Players Guide to Aihrde

[Grandpa]

Oh the optional non-weapon proficiency skills in 2nd Ed. Almost unused except for the secondary skill list like in 1st Ed. So no 5Es skill system wouldn't make it more like the original game.

[Kayolan]

Oh the optional non-weapon proficiency skills in 2nd Ed. Almost unused except for the secondary skill list like in 1st Ed. So no 5Es skill system wouldn't make it more like the original game.

I agree. I think that skills belong out of C&C except for secondary skills which I allow.

[Fizz]

Oh the optional non-weapon proficiency skills in 2nd Ed. Almost unused except for the secondary skill list like in 1st Ed. So no 5Es skill system wouldn't make it more like the original game.

Except that non-weapon proficiencies were in 1st ed. They were not almost unused- if they were they wouldn't have made it into 2nd ed at all, much less become a significant part of 2nd ed and every supplement. Heck, the Birthright setting had a new class that was entirely based on non-weapon proficiencies.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

I agree. I think that skills belong out of C&C except for secondary skills which I allow.

In effect, i'm saying that adding any skill system makes C&C more like the AD&D, because AD&D did have a system, whether its secondary skills or nonweapon proficiencies. And in the spirit of a "modern mechanic", the one to add would be 5e's system.

But again, i don't think this is a good idea. I don't want to encourage anyone to do it.


-Fizz

[Kayolan]

I agree. I think that skills belong out of C&C except for secondary skills which I allow.

In effect, i'm saying that adding any skill system makes C&C more like the AD&D, because AD&D did have a system, whether its secondary skills or nonweapon proficiencies. And in the spirit of a "modern mechanic", the one to add would be 5e's system.

But again, i don't think this is a good idea. I don't want to encourage anyone to do it.


-Fizz

I think the Siege Engine is superior to anything that 5e offers, it's far more simple and fun to work with than what I've seen of 5e mechanics.

[Fizz]

I think the Siege Engine is superior to anything that 5e offers, it's far more simple and fun to work with than what I've seen of 5e mechanics.

Agreed. Exactly why i'd not recommend combining. One could, but i wouldn't.

-Fizz

[Go0gleplex]

Yup. C&C is pretty much unbreakable as is...until one starts intentionally introducing volatile ambiguities that have no other result BUT breaking it. Hence my stance about tweaking within the existing framework of the system rather than twisting and warping it into something other than the game it is.

If one feels so strongly unhappy with what the game is that this is the only recourse to be happy with it...then maybe it's best to indeed go play something else that is more personally satisfying. Not a slam...just an observation based on seeing the same dance routine done with multiple systems over the past 40+ years...all inevitably having ended in either a mess, someone declaring a feud, or simply a LOT of mutual animosity within the players at hand as things imploded for one reason or other, such as someone's rule tweak was ignored for a different one, inconsistencies between rule adaptions that created contradictions in the GM's adjudications, unsustainable power creep, and so forth. C&C and 5e are like oil and water. Fine to compare...just don't expect them to mix well if at all.

[paladinn]

Yup. C&C is pretty much unbreakable as is...until one starts intentionally introducing volatile ambiguities that have no other result BUT breaking it. Hence my stance about tweaking within the existing framework of the system rather than twisting and warping it into something other than the game it is.

If one feels so strongly unhappy with what the game is that this is the only recourse to be happy with it...then maybe it's best to indeed go play something else that is more personally satisfying. Not a slam...just an observation based on seeing the same dance routine done with multiple systems over the past 40+ years...all inevitably having ended in either a mess, someone declaring a feud, or simply a LOT of mutual animosity within the players at hand as things imploded for one reason or other, such as someone's rule tweak was ignored for a different one, inconsistencies between rule adaptions that created contradictions in the GM's adjudications, unsustainable power creep, and so forth. C&C and 5e are like oil and water. Fine to compare...just don't expect them to mix well if at all.

The people at Troll Lord - the people that, um, wrote the game? - obviously feel differently. Your problem is with them.

[paladinn]

I agree. I think that skills belong out of C&C except for secondary skills which I allow.

In effect, i'm saying that adding any skill system makes C&C more like the AD&D, because AD&D did have a system, whether its secondary skills or nonweapon proficiencies. And in the spirit of a "modern mechanic", the one to add would be 5e's system.

But again, i don't think this is a good idea. I don't want to encourage anyone to do it.


-Fizz

I think the Siege Engine is superior to anything that 5e offers, it's far more simple and fun to work with than what I've seen of 5e mechanics.

I agree, which is why C&C is my game of choice. But I think the suggestions from Troll Lord's PGA have merit. It's fine playing as-is; but if someone wants to embellish, there are good guidelines. Even if one only applies them to the Fighter class, it can go a long way to enhance what has been widely considered mediocre at best.

[Kayolan]

I agree. I think that skills belong out of C&C except for secondary skills which I allow.

In effect, i'm saying that adding any skill system makes C&C more like the AD&D, because AD&D did have a system, whether its secondary skills or nonweapon proficiencies. And in the spirit of a "modern mechanic", the one to add would be 5e's system.

But again, i don't think this is a good idea. I don't want to encourage anyone to do it.


-Fizz

I think the Siege Engine is superior to anything that 5e offers, it's far more simple and fun to work with than what I've seen of 5e mechanics.

I agree, which is why C&C is my game of choice. But I think the suggestions from Troll Lord's PGA have merit. It's fine playing as-is; but if someone wants to embellish, there are good guidelines. Even if one only applies them to the Fighter class, it can go a long way to enhance what has been widely considered mediocre at best.

Nothing wrong with mining other systems for ideas, C&C is easily adaptable. I think there's just a lot of apprehensiveness towards 5e here at the forums. Perhaps some reorganization is needed; a 5e subforum added, because technically this is the Castles & Crusades area of the boards. We have a General Discussion area for other games already but I think that since TLG is producing 5e content it should have it's own area here at the forums.

[Fizz]

Nothing wrong with mining other systems for ideas, C&C is easily adaptable. I think there's just a lot of apprehensiveness towards 5e here at the forums. Perhaps some reorganization is needed; a 5e subforum added, because technically this is the Castles & Crusades area of the boards. We have a General Discussion area for other games already but I think that since TLG is producing 5e content it should have it's own area here at the forums.

Yes, adaptability i think is one of the best things of C&C: d20 stuff can be added, but so can earlier editions, relatively easily. Not many (any?) other systems have that flexibility.

The initial post was about integrating 5e stuff into C&C. So i think this was the proper sub-forum to use.

I do get the apprehensiveness to 5e. I"m not a fan of the system either. But i don't understand the vitriol. It's just a game.


-FIzz

[paladinn]

So case in point.. Fighters in C&C get 3 class abilities throughout their career: Weapon specialization, Combat Dominance and one Extra Attack at L10. Combat Dominance is at best a poor-man's Cleave, only working on characters < x HD and only a limited number of times. Then according to the CKG, after L12 they get a Battlespace ability and Shield Blow. Both of those honestly seem pretty contrived and thrown-together. "Ok, what if they get past L12?? We need to give them something!"

Levels 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15 and 18 are "dead" levels. They get nada. Not even Combat Dominance. Normally I don't care for the "no dead levels" mindset, but this stands out even more in a mediocre class. I think giving fighters a couple skills (as in PGA) or even a feat every now and then or 1 or 2 ASI's could help.

No one is talking about going full-blown 5e or even 3e. I just think there are instances that would lend themselves to the boost.

[Go0gleplex]

I think part of the 5e vitriol is that it is a game that panders to the lazy type instant gratification no risk players. Another part is how it has sort of adopted the same marketing scheme as the Evil Empire (GW)...not that 5e will matter much since 6e is due out within the next 18-24 months if the scuttlebutt reported about their internal memos is to believed. (shrug)

[Fizz]

So case in point.. Fighters in C&C get 3 class abilities throughout their career: Weapon specialization, Combat Dominance and one Extra Attack at L10. Combat Dominance is at best a poor-man's Cleave, only working on characters < x HD and only a limited number of times. Then according to the CKG, after L12 they get a Battlespace ability and Shield Blow. Both of those honestly seem pretty contrived and thrown-together. "Ok, what if they get past L12?? We need to give them something!"

Levels 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15 and 18 are "dead" levels. They get nada. Not even Combat Dominance. Normally I don't care for the "no dead levels" mindset, but this stands out even more in a mediocre class. I think giving fighters a couple skills (as in PGA) or even a feat every now and then or 1 or 2 ASI's could help.

This isn't strictly true. Fighters get a +1 to hit at every level, no other character gets that. (Other warriors don't have +1 at 1st level.) But discounting that, most classes have "dead" levels, so it's not unique to the fighter.

I would also not characterize the fighter as "mediocre". They are the best overall combatant, strong in any situation. Other warrior types have tradeoffs; better in some situations but less so in others.

I don't know anything about 5e PGA, so i can't comment on what might be suitable for C&C. Did you have something in mind?

However i have found you can quickly houserule a couple things for the fighter to fill in those gaps without upsetting the class. The easiest is to give an extra half-attack at 5th level (for 3/2 attacks per round). And maybe at 7th you start allowing for extra or double specialization, and maybe at 8th increase the HD to which Combat Dominance applies could increase. And then above 10th each of these three can improve again. So just improving those 3 can provide an extra boost for a bunch of those "dead" levels.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

I was using the fighter as an example. They have seem to have more "dead levels" than others; and they definitely have fewer class abilities. Of all the classes I've seen discussed, they are the one that is most-often disparaged.

I think it's a balancing act.. Fighters from 0e to BX, even 2e, had fairly few class features. Then 3e comes along and fighters become the feat monsters.. Everything they got was a feat. PGA (And the CKG) give a framework for implementing feats/advantages/whatever; and the PGA suggests giving fighters 2 skills that would increase every few levels. I'd likely limit this to martial characters, maybe even to just fighters.

As for their existing abilities, I'm considering the following:

1. At least one and possibly 2 more straight-up extra attacks.

2. Swap out Combat dominance with Cleave: a fighter can make up to their level in attacks as long as their foes keep dropping. If they miss or a foe doesn't drop, the Cleave ends.

3. There are a lot of feats/advantages like Power Attack/ Smash that could greatly benefit a fighter. Same for Weapon Finesse for Dex fighters or Aim or some such for ranged fighters.

4. Currently the PHB allows one Weapon Specialization improvement before L12. The CKG allows 2 more after L12. I would give at least one more and spread them out through 20 levels.

Again, I would never want to go back to the 3e feat jungle. And 5e feats are way too powerful for a C&C game. But some happy medium might be good.

[Fizz]

These don't seem to be specific to PGA. They seems to be just variations on 3e feats. Ever since C&C was released people have experimented with feat-like benefits for fighters. There are a lot of fighter variations out there, including on these boards.

Fighters are potent enough; they don't need to do more damage. Moreover, I think adding more bonuses is kind of boring. It just reinforces the supposed one-dimensional nature of fighters. Give them something different.

What about options like formation fighting, or armor benefits, or knowledge of tactics / siegecraft? What's a better way for the difference between a lightly-armed rapier-wielding swordsman (Inigo Montoya) versus an ultra-strong basher (Little John) to be felt in play? 1st ed had weapon speeds and segments which helped with this (more attacks with quicker weapons), but C&C does not have such rules.

Check out Crusader #12 for some interesting easy-to-implement alternatives.


-Fizz

[paladinn]

These don't seem to be specific to PGA. They seems to be just variations on 3e feats. Ever since C&C was released people have experimented with feat-like benefits for fighters. There are a lot of fighter variations out there, including on these boards.

Fighters are potent enough; they don't need to do more damage. Moreover, I think adding more bonuses is kind of boring. It just reinforces the supposed one-dimensional nature of fighters. Give them something different.

What about options like formation fighting, or armor benefits, or knowledge of tactics / siegecraft? What's a better way for the difference between a lightly-armed rapier-wielding swordsman (Inigo Montoya) versus an ultra-strong basher (Little John) to be felt in play? 1st ed had weapon speeds and segments which helped with this (more attacks with a rapier than a two-handed sword), but C&C does not have such rules.

Check out Crusader #12 for some interesting easy-to-implement alternatives.


-Fizz

I wasn't suggesting to grab 5e feats. In fact PGA doesn't recommend it either; it suggests the prospect of using feats or advantages. But it's very clear that 5e-type feats are way too powerful.

1e did indeed have weapon speed and such, as well as weapon-vs-armor class. Of course back then, armor class actually referred as much to a type of armor as it's efficacy. If memory serves me, those things got dropped by 2e because they bogged down combat too much. I have no problem with something like weapon finesse for Dex-based fighters like Montoya, or power attack with a greatsword. I just don't want to bog things down overmuch. But nowadays, any hint of doing anything with bonuses is "boring."

Will check out Crusader 12. I honestly haven't been following any publications since Dragon went virtual.

Thanks!

[Fizz]

1e did indeed have weapon speed and such, as well as weapon-vs-armor class. Of course back then, armor class actually referred as much to a type of armor as it's efficacy. If memory serves me, those things got dropped by 2e because they bogged down combat too much.

2nd Ed did have weapon speeds, which only affected initiative. But in 1st ed there was a chance that a weapon sufficiently faster in comparison to the opponent's weapon could grant an extra attack. Dropping of speed factors was a mistake in later editions, imo.

I have no problem with something like weapon finesse for Dex-based fighters like Montoya, or power attack with a greatsword. I just don't want to bog things down overmuch. But nowadays, any hint of doing anything with bonuses is "boring."

I never liked that finesse required a feat. Supposedly the fighter is trained in the weapon, but yet he's using it the wrong way, so he needs more training? Ridiculous. It's purely a holdover from WotC's philosophy of "some rules change other rules", often just for the sake of changing them.

In my own house rules, some weapons are light, others are heavy. Light weapons use Dexterity rather than Strength. Some weapons can be used either way. No feats are required. With that little change light foppish fighters are made to feel very different from strong bruiser types.

Another idea: have specializiation provide different benefits. Why does every specialization have to grant +X to hit and damage? Maybe for ranged weapons it grants improved range categories. Maybe for light weapons it gives an extra half-attack. Maybe instead of specific weapons you specialize in a particular combat style (that's one of the ideas in Crusader #12).


-Fizz

[Go0gleplex]

I like that difference between heavy and light weapons = STR vs DEX. Seems like common sense, especially having used them in martial arts to a degree.

My group in the early 90's; Ranged weapons are a bit different. You have muscle powered vs mechanical in how they function. Crossbows are mechanical as are technically compound bows in that it is not the users arm that defines the pull strength but the parts of the weapon. Such weapons range is pretty much fixed based on pull strength limit of such. A really strong guy using either really makes no difference than a weaker person other than the strong guy might break the bow pulling it past its strength limit...and the crossbow doesn't even use the wielders strength other than reloading. As such, DEX is the primary attribute for these...and the specialization damage bonus would be more due to aim to something vital than impact...though I've ignored it for such myself and allowed an extra attack. Muscle powered aka thrown weapons that rely more on strength would get the benefit of better ranges and damage bonus but not necessarily the to hit bonus. Daggers, spears, chakram, etc. would fall into that category as would slings.

In 2nd ed using the weapon speeds...ambidexterity...and weapon specialization; a dagger oriented fighter could get up to 6 dagger attacks in the round vs a heavy swordsman...and do 10-20% more damage assuming all attacks hit. Which was one of the points of having weapon speed...to encourage a more mixed bag of fighter types vs just "Get big weapon to do most damage'.

[Fizz]

I like that difference between heavy and light weapons = STR vs DEX. Seems like common sense, especially having used them in martial arts to a degree.

That's what i always thought. I used EV as the delimiter. If EV=7-8 (if i recall, would have to look it up), then it can be used either way. Higher is a heavy weapon, lower is a light weapon.

My group in the early 90's; Ranged weapons are a bit different. You have muscle powered vs mechanical in how they function. Crossbows are mechanical as are technically compound bows in that it is not the users arm that defines the pull strength but the parts of the weapon. Such weapons range is pretty much fixed based on pull strength limit of such.

That is similar to how 2nd ed does it. For ranged attacks, Dexterity is used for the attacking, but does not give extra damage. However, if a bow is specifically designed for extra pull (strength bow), then the Strength modifier could be used for damage.

In 2nd ed using the weapon speeds...ambidexterity...and weapon specialization; a dagger oriented fighter could get up to 6 dagger attacks in the round vs a heavy swordsman...and do 10-20% more damage assuming all attacks hit. Which was one of the points of having weapon speed...to encourage a more mixed bag of fighter types vs just "Get big weapon to do most damage'.

In 2nd ed, weapon speeds don't give you more attacks. Weapon speed only applies to initiative. Specialization gives an extra 1/2 attack per round, and ups the rate of fire. So at high levels you could throw 6 daggers. But as far as melee goes the number of dagger attacks you can make is the same number of attacks as any other weapon.

Or was there was something in one of the expansions, Combat & Tactics perhaps? I am not as familiar with it.

-Fizz

[Go0gleplex]

It actually does allow for more attacks...it's just sneaky in how it does it...and it was a combination of the PHB and Skills & Powers I think rather than Combat Tactics which I didn't use much. It's been since '98 the last I looked at those books (which are in boxes currently so I can't go thru 'em). Essentially it was a thing where if the weapon speed was faster by X and you got a really good initiative roll with multiple attacks due to specialization, you could attack up to 3 times per weapon in how it divided thru the initiative round. The Ambidexterity on top of X weapon spec. negated the two weapon penalties completely. Sort of the precursor to the 3e Power Tripping mechanics and rules lawyering...but it was all legal and had its own bit of limitation on when it applied.

[Fizz]

It actually does allow for more attacks...it's just sneaky in how it does it...and it was a combination of the PHB and Skills & Powers I think rather than Combat Tactics which I didn't use much. It's been since '98 the last I looked at those books (which are in boxes currently so I can't go thru 'em). Essentially it was a thing where if the weapon speed was faster by X and you got a really good initiative roll with multiple attacks due to specialization, you could attack up to 3 times per weapon in how it divided thru the initiative round. The Ambidexterity on top of X weapon spec. negated the two weapon penalties completely. Sort of the precursor to the 3e Power Tripping mechanics and rules lawyering...but it was all legal and had its own bit of limitation on when it applied.

Well, your claim got me interested so i've been poking around the books. I played a lot of 2nd ed, and I still look at the PH regularly(ish), so i know it's definitely not in that book,

The only mention of speed factor i can find in Skills & Powers is for a two-handed specialtist (speed factor reduced by 3).

Now in Combat & Tactics, weapons are defined as being 'very fast', 'fast', 'normal', 'slow' or 'very slow', and each round is divided into phases. I haven't found anything that indicates that fast weapons can get more attacks in a round, it just seems to control when in the round it occurs,

So i'm quite skeptical of your claim, but if you can point me to it, i'd love to see it.

Though, looking through Combat & Tactics, there might be some interesting stuff that could be adapted as some new fighter class opiions: like the shield wall, and spear hedges. Both are very cooperative soldiery things that could be immediately applicable to fighters.


-Fizz

[Captain_K]

We used ADD DMG (in the 80s) and it had "PC Nonprofessional Skills" on page 12 that could be randomly rolled to get one or even two "secondary skills" for your character. So, the big guy was thinking about it right in the "beginning" and did it in a little way. We always rolled one of those hoping for armorer... it was more to just say "hey I can do this" but not sure how useful it ever was, always up to the DM.

In 2nd ed dnd it was skill heavy; I think Gary G was still in charge then? Or at least a big influence.

I like something simple between those two extremes to know if you can carry a tune on a mandolin without being a bard, drive an ox cart without being a knight, or farm turnups without being a druid.

The CKG has many optional rules, heck you could say the CnC CKG is not even core. But it has sections in Ch 18 that kind of get there. Table 18.1 is basically right out of the old DMG. We'll not discuss the advantages in the rest of that chapter.

We stretch our fantasy canvas over a frame of reality. We like to know the height, weight, age, and eye color of our PC. We like to know where they are from, what languages they speak. Can they write? Are they good spellers? What card games do they know? Are they good poker players? Are they frugal or happy buying rounds for the bar after a good day? Can they hold their ale? Heck, can they hold their urine! Seems logical to me, then by extension, all those little life skills one learns on the side, growing up, or outside your "profession" as a fighter, wizard, cleric, thief need to come to life, begging to be part of the PCs story.

[Grandpa]

In 2nd ed dnd it was skill heavy; I think Gary G was still in charge then? Or at least a big influence.

No Gary was forced out before and his plans for 2nd Ed were trashed. The next big RPG he helped design was C&C

[Fizz]

No Gary was forced out before and his plans for 2nd Ed were trashed. The next big RPG he helped design was C&C

Yep. that's correct. He left late 1986. He did a few things before C&C. But none were nearly as successful.

-Fizz

[Go0gleplex]

I'm looking for a new residence presently...but I'll dig into things once I am able to unpack stuff. I've half a dozen projects stuck in limbo as it is due to the racketeering housing market. The reason I know it's there is due to actually having my own character able to do that...and I was playing so much D&D then I practically had the books memorized verbatim. lol We played around 30-50 hours a week...though that dropped a bit after '96 when I was stuck working 140 hours a week for several months. *shudder* Stupid zoning moritoriums...

Dangerous Journeys and Legendary Adventures had a lot of buggy things in them and a few mechanics that, while interesting, turned many people off. Neither really brought much else different to the table from D&D either to really encourage anyone to switch from what was already known and popular.

[Captain_K]

Didn't the barbarian and the cavalier (similar to a knight) some out in Dragon Magazines before Unearthed Arcana? I recall the barbarian was loved by one group member who wanted to play it, the rest of us hated it. It had its own massive number of dice to roll and would not trust magic or magic items, well until later... we hated the thing.

[Grandpa]

Didn't the barbarian and the cavalier (similar to a knight) some out in Dragon Magazines before Unearthed Arcana?

If I remember it was Dragon Mags 63 & 72 respectively

[Go0gleplex]

Correct. Paladin Cavalier was my favorite class for years after that. The Cavalier that showed up in UA was nerfed a bit from the original Dragon mag. version however.

[Fizz]

Correct. Paladin Cavalier was my favorite class for years after that. The Cavalier that showed up in UA was nerfed a bit from the original Dragon mag. version however.

Yes, the barbarian first appeared as pc class (not counting a conan conversions done earlier) in Dragon #63 in 1982. The first cavalier was in Dragon #72 in 1983. Then of course UA was released in 1986.

But in 1989, Dragon #148 included major revisions to both the cavalier and barbarian, which removed the excesses of the UA version and brought them more into line with other AD&D classes. I think those are the best versions they ever did.


-Fizz