[Castles & Crusades] Dumb Fighter Problem

[La Maupin]

Those of us who remember older editions of AD&D (particularly without the Player's Option books) might remember this one, and here's a question I wonder about C&C:

What does C&C do about the "Dumb Fighter" problem? It seems that mechanically, there's not much interesting about fighters in C&C.

Are there any particular rewards for playing a fighter in C&C? Or is it just move and bash until combat's over?

[Ahnirades]

Well they're easily the best at cutting their foes to ribbons, which I like.

Further characterisation is achieved via Prime selection, just as for any other class.

[Spinachcat]

C&C solved the Dumb Fighter Problem in a magnificent way. Since you can choose your extra Prime Attribute, you can easily make a Wis or Int or Cha one of your primes to make a wise or smart or charming Fighter.

Also, C&C combat is very open, so if your GM agrees to give you some mechanical bonus for stunts or descriptions, then BLAMMO you got a bonus.

Personally, the Dumb Fighter Problem only exists if you let players choose their stats. If you just roll the ability scores down the line, you get MUCH more interesting characters. Yeah, they may not be "mechanically best", but neither are real people.

[joewolz]

I was ging to post something brilliant, but Spinachcat beat me to it.

[Inkpot]

What makes a fighter interesting to play is the same as with any other class: the person behind the character. If you're looking strictly at numbers, etc. to give a character notoriety, you're only playing half of the game.

Some of my best and most memorable characters had the weakest stats. Roleplay that fighter! :)



Ink

[La Maupin]

What makes a fighter interesting to play is the same as with any other class: the person behind the character. If you're looking strictly at numbers, etc. to give a character notoriety, you're only playing half of the game.

Some of my best and most memorable characters had the weakest stats. Roleplay that fighter! :)



Ink
I love the shiny ;) That's all I gotta say.

[Christopher V. Brady]

What makes a fighter interesting to play is the same as with any other class: the person behind the character. If you're looking strictly at numbers, etc. to give a character notoriety, you're only playing half of the game.

Some of my best and most memorable characters had the weakest stats. Roleplay that fighter! :)



Ink

But mechanically, there's nothing that makes him interesting?

I mean this is good advice. But you can do that with ANY archetype/class. What I'm curious about, is there any mechanics that makes him unique, whether it's his fighting style or abilities?

[weasel fierce]

He gets multiple swings and specialization.

Keeping in mind how abstract C&C combat is, representing specific fighting styles might not be a good idea, but if you wish, you could easily port in some basic 3.x feats or whatever

Ultimately though, the fighter is going to be as unique as a knight or bard. They each have their abilities and strengths.

[cheeplives]

But mechanically, there's nothing that makes him interesting?

I mean this is good advice. But you can do that with ANY archetype/class. What I'm curious about, is there any mechanics that makes him unique, whether it's his fighting style or abilities?

Sort of... depends on what you mean by "interesting". The selection of Primes makes a mechanical difference and allows for variance in a Fighter.

Take three Human fighters... they all take Sword for their Weapon Specialty, but they have the following stats:
Egon
St: 12 (Prime)
De: 13
Co: 10
In: 15 (Prime)
Wi: 14 (Prime)
Ch: 8

Ray
St: 12 (Prime)
De: 13
Co: 10 (Prime)
In: 15
Wi: 14
Ch: 8 (Prime)

Peter
St: 15 (Prime)
De: 12
Co: 13
In: 10
Wi: 8 (Prime)
Ch: 14 (Prime)

Egon and Ray have the same stats, and Peter has the same numbers in a different order. So that makes them a bit mechanically different from one another, at least Peter is Different from Ray and Egon. Now, looking at their Prime Selection, we see even more differentiation... They all share Strength as a Prime, since they're all Fighters, but Peter has a slight edge due to his 15 Str vs. their 12. Since the Prime effectively gives the character a +6 to all checks that fall into the realm of that ability (outside of combat, that is), this gives us lots of options.

Look at Charisma... Peter is naturally smooth (Cha 14) and has also honed those charisma skills (Cha Prime), while Ray is kind of a doofus (8 Cha) but a loveable one (Cha Prime). Meanwhile, Egon is wise (14 Wis) and well versed at using his wisdom to his advantage (Wis Prime). On the other hand, Peter is rather oblivious (Wis 8) but lucky (Wis Prime). And while they're all about the same on an endurance scale, Ray has quite a bit more reserves (Con Prime), even Peter who has a naturally higher constitution (Con 13 vs Con 10).

Does that help?

[ShanG]

I'm not sure the original poster was referring so much to mechanical differentiation between fighters as to the lack of interesting options that they seem to have.

It's not just that fighters often have low intelligence stats, it's that fighters are percieved as the simplest and easiest character to play - as well as the least thought intensive. I've been in many parties where the group says 'stick the new guy with the fighter because he doesn't know enough to play anything else.' Then he just stands there dumbly and swings his sword over and over, while other characters are doing all sorts of interesting things like casting spells or using sneak attacks or whatever.

[Christopher V. Brady]

I'm not sure the original poster was referring so much to mechanical differentiation between fighters as to the lack of interesting options that they seem to have.

It's not just that fighters often have low intelligence stats, it's that fighters are percieved as the simplest and easiest character to play - as well as the least thought intensive. I've been in many parties where the group says 'stick the new guy with the fighter because he doesn't know enough to play anything else.' Then he just stands there dumbly and swings his sword over and over, while other characters are doing all sorts of interesting things like casting spells or using sneak attacks or whatever.

And that is what I was asking about. Now, I admit to being not very tactically minded, but I would like something that makes me 'feel' different outside of just 'swing the sword, swing the sword'.

[JohnDeHope3]

In the game I am playing, I had to make two characters. I made a dwarven fighter. On paper, he is a dwarven fighter. Whatever.

But consider his relationship with the other character. This other guy's a nasty gnome sorceror with a rank in disguise and intimidate. He's gone into hiding, and is dressing up in drag as a female dwarf with an attitude like molten lead.

The fighter character has fallen in "love" with her and can't get enough of being bossed around like a red headed stepchild. The gnome figures that you can have worse hangers-on, so he's keeping up the ruse. The dwarf fighter has taken to calling him "dear" and "me wife" but there's nothing official... yet.

What dumb fighter problem???

Incidently #1: I can't recall either of their stats at all, except that the gnome has a high charisma.

Incidently #2: I haven't run this by my GM yet, I hope he lets me play it!

[La Maupin]

In the game I am playing, I had to make two characters. I made a dwarven fighter. On paper, he is a dwarven fighter. Whatever.

But consider his relationship with the other character. This other guy's a nasty gnome sorceror with a rank in disguise and intimidate. He's gone into hiding, and is dressing up in drag as a female dwarf with an attitude like molten lead.

The fighter character has fallen in "love" with her and can't get enough of being bossed around like a red headed stepchild. The gnome figures that you can have worse hangers-on, so he's keeping up the ruse. The dwarf fighter has taken to calling him "dear" and "me wife" but there's nothing official... yet.

What dumb fighter problem???

Incidently #1: I can't recall either of their stats at all, except that the gnome has a high charisma.

Incidently #2: I haven't run this by my GM yet, I hope he lets me play it!
The "Dumb Fighter Problem" is an issue from older editions of D&D: Since a fighter's prime requisite attribute is strength, and since there are relatively few melee combat maneuvers in the older editions of the game, there tended to be little for fighter characters to do, mechanically, other than move and attack every round, and their mentals tended to be less than sterling (especially if one did the 3d6 all-the-way-down rolling method, where a fighter was simply the character of last resort if one's stats weren't good enough to do anything else), reducing the amount that a fighter could effectively do out of combat.

3.x D&D addresses this by adding feats and increasing the complexity of melee maneuvering (adding things like attacks of opportunity and flanking); I'm interested to know how C&C addresses it.

[weasel fierce]

Attacks of opportunity and flanking have nothing to do with playing a fighter though. They're the same across the board.

There's a few interesting options in the book, as far as disarming, overbearing and all that, but generally, D&D combat pretty much IS about hacking the other guy in the face till he dies.

The fighter already gets multiple attacks (him and the monk being the only guys in the game to do so, and he gets it with weapons), and good overall combat abilities. Specialization means he'll do extra damage too. That IS his "thing".

A ranger, a paladin and a fighter in melee against a bunch of dark elves or whatever are all going to do the same thing. Stand and hack the other guy in the face. Thats how D&D combat works.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Attacks of opportunity and flanking have nothing to do with playing a fighter though. They're the same across the board.

There's a few interesting options in the book, as far as disarming, overbearing and all that, but generally, D&D combat pretty much IS about hacking the other guy in the face till he dies.

The fighter already gets multiple attacks (him and the monk being the only guys in the game to do so, and he gets it with weapons), and good overall combat abilities. Specialization means he'll do extra damage too. That IS his "thing".

A ranger, a paladin and a fighter in melee against a bunch of dark elves or whatever are all going to do the same thing. Stand and hack the other guy in the face. Thats how D&D combat works.

SO like AD&D the fighting men in this version of the Game plateau at level 3 and you are forced to Roleplay it?

So much for my interest in it. Thank you for answering the questions.

[La Maupin]

Attacks of opportunity and flanking have nothing to do with playing a fighter though. They're the same across the board.

There's a few interesting options in the book, as far as disarming, overbearing and all that, but generally, D&D combat pretty much IS about hacking the other guy in the face till he dies.
Technically, feats have nothing to do with playing a fighter, either. But if you read the way the rules are written, it's pretty clear that fighters gain the most from them, far and away - and not just because they get more of them.

[cheeplives]

SO like AD&D the fighting men in this version of the Game plateau at level 3 and you are forced to Roleplay it?

So much for my interest in it. Thank you for answering the questions.

No... you get Combat Dominance attacks at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th. This gives you an additional attack vs. any creature with 1d4 or 1d6 hit dice. This only applies to melee weapons and does not stack with the Extra Attack option.

You gain an extra attack with all weapons at 10th level.

Your Weapon Specialization increases at 7th level as well.

I'm not sure what you're looking for... weapon styles? special combat related feats? Combat maneuvers? No, none of those exist... but could be added by any GM that wishes to... but no version of D&D ever had particularly glorious combat options that I can remember... this does stagger out some abilities for the Fighter of higher levels... but the fighter in C&C has the benefit of one of the fastest Experience Point progressions, great combat abilities, and the d10 hit die..

[kelro]

From my play experience so far, the fighter is mechanically the best at, well, fighting. It is the only class that starts out with a bonus to hit, and it goes up every level from there, so the class always retains the highest bonus to hit at each level. They start out specialized in their choice of weapon, giving them a further +1 to hit and damage, again unique to the class. Then at 10th level they get an extra attack, being the only class that receives this benefit.

In the low-level play we have done so far, the fighter has stood above the other characters in damage dished out in melee combat, plus being a viable tank. I cant comment on mid to high-level play however, we havent got there yet.

[La Maupin]

No... you get Combat Dominance attacks at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th. This gives you an additional attack vs. any creature with 1d4 or 1d6 hit dice. This only applies to melee weapons and does not stack with the Extra Attack option.
So you get an extra attack against things that should go down in one hit anyway? Sounds... um... useful. Only not.

[Unseenlibrarian]

So you get an extra attack against things that should go down in one hit anyway? Sounds... um... useful. Only not.


I expect it works like the old 1E D&D less-than-one-hit die monster rule or 3E cleave: You get an extra attack vs. another punk monster.

[Ahnirades]

In the low-level play we have done so far, the fighter has stood above the other characters in damage dished out in melee combat, plus being a viable tank. I cant comment on mid to high-level play however, we havent got there yet.

I'm toying with the idea for a houserule that may even things out at high levels a little.

All character classes get a damage bonus equal to half their attack bonus, rounded down.

Classes with Sneak Attack or Favored Enemy variants choose which damage bonus will be applied if the circumstances fit. So a Ranger couldn't stack his +1 damage per level vs. humanoids with it.

It's a quick way of letting the fighting classes compete with 10th level fireballs and the like. And the Fighter with his earlier Attack progression retains his edge.

[cheeplives]

So you get an extra attack against things that should go down in one hit anyway? Sounds... um... useful. Only not.

Except, you know, you can kill more of them... in one round... kinda like Cleave...

I guess C&C just isn't for you. I'm not sure if basing a choice for a game off of a single class is the best policy, but if it works for you, by all means go for it. C&C is a game directly inspired by older versions of D&D. And while it has some of the trappings of older styles of fantasy games, it has some very interesting elements to it (like the Primes system, how every stat gets saves associated with it, how it handles monsters, internally consistant Experience point progressions, etc.). Unfortunately, its adherance to "old school" values might turn some people off.

It just depends on how you look at it... since almost every other class has some kind of restriction to combat, you could really say that the Fighters are the ones with the *most* options in combat.

Fighters in C&C are the best at fighting.. they have more options in combat in the fact that they have the best chances to hit, they have the most weapon and armor options, and they get extra attacks and damage bonuses... no other class can really compare to them across the board in combat (only the Ranger really comes close, and then only against humanoids). Beyond its purely combat focused feats, they don't have any other bells and whistles, but they can do more in a combat round than any of the other classes when it comes to making physical attacks. Sure, the Rogue can sneak attack, or the Assassin can make a Instant death attack, but beyond those options, their combat options are severely limited (poor base to hit, poor hit points and limited weapon/armor selections).

Of course, this doesn't seem to be what you are looking for... then again, I'm not entirely sure I understand what it is you are exactly looking for. I'm sure there are some house rules that could easily be added to C&C to get the flavor you want... Can you give an example of a system that does emulate what you are looking for well?

[Nelzie]

And that is what I was asking about. Now, I admit to being not very tactically minded, but I would like something that makes me 'feel' different outside of just 'swing the sword, swing the sword'.

Then don't play the fighter.

In many C&C campaigns, "feat" like abilities are and can quickly be whipped up in the SIEGE system and you are only limited by your imagination.

I have heard of one that a Dwarf fighter uses in one campaign that allows him to barrel his way through an enemy, flipping that enemy up and over him using his shield in order to break an enemy line to get at some target behind the line he wants to hit. Failure causes the Dwarf to be overbeared or open to a flanking attack by the target the Dwarf was trying to flip. The Prime to check against in that campaign is either Str for large or strong opponents or Dex for nimble opponents.

I have one for power attacks that will double damage on a succesful hit, but eat up the character's next action and can only be used once every 5 rounds. Another guy has a "Cleave" that uses one damage roll that rolls from one target to the next, upon a succesful strike, if there is damage left over from killing the first target.

[Nelzie]

So you get an extra attack against things that should go down in one hit anyway? Sounds... um... useful. Only not.

Except for when, you know, the story involves fighting through an enemy army and your fighter is able to mow down just as many foes in one round as the party wizard does with a spell...

Then it's cool and fun to have.

[Harlekin]

Attacks of opportunity and flanking have nothing to do with playing a fighter though. They're the same across the board.

There's a few interesting options in the book, as far as disarming, overbearing and all that, but generally, D&D combat pretty much IS about hacking the other guy in the face till he dies.

The fighter already gets multiple attacks (him and the monk being the only guys in the game to do so, and he gets it with weapons), and good overall combat abilities. Specialization means he'll do extra damage too. That IS his "thing".

A ranger, a paladin and a fighter in melee against a bunch of dark elves or whatever are all going to do the same thing. Stand and hack the other guy in the face. Thats how D&D combat works.

Except, of course 3.x, where you do always have quite a few options (although hacking the other guy in the face may often be the best of them).

[Christopher V. Brady]

Then don't play the fighter.

I have always hated the Magic system, rogues are cute, but rather fragile, and what does that leave me?

[Bradford C. Walker]

The healbot that can make icky dead things go away?

[weasel fierce]

The bard, who is nicely badass in C&C

[The Venomous Pao]

I have always hated the Magic system, rogues are cute, but rather fragile, and what does that leave me?

The available classes are: <strike>Fighter</strike>, Ranger, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Knight, Bard, <strike>Rogue</strike>, Assassin, Barbarian, Monk, <strike>Wizard</strike>, <strike>Illusionist</strike>

And if you draw upon the absolutely wonderful Netbook of Classes (http://www.geocities.com/legendsoftheland/netbookofclasses.pdf) you've got 15 more well-constructed classes to choose from. Some of them are even quite rich in flavor and combat possibilities.

Or you could just not worry about it and go play another game.

[Nelzie]

I have always hated the Magic system, rogues are cute, but rather fragile, and what does that leave me?

It leaves you as someone who probably shouldn't bother playing C&C using just the core rules of the game. (Besides that, if you really hate the magic system, you probably shouldn't be playing any game in the D&D lineage, since they are literally filled to the brim with that magic system you hate.)

The simplicity of the system is not a failure in the system as it is designed and recomended to be houseruled to fit the needs of the group looking to play the game. The simplicity of the system makes the addition and even removal of new elements an easy task.

I have already offered a few houserules in this thread that many groups are currently using in C&C to provide open ended options to Fighter and other class characters.

Nobody is limited by the rules in C&C, the only limits are their imagination and the dynamics of the group they are playing with.

[iceifur]

The straight badassitude of the Fighter in C&C is deceptively subtle. At a glance, and since it's the first class listed, you miss a lot of its promise. "Oh," you say, "extra attacks. Ho hum."

And then you read the other classes.

And you see the Monk.

And its piddly additional attack.

And you glance back at the Fighter.

And you think. And you compare. And you do the math.

With such dps at their disposal, I see the Fighter as a blank slate. Since the only thing you have to worry about is slayage, it leaves the rest to your imagination. You're no longer defined by the feats you take. You no longer have to have the "one true build" to be a party resource. The mechanical pressure is taken away, leaving you room to create a character, and not a stat-block.

Basically, you're given free reign to play a role. The canvas is prepped. Be the artist.

[La Maupin]

The straight badassitude of the Fighter in C&C is deceptively subtle. At a glance, and since it's the first class listed, you miss a lot of its promise. "Oh," you say, "extra attacks. Ho hum."

And then you read the other classes.

And you see the Monk.

And its piddly additional attack.

And you glance back at the Fighter.

And you think. And you compare. And you do the math.

With such dps at their disposal, I see the Fighter as a blank slate. Since the only thing you have to worry about is slayage, it leaves the rest to your imagination. You're no longer defined by the feats you take. You no longer have to have the "one true build" to be a party resource. The mechanical pressure is taken away, leaving you room to create a character, and not a stat-block.

Basically, you're given free reign to play a role. The canvas is prepped. Be the artist.
Don't think you're getting it.

Assume I haven't been in the hobby since '87. Assume that I'm a 12 year old coming off of a week-long World of Warcraft binge before school begins and I want to play some of this neat stuff on a table with my buds before I go back to school. Assume I have basically no imagination whatsoever, and my fighter is likely to be named "Bob."

There.

NOW, what makes the C&C fighter better than playing one in D&D.

[cheeplives]

Don't think you're getting it.

Assume I haven't been in the hobby since '87. Assume that I'm a 12 year old coming off of a week-long World of Warcraft binge before school begins and I want to play some of this neat stuff on a table with my buds before I go back to school. Assume I have basically no imagination whatsoever, and my fighter is likely to be named "Bob."

There.

NOW, what makes the C&C fighter better than playing one in D&D.

Extra attacks, bigger weapons, able to cut through hordes of small enemies, and the name "Fighter" should be sufficient for a 12-year old in my opinion...

Heck, the old D&D fighter had a lot less to it, in my opinion, and it still drew plenty of younger and older gamers to it.

[PaladinCA]

NOW, what makes the C&C fighter better than playing one in D&D.
Character creation will take about 1/4 of the time it takes to roll up the D&D one.

Otherwise, its the same job. TANK! :D

[Nelzie]

Don't think you're getting it.

Assume I haven't been in the hobby since '87. Assume that I'm a 12 year old coming off of a week-long World of Warcraft binge before school begins and I want to play some of this neat stuff on a table with my buds before I go back to school. Assume I have basically no imagination whatsoever, and my fighter is likely to be named "Bob."

There.

NOW, what makes the C&C fighter better than playing one in D&D.

The rules aren't very complicated to follow and understand. It's easy to 'master' the game, because you don't have to deal with picking the best feat chain to create something that is still playable with the rest of the group later.

Out of the rest of the table a few of the kids may have a bit of an idea about how to use this "SIEGE" system and before you know it, the kids have figured out a way to work up 'cool moves' and 'nifty combos' to work their characters together with.

Beyond that, since when has a table of 12 year olds faithfully follow the rules of the game?

When I got into Red Box Basic D&D back in the 80's at 12 years old, I played a fighter and had a helluva fun time. We also ignored many of the rules and did some truly wacky things. (All of that, when I could have been busy playing "Dragon Warrior" on my NES or "Contra" or "Castelvania"...)

What was your point?

[Geron Raveneye]

Actually, I think it's already showing a bit of a bias if the "main job" of the fighter, namely killing opponents as fast and efficient as possible while drawing the most damaging attention away from his more fragile group members, is called "dumb" or "boring". He's better at it than any other class, and if that's not what you want from a class, it might not be the class for you in the first place. The fighter gets the best tools to do that job: lots of hit points, the best combat progression of them all, proficiency with all weapons and armor, weapon specialization (which gives him at least a +2 on his attack roll at 1st level, Strength bonus not counted), combat dominance (which lets him wade in the middle of an army of lesser creatures, cutting a wide path, or hold a small corridor all by himself against those swarming goblins), and additional attacks at some point. If your DM (CK) is a bit creative, he can come up with half a dozen other fighting styles in under an hour (I know I did), and even simply extending combat dominance up to d8 creatures at some point is already impressive.

The fighter's niché is to fight. He does that, and better than any other in the rules. The base class might not be as "broad" as the 3E fighter with his dozens of feats that can customize the class out of the book, but there's nothing limiting you and your DM to do that to your own imagination. And if you're a 12 years old, you'll probably have tons of ideas. And just because the PHB only delineates a few combat maneuvers, that doesn't imply that those are the only ones a character can try in combat, which goes double for the fighter.

So, maybe the question should be why you think the fighter class is "dumb"?

[andakitty]

Strange questions. I always thought people who had imagination were the ones drawn to rpgs. Perhaps a nice game of Risk or Old Maid?:)

Oh. 3.5.:D

[Bradford C. Walker]

Tabletop fighters can't tank without mechanical support. If the GM wants to ignore the fighter in favor of the cleric or wizard, then that's what the monster does- you have to have some form of rule to make the MMO tanking concept work.

[Bradford C. Walker]

Strange questions. I always thought people who had imagination were the ones drawn to rpgs. Perhaps a nice game of Risk or Old Maid?:)

Oh. 3.5.:D
That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The majority of folks are drawn into the game because they dig the power fantasy that the game allows them to experience.

[La Maupin]

That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The majority of folks are drawn into the game because they dig the power fantasy that the game allows them to experience.
Indeed. Those of us who STAY, with the option of getting our dungeon crawl on in WoW or some other MMO, those are the ones with imagination ;)

[andakitty]

Yeah, right.:rolleyes: Not that I understand where you are coming from, or am interested in trying to. I most strongly disagreed with some old acquaintances about that aspect of the rpg, and I still do. :) Some of us are into rpgs 'cause we like a good story and we like to let our imaginations soar and take part in said story. It takes all kinds, though...actually you are probably right about people who consider 3.5 the ultimate development for rpgs, but many of us don't. Not even close. As some previous posters tried to point out, imagination is the key ingredient to making a fun, interesting fighter...and 3.5 kills imagination, as well as any enjoyment in actually playing the game, like no other rpg I have ever had experience of, then or now.

Perhaps agree to disagree? That's the best I have to offer, because I'll surely never see things your way. ;)

I also don't see any point in trying to explain to you and others who think like you do why there is no 'dumb fighter problem'...unless you are playing 3.5, that is.:p

[Nelzie]

Tabletop fighters can't tank without mechanical support. If the GM wants to ignore the fighter in favor of the cleric or wizard, then that's what the monster does- you have to have some form of rule to make the MMO tanking concept work.

Tabletop games do not have the same dynamic as MMOs.

What kind of mechanical support are you suggesting would be needed to create the "Tank" effect?

If the GM ignores the fighter in favor of the cleric or wizard, then that is a problem with the GM, not the game system being used. It's equally easy to ignore ANY character class in any game simply by doing it. No mechanic will fix bad GMing.

[Bahama'at]

Tabletop games do not have the same dynamic as MMOs.

What kind of mechanical support are you suggesting would be needed to create the "Tank" effect?

If the GM ignores the fighter in favor of the cleric or wizard, then that is a problem with the GM, not the game system being used. It's equally easy to ignore ANY character class in any game simply by doing it. No mechanic will fix bad GMing.It isn't bad GMing though - especially if you are running an intelligent monster - the fighter will hurt you and take forever to fight, whereas if your goal is to inflict as much pain on the group as a whole, then you avoid the obvious meat shield and focus on the more fragile characters - the old guy in the bathrobe and the cute girly with the holy symbol.

The mechanical advantage required here would be akin to mind control, forcing an NPC to respond how the PC wants (in this case, focus your attacks on the one person most capable of dealing with them). Here's the kicker tho - if the ability exists in the game, then it can just as easily be used _against_ the PCs - something I don't have a problem with, but many players around here seem to go into a frenzy about.

- Ma'at

[Nelzie]

It isn't bad GMing though - especially if you are running an intelligent monster - the fighter will hurt you and take forever to fight, whereas if your goal is to inflict as much pain on the group as a whole, then you avoid the obvious meat shield and focus on the more fragile characters - the old guy in the bathrobe and the cute girly with the holy symbol.

That shouldn't happen all the time and then the goal of the group would be to work their strategy to keep the 'Meatshield' inbetween the Baddie and the relatively soft party members behind the 'Meatshield'.

In practice, assuming that the Fighter starts combat in between the Wizard and the Smart Monster, the CK would have to describe the monster making its way past the fighter.

What's the fighter to do?

Well, a 'Dumb Fighter' will just let the monster pass and maybe take a swing at it and then hopelessly watch as his friend the Wizard is mowed down and chewed up.

The Smart Fighter says, "I charge the monster, putting myself between it and my Wizard companion and bash the creature back with my shield!"

The CK then would have the Fighter make a check using the SIEGE Engine to determine if the fighter is able to pull that off and stay between the Monster and the Wizard. (This is assuming a ground based monster, dragons and similar flying inteligent monsters are a whole other thing.) Obviously failure here would mean the Monster got through the Fighter's charging block.

The next round, the fighter could try it again, while the wizard attempts to make a rushing leap/dodge to get behind the fighter. (You know, cause wizards are generally smart and would aim to do such a thing.)

Well, in this round, the Monster gets to attack the Wizard, because he got succesful and we'll say he hits the wizard for 8 points of damage. The Wizard makes his SIEGE Prime roll of Dexterity (Since this wizard took Dex as his second Prime) and is completely succesful and will end up behind the fighter keeping some distance between himself and the monster.

The Fighter makes his SIEGE roll using his strength prime and fails again! The wizard is in between the Monster and the Fighter, but the fighter miscalculated and thus the Monster gets a flanking attack (no shield modifier for the fighter) this round...

Oh my goodness! All of that without a single feat! All of that without "Special Powers"!


The mechanical advantage required here would be akin to mind control, forcing an NPC to respond how the PC wants (in this case, focus your attacks on the one person most capable of dealing with them). Here's the kicker tho - if the ability exists in the game, then it can just as easily be used _against_ the PCs - something I don't have a problem with, but many players around here seem to go into a frenzy about.

- Ma'at

I know, that's why I asked. If someone wanted such a power for their character, I would say sure and tell them that this would also be available for certain enemies. Which is why I tend to keep these kind of powers limited in my campaign world.

For instance, I have a "Swashbuckler" class that has a "Taunt" ability that causes a momentary loss of composure in a chosen enemy, because the barbed tongue of the Swashbuckler just knows how to hit someone. This lowers the target's AC by -2 and in their rage increases damage by +1. When the Swashbuckler becomes more powerful the taunt causes a -2 to hit and a -2 to AC, with no bonus to damage. The taunt lasts for a number of rounds equal to the Swashbuckler's level and can be performed only once a day.

Enemy Swashbucklers will be able to do this to PCs. Therefore I made the power just a minor penalty/bonus. It's still useful, but isn't mind control.

[Bradford C. Walker]

Tabletop games do not have the same dynamic as MMOs.
You know that. I know that. The kids coming to tabletop RPGs from MMOs don't know that, and their expectations will be colored by their MMO experiences; even if you take the time to emphasize the differences, they will work off their MMO habits until they internalize new ones appropriate to tabletop RPGs- and that's if they are not turned off by the differences.
What kind of mechanical support are you suggesting would be needed to create the "Tank" effect?
The tank's role is to keep the monsters focused on him, and not on the other party members, despite whatever his allies are doing to it. He should have the ability to compel such attention, a means that incompetent allies can do little (if anything) to screw up so long as he is competent. A later post shows one way--by using C&C's existing system to allow tactical manuevering to achieve that effect--but more common is some form of Taunt power to compel a monster into doing so. The specifics are not as important as the result; by whatever means necessary, the tank must have the ability to compel foes to focus upon him and ignore other threats.
If the GM ignores the fighter in favor of the cleric or wizard, then that is a problem with the GM, not the game system being used. It's equally easy to ignore ANY character class in any game simply by doing it. No mechanic will fix bad GMing.
If the GM's ignoring the fighter in favor of the cleric or wizard, he's playing smart and it's not hard to justifiy that course of action most of the time; a mechanical fix is preferred because then it's a rule that's there to be followed- something that a player will be keen to do, especially if it goes both ways.

[Maedhros]

What makes a fighter interesting to play is the same as with any other class: the person behind the character. If you're looking strictly at numbers, etc. to give a character notoriety, you're only playing half of the game.

Some of my best and most memorable characters had the weakest stats. Roleplay that fighter! :)



Ink

Long, long time ago (AD&D2E) I played a straight fighter with stats thus:

"Mollusc the Coarse"
STR: 11
DEX: 8
CON: 11
INT: 8
WIS: 6
CHA: 8

(GM let us choose character generation method... I chose 3d6 fall-as-they-may vs. 6d6 six times, take best three for each stat)

He was far and away the most "successful" character in the group, mostly because the GM was good and rewarded clever play...

[Nelzie]

The tank's role is to keep the monsters focused on him, and not on the other party members, despite whatever his allies are doing to it. He should have the ability to compel such attention, a means that incompetent allies can do little (if anything) to screw up so long as he is competent. A later post shows one way--by using C&C's existing system to allow tactical manuevering to achieve that effect--but more common is some form of Taunt power to compel a monster into doing so. The specifics are not as important as the result; by whatever means necessary, the tank must have the ability to compel foes to focus upon him and ignore other threats.


Then enemy fighters should have the exact same ability.

If the party is going to face an NPC party with a similar makeup, that party's fighter should be able to taunt, and thus compel, the party cleric into attacking him, instead of healing up members of the party.

C&C fighters do not need anything more then what they already have to be extremely effective.

[La Maupin]

As some previous posters tried to point out, imagination is the key ingredient to making a fun, interesting fighter...and 3.5 kills imagination, as well as any enjoyment in actually playing the game, like no other rpg I have ever had experience of, then or now.
I'd love to see this assertion survive contact with my players... or, for that matter, survive contact with the character I'm working up for my fiancee's 3.5 game...

Well, a 'Dumb Fighter' will just let the monster pass and maybe take a swing at it and then hopelessly watch as his friend the Wizard is mowed down and chewed up.

The Smart Fighter says, "I charge the monster, putting myself between it and my Wizard companion and bash the creature back with my shield!"

The CK then would have the Fighter make a check using the SIEGE Engine to determine if the fighter is able to pull that off and stay between the Monster and the Wizard. (This is assuming a ground based monster, dragons and similar flying inteligent monsters are a whole other thing.) Obviously failure here would mean the Monster got through the Fighter's charging block.

The next round, the fighter could try it again, while the wizard attempts to make a rushing leap/dodge to get behind the fighter. (You know, cause wizards are generally smart and would aim to do such a thing.)

Well, in this round, the Monster gets to attack the Wizard, because he got succesful and we'll say he hits the wizard for 8 points of damage. The Wizard makes his SIEGE Prime roll of Dexterity (Since this wizard took Dex as his second Prime) and is completely succesful and will end up behind the fighter keeping some distance between himself and the monster.

The Fighter makes his SIEGE roll using his strength prime and fails again! The wizard is in between the Monster and the Fighter, but the fighter miscalculated and thus the Monster gets a flanking attack (no shield modifier for the fighter) this round...
GASP! Somebody actually answers the goddamn question, instead of spending their entire post between slagging D&D and saying, essentially, "Well, we have a house rule for that."

Oh my goodness! All of that without a single feat! All of that without "Special Powers"!
Well, this ties into the other thing I've learned from all this: C&C players appear to have Amiga Persecution Complex in the worst way.

[La Maupin]

Then enemy fighters should have the exact same ability.

If the party is going to face an NPC party with a similar makeup, that party's fighter should be able to taunt, and thus compel, the party cleric into attacking him, instead of healing up members of the party.

C&C fighters do not need anything more then what they already have to be extremely effective.
The idea of a taunt (in game-mechanical terms) is not to compel an enemy into attacking the fighter in place of anything else they were about to do, the idea of a taunt is to compel an enemy into attacking the fighter in place of another, better target. In other words, to keep the enemy from going after and subsequently mowing down the d4-hit-die, low-armor spellcaster(s).

[Ahnirades]

Well, this ties into the other thing I've learned from all this: C&C players appear to have Amiga Persecution Complex in the worst way.

:rolleyes:

[La Maupin]

:rolleyes:


Amiga Persecution Complex: n.

The disorder suffered by a particularly egregious variety of bigot, those who believe that the marginality of their preferred machine is the result of some kind of industry-wide conspiracy (for without a conspiracy of some kind, the eminent superiority of their beloved shining jewel of a platform would obviously win over all, market pressures be damned!) Those afflicted are prone to engaging in flame wars and calling for boycotts and mailbombings. Amiga Persecution Complex is by no means limited to Amiga users; Linux, NeXT, NeWS, OS/2, Macintosh, LISP, and GNU users are also common victims.
:rolleyes: back at ya, Sparky.
(though in this case it's the result of "n00bz want kewl powerz" rather than an industry-wide conspiracy; the RPG industry isn't big enough or lucrative enough to support a conspiracy)

In other words, don't be a jerk. Go ahead and pimp your system, but slagging on another game (especially one VERY closely related) while doing so just makes you look lame.

[Ahnirades]

:rolleyes: back at ya, Sparky.
(though in this case it's the result of "n00bz want kewl powerz" rather than an industry-wide conspiracy; the RPG industry isn't big enough or lucrative enough to support a conspiracy)

I've posted twice in this thread prior to your group attacks. Neither of those posts could be remotely construed as Amiga Persecution Complex. Therefore your GA is an inappropriate mischaracterisation, as is the way with these things.

Your attempt to somehow justify your train of thought with a further, dictionary defined attack only compounds the insult.

[Nelzie]

GASP! Somebody actually answers the goddamn question, instead of spending their entire post between slagging D&D and saying, essentially, "Well, we have a house rule for that."

Under previous editions of the D&D. That would have been accomplished using ability score checks. Again, no feats needed for a player to make a "Smart Fighter".

All it proves is that one does not need a laundry list of optional mechanical bits in order to make their character into a fun and unique personality.

[Wookie]

I love the shiny ;) That's all I gotta say.

Sigged! :D

[Nelzie]

The idea of a taunt (in game-mechanical terms) is not to compel an enemy into attacking the fighter in place of anything else they were about to do, the idea of a taunt is to compel an enemy into attacking the fighter in place of another, better target. In other words, to keep the enemy from going after and subsequently mowing down the d4-hit-die, low-armor spellcaster(s).

If the enemy was about to attack the weak wizard, then the taunt would be "taking over" that enemy and changing him/her/it into attacking the fighter.

It's a "Mind Control" power that would equally be used against PCs.

[Nelzie]

I've posted twice in this thread prior to your group attacks. Neither of those posts could be remotely construed as Amiga Persecution Complex. Therefore your GA is an inappropriate mischaracterisation, as is the way with these things.

Your attempt to somehow justify your train of thought with a further, dictionary defined attack only compounds the insult.

The best thing is to report it to the Mods and let them handle it.

[Spikey]

The mechanical advantage required here would be akin to mind control, forcing an NPC to respond how the PC wants (in this case, focus your attacks on the one person most capable of dealing with them). Here's the kicker tho - if the ability exists in the game, then it can just as easily be used _against_ the PCs - something I don't have a problem with, but many players around here seem to go into a frenzy about.Not necessarily. In Rune, which gives the GM a points-budget for each scenario, the GM has to pay a premium to control monsters, otherwise they act according to a flowchart. The flowchart makes the monster prioritise Attacking:
the PC that is doing it the most Damage
failing any Damage the first PC to Attack it
failing any Attacks on it the closest unengaged PC
failing that the PC engaged with the fewest monsters already
and makes the monster Attack the closest or fastest PC in case of ties. It's a tabletop RPG, albeit an unusual one, that facilitates 'tanking' without giving the PCs mind control powers.

[Nelzie]

In other words, don't be a jerk. Go ahead and pimp your system, but slagging on another game (especially one VERY closely related) while doing so just makes you look lame.

Please see the first post in this thread.

This whole thread was designed to "slag C&C", from the title of this thread to the majority of anti-C&C posts in this thread.

Those of us who like the game have been very helpful in explaining how things are done within the context of the rules of Casltes&Crusades. You have chosen to move goalposts, alter context and take a light comment about how feats aren't needed as being some kind of bigotry and then you group attack those of us that were being helpful and answering your questions and your "slagging" of C&C.

[gale_wolf]

Sort of... depends on what you mean by "interesting". The selection of Primes makes a mechanical difference and allows for variance in a Fighter.

Take three Human fighters... they all take Sword for their Weapon Specialty, but they have the following stats:
Egon
St: 12 (Prime)
De: 13
Co: 10
In: 15 (Prime)
Wi: 14 (Prime)
Ch: 8

Ray
St: 12 (Prime)
De: 13
Co: 10 (Prime)
In: 15
Wi: 14
Ch: 8 (Prime)

Peter
St: 15 (Prime)
De: 12
Co: 13
In: 10
Wi: 8 (Prime)
Ch: 14 (Prime)

Egon and Ray have the same stats, and Peter has the same numbers in a different order. So that makes them a bit mechanically different from one another, at least Peter is Different from Ray and Egon. Now, looking at their Prime Selection, we see even more differentiation... They all share Strength as a Prime, since they're all Fighters, but Peter has a slight edge due to his 15 Str vs. their 12. Since the Prime effectively gives the character a +6 to all checks that fall into the realm of that ability (outside of combat, that is), this gives us lots of options.

Look at Charisma... Peter is naturally smooth (Cha 14) and has also honed those charisma skills (Cha Prime), while Ray is kind of a doofus (8 Cha) but a loveable one (Cha Prime). Meanwhile, Egon is wise (14 Wis) and well versed at using his wisdom to his advantage (Wis Prime). On the other hand, Peter is rather oblivious (Wis 8) but lucky (Wis Prime). And while they're all about the same on an endurance scale, Ray has quite a bit more reserves (Con Prime), even Peter who has a naturally higher constitution (Con 13 vs Con 10).

Does that help?


Well it would help me, but I'm already a fan of C&C :D However, with fighters named Egon, Ray, and Peter, I'd be thinking of digging out my old WEG Ghostbusters set ;)

[La Maupin]

Of course, this doesn't seem to be what you are looking for... then again, I'm not entirely sure I understand what it is you are exactly looking for. I'm sure there are some house rules that could easily be added to C&C to get the flavor you want... Can you give an example of a system that does emulate what you are looking for well?
Mekton (bet all of you thought I was going to say D&D, didn't you? ;)). Or to an even greater extent, Big Eyes, Small Mouth; both of which have very good action-customization options, detailed systems to build both character and equipment to match concept, and good examples of melee and ranged maneuvers to build from.

But at the same time, I also enjoy the simplicity of class-and-level.

Ahh, conundrums.

[cheeplives]

Mekton (bet all of you thought I was going to say D&D, didn't you? ;)). Or to an even greater extent, Big Eyes, Small Mouth; both of which have very good action-customization options, detailed systems to build both character and equipment to match concept, and good examples of melee and ranged maneuvers to build from.

But at the same time, I also enjoy the simplicity of class-and-level.

Ahh, conundrums.

Well, you've thoroughly lost me... from my memory, Mekton and BESM don't have any complex maneuvers available... the customization comes in the skill choices and such, but both games still come down to: I shoot/stab the bad-guy if I'm fighting.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "action-customization" in either of those systems (both of which I am more than passingly familiar with). But I don't remember any laundry list of combat options available to anyone to speak of, at least not any list that's that much bigger than the combat options that exist in C&C.

That said, I do agree with you in many ways... I am more of a skill-based system fan than a class-based system. But I just don't agree with your initial characterisation that 1) C&C lacks options for players and 2) all player options must be mechanically represented in the system. For example, the Taunt ability that has been tossed around could just as easily be roleplayed with the fighter's player telling the GM that he's going to Taunt the bad-guys to distract them from the casters... in many games, if you lack the ability you can't do it, or else you have to look up some obscure rule on it... C&C just says "get on with it"... or, as I really like "Say yes or roll the dice"... so either the GM says the Taunt works or he makes the player make a Wisdom or Charisma check to see if he is witty enough to distract the bad-guy. No special skills needed to give the character the option to do it.

[cheeplives]

Well it would help me, but I'm already a fan of C&C :D However, with fighters named Egon, Ray, and Peter, I'd be thinking of digging out my old WEG Ghostbusters set ;)
Yeah, I was halfway through the characters when I had realized I had named the first two Ray and Peter, so I just ran with the ball...

Mmmm... I miss my ghost die lovin'. Must pull out that box from storage.

[La Maupin]

Well, you've thoroughly lost me... from my memory, Mekton and BESM don't have any complex maneuvers available... the customization comes in the skill choices and such, but both games still come down to: I shoot/stab the bad-guy if I'm fighting.
The Mekton Tactical Display (which I realize not everybody has) discusses tactical maneuvers and creation of same at considerable length, especially since it includes the cinematic and tactical combat systems, and gives three examples (priming missiles to strike a particular servo, a melee charge, and a whirlwind attack). If you dig into the combat system as well, it gives examples of different unarmed strikes that can be used (not as detailed a martial arts system as you see in Cyberpunk 2020, but for anime it's quite sufficient). BESM has tactical maneuvers and options through its attribute system, which for my money is pretty much the best advad/disad system in the business.

I've also created my fair share of feats for D&D characters when a published feat doesn't do what I need (though that's certainly become less frequent of late as my collection of D&D books has increased and the instances where "what I want to do" doesn't match an extant feat have become much fewer).

And I still think that my "awakened weapons" system (I'll show it off here sometime) is more elegant than the Weapons of Legacy book ;)

That said, I do agree with you in many ways... I am more of a skill-based system fan than a class-based system. But I just don't agree with your initial characterisation that 1) C&C lacks options for players and 2) all player options must be mechanically represented in the system. For example, the Taunt ability that has been tossed around could just as easily be roleplayed with the fighter's player telling the GM that he's going to Taunt the bad-guys to distract them from the casters... in many games, if you lack the ability you can't do it, or else you have to look up some obscure rule on it... C&C just says "get on with it"... or, as I really like "Say yes or roll the dice"... so either the GM says the Taunt works or he makes the player make a Wisdom or Charisma check to see if he is witty enough to distract the bad-guy. No special skills needed to give the character the option to do it.
Well, the "Dumb Fighter" problem was from original D&D. We already know how 3.x handled it (with customization via feats); I was just more interested in seeing how C&C handled it (since C&C is supposed to be more of a "bare bones" version of the d20 system), and probably phrased the opening of the thread poorly (I also react poorly to people telling me that I or my players lack imagination).

[Nelzie]

Well, the "Dumb Fighter" problem was from original D&D. We already know how 3.x handled it (with customization via feats); I was just more interested in seeing how C&C handled it (since C&C is supposed to be more of a "bare bones" version of the d20 system), and probably phrased the opening of the thread poorly (I also react poorly to people telling me that I or my players lack imagination).

In the old D&D people overcame that issue by using attribute checks to cover described actions, as I have done in my example with the wizard and fighter earlier. It worked well and eliminated the concept of the "Dumb Fighter".

[cheeplives]

The Mekton Tactical Display (which I realize not everybody has) discusses tactical maneuvers and creation of same at considerable length, <snip>
Well, yeah, I don't have the Tactical display, so I guess I can see why I missed such options. So, beyond a bare minimum of "combat maneuvers" in the Martial Arts section (which I believe is only available if you take said skill(s)) the base system of Mekton doesn't have a whole lot more options than C&C. And if they ever get around to the CKG, I'm sure they'll put some more "combat type options" in it... heck, I had developed a small little "combat perk" system for C&C during the development that got cut out that they might use in the CKG.
BESM's attributes are a whole different ball of wax (a cool one)... the combat options in the system don't exist... they must be custom built... so there are options, but they must be created by the players and GM... C&C handles it the same way, just doesn't require all the up-front work (and might suffer from lack of balance). You just ad hoc such things with attribute checks.

But that does help clear up my confusion. Yes, C&C lacks real hard and fast numbers for such things, but does cover a lot of ground with Attribute Checks and Primes (large skill bundles). But it requires a lot more "thinking on the feet" from players and a fluid GM. If the players don't put much more thought into it than "I swing, I swing, I swing" then there's not going to be much different... and if the GM sytmies inventive uses of attribute checks, you'll have a similar problem. But the system does mechanically support thinking outside the box with the attribute checks... it just doesn't codify things as rigidly as you see in 3.x or other games with specific maneuvers that can only be done if you have X Skill or Y Feat (this also means it doesn't provide players with a list of options to get the ball rolling, too, so it can be considered a weakness... lists always cause problems as they both give you an idea of where to start but often work to limit options in the long run. Double edged sword type situation). So, there is a bare-bones mechanic that gives the options out there, but nothing "hard and fast" and it does require some give and take from both the players and the GM.

[Nelzie]

But that does help clear up my confusion. Yes, C&C lacks real hard and fast numbers for such things, but does cover a lot of ground with Attribute Checks and Primes (large skill bundles). But it requires a lot more "thinking on the feet" from players and a fluid GM. If the players don't put much more thought into it than "I swing, I swing, I swing" then there's not going to be much different... and if the GM sytmies inventive uses of attribute checks, you'll have a similar problem. But the system does mechanically support thinking outside the box with the attribute checks... it just doesn't codify things as rigidly as you see in 3.x or other games with specific maneuvers that can only be done if you have X Skill or Y Feat (this also means it doesn't provide players with a list of options to get the ball rolling, too, so it can be considered a weakness... lists always cause problems as they both give you an idea of where to start but often work to limit options in the long run. Double edged sword type situation). So, there is a bare-bones mechanic that gives the options out there, but nothing "hard and fast" and it does require some give and take from both the players and the GM.

Maybe the Troll Lords should include some suggestions in either the CKG and or in the Crusader... I'll mention something on the Troll Lords' board.

[NPC Brown Cow]

Not necessarily. In Rune, which gives the GM a points-budget for each scenario, the GM has to pay a premium to control monsters, otherwise they act according to a flowchart. The flowchart makes the monster prioritise Attacking:
the PC that is doing it the most Damage
failing any Damage the first PC to Attack it
failing any Attacks on it the closest unengaged PC
failing that the PC engaged with the fewest monsters already
and makes the monster Attack the closest or fastest PC in case of ties. It's a tabletop RPG, albeit an unusual one, that facilitates 'tanking' without giving the PCs mind control powers.
Interesting, that's how I've always ran my monsters. Intelligent creatures get to use some tactics, depending on how bright they are.

[jcfiala]

Don't think you're getting it.

Assume I haven't been in the hobby since '87. Assume that I'm a 12 year old coming off of a week-long World of Warcraft binge before school begins and I want to play some of this neat stuff on a table with my buds before I go back to school. Assume I have basically no imagination whatsoever, and my fighter is likely to be named "Bob."

There.

NOW, what makes the C&C fighter better than playing one in D&D.

He kicks ass without having to worry about being taught not to choose the wrong feats?

[Treebore]

Don't think you're getting it.

Assume I haven't been in the hobby since '87. Assume that I'm a 12 year old coming off of a week-long World of Warcraft binge before school begins and I want to play some of this neat stuff on a table with my buds before I go back to school. Assume I have basically no imagination whatsoever, and my fighter is likely to be named "Bob."

There.

NOW, what makes the C&C fighter better than playing one in D&D.


Sorry to be so behind in this thread, but the advantage is you'll be able to figure out C&C about ten times faster than 3E and your IQ will be much more capable of handling C&C than D&D 3E.

Much more playing time, many more adventures/character, lots more stories about your characters history, and fighters are still the biggest baddest frontline fighter in the party, not the wildshaping druid.

I also find it funny that you think the fighter in 3E is anything other than swing his sword. It is all he is. Then instead of getting class features you get something called feats. Same thing.

Feats and fighters in 3E are limited. You can only do what your fets allow you to do. In C&C your only limited by what you want your fighter to do and how much the CK is willing to let you do, on top of your class features.

Take my game for example. Your fighting a Green Hag and she is kicking your butt! You need to pull something a little extra out of your butt or your going to be dead.

So you say, "Hey great and awesome CK! Can I make an attempt to get an extra attack against this creature even though I don't qualify for one?"

"Sure! Just roll a check of TN 12 + the HD of the Hag, 9, so a TN of 21. If your successful you get an extra attack."

"I'm 5th level, what do I get to add to my roll?"

"I'll allow you to add anything that adjusts your "to hit" modifier."

"So I can add my +1 STR bonus and my +1 Magic bonus for my sword?"

"Yep. Sound good to me."

"OK, I rolled a 12! +7 is 19, not good enough! Darn!"

"Well lets hope you last until next round and you can try again."


In my game you can try any kind of maneuver you can think of. I'll let you try it as long as I agree it is something you could do. Usually the TN will be modified by the HD of the creature you are acting against. Kind of an opposed roll.

If you are not a fighter type trying to do a fighter type action your base TN will be 18 rather than 12. Much harder for you to try. So you could say I have a different kind of Prime in my game. I think of them as class Primes. If the action you are attempting falls under somethig your class should be very good at, I'll treat it like it is a Prime, so a base TN (DC) of 12. If not it is a base TN (DC) of 18. Much harder to accomplish, if not imposssible on anything other than a natural 20.


So there are a lot of options for fighters and every character in a C&C game. They are not restricted/limited/ or chained down by feats, or even their class abilities/powers. They can attempt anything. The only limitation is the success of the die roll. Plus the modifiers to these rolls.

The only other limitation is that fighters can't try to cast spells and wizards can't swing swords nearly as well as fighter types.


So you can keep thinking you can do more with a figher in 3E. Well, actually you can. You can swing your sword, swing your sword, more often, and do a lot more damage. But that is just a boring fighter.

Edited to improve my attitude.

[Bradford C. Walker]

But I don't have to rely on the GM to allow it. "Mother May I?" is a bad design idea, to be avoided whenever possible. Good games don't rely on GM fiat.

[Meepo]

Good games don't rely on GM fiat.

Perhaps...but they surely do benefit from it! :D

[Bradford C. Walker]

Perhaps...but they surely do benefit from it! :D
On average, no they don't. Good designers keep the average in mind.

[jimbojones1971]

I have always hated the Magic system, rogues are cute, but rather fragile, and what does that leave me?

Playing another game system which gives you the character options that you are looking for? :)

Seriously, C&C isn't for everyone. But there is a plethora of other game systems out there, and it is likely that one of them is better suited to your preferences.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Playing another game system which gives you the character options that you are looking for? :)

Seriously, C&C isn't for everyone. But there is a plethora of other game systems out there, and it is likely that one of them is better suited to your preferences.

My thing, is I want to play an upfront melee'er with the ability to heroically clear out a room of baddies in one or two hits each. Not wail on them for HOURS, while the mage casts a single spell which explodes all their heads and makes me wonder why I came to play.

And what I am hearing here, this game may let me do that.

[Treebore]

But I don't have to rely on the GM to allow it. "Mother May I?" is a bad design idea, to be avoided whenever possible. Good games don't rely on GM fiat.


Actually you do rely on GM fiat. The DM has the authority to tell you what books you can use, what classes you can play, what spells you can use, what feats you can use, don't look at the monster manuals, etc...

At least that is the way it is supposed to be, no matter what edition or RPG you play. Or at leat that I have played.

Of course WOTC has done a great job of blurring that.

Its my game. I built it. I bought the module or wrote it. I put in all the time it took for you to have fun before you even appeared at my table. If you can't trust, like, or tolerate my judgement on how I run my game, then you DM. Or leave.

Simple as that.

[DangerDwarf]

Its my game. I built it. I bought the module or wrote it. I put in all the time it took for you to have fun before you even appeared at my table. If you can't trust, like, or tolerate my judgement on how I run my game, then you DM. Or leave.

Simple as that.

Very well put. The method seems to work fairly well too. My last session with my 2nd C&C group had 3new players show up. Seems me and this nifty little game called C&C are becoming a bit popular out this way.

[jimbojones1971]

Not necessarily. In Rune, which gives the GM a points-budget for each scenario, the GM has to pay a premium to control monsters, otherwise they act according to a flowchart. The flowchart makes the monster prioritise Attacking:
the PC that is doing it the most Damage
failing any Damage the first PC to Attack it
failing any Attacks on it the closest unengaged PC
failing that the PC engaged with the fewest monsters already
and makes the monster Attack the closest or fastest PC in case of ties. It's a tabletop RPG, albeit an unusual one, that facilitates 'tanking' without giving the PCs mind control powers.

This confirms my opinion that I really need to get myself a copy of Rune, just to check it out.

My wallet once again curses you, RPG.Net!

[Rhuvein]

Except, you know, you can kill more of them... in one round... kinda like Cleave...

I guess C&C just isn't for you. I'm not sure if basing a choice for a game off of a single class is the best policy, but if it works for you, by all means go for it. C&C is a game directly inspired by older versions of D&D. And while it has some of the trappings of older styles of fantasy games, it has some very interesting elements to it (like the Primes system, how every stat gets saves associated with it, how it handles monsters, internally consistant Experience point progressions, etc.). Unfortunately, its adherance to "old school" values might turn some people off.

It just depends on how you look at it... since almost every other class has some kind of restriction to combat, you could really say that the Fighters are the ones with the *most* options in combat.

Fighters in C&C are the best at fighting.. they have more options in combat in the fact that they have the best chances to hit, they have the most weapon and armor options, and they get extra attacks and damage bonuses... no other class can really compare to them across the board in combat (only the Ranger really comes close, and then only against humanoids). Beyond its purely combat focused feats, they don't have any other bells and whistles, but they can do more in a combat round than any of the other classes when it comes to making physical attacks. Sure, the Rogue can sneak attack, or the Assassin can make a Instant death attack, but beyond those options, their combat options are severely limited (poor base to hit, poor hit points and limited weapon/armor selections).

Of course, this doesn't seem to be what you are looking for... then again, I'm not entirely sure I understand what it is you are exactly looking for. I'm sure there are some house rules that could easily be added to C&C to get the flavor you want... Can you give an example of a system that does emulate what you are looking for well?

Well said, this sums it up succinctly! :D

[jimbojones1971]

My thing, is I want to play an upfront melee'er with the ability to heroically clear out a room of baddies in one or two hits each. Not wail on them for HOURS, while the mage casts a single spell which explodes all their heads and makes me wonder why I came to play.

Yeah, I'm hearing you on this one. For example, it is incredibly frustrating when it takes you forever to bring down any sort of decent opponent, whilst in the background the cleric is casting "save or die" spells with huge DCs and bringing down one most rounds. Kind of makes you wonder why you bothered to turn up.

[ShanG]

You know... I understand that you're playing Castles and Crusades, but if you're willing to borrow and modify stuff from D&D 3.5, there was a recent supplement designed with just this problem in mind. It aims to give warrior characters the same sort of options and versatility that mages have. There are a few new classes introduced who use 'combat maneuvers' that are very roughly analagous to spells. You have so many maneuvers readied and known, there are 9 'disciplines' and multiple levels, they're a standard action to activate, and so forth.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Yeah, I'm hearing you on this one. For example, it is incredibly frustrating when it takes you forever to bring down any sort of decent opponent, whilst in the background the cleric is casting "save or die" spells with huge DCs and bringing down one most rounds. Kind of makes you wonder why you bothered to turn up.

Exactly. Even Rogues have done that sort of stuff in games I've been. Now, I honestly don't care for all the fiddly bits like 3.x feats, but any game system that can make me feel 'heroic' Warrior (Or as heroic as a mass murderer with an edged weapon) while NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY from the other classes? It has my approval.

[Treebore]

You know... I understand that you're playing Castles and Crusades, but if you're willing to borrow and modify stuff from D&D 3.5, there was a recent supplement designed with just this problem in mind. It aims to give warrior characters the same sort of options and versatility that mages have. There are a few new classes introduced who use 'combat maneuvers' that are very roughly analagous to spells. You have so many maneuvers readied and known, there are 9 'disciplines' and multiple levels, they're a standard action to activate, and so forth.


Yeah, but another reason we went to C&C is to get away from 5,000 rules. We don't want, or need, 5,000 rules to tell us how to run a fun and cool game. We have our imaginations and intelligence to help us with that.

I can see where people need a lot of rules to explain how to handle every variation of a games path. How to be fair. How to be consistant. How to build encounters, how to maintain game balance.

However, an experienced DM doesn't need that. When they realize they can do it without the training wheels, that is when it might be time to move on to a simpler system. That has a nice unified mechanic that doesn't restrict the DM or players with "chains" of feats, where any action can be attempted by any PC. Where the DM has enough experience and confidence to rule on such things fairly, consistantly, and imaginatively, all on their own without a crutch of 5,000 rules to tell them how to DM their game.

C&C is for that kind of DM, when they are trained and ready to become that kind of DM. When they are no longer afraid to leave the protective blanket of their 5,000 rules. When they believe they are capable of doing things their way.


So when a DM is tired of being told how to be a DM, and the players realize their feat chain is just that, a chain, then they are ready for the red pill. Until then, they will be happiest with the Blue pill.

[Lazarus]

C&C might fit what you want, NT. The Fighter has abilities that allow him to make extra attacks against mooks - he's the only one who can. Yes, the Wizard still has his spells (I haven't read Fireball, but I'd be surprised if it's significantly different, though), and can clear a room, but so can you.

The biggie, though? Fighters get to add their level to "combat stunts" (my term). In the SIEGE Engine, you get d20 + stat bonus + level (sometimes) vs TN (base of 12 or 18 + Challenge Level). I believe it says in one of the examples in the books that the Fighter gets to add his Level to Funky Attack Attempt, whereas the Wizard doesn't - I think it was the flying from chandelier? Anyway. Give Fighters that ability, and maybe the Paladins, Rangers (in Forested areas), and Knights (all fighty, too), and there's so much more to them.

A Fighter's combat ability and style are only limited by your imagination - honest.

The Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, etc, etc, are limited by their abilities. They're not the best fighters; they're not supposed to be. They do other things. The Knight can (should) be severely limited by his choice of Code.

The Barbarian? If he exists (my book's upstairs), then he's a tank - most hp, and Rage. He does that better than the Fighter, but the Fighter's still a far better overall combatant - he doesn't just absorb hp, he also deals lots of damage.

His one limitation is his lack of magic :p With a Cha Prime, he's as smooth-tongued as a Bard. With a Con Prime, he can withstand the heat of a desert. With a Dex Prime, he can be as nimble as any Rogue.

All Classes are nifty in their own way, though - they each get Stuff that only they can do (Paladin Lays on Hands and cures disease. Rogues open locks. Wizards and Clerics cast spells. Etc, etc).

Laz

Holy frak, that was a long rambling. Hopefully it helped...

[mitchw]

But I don't have to rely on the GM to allow it. "Mother May I?" is a bad design idea, to be avoided whenever possible. Good games don't rely on GM fiat.

I didn't see IMO in your post ;) because IMHO, games with GM fiat are great. Now if you don't trust your GM well then the problem is not with the game but somewhere else.

Mitch

[La Maupin]

I didn't see IMO in your post ;) because IMHO, games with GM fiat are great. Now if you don't trust your GM well then the problem is not with the game but somewhere else.

Mitch
There's a difference between having GM fiat (which no rules set can prevent) and requiring GM fiat (which is sloppy writing). If the GM HAS to make up a rule because a situation isn't covered in the rules set, unless the situation is so bizarre that there was really no way for the writers to predict it, that's a hole in the rules, and honestly, there should be a rule there. If the GM makes up a ruling because it would be too time-consuming to look it up in the rules, that's an entirely different story. The first is authorial laziness (the equivalent, in fact, of a character waking up in a white room at the beginning of a novel or expressing confusion when the author isn't sure what to do next); the second is reasonable.

<snip>
My. Did you break that arm patting yourself on the back?

[DangerDwarf]

If the GM HAS to make up a rule because a situation isn't covered in the rules set, unless the situation is so bizarre that there was really no way for the writers to predict it, that's a hole in the rules

And that is where the disagreement comes in. The SIEGE engine has those rules covered, the engine allows for simple ajudication of a multitude of situations with a single unified mechanic.

Now, does it hold the CK's hand? No it doesn't, but it most definately does provide the Ck with all the tools he or she needs.

[La Maupin]

And that is where the disagreement comes in. The SIEGE engine has those rules covered, the engine allows for simple ajudication of a multitude of situations with a single unified mechanic.

Now, does it hold the CK's hand? No it doesn't, but it most definately does provide the Ck with all the tools he or she needs.
:rolleyes: What did I just get done saying about self-backpatting?

Let's get something clear here. I don't know any GM of any game who runs with the book open. Looking up rules for situations you don't know off the top of your head? Sure (incidentally, I can't count the number of times I've said in a D&D game, "Hmm, I don't know. Make a stat check and see what happens"). But put aside the idea of DMs slavishly chained to their copy of the Core Rules, it just doesn't happen. D&D has rules to cover more situations, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people actually USE them. They're there if you feel you need it. Not as a requirement that you use them in every situation, every time, without variation. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in congratulatory self-delusion.

[DangerDwarf]

:rolleyes: What did I just get done saying about self-backpatting?

Huh?

Let's get something clear here. I don't know any GM of any game who runs with the book open. Looking up rules for situations you don't know off the top of your head? Sure (incidentally, I can't count the number of times I've said in a D&D game, "Hmm, I don't know. Make a stat check and see what happens"). But put aside the idea of DMs slavishly chained to their copy of the Core Rules, it just doesn't happen. D&D has rules to cover more situations, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people actually USE them. They're there if you feel you need it. Not as a requirement that you use them in every situation, every time, without variation. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in congratulatory self-delusion.

I hadn't even mentioned 3e. Can't really say I care how other people run their games in other systems. If someone has to use the dreaded "GM's Fiat" to run a game because it has too many rules to keep up with and they don't want to search a book every few minutes then more power to them. I was simply commenting on the fallacy that C&C doesn't have a mechanic to deal with a large variety of situations without the so-called "Mother May I" which was mentioned.

[Nelzie]

There's a difference between having GM fiat (which no rules set can prevent) and requiring GM fiat (which is sloppy writing). If the GM HAS to make up a rule because a situation isn't covered in the rules set, unless the situation is so bizarre that there was really no way for the writers to predict it, that's a hole in the rules, and honestly, there should be a rule there. If the GM makes up a ruling because it would be too time-consuming to look it up in the rules, that's an entirely different story. The first is authorial laziness (the equivalent, in fact, of a character waking up in a white room at the beginning of a novel or expressing confusion when the author isn't sure what to do next); the second is reasonable.

Well, it's a damn good thing that the Troll Lords built such an elegant system in the SIEGE Engine. It covers any situation that could crop up and isn't hindered by having an explicit list of what can and can't be done.

If you need a rule for every possible situation that can possibly crop up. What do you do when a situation crops up that nobody has thought of before? Stop playing or make up a rule on the fly?

The SIEGE Engine by default covers those situations with an extremely simple to follow framework. It's an excellent example of where less is actually more, in the Class/Level Framework, much like how WEG's d6 Ruleset is the same in the Attribute/Skill Framework.

[Nelzie]

:rolleyes: What did I just get done saying about self-backpatting?

Let's get something clear here. I don't know any GM of any game who runs with the book open. Looking up rules for situations you don't know off the top of your head? Sure (incidentally, I can't count the number of times I've said in a D&D game, "Hmm, I don't know. Make a stat check and see what happens"). But put aside the idea of DMs slavishly chained to their copy of the Core Rules, it just doesn't happen. D&D has rules to cover more situations, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people actually USE them. They're there if you feel you need it. Not as a requirement that you use them in every situation, every time, without variation. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in congratulatory self-delusion.

Then why are you dogging the simplicity of the SIEGE Engine for not having those rules? If you already ignore those rules in D&D3.5 why bother with a game that already has all of those rules in the first place?

[La Maupin]

Then why are you dogging the simplicity of the SIEGE Engine for not having those rules? If you already ignore those rules in D&D3.5 why bother with a game that already has all of those rules in the first place?
I didn't say I ignore all of the rules.

I ignore the rules that don't make sense.

I make it up on the fly when I don't know the rule without digging.

Like pretty much any other GM.

[Nifelhein]

Being a graduating law student makes me wonder which kind of tradition permeates th laws fot he countries from posters here. Expanding. The USA has a very small and kind of topic Constitution, it is old and has very few additions. I am from Brazil and we have had quite a bunch of Constitutions over the same time frame the US, the latest one is from 1988, started with 245 articles plus 70 transiction articles and has suffered 52 additions, it now has 250 articles (plus a lot more paragraphs and the like) and 95 transiction articles.

This was over a period of 8 years. Our tradition is analitical, we have as much as possible inside the Constitution, if it is not covered there, then we make an addition. This furthers when you get to the judiciary system, here the main source of "justice" is law, in the US it is jurisprudentia (from the latin translates roughly to good sense of the judge), or the decisions previously made by other judges or courts.

In a game system, i cannot help but see the same kind of approach, D&D 3.X is topic, every rule is as detailed as possible and singular, standing on its own from the others around it, C&C is topic, you have generic rules that could be used to rule a wide variety of situations, always requiring the good judgment of the Game Master.

The SIEGE engine is the generic rule, while every skill and feat in D&D 3.X has its own rule, and a complex one in that, bluff and disable devie have different rules and follow different paths, even though they are both skills.

The interesting thing in this is that I often hear US people defending more analitical systems while I prefer more topic ones.

Leaving this whole law thing behind, and stop bothering others with my rant, I want to say this thread has shed great light upon the C&C system, I was already set on purchasing a copy of the Player's book and giving two others as gifts to two friends and this has just solidified my decision.

I won't be going into the 3.X sucks and C&C rocks or the other way around deate though, they are both useful to different people, and I am happy to have them all, specialyl because they provide us options, which is always a good thing.

Cheers,

Raoni.

[mitchw]

I didn't say I ignore all of the rules.

I ignore the rules that don't make sense.

I make it up on the fly when I don't know the rule without digging.

Like pretty much any other GM.

As others have said, we are probably going to have to agree to disagree here.

I think what you have said it that you believe C&C is poorly written because it does not offer specific rules for every foreseeable situation and even though it has generic rules that cover those situation you call that FM fiat.

On the other hand, I believe that C&C has an elegant central mechanic that allows the GM to run the game without having to look up, or try to remember, specific rules for each situation. I think that a rules set that can not be presented as a solid core without too many special cases is poorly written. Your own criteria of having "rules that don't make sense" is how I decide that a rules set is not for me.

BTW, this is why I run Fudge when I have my choice. :cool:

Mitch

[Cam Banks]

Well, it's a damn good thing that the Troll Lords built such an elegant system in the SIEGE Engine. It covers any situation that could crop up and isn't hindered by having an explicit list of what can and can't be done.

The SIEGE Engine is just a codified way of using the established OGL rules of d20 + bonus vs. DC, though. And this is something, as iceberg3k notes, that anybody running an OGL or d20-derived system can do. It's not innovative, it's just explicitly stated as being the way you should do things, as opposed to a series of discrete examples a la D&D's skills and combat manuevers. I've used this kind of thing a lot during my D&D campaigns when I don't care to look something up or something arises that there's not a specific rule for. "Make a Dex check, DC 15!" or "make a Will save vs. DC 18!" is easy enough to throw out there and run with.

I mean, yeah, it's terrific and easy and simple, but it's really just a dressed up core mechanic shared by dozens of other games, married to AD&D's level/class-based rules. I have a feeling this is why so many people like it, but it's clearly not to everybody's tastes.

Cheers,
Cam

[Bradford C. Walker]

Actually you do rely on GM fiat. The DM has the authority to tell you what books you can use, what classes you can play, what spells you can use, what feats you can use, don't look at the monster manuals, etc...
That authority is an illusion. If the players refuse, then he has no authority. "Rules as written", and a growing hostility to house rules, is a long-overdue revolution in the gaming community, bringing RPGs in line with the mainstream.
At least that is the way it is supposed to be, no matter what edition or RPG you play. Or at least that I have played.
This I dispute. Despite playing for 25+ years, nothing makes getting games going (or people playing) harder than the whole "No, really, the rules as written aren't necessarily what's used in actual play." thing.
Of course WOTC has done a great job of blurring that.
Thank God, it's long overdue, and may they obliterate it utterly.
Its my game. I built it. I bought the module or wrote it. I put in all the time it took for you to have fun before you even appeared at my table. If you can't trust, like, or tolerate my judgement on how I run my game, then you DM. Or leave.
I'll seize control every time, and do it better than you ever will, and do it right. Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.
Simple as that.
Yes, but not as you think it to be.

[ravenchilde]

Good designers keep the average in mind.

Good designers keep the average in mind for the purpose of making the average into the exceptional. Perhaps a better thought?

While designing for the average common denominator might be an excellent way to sell volumes of material, me personally I find it rather off putting.

I'd much prefer someone design towards considering me an intelligent human being fully able to fill in the gaps on my own.:)

Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.

I dunno. I can't see myself playing in a group of people, or dealing with a game master, I can't trust.

[DangerDwarf]

I'll seize control every time, and do it better than you ever will, and do it right. Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.


Wow. Gaming for over 25+ years huh? So that would at least place you in your 30's and still doing "I w00d soooooo pwn joo!" posts?

Priceless.

Yes Mr. Zen Gamer Dude, you rock.

Considering the subjective matter of what sort of enjoyment people get out of their hobbies, your bravado of "doing it right" is hardly impressive.

Keep on being hardcore though guy. Just don't forget to take a breath every now and again.

[Drake2000]

Wow. Gaming for over 25+ years huh? So that would at least place you in your 30's and still doing "I w00d soooooo pwn joo!" posts?


If that's not worth a laugh point, I don't know what is. :D

[Emryys]

You know... I understand that you're playing Castles and Crusades, but if you're willing to borrow and modify stuff from D&D 3.5, there was a recent supplement designed with just this problem in mind.

which one is this?

[Lazarus]

Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.
I shall vehemently disagree with you saying, essentially, that trust is irrelevant. In any group of people, especially one with more "power" or "control" than others (real or perceived), then trust is /essential/. If you cannot trust the people you're playing with, if you cannot trust the person who's adjudicating the whole game, to be fair, then that breeds discontent.

Think of it this way: playing soccer, you have to trust the referee to call the game properly. If you're in court, you have to trust the judge, and the jury, to follow all the rules properly. If you're at work, you have to trust that your boss will give you work fairly according to your skill. If you're in a chorus, you have to trust that your director knows what he's doing.

Of course, this goes both ways: your boss has to be able to trust that you can do the work, well, on time. Your chorus director has to trust that you will do as much right as you can.

Ignoring this completely does not a healthy group make.

There was a group I was in where I couldn't trust the GMs to not kill off my character, on a whim. They're still pretty good friends, I just don't game with them, because I don't believe they can, or like to (I'm not sure), run the type of game that I like playing.

Laz

[Christopher V. Brady]

I shall vehemently disagree with you saying, essentially, that trust is irrelevant. In any group of people, especially one with more "power" or "control" than others (real or perceived), then trust is /essential/. If you cannot trust the people you're playing with, if you cannot trust the person who's adjudicating the whole game, to be fair, then that breeds discontent.

Think of it this way: playing soccer, you have to trust the referee to call the game properly. If you're in court, you have to trust the judge, and the jury, to follow all the rules properly. If you're at work, you have to trust that your boss will give you work fairly according to your skill. If you're in a chorus, you have to trust that your director knows what he's doing.

Of course, this goes both ways: your boss has to be able to trust that you can do the work, well, on time. Your chorus director has to trust that you will do as much right as you can.

Ignoring this completely does not a healthy group make.

There was a group I was in where I couldn't trust the GMs to not kill off my character, on a whim. They're still pretty good friends, I just don't game with them, because I don't believe they can, or like to (I'm not sure), run the type of game that I like playing.

Laz

I'm with Laz on this one.

[Lazarus]

I'm with Laz on this one.
We gotta agree sometimes ^_^

Laz

[Future Villain Band]

I will close this thread if it continues to get personal. Just a head's up, I hate to close threads about games that are interesting, but if you all can't tone it down a notch, this one's going bye-bye.

[damion4242]

I'll seize control every time, and do it better than you ever will, and do it right. Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.


Personally, I think you need trust, although games should be designed to work without it. I think if you have a game that doesn't assume trust, it's much easier to tell when someone's being a dick, as they are obviously violating the rules. Then you can leave.

If the game assumes there is trust....well, being a jerk is much easier to hide, as the game doesn't cover lots of stuff.

[Breakdaddy]

Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.

This is so wrong that I really must address it. What if your DM sets you against things you cant beat? What if he cheats while rolling behind the screen? If you cant trust him you will leave his game. Trust enters the equation every time you sit at your gaming table, it is irrefutable.

[nemo]

I'll seize control every time, and do it better than you ever will, and do it right. Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.

If I can't trust the players and the GM to some degree, why would I hang out with them in the first place? Our gaming sessions are a time to relax, have fun, and use our imaginations, not slavishly follow a set of rules for their own sake. The rulebook isn't THE LAW that must be deferred to-- it's a helpful set of guidelines that both parties agree to follow (until they decide otherwise) and that the GM uses to base his decisions. As far as "doing it better than you ever will" that just sounds absolutely ridiculous. You'd be laughed out of my group for carrying on with that attitude, though most of us would be baffled as to why you were taking it all so very seriously in the first place. I know I'm "doing it right" if my players and I are having a great time, and rulebook be damned.

IMHO, of course.

[weasel fierce]

I'll seize control every time, and do it better than you ever will, and do it right. Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation.
.

And I hope you have a good time playing board games, because no roleplaying game I can think of comes even close to what you describe

[Treebore]

Being a graduating law student makes me wonder which kind of tradition permeates th laws fot he countries from posters here. Expanding. The USA has a very small and kind of topic Constitution, it is old and has very few additions. I am from Brazil and we have had quite a bunch of Constitutions over the same time frame the US, the latest one is from 1988, started with 245 articles plus 70 transiction articles and has suffered 52 additions, it now has 250 articles (plus a lot more paragraphs and the like) and 95 transiction articles.

This was over a period of 8 years. Our tradition is analitical, we have as much as possible inside the Constitution, if it is not covered there, then we make an addition. This furthers when you get to the judiciary system, here the main source of "justice" is law, in the US it is jurisprudentia (from the latin translates roughly to good sense of the judge), or the decisions previously made by other judges or courts.

In a game system, i cannot help but see the same kind of approach, D&D 3.X is topic, every rule is as detailed as possible and singular, standing on its own from the others around it, C&C is topic, you have generic rules that could be used to rule a wide variety of situations, always requiring the good judgment of the Game Master.

The SIEGE engine is the generic rule, while every skill and feat in D&D 3.X has its own rule, and a complex one in that, bluff and disable devie have different rules and follow different paths, even though they are both skills.

The interesting thing in this is that I often hear US people defending more analitical systems while I prefer more topic ones.

Leaving this whole law thing behind, and stop bothering others with my rant, I want to say this thread has shed great light upon the C&C system, I was already set on purchasing a copy of the Player's book and giving two others as gifts to two friends and this has just solidified my decision.

I won't be going into the 3.X sucks and C&C rocks or the other way around deate though, they are both useful to different people, and I am happy to have them all, specialyl because they provide us options, which is always a good thing.

Cheers,

Raoni.


Good! I hope it leads to you joining the Crusade. Your right, I do pull on my five yeras of playing 3E to run C&C, just like I pull on my fifteen years of playing the older editions prior to 3E. It has all added together to help me run much better games.

Options are always a good thing. That is why I like C&C instead. No chains. Freedom to imagine what you can do, instead of exactly what you can and CANNOT do.

If it isn't a feat, skill, spell, or magical power written on your character sheet you cannot imagine doing it, because you have already been told no.

In C&C you can imagine doing it and see if your CK says yes or no. Doesn't seem like a very important difference, but it is.

[Treebore]

"That authority is an illusion. If the players refuse, then he has no authority. "Rules as written", and a growing hostility to house rules, is a long-overdue revolution in the gaming community, bringing RPGs in line with the mainstream."

Illusion? Right. Tell me that as your leaving my gaming table. For good. Because I said so.

"This I dispute. Despite playing for 25+ years, nothing makes getting games going (or people playing) harder than the whole "No, really, the rules as written aren't necessarily what's used in actual play." thing."

I see you never played 1E. Or if you did, why you didn't play it for very long.



"I'll seize control every time, and do it better than you ever will, and do it right. Games should not ever rely on anything other than the actual product at hand; trust should never enter the equation."

With the attitude and beliefs you have expressed in this thread you would never have the chance to prove anything to me.

Plus I already know how wrong you are. Trust always enters the gaming equation.

If you had real people sitting around your gaming table they would tell you that.

[FASERIP]

The SIEGE Engine is just a codified way of using the established OGL rules of d20 + bonus vs. DC, though. And this is something, as iceberg3k notes, that anybody running an OGL or d20-derived system can do...
Sure, if they use the SIEGE Engine.

Bear in mind, the player's choices of prime attributes determine the various DCs involved... in other words, players choose which challenges their characters are most likely to succeed at. As you point out, anyone could institute this in another d20 game.

But then they would be playing something influenced by Castles and Crusades.

BTW, this is essentially the answer to the OP's original question, and spinachcat (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6230361&postcount=3) basically answered it.

[La Maupin]

Sure, if they use the SIEGE Engine.
Ahahahahahaha... no. I'm going to call shenanigans on your whole operation.

I've been doing "say yes or roll" for YEARS in most games I can think of, certainly longer than the "SIEGE Engine" has been in existence. Saying "that's a neat trick, go ahead" is no more peculiar to C&C's chopped-and-channeled version of the d20 system than to any other.

[DangerDwarf]

Saying "that's a neat trick, go ahead"

Uh. That's not the SIEGE engine. That's saying "that's a neat trick, go ahead."

[DangerDwarf]

The SIEGE Engine is just a codified way of using the established OGL rules of d20 + bonus vs. DC, though. And this is something, as iceberg3k notes, that anybody running an OGL or d20-derived system can do. It's not innovative, it's just explicitly stated as being the way you should do things, as opposed to a series of discrete examples a la D&D's skills and combat manuevers.

It is not just an OGL / d20 mechanic. It's a RPG thing; whether it's SR4's "Thresholds", Talislanta's "Degrees of Difficulty" or countless other games which use a target number to determine success or failure.

What makes these games unique or innovative is how their mechanic arrives at the TN.

Within C&C the use of Primes plays an important role which has a large effect on the "DC" mechanic. Use of levels as a bonus to the role depending on class and character background adds another dimension.

What makes C&C's SIEGE engine innovative is the fact that it allows you to accomplish anything you can in a more codified system with a single, unified mechanic that has more ramifications than it's simple outward appearance would initially lead one to believe. All the goodness in a simple, easy to use package.

So yes, it is something "anyone" could do, just like any mechanic from any other game is somehting anyone could do. But like FASERIP pointed out, if you're doing it using primes and other SIEGE engine bonuses then you are doing so based of of C&C.

[Breakdaddy]

Ahahahahahaha... no. I'm going to call shenanigans on your whole operation.

I've been doing "say yes or roll" for YEARS in most games I can think of, certainly longer than the "SIEGE Engine" has been in existence. Saying "that's a neat trick, go ahead" is no more peculiar to C&C's chopped-and-channeled version of the d20 system than to any other.

You should probably go play the game if you wish to discuss it with any sort of authority. I can tell by the snippet above that you have not tried C&C or, if you have, you did not understand the underlying SIEGE mechanic very well. Laughing maniacally and invoking South Park over it will not change the fact that your understanding of the system is deeply flawed.

I am beginnning to suspect that you dont want to understand the system at all, but are having too much fun sniping at folks to be bothered to enlighten yourself with facts about the system. This makes me a sad panda. There, I can invoke south park as well.

[Keefe the Thief]

And there it is again, the thread about the "solution". People telling each other:
- My games were bereft of imagination, and i have the solution: feats killed my ideas!
- My games could not work without mechanical options, because i want to work with my characters personality as well as with his diverse powers!

Could we please not clutch systems to our breast? They do not stop bullets*, or criticism, you know. D&D 3.5 is a high-options system. That does not work with every group or DM. If you feel the options hamper your style, change. Stop playing it. It works. But it is NOT impossible to stunt with the system. It is NOT killing roleplaying and creative strategic adventuring for everyone. Only for you!

And the worst anybody can do to pimp his beloved system is to tell others that it "saves". It saves you from the growing power of your players! It puts the reigns back into the hands of the GM - as it should be! As it should be? This smells so much of "one-way-ism" - of the idea that ONLY your chosen system can solve the problem of the roleplaying market. Why do we have to say that? Is it not enough that our chosen system can solve OUR problems? What else could we ask for?


*Except bullet-stopping Hero-System Sourcebooks (TM) - where Kevlar Pages really count.

[perfect^inzanity]

And there it is again, the thread about the "solution". People telling each other:
- My games were bereft of imagination, and i have the solution: feats killed my ideas!
- My games could not work without mechanical options, because i want to work with my characters personality as well as with his diverse powers!

Could we please not clutch systems to our breast? They do not stop bullets*, or criticism, you know. D&D 3.5 is a high-options system. That does not work with every group or DM. If you feel the options hamper your style, change. Stop playing it. It works. But it is NOT impossible to stunt with the system. It is NOT killing roleplaying and creative strategic adventuring for everyone. Only for you!

And the worst anybody can do to pimp his beloved system is to tell others that it "saves". It saves you from the growing power of your players! It puts the reigns back into the hands of the GM - as it should be! As it should be? This smells so much of "one-way-ism" - of the idea that ONLY your chosen system can solve the problem of the roleplaying market. Why do we have to say that? Is it not enough that our chosen system can solve OUR problems? What else could we ask for?


*Except bullet-stopping Hero-System Sourcebooks (TM) - where Kevlar Pages really count.

QFT!

[Cam Banks]

Bear in mind, the player's choices of prime attributes determine the various DCs involved... in other words, players choose which challenges their characters are most likely to succeed at. As you point out, anyone could institute this in another d20 game.

It's a skill system short cut. And the real difference is that in some cases you get the equivalent of a +6, in others you don't. Right? Like I said, it's not innovative. It's just presented in its own way.

Please note that I am not saying this is a bad thing. It works for what it seeks to accomplish. But I don't think it offers anything essentially new to gaming. It just adds something new to AD&D.

Cheers,
Cam

[ravenchilde]

. It works for what it seeks to accomplish. But I don't think it offers anything essentially new to gaming. It just adds something new to AD&D.

Cheers,
Cam


This is essentially correct. The thing is, C&C isn't supposed to offer anything 'new' to gaming. Instead, its a codification of an older idea in gaming. One that was, and apparently still is, very successful in its application.

C&C, in part, is designed as a tribute to a particular style of game. Towit a more free flowing and abstract methodology.

There are, obviously, many that prefer that style still. :)

[Treebore]

Ahahahahahaha... no. I'm going to call shenanigans on your whole operation.

I've been doing "say yes or roll" for YEARS in most games I can think of, certainly longer than the "SIEGE Engine" has been in existence. Saying "that's a neat trick, go ahead" is no more peculiar to C&C's chopped-and-channeled version of the d20 system than to any other.

I love it when posters prove their ignorance. "Chopped and channeled"? Yep, you don't know anything.

[La Maupin]

This is essentially correct. The thing is, C&C isn't supposed to offer anything 'new' to gaming. Instead, its a codification of an older idea in gaming. One that was, and apparently still is, very successful in its application.

C&C, in part, is designed as a tribute to a particular style of game. Towit a more free flowing and abstract methodology.

There are, obviously, many that prefer that style still. :)
That's fine. Clearly, you're having fun with C&C. However, there are a number of C&Cers in this thread who are going "Well YOUR fun is clearly Bad and Wrong." And accusing people (esp. me) of not "getting" the C&C system. I get it just fine. I just don't care for it as much as other systems or even other variations of the d20 System, except for a few particular uses. And the reason for that is that I like the crunchy bits, and I like the shiny. C&C doesn't deliver enough of either for my taste.

[La Maupin]

I love it when posters prove their ignorance. "Chopped and channeled"? Yep, you don't know anything.
I just noticed your post count. Did you just sign up so you could be C&C's white night, and sling stupidly unconscionable abuse at me? Either way, reported.

[Curt]

I love it when posters prove their ignorance. "Chopped and channeled"? Yep, you don't know anything.


Speaking of not knowing things, did you know about the RPG.net rules? They can be found by following the link in my signature. I strongly suggest that you read them and take them to heart.

Continuing to post hostile, attack-oriented posts will result in being banned. Please stop.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[ravenchilde]

That's fine. Clearly, you're having fun with C&C. However, there are a number of C&Cers in this thread who are going "Well YOUR fun is clearly Bad and Wrong." And accusing people (esp. me) of not "getting" the C&C system.

*smiles* Thing is, there are just as many in other camps saying, in essence, the same thing.

Hence all the contention when strong opinions clash. :cool:

Everyone has their favorite toy. Certainly people are entitled to hold forth and extole the virtues thereof without resorting to denegration of those who play whatever.

Now me, I've played crunchy bits games, Champions comes to mind. I've also played a fair bit of the current incarnation of the D&D game. In all the games I have sat in on, the only thing that has made any real difference to my sense of 'fun' with a given system is the people I've played with.

My personal preference for game systems are those I don't have to spend much time trying to retain information. But thats just me and two factors. Lack of time, and a poor memory for details. After nearly 30 years of gaming, I'm reaching a certain critical mass for rules retention. ^_~`

Must be getting old I guess? :p

[Nelzie]

Ahahahahahaha... no. I'm going to call shenanigans on your whole operation.

I've been doing "say yes or roll" for YEARS in most games I can think of, certainly longer than the "SIEGE Engine" has been in existence. Saying "that's a neat trick, go ahead" is no more peculiar to C&C's chopped-and-channeled version of the d20 system than to any other.

Again, you are doggin' C&C for the same thing you say that you do in D&D 3.5.

What really is the point of this thread?

You called C&C Fighters dumb, which boils down to the lack of "feats" in C&C. It has been explained, by several posters, how you don't need "feats" ala D&D to obtain the same or similar results in C&C and by that virtue you are not limited by anything beyond what the CK will approve.

This allows opportunities for ANY character to make multiple attacks in a round, climb walls, move silently, hide in shadows, power attack, cleave attack and many other tasks/abilities simply by using the SIEGE Engine.

D&D Characters are under extreme limits compared to what is possible under C&C. If you don't have the feat, it's not possible.

Would you let a Wizard attempt a "Power Attack"? How about a "Cleave" or "Spring Attack" per the D&D 3.5 feats? If they don't have the feat, it isn't possible, that's the rules.

[baran_i_kanu]

I just noticed your post count. Did you just sign up so you could be C&C's white night, and sling stupidly unconscionable abuse at me? Either way, reported.


Well, this ties into the other thing I've learned from all this: C&C players appear to have Amiga Persecution Complex in the worst way.


sure.

[La Maupin]

Again, you are doggin' C&C for the same thing you say that you do in D&D 3.5.

What really is the point of this thread?

You called C&C Fighters dumb, which boils down to the lack of "feats" in C&C. It has been explained, by several posters, how you don't need "feats" ala D&D to obtain the same or similar results in C&C and by that virtue you are not limited by anything beyond what the CK will approve.
OK, you are misinterpreting the term "dumb fighter." A "dumb fighter" is a character who ends up in the fighter class for lack of something better to do; i.e. he didn't meet the ability prerequisites for any other class. While this can be interesting to role-play, it's entirely dependent on the ability of the player to enjoy a suboptimal (or even sometimes submarginal) character.

This allows opportunities for ANY character to make multiple attacks in a round, climb walls, move silently, hide in shadows, power attack, cleave attack and many other tasks/abilities simply by using the SIEGE Engine.

D&D Characters are under extreme limits compared to what is possible under C&C. If you don't have the feat, it's not possible.
Under many feat descriptions (at least for general feats), the action that the feat allows can be attempted without the feat, but at a penalty on the roll. There are actions that can't be attempted without the feat, but those are mostly feats where common sense would tell you that if you don't know how, you can't do it anyway.

BTW, climbing, moving silently and hiding are skills, not feats (and all three can be used untrained, anyway); multiple attacks per round are gained automatically by leveling up.

You're basically saying that a character in an RPG with a skill system is under extreme limits compared to one in an RPG without one. Which is true, but pointless. There are many RPGs (very well-liked ones, at that) with far more restrictive skills-and-powers systems than D&D's. Just TRY to use a power you didn't pay points for in HERO or GURPS. By contrast, there are quite a number of skills and a handful of feats that can be used untrained in D&D.

Would you let a Wizard attempt a "Power Attack"? How about a "Cleave" or "Spring Attack" per the D&D 3.5 feats? If they don't have the feat, it isn't possible, that's the rules.
Probably not, no more than a Champions GM would allow a speedster to shoot energy bolts (unless, of course, he paid points for the applicable energy projection power). Because the system of D&D has the assumption built in (in common with most modern systems) that for powers (feats) to be available, they need to be paid for.

Would you let a fighter cast a spell (assume no caster levels)? It's the same principle.

[La Maupin]

sure.
Because of course, there's no difference between a fairly mild rebuke and being openly and aggressively abusive.

I swear, only on RPGnet...

[baran_i_kanu]

Because of course, there's no difference between a fairly mild rebuke and being openly and aggressively abusive.

I swear, only on RPGnet...

rude is rude.
and a subtle attack and an aggressive attack on people is STILLl an attack.

i come here to enjoy reading opinions, not watch it degrade into a useless snarkfest or subtley be accused of having mental problems.

[FASERIP]

It's a skill system short cut.
Yep.

And the real difference is that in some cases you get the equivalent of a +6, in others you don't. Right?
Which is a common houserule.

Like I said, it's not innovative. It's just presented in its own way.

Please note that I am not saying this is a bad thing. It works for what it seeks to accomplish. But I don't think it offers anything essentially new to gaming. It just adds something new to AD&D.
I don't actually disagree with you.

I only responded to your post because you discussed the mechanic without mentioning prime attributes--- without which, there is no 'SIEGE Engine.'

[FASERIP]

OK, you are misinterpreting the term "dumb fighter." A "dumb fighter" is a character who ends up in the fighter class for lack of something better to do; i.e. he didn't meet the ability prerequisites for any other class. While this can be interesting to role-play, it's entirely dependent on the ability of the player to enjoy a suboptimal (or even sometimes submarginal) character.
How is the dumb fighter problem even relevant to this thread then?

I think even you're confused about what the 'dumb fighter' problem is. Let's look at your original post:
What does C&C do about the "Dumb Fighter" problem? It seems that mechanically, there's not much interesting about fighters in C&C.
Your question is about mechanics, not characters with lousy stat rolls.

[La Maupin]

How is the dumb fighter problem even relevant to this thread then?

I think even you're confused about what the 'dumb fighter' problem is. Let's look at your original post:

Your question is about mechanics, not characters with lousy stat rolls.
Well, lousy stat rolls are just part of a reason a character can end up as a fighter even if it's a suboptimal choice. Some new players are just handed a fighter and told "here, play a fighter, it's easy." Which, while on the face true, gets fighters an unfair rep as being the "dumb and easy" choice to play. 3.x actually made me a great deal more interested in fighters as a class, since the options to customize them are easier to see, and have obvious mechanical effects on the game.

While Bradford's statement was made in a boneheaded way, the point I think he was trying to make (or at least the point I would have made) is while trust is necessary in a gaming group, the game should not be written in a way that puts undue power over a player's character in the GM's hands. When you write the rules in a way that requires extensive fiat for the game to run smoothly, the game becomes very abusable in the hands of an aggressive (or even just careless) GM.

[FASERIP]

Well, lousy stat rolls are just part of a reason a character can end up as a fighter even if it's a suboptimal choice....

There seems to be a huge bait-and-switch going on in this thread.

So let me reiterate my question:

How is the 'dumb fighter problem' relevant to the thread you started?

You seem to using different definitions depending on what point you want to make, since you keep bringing up mechanics and rules in relation to it.

[ravenchilde]

When you write the rules in a way that requires extensive fiat for the game to run smoothly, the game becomes very abusable in the hands of an aggressive (or even just careless) GM.

The same point can be made about writing a game that codifies rules. This can lead to people finding obscure mechanics in various supplements to augment their character in ways that promote excess advantage.

In any case, the game master can rule as to what they wish to include in a given game. "X book is not permitted at my table"

In both cases, game master fiat rules the day.

As to the original question. The Prime system for the Seige mechanic gives much the same over all benefits as a more codified feat and skill system, it just does so more abstractly.

Instead of purchasing variable abilties at each level, one aquires an over all raise in ability and an open door policy on what a character can do.

In either system, the player determines what their character is capable of. One method is just more abstracted than the other.:)

[Emryys]

It seems that because of the openess of the seige mechanic that there is a percieved potential for abuse by the DM. Whereas in systems that are more hard coded, there is potential for abuse by the players. I think this is generally solved by an accepted maturity by all paticipants, that the objective is to have fun.

Easier said then done. So if there are signs of this kind of behaviour, then move on... I guess good groups are hard to come by....

[Treebore]

Well, lousy stat rolls are just part of a reason a character can end up as a fighter even if it's a suboptimal choice. Some new players are just handed a fighter and told "here, play a fighter, it's easy." Which, while on the face true, gets fighters an unfair rep as being the "dumb and easy" choice to play. 3.x actually made me a great deal more interested in fighters as a class, since the options to customize them are easier to see, and have obvious mechanical effects on the game.

While Bradford's statement was made in a boneheaded way, the point I think he was trying to make (or at least the point I would have made) is while trust is necessary in a gaming group, the game should not be written in a way that puts undue power over a player's character in the GM's hands. When you write the rules in a way that requires extensive fiat for the game to run smoothly, the game becomes very abusable in the hands of an aggressive (or even just careless) GM.


apparently you have been very lucky if you think the 3E rules have stopped DM's from being that way. I have had the displeasure of running into two, so far.


The dumb fighter syndrome is overcome when the player becomes experienced enough to understand that the fighter doesn't have to be that way.

[Treebore]

Speaking of not knowing things, did you know about the RPG.net rules? They can be found by following the link in my signature. I strongly suggest that you read them and take them to heart.

Continuing to post hostile, attack-oriented posts will result in being banned. Please stop.

Thanks for your cooperation.


If you define that as a personal attack I'll be happy to leave these boards. for good.

[Curt]

If you define that as a personal attack I'll be happy to leave these boards. for good.

You are more than welcome to go or stay as you wish. While you post here, however, you will obey the rules as they are stated. If you can't do so, then RPG.net is not the site for you.

Any other comments or protests you may have may be sent to the administrators at admin.rpgnet@gmail.com. Please do not respond to moderator actions in the threads again.

Thank you and have a good day.

[Nifelhein]

It seems you want to discuss not the dumb fighter, but how the systems makes the fighter the less "novice" class option, one in equal level of complexity in the system. I doubt it does that.

In D&D every class has some degree of complexity tied to them, in previous editions of D&D the fighter had them as well, just not obviously, they had the weapon proficiencies and specialization, in C&C it seems all classes loos a lot of mechanical complexity.

So I think, before getting to read a C&C book, that it solves the thing you seem to be after by reducing all character classes complexity and giving them very few rules to follow, this makes all kinds of actions be solved in basically three ways, a spell description, a skill attempt (SIEGE engine) and a combat action (attack, dodge and the like).

It also seems all characters will have some degree of competence in those three areas.

I think i may actualyl gone into the topic here ;)

[Nelzie]

OK, you are misinterpreting the term "dumb fighter." A "dumb fighter" is a character who ends up in the fighter class for lack of something better to do; i.e. he didn't meet the ability prerequisites for any other class. While this can be interesting to role-play, it's entirely dependent on the ability of the player to enjoy a suboptimal (or even sometimes submarginal) character.

You are moving the goal posts again.

The SIEGE Engine doesn't really care about the character's stats. Therefor you have the same options available to you as a poorly rolled Fighter as you do a high stat rolled fighter.

You have already stated that the "problem" is the lack of "customizability" and lack of "feats". That's already been addressed to death in this thread.

Having "bad" stats with any C&C character is irrelevent, because there is nothing in any of the stats that impact your character's ability to do anything. In fact, there are no stat requirements for any class. The only thing that stats can affect are saving throws and whether or not there is upwards of a +3 bonus or as much as a -4 penalty to rolls using the SIEGE Engine.


Under many feat descriptions (at least for general feats), the action that the feat allows can be attempted without the feat, but at a penalty on the roll. There are actions that can't be attempted without the feat, but those are mostly feats where common sense would tell you that if you don't know how, you can't do it anyway.


You can use that same common sense in C&C.


BTW, climbing, moving silently and hiding are skills, not feats (and all three can be used untrained, anyway); multiple attacks per round are gained automatically by leveling up.

The SIEGE Engine doesn't care if something is a "skill" or a "feat".

Multiple attacks per round is something that make the C&C Fighter unique amongst the other classes, but there is no reason why any other class couldn't attempt to get an extra attack with the SIEGE Engine. (As described earlier in this thread.)


You're basically saying that a character in an RPG with a skill system is under extreme limits compared to one in an RPG without one. Which is true, but pointless. There are many RPGs (very well-liked ones, at that) with far more restrictive skills-and-powers systems than D&D's. Just TRY to use a power you didn't pay points for in HERO or GURPS. By contrast, there are quite a number of skills and a handful of feats that can be used untrained in D&D.

No, I am saying that a rules light game that has rather open ended "skill" system is more apt to have the player(s) be told "Yes", then they are to be told no. The WEG d6 game system is built entirely around Stats and Skills and it is a very open ended skill system, designed to say "yes" to characters.

More complex games often have much greater instances of saying "No" to characters.


Probably not, no more than a Champions GM would allow a speedster to shoot energy bolts (unless, of course, he paid points for the applicable energy projection power). Because the system of D&D has the assumption built in (in common with most modern systems) that for powers (feats) to be available, they need to be paid for.

Would you let a fighter cast a spell (assume no caster levels)? It's the same principle.

I would let a Fighter attempt to use a Wizard Scroll in a desperate situation using the SIEGE Enginer. The base is 12(INT as a Prime) or 18 (INT is not a Prime) and the Fighter would ONLY be able to add any INT bonus he/she might have to the roll, since using scrolls is not a Fighter thing to do, the Fighter's level would not be added to the roll. The difficulty added to the base would be the level of the spell or the level of the caster that created the scroll.

So, a 5th Level scroll would automatically be either a 17 or a 23 for the Fighter to succeed. Obviously, this scroll would be impossible for the Fighter, unless the INT bonus the Fighter has is +3 and he/she rolled a natural 20.

As for having "caster levels". There are no hard rules for multi-classing in C&C and quite frankly, it isn't possible in my gameworld. However, I am very open to creating new classes that will match the character concepts that any player at my table is interested in. As long as that concept fits within the boundries of the gameworld.

[Nelzie]

Well, lousy stat rolls are just part of a reason a character can end up as a fighter even if it's a suboptimal choice. Some new players are just handed a fighter and told "here, play a fighter, it's easy." Which, while on the face true, gets fighters an unfair rep as being the "dumb and easy" choice to play. 3.x actually made me a great deal more interested in fighters as a class, since the options to customize them are easier to see, and have obvious mechanical effects on the game.

Please choose a point and stick to it. You keep moving your point, depending upon how your point is addressed.

For example, when I am doggin' D&D 3.5 I very strictly stick to my points:

1. I find the Feat System to be an entirely unnecesary burden to put onto the players and the GM, especially as a campaign progresses. Pick a few wrong feats? Oh well, I guess someone havs to buy PHB II to get the rules that cover swapping out feats. There's entire forum threads simply about choosing the right "feat chain" to make the most effective character for X type of situations.

To me, talking that much about mechanics is a waste of time. That's my opinion and I stick to it. I would rather be talking about the kind of adventures, stories and other things that people are using in running their campaign. Those mechanics get in the way of focusing on what I see if the fun in RPGs.

2. I find the D&D Skill system to be to strict. The few amount of skill points and the short list of skills hardly covers everything that might prove useful over the course of a campaign and hobbles characters if they didn't bother with some "limited use" skill. Take swimming, how many people pop points into that skill?

3. I find the D&D Multi-Classing and "balance" of the classes to use the same XP chart to destroy the concept of verisimilitude. It is supposed to take years of dedication to become of the "professions" in a classic fantasy world, that's why you don't find every single NPC loaded up with PC Classes.

Yet, in D&D3.5 a fighter can "wake up" one morning and decide to be a Wizard or a Cleric or a Monk or a Rogue or a Druid. No rhym, no reason, just 'poof' suddenly he/she is just as skilled as a 1st level whatever in the class that other characters took years to train to become 1st level in.

In C&C, I have a light enough rules system and a very clean deconstruction of the classes available, that it is rather simple to craft a new self-balancing class to meet a player's character concept.


While Bradford's statement was made in a boneheaded way, the point I think he was trying to make (or at least the point I would have made) is while trust is necessary in a gaming group, the game should not be written in a way that puts undue power over a player's character in the GM's hands. When you write the rules in a way that requires extensive fiat for the game to run smoothly, the game becomes very abusable in the hands of an aggressive (or even just careless) GM.

If you really believe that, then you should be playing Wushu. That is an entirely narrative game that puts almost perfect control of everything into the hands of the players. The "GM" simply sets the scene and allows things to play out. Talk to Kiero about that game. I personally find it to be the exact opposite of what I am looking for in a game and simply couldn't do it justice.

The majority of RPGs, especially the popular brand names all put significant power over what happens to the characters into the hands of the GM. That's been a core concept of RPGs since the 70's. Unless you are playing a Narrativist game, you are playing under that 30+ year old core concept.

[Nelzie]

It seems that because of the openess of the seige mechanic that there is a percieved potential for abuse by the DM. Whereas in systems that are more hard coded, there is potential for abuse by the players. I think this is generally solved by an accepted maturity by all paticipants, that the objective is to have fun.

Easier said then done. So if there are signs of this kind of behaviour, then move on... I guess good groups are hard to come by....

QFT!

[Golden Age Superhero]

You know I find it interesting that Fighters are being described as having more to do and more options in 3E D&D than in C&C. Why? Because when you go to WOTC boards one of the biggest complaints/topics is that compared to the Barbarian and the Cleric, Fighters are inferior. It also should be noted that the book referenced earlier (which was Tome of Battle BTW), presented a class called the Warblade that it vastly superior to the Fighter.

I myself will take either the Fighter from C&C or the Soldier from Conan D20 as they at least have some things that other don't have and in the case of the latter a much better skill selection.

I think that the reason that the Fighter suffers from such a discrimination is that they don't have all the bells and whistles that some other classes have and because many gamers are looking for classes with loads of features they think the fighter is something that offers little to them.

I like Fighters because they simple, I like to take a simple concept or character and grow from that instead of having tons of information to retain. To me that is fun.

Each his own. The important thing to remember is that this is a game and you are supposed to be having fun. If you are not having fun than your are not playing correctly. The wrong way of playing is the way of nofun.

[The Radioactivist]

But I don't have to rely on the GM to allow it. "Mother May I?" is a bad design idea, to be avoided whenever possible. Good games don't rely on GM fiat.

And THIS is what the problem is between old grognards and today's players...lack of trust and willingness to submit to the GM for fun. This is why I am sticking to either minimalist rules sets (i.e. Savage Worlds) or older rules sets (ex. 1st editions of D&D, Gamma World, etc.) - there is less reliance on absolute rules and they avoid boxing in players' ideas/actions by requiring certain character attributes (such as Feats, Advantages and Disads, and to a lesser extent skills).

I think it is just a generational difference in gamers we are seeing here - no one is right or wrong, but when you start a game it would behoove each GM to make sure the players know her style - either strict rules or GM fiat...

[Nifelhein]

I think it is a step further than that, chipjamieson, they can rely on DM fiat for the story adn NPCs but relying on DM fiat for the rules, nooooo that is too much power for one person...

Really, I have had great games in a good system but never had great games in a bad story.

[pacalypse]

I think it is a step further than that, chipjamieson, they can rely on DM fiat for the story adn NPCs but relying on DM fiat for the rules, nooooo that is too much power for one person...

Really, I have had great games in a good system but never had great games in a bad story.

Even with games like D&D 3.x they still have that power...A suck DM is a suck DM. DM's decide DC's, what monsters you face, traps, etc... They wanna totally annihilate the party, houserule, etc. they still can. Rule 0 guarantees that. I don't see how that's too much power...that's the role assigned to a traditional GM/DM.

If I want different magic levels in my game than what's suggested, or a different character creation method than what's offered, or even different DC's to reflect a gritier and survivalist world then I change it. How is this any different, except when a player claims that's not what the book says(cause things like DC's are in his book now, grrrrr :mad: ). Yeah well, it's my world and as long as I let you know upfront or am consistent with my rulings how is this any different with a more granular system as opposed to a streamlined one(except for the fact that there are more resulting permutations from me changing something in a high granular system)?

To me the biggest difference between games like C&C or Basic Fantasy or D&D 3.x is simple...in C&C you build up to the game you want, while in D&D you strip down to the game you want. For me it's easier to add what I want to a simple system than deconstruct a more complex one. YMMV

[Nifelhein]

The odd thing is, we can easily remember guidelines (simple) but we have to rely much more on the book and argue much mroe when we have to use a given set of rules (be them Dcs or whatever).

An argument over some C&C CL is probably going to take a lot less time than an argument over a DC on D20, since DMs try to think out of the box and te players try to keep the box as much as possible.

[ShanG]

You know I find it interesting that Fighters are being described as having more to do and more options in 3E D&D than in C&C. Why? Because when you go to WOTC boards one of the biggest complaints/topics is that compared to the Barbarian and the Cleric, Fighters are inferior. It also should be noted that the book referenced earlier (which was Tome of Battle BTW), presented a class called the Warblade that it vastly superior to the Fighter..

3.5 Fighters using the core books really don't have much to do at all.
3.5 Fighters using a bunch of different supplements probably do have more options than in C&C.

The amount of complaining you hear from people is likely to depend on how many books they own.

[Christopher V. Brady]

You know I find it interesting that Fighters are being described as having more to do and more options in 3E D&D than in C&C. Why? Because when you go to WOTC boards one of the biggest complaints/topics is that compared to the Barbarian and the Cleric, Fighters are inferior. It also should be noted that the book referenced earlier (which was Tome of Battle BTW), presented a class called the Warblade that it vastly superior to the Fighter.

I myself will take either the Fighter from C&C or the Soldier from Conan D20 as they at least have some things that other don't have and in the case of the latter a much better skill selection.

I think that the reason that the Fighter suffers from such a discrimination is that they don't have all the bells and whistles that some other classes have and because many gamers are looking for classes with loads of features they think the fighter is something that offers little to them.

I like Fighters because they simple, I like to take a simple concept or character and grow from that instead of having tons of information to retain. To me that is fun.

Each his own. The important thing to remember is that this is a game and you are supposed to be having fun. If you are not having fun than your are not playing correctly. The wrong way of playing is the way of nofun.

The problem I have with D&D styled fighters is that they are over shadowed by other classes in an area that they should be shining in. The battlefield.

They should be doing the most damage to an opponent when fighting, because that's what they do. Fight. Having the most armour is nice and all, but if it takes you hours to kill an opponent, then there's a big chance you'll die, no matter what your dodge/armour bonus is.

Every other class either have other schticks or have abilities that allow them to end the combat just a few rounds. Rogues have a sneak attack (Which is named differently with each game) that adds multiple d6's to conditional situations, but those are easy to do. Mages have attacks that can do 10s of dice in a single shot, over a large area, OR have insta-kill moves that always work, but can be resisted. Clerics have the ability to buff themselves to compensate for their lack of personal offensive power. Fighters and their ilk? They get lots of armour, and depending on the game system, you might be SOL, or you might have to burn a feat to allow you to sacrifice your accuracy for that huge damage bonus. Now some say that this damage bonus is a good balancer, but you have to remember that the other classes don't have to take a hit on their main abilities.

And the limited use factor of magic simply means that the entire party stops when the magic is no longer available. The fact that the Rogues and Fighters can go all day and all night means nothing, because they willingly halt to make sure they can get the bonuses that the arcane/divine stuff can gives them.

(Hey! Rogues do it from behind, Fighters can do it all day... I'll have to use that!)

It makes it hard to run an all Fighter campaign, as I always wanted to do.

All this mind you, is IF you use the RULES AS WRITTEN. IF you are like me, and something of a tinkerer (And no game is safe from me in that regard) you may have already fixed this issue, and thus this argument is more or less moot.

This is ALSO my personal opinion and your mileage may vary.

[Nelzie]

Unholy Thread Necromancy, Batman! (...and here I thought I was totally locked in for having the last word in an otherwise contentious thread.)


Anyway, back on topic...


And THIS is what the problem is between old grognards and today's players...lack of trust and willingness to submit to the GM for fun. This is why I am sticking to either minimalist rules sets (i.e. Savage Worlds) or older rules sets (ex. 1st editions of D&D, Gamma World, etc.) - there is less reliance on absolute rules and they avoid boxing in players' ideas/actions by requiring certain character attributes (such as Feats, Advantages and Disads, and to a lesser extent skills).

I think it is just a generational difference in gamers we are seeing here - no one is right or wrong, but when you start a game it would behoove each GM to make sure the players know her style - either strict rules or GM fiat...

This is, of course, ignoring that there still exists GM Fiat, as the GM can simply allow or disallow whatever class, PrC, single or multiple books from the game that he/she wishes to. In fact, the GM could say, "Only 'THIS' PrC from 'THIS' book is allowed, everything else in 'THIS' book is disallowed."

GM Fiat doesn't go away.

I've been running a C&C game for a little longer than the age of this thread and there hasn't been any issues of the "Dumb" Any Class kind of character, simply because the SIEGE Engine allows for some many possibilities. I have players trying to "Rapid Shot", pull off "Cleave" manuervers and a slew of other things that require "Feats" in D&D3.5.

The longer we play it, the more disgruntled with D&D3.5 the couple of die hard D&D3.5 guys become. Just recently we were talking and concluded that D&D3.5 is more like an overly complex Tactical Strategy game with Fantasy Based scenarios. People talk about their "characters" on all the boards he frequents (ENworld, WotC) not as characters, but as Builds, which is no different than how he hears people talk about their Warhammer 40K armies.

[Nelzie]

3.5 Fighters using the core books really don't have much to do at all.
3.5 Fighters using a bunch of different supplements probably do have more options than in C&C.

The amount of complaining you hear from people is likely to depend on how many books they own.

Really? I have been told that the amount of complaining and arguing increases as the number of books involved in a campaign increase. (As does the length of time looking up things in books and double-checking DM Rulings.)

[ShanG]

Really? I have been told that the amount of complaining and arguing increases as the number of books involved in a campaign increase. (As does the length of time looking up things in books and double-checking DM Rulings.)

I suppose it depends not only on how many books you have, but on what they are as well.

In the Core Book, casters have a pretty big advantage over Fighters.
In a lot of the early 3.5 Supplements, Casters get far more than Fighters out of each book due to the amount of New Spells compared to New Fighter Stuff.
In some of the relatively recent books - PHBII, Tome of Battle, Dungeonscape, etc - Fighters do finally get to expand their bag of tricks, and have useful stuff to do all the way up to level 20.

[jcfiala]

Really? I have been told that the amount of complaining and arguing increases as the number of books involved in a campaign increase. (As does the length of time looking up things in books and double-checking DM Rulings.)

That probably depends, frankly, on the maturity of your group. I'm letting a fair number of books into my current game, and there's not any complaining going on, and folks generally are expected to know what their characters can do.

[pacalypse]

That probably depends, frankly, on the maturity of your group. I'm letting a fair number of books into my current game, and there's not any complaining going on, and folks generally are expected to know what their characters can do.

I don't think it's necessarily a "maturity" issue. More books=more rules, thus more rules to interpret as well as more holes to exploit or particular cases to become confused about. People inherently draw different conclusions from information and when that information is divided into more and more subsets the occurence for differing oppinions as well as inherent flaws and contradictions grows.

The problem(IMHO) is that 3.x gives the players access to these new rules by interspersing them through books aimed at players, when they should in fact be in DM books so that the DM has total control over whether they are even considered in "his/her" game. A player who sees something that's cool is most likely to...

1.) Interpret it in the most broad and beneficial sense that it could logically be applied to his/her character.

2.) In no way consider it's ramifications upon a campaign world, but only upon his/her PC.

3.) Push for the best possible usage(as pertains to his actions) when a DM rules on it.

4.) Not be concerned with cohesion or confusion as it pertains to the whole of the game.

All of these and more issues have nothing to do with "maturity" but are really more human nature than anything(that's why we got lawyers in our society.). C&C gives broad, streamlined rules and clearly delieanates "rule calls" and interpretation to the CK. Nowhere in the 3.x PHB does it state that the DM is the final arbiter on rules or interpretation. In the DM guide it does(one sentence I think) but players don't read the DM guide.

[jcfiala]

I don't think it's necessarily a "maturity" issue. More books=more rules, thus more rules to interpret as well as more holes to exploit or particular cases to become confused about. People inherently draw different conclusions from information and when that information is divided into more and more subsets the occurence for differing oppinions as well as inherent flaws and contradictions grows.

Maybe so, but I've been in several - half a dozen or more - 3.X game of D&D, both as player and GM, and I've never run into arguments or complaints over material. There are occasional discussions, but no one raises their voice, and once the GM makes his case at the table that's the way it lies, unless a player comes up with a more compelling argument away from the table.

Now, handling a disagreement without making arguments or complaints? I call that maturity.

[pacalypse]

Maybe so, but I've been in several - half a dozen or more - 3.X game of D&D, both as player and GM, and I've never run into arguments or complaints over material. There are occasional discussions, but no one raises their voice, and once the GM makes his case at the table that's the way it lies, unless a player comes up with a more compelling argument away from the table.

Now, handling a disagreement without making arguments or complaints? I call that maturity.

"arguments" are what each side uses in a discussion and "complaints" are usually what sparks a discussion. You're assuming that an argument has to involve shouting or whatever, and that's not true(it's your intepretation of the word.). If neither side has an acual argument to put forth then there's nothing to discuss.

Anyway I feel like your nitpicking at semantics instead of addressing the issue. I gave logical reasons for why more books could contribute to arg...ahem "discussions" in the game.

[jcfiala]

"arguments" are what each side uses in a discussion and "complaints" are usually what sparks a discussion. You're assuming that an argument has to involve shouting or whatever, and that's not true(it's your intepretation of the word.). If neither side has an acual argument to put forth then there's nothing to discuss.

Anyway I feel like your nitpicking at semantics instead of addressing the issue. I gave logical reasons for why more books could contribute to arg...ahem "discussions" in the game.

Ah, well. Not so much nitpicking as having different definitions. "Arguments" are when people are yelling to get their point across, and "complaints" are when someone keeps going on about something they dislike - or at least in my way of thinking. If you're saying more books leads to people having disagreements that are quietly and quickly handled by a short discussion, then I can see that - although I don't see that many disagreements in my games, and again, been playing 3.X since it came out. That said, I'm probably done with the discussion.

[jgants]

I'll just pipe in with my 2 cents:

* I don't recall ever having a "dumb fighter" problem when I played older editions of D&D.

* I'm not convinced that 3.X really offers much more to fighters to do than previous editions.

[SteamPulp]

Yeah, but another reason we went to C&C is to get away from 5,000 rules. We don't want, or need, 5,000 rules to tell us how to run a fun and cool game. We have our imaginations and intelligence to help us with that.

I can see where people need a lot of rules to explain how to handle every variation of a games path. How to be fair. How to be consistant. How to build encounters, how to maintain game balance.

However, an experienced DM doesn't need that. When they realize they can do it without the training wheels, that is when it might be time to move on to a simpler system. That has a nice unified mechanic that doesn't restrict the DM or players with "chains" of feats, where any action can be attempted by any PC. Where the DM has enough experience and confidence to rule on such things fairly, consistantly, and imaginatively, all on their own without a crutch of 5,000 rules to tell them how to DM their game.

C&C is for that kind of DM, when they are trained and ready to become that kind of DM. When they are no longer afraid to leave the protective blanket of their 5,000 rules. When they believe they are capable of doing things their way.


So when a DM is tired of being told how to be a DM, and the players realize their feat chain is just that, a chain, then they are ready for the red pill. Until then, they will be happiest with the Blue pill.


Bravo!:D
That last paragraph is so Sig worthy, but alas...
Well said though, my thoughts exactly:)

[Christopher V. Brady]

Bravo!:D
That last paragraph is so Sig worthy, but alas...
Well said though, my thoughts exactly:)

So in effect you are saying that players and GMs who like a little more structure are immature or inexperianced???

Wow, that's a pretty bold and unsubstantiated claim there, Chief.

[SteamPulp]

So in effect you are saying that players and GMs who like a little more structure are immature or inexperianced???

Wow, that's a pretty bold and unsubstantiated claim there, Chief.

Wow, words stuffed into my mouth... gotta love it;)
Nagisawa, I was agreeing that some of the older more experienced GM's can take a simple ruleset and turn out one of the coolest adventures ever.
AND so can some of the newer GMs to the hobby.

Structure is great, in the past I was a huge champions fan and played Gurps like there was no other systems. In my old age, I tend to go for rules lite than overly complex.
For example I LOVE Burning Wheel, and the creator is one awesome guy who I would play in any of his games in a heartbeat...
I cannot run this game for the life of me, it does not make it a bad game it is just not the game for me to run.

I guess I should have just stayed quiet and watch the embers flame up

[Golden Age Superhero]

(Hey! Rogues do it from behind, Fighters can do it all day... I'll have to use that!)


Yeah, but do they have enough consideration to give a reach around?:eek: :eek:

[RobertFisher]

Those of us who remember older editions of AD&D (particularly without the Player's Option books) might remember this one, and here's a question I wonder about C&C:

What does C&C do about the "Dumb Fighter" problem? It seems that mechanically, there's not much interesting about fighters in C&C.

Are there any particular rewards for playing a fighter in C&C? Or is it just move and bash until combat's over?

This is probably redundant, but I'm going to type it anyway.

Allow me to respectfully submit, if the C&C Fighter isn't mechanically interesting enough for you, that C&C may not be the game for you. Or that C&C may be the game for you, but Fighter isn't the C&C class for you.

The mechanical rewards are that, when it does come to bashing, you're better at it than any other class. It's not just move & bash until the combat's over, but the rest isn't mechanical.

Fighter's my favorite class. I found the C&C Fighter mechanical overkill. That's one of the reasons I went with classic D&D instead.

[Mangus]

Rogues do it from behind, Fighters can do it all day...

That is classic! :D

Anyway, here is my two copper, you don't have to be a grizzled grognard to understand that, especially in the roleplaying hobby, you only get back what you put into it. Having said that, if you sit there and play a "big-dumbass boring fighter" then that is all you will ever get back. No amounts of feats, powers, options, bells or whistles will ever change that. Only you as the player can decide to turn a "meat-shield" into flavorful 200 lb Filet Mignon, seasoned to taste, with a large side order of badass. ;) OK, that is pretty cheezy, but so are most analogies.

Mangus

[Von Ether]

Actually, I think most people see the Fighter in the wrong light. His "schtick" that he great at mowing down mooks, especially at higher levels. If you play with minis, it's fun to start using them as kill markers and see how far ahead the fighter can get during a combat. :)

If you wanted more of a one-on-one fight with more options, that what I've always see the other fighter-based classes for. With all due respect, the other classes are your "options" if you want a sexier concept.