... Once they succeed "X" number of times I allow them to do these things without making a SIEGE check. So they become "specialized".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[adaen]

Tree, I like your approach. You sound like you're a hell of a GM (and I like GMing in a similar fashion). I think that many people like a little more structure and control of what their character can do (though certainly not all). Many people like to have a good understanding of "what is possible" without having to consult the GM.

I guess its just playing styles. I can roll with it either way personally.

Best,

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[phadeout]

adaen wrote:
I also very much like the idea of specialist wizards. I'm not sure the "school" method is the way to go however. I think constructing specialist classes in the line of the Illusionist might be a better path (at least for me).

Another thought would be to include staples like "Fire-mage" or the Bard Games "Sorcerer" (not the 3E sorcerer, but a Force Mage of sorts).

~AoB

The problem with the 1E or C&C way of doing Illusionists, is that they now have their "own" spells. They can't intermingle with normal wizards or even use the same spell books. I find that annoying. It would be 7x as worse, if you added in the other Specialists. They would each need their own spells lists and such.

2E fixed that with Schools. I also liked Schools because it gave spell groups that could be manipulated through magic items and other effects (like a Ring that gives you +2 to Save. Vs. all Alteration magic or something).

Yes, Specialists can also be handled as Treebore mentioned, but hey, I don't think we'll ever C&C speciliasts so we each need to house rule as we see fit.

Luckily, I think I'll be using the 2E spell lists from now on, and that makes it easy to use schools too.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault