[C&C] Looking outside the box...er book

[SteamPulp]

Ok, I have been reading a few of the C&C threads over the past few weeks. The one that really struck a thought was the "Dumb Figher Problem (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=283000&page=1)" thread.
I love the simplicity of C&C over any of the OGL/D20 games out there (save True 20, but to me that is a different animal), but I have had players tell me pretty much the same thing. All the character classes are the same character mechanically. This is true to a degree, but my love of it is that it brings me back to an earlier time when you actually made up a persona for your characer and the mechanics were secondary.
Well in a time of merits and flaws, aspects, gifts, feats, bells and whistles I can see why people want more.
So my goal right now is to create a house ruled system to create some unique definers for the characters that do no cause a major mechanical change.
I liked the idea of using a system simular to Fates Aspects, but I do not care for the re-roll aspect of this too much. Action points are nice, but again they do not add too much to the character backgrounds or abilities.

Any ideas?

[philippe tromeur]

Like all old-school RPG's, C&C does have one kind of "feats" or "knacks", called "Magic Treasures".

Seriously, back in the old days of classic games of my youth, warrior characters were mostly defined by their race, job, and the one or two very cool magical toys they carred. That was true even in the most "advanced" games (such as Rolemaster).

[Christopher V. Brady]

Like all old-school RPG's, C&C does have one kind of "feats" or "knacks", called "Magic Treasures".

Seriously, back in the old days of classic games of my youth, warrior characters were mostly defined by their race, job, and the one or two very cool magical toys they carred. That was true even in the most "advanced" games (such as Rolemaster).

Those games exist??? WHAT HAVE I BEEN MISSING!!! :eek: :(

[SteamPulp]

Those games exist??? WHAT HAVE I BEEN MISSING!!! :eek: :(

Well AD&D 1st edition had a 01-100 chart of professions. Now mind you not every GM made players roll on it, but since I was one who did... I gave PCs a chance to make attribute rolls to perform skills pertaining to the job. Race would apply (in my game anyway) as a bonus such as a Dwarf Gemcutter, or Elven basket weaver etc.

I know what Philipe meant though

[Nifelhein]

You seek to introduce customization to the game without recurring to many house-rules? Well, add background traits, they would grant a small bonus to things they learned about on their past, this could be very generic indeed.

I am a great fan of the Midnight setting by fantasy Flight Games, and one great design choice they amde for the 2nd edition is called tiers, basically they give traits at given levels to a d20 class and at those level you get to choose what trait to pick, there are three tiers, the 2nd tier requires either one or two tier 1 traits and the 3rd tier traits require either one 2nd and one 1st or two second tier traits.

the rgeat thing behidn this is that you get the core of the calss for everyone and customization with the traits, making character vary while still being inside the same class.

[Dr. Halflight]

What if "tagging an aspect" let yo roll 2 D20 & keep the best?

I've worked up an Action point system with aspects, but I didn't think it was what yoy were loking for.

[Dr. Halflight]

Here is the Midnight SRD

http://darknessfalls.leaderdesslok.com/index.htm

[Nifelhein]

Well, I did not think of posting it, but good call, and also, the classes to look for the traits are the wildlander and defender. ;)

[Eisenmann]

I'm doing just that here:

http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1940&mforum=trolllordgames

I too want a little extra to define a character and to immerse that character in the setting so I came up with the Double Edge System for C&C. It came as an evolution from designing a light skill system and playing SotC.

The system includes spending an "Edge" point to re-roll but it's only a small part. I included it because I like the idea tactically. It's truly that last ditch effort. If ya don't like it, don't include it as an option for the players.

I think I've distilled FATE aspects down to C&C consistency and it's something that I'd like to develop as a solid addition to any C&C game.

[SteamPulp]

Here is the Midnight SRD

http://darknessfalls.leaderdesslok.com/index.htm


Midnight is a great setting, thanks for the link...

I am thinking something more character driven, sort of like Bangs & Kickers from sorcerer or Aspects (in some form) from Fate 3.0

I will have to have a sit down with my huge stack of indie games and try and mesh something out

[shockvalue]

I liked the idea of using a system simular to Fates Aspects, but I do not care for the re-roll aspect of this too much.

Why not? What sort of bonus/advantage would you like them to give? Let's look at some options:

A re-roll (after a failed roll) increases probability of success without increasing the best possible success. (If the best you can roll, with bonuses, is 25, a re-roll still won't let you do better than a 25.) Because this is done after the failed roll, an Aspect is never wasted. But will because the new roll might well be low, it will usually only be used when the player has rolled low already. (IOW, if you needed to roll a 17 but only rolled a 15, you're probably not going to use an Aspect to re-roll. OTOH, if you only needed to roll a 6, but you rolled a 3, using an Aspect is a good idea.)

Using an Aspect to roll 2d20 and take highest would do much the same as a re-roll, but since you'd need to use it before rolling, it might often be wasted. This would make players very reluctant to use it.

Adding a bonus, after the roll: can guarantee success on some rolls. Can also increase the best possible success. Using an Aspect this way is never wasted, though it might be useful a bit less often.

Adding a bonus before the roll: Very similar to "roll 2d20 and take highest", with the slight bonus of increasing the maximum result.


If you use a "use before a roll" option, you'll want to be liberal in handing out Aspects (or Fate Points, if you're using the SotC/Fate 3 system), because of the increased chance of an Aspect being wasted. Otherwise, you'll find that your players never use them. You can be much more stingy with a "use after the roll" option.

Do any of those results sound like something you can live with?

[pacalypse]

Hey here's something I was working on for C&C...just a rough draft but see if you can use it.

Posted this over on the troll lord forums and thought I'd see what the folks over here thought about it. It was posted in two parts and I just decided to post both over here for convenience.It has been revised a little for clarity but is for all intents and purposes the same post.

Part I.

Was thinking about this for the next campaign.

All PC's start with passions, these are things your PC cares or feels strongly about.

1. A passion can be a person, place, thing or ideal.
2. Each PC starts with 4 passions
3. Each passion is rated from 1 to 4 depending upon its importance(you get 1-1rank, 1-2rank, 1-3 rank and 1-4rank)

4. A passion may be used within a single game no more than a number of times equal to its ranking if it can be shown to be applicable to the situation at hand.(CK has final rulling on whether the described application of a passion is appropriate or not

5. Anytime a passion is invoked it allows the PC to roll an eight sided die, and add its result, to any other die roll needed to perform a single action(for combat purposes to hit & damage are a single action).

6. passion points are replenished through achieving goals or performing actions that reinforce that passion(still working on this part)


EX.1 Arak the barbarian has as his passions:Tribe(1), love of Gwynnth(2), Honor(3), Hatred of Dark Magic(4)

In the game Arak is attacked by a necromancer and uses his "Hatred of Dark Magic" passion to enhance his combat rolls a total of four times. He rolls a d20 and a d8, adding them together for his hit roll and, if successful, rolls a d8 with his damage die and adds them together for total damage.

Ex.2 Arak, after beating the necromancer heads to a a tavern for a little R&R. While there a man insults Arak. Knowing he is still badly wounded from the earlier battle, Arak decides to invoke his Honor passion to intimidate and humiliate the man. He makes a Str or Cha check(depending on how the CK does it in his game) by rolling a d20 and a d8 and adding them together. With a succesful or failing roll, Arak can still invoke his Honor passion 2 more times in the game session.



Part II

Okay, last night when I originally posted this it was something that had popped into my head and I didn't want to loose the idea. Now after a night of sleep and a few hours to think on it I've come up with a slightly revised system. Passions are selected by PCs as stated above, however each passion also has a goal. This is the defining, though not necessarily only, way in which a character interacts with his/her passion. So Arak would now be written up as follows.

EX.1 Arak the barbarian has as his passions:
Tribe(1),Goal:Increase status within.
love of Gwynnth(2), Goal:Prove true love
Honor(3), Goal:Maintain honor in all situations
Hatred of Dark Magic(4); Goal: Destroy it

Your goals determine how you replenish your passion ranks after usage. So after using his Hatred of Dark Magic points in the above example Arak probably replenishes a rank point automatically for achieving his goal with that passion, and (depending on how heroic a game the CK is running) may get all his ranks back. His actions have reaffirmed and strengthened his passions.

If he was defeated by the necromancer then he would recieve no ranks back as his goal would not have been accomplished. Doubt and uncertainty plague him and his conviction wavers. Perhaps Dark magic is to strong for me to overcome?

This also causes a fluctuation in what is most important to a character at any given time, from among his passions, by his/her actual actions and results. I also think that with this set up it gives the PC the ability to broadly define the type of adventures they want their character to be involved in, while giving the CK the ability to work off it and fine tune it for his world.

Here are some quick questions to help me with the final touches.

1. Does the d8 give a good range for this system, if not why? and what would you suggest.
2. How high should the scale of ranks be per level. Honestly I was thinking this was one of those things that probably has to be customized depending on the tone of a CK's campaign. I think though, with the current set up it encourages PC's to use their points sparringly and in situations that draw on the passions of their characters.
3. Any general advice or oppinions

[SteamPulp]

I like the roll 2 D20 aspect, but like you said players would have to invoke before the roll and risk the chance of losing them. Although as you also pointed out is that if the CK/GM/ST/;) is willing to give them out more freely this might not be an issue.

My goal is to build story behind the characters, aspect do a good job on the overall character and Bangs and Kickers set up great plot/story interaction

[SteamPulp]

Hey here's something I was working on for C&C...just a rough draft but see if you can use it.

<snip>

Here are some quick questions to help me with the final touches.

1. Does the d8 give a good range for this system, if not why? and what would you suggest.
2. How high should the scale of ranks be per level. Honestly I was thinking this was one of those things that probably has to be customized depending on the tone of a CK's campaign. I think though, with the current set up it encourages PC's to use their points sparringly and in situations that draw on the passions of their characters.
3. Any general advice or oppinions

Wow! I love this...
First I think the D8 might be a bit cinematic and could be adjusted depending on how gritty the campaign is. I would see a D6 as standard.
Personally I think you should give the player 4 ranks of passions period. Let them choose if they want to put it all into one or have 4 seperate ones. The goals are great an encourages roleplaying the character. You can also attach to these passions the reason they got them. Yes love of a woman might be true, but why does the character love her. Did she die, was she kidnapped, did she marry another? These are all things that can define the characters goal and possible relationships with the other characters.

[Maedhros]

All PC's start with passions, these are things your PC cares or feels strongly about...

You have essentially described the Spiritual Attributes from "The Riddle of Steel". There are 5 possible:

Passion: Love or hate for a specific person, place or thing
Drive: What is the PC compelled to do?
Destiny: What is the PC fated to become?
Conscience: Doing the "right thing" instead of the expedient thing
Luck: Self explanatory

Only Passion can be taken twice. At chargen, choose 5 Spiritual Attributes and distribute 7 points amongst them (0 minimum, 5 maximum).

During play, you can add the value of your SA to a given dice pool if the situation is fitting.

E.g. character has "Hatred of orcs" at 3. When fighting orcs, he can add 3 dice to his combat pool. When scheming to destroy the orc homeland, he can add 3 dice to his Concoct Genocidal Plot skill roll. When casting "Torment Orc" he can add 3 dice to his Magic Pool.

[SteamPulp]

You have essentially described the Spiritual Attributes from "The Riddle of Steel". There are 5 possible:

Passion: Love or hate for a specific person, place or thing
Drive: What is the PC compelled to do?
Destiny: What is the PC fated to become?
Conscience: Doing the "right thing" instead of the expedient thing
Luck: Self explanatory

Only Passion can be taken twice. At chargen, choose 5 Spiritual Attributes and distribute 7 points amongst them (0 minimum, 5 maximum).

During play, you can add the value of your SA to a given dice pool if the situation is fitting.

E.g. character has "Hatred of orcs" at 3. When fighting orcs, he can add 3 dice to his combat pool. When scheming to destroy the orc homeland, he can add 3 dice to his Concoct Genocidal Plot skill roll. When casting "Torment Orc" he can add 3 dice to his Magic Pool.

Damn, do not own a copy of RoS...
I do want to look at this now

[pacalypse]

I think you might be right about the 4 total, especially since instead of refilling at every level, the PC can actively seek to replenish them through his actions. Here was some further thoughts on it I forgot to post above.

Okay thought about it some more and figured one more thing. A PC can also roll the eight sided die and subtract it from an oppositional force's roll. Thus turning a hit into a miss or reducing someone or somethings ability to resist a spell etc.

If a goal is made unattainable a PC should decide upon another(probably based somehow on his/her former goal). If protecting the tribe was a goal, and the tribe is destroyed, perhaps goal switches to vengeance for tribe or reestablish my tribe.
But as freedom is paramount for PC's ultimately it should be their decision.

[Lord Twang]

These are all cool ideas, but if I might be snarky for a moment: Dull fighters are always played by dull players. Unless you're into extreme wargame-style play, then the focus should be on roleplaying and creativity not having fancy doodads. And what ever happened to being interesting because your character's background is interesting?

Sorry, but it irritates me when people don't understand how to play games like C&C. Old-school is a different beast than new school. Both are valid and good approaches, it's just that a lot of people don't understand that games like C&C and Classic D&D doing things under a different philosophy than 3e or HERO or GURPS.

[Christopher V. Brady]

These are all cool ideas, but if I might be snarky for a moment: Dull fighters are always played by dull players. Unless you're into extreme wargame-style play, then the focus should be on roleplaying and creativity not having fancy doodads. And what ever happened to being interesting because your character's background is interesting?

Sorry, but it irritates me when people don't understand how to play games like C&C. Old-school is a different beast than new school. Both are valid and good approaches, it's just that a lot of people don't understand that games like C&C and Classic D&D doing things under a different philosophy than 3e or HERO or GURPS.

It irritates me that lazy system design is always blamed on the players, not the fact that the creators could have thought it out better.

Seriously. This is the SAME game that gives Rangers an ability called Combat Marauder, which allows them to use their BtH and add it as damage to creatures that can be qualified as humanoid or giant. That includes: Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Ettin, the various class of Giants, like Frost, Fire, Hill, as WELL as Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings and the crossbreeds.

At tenth level we are taking a +10 damage per hit on the above creatures, and it can be used with ranged weapons as well as melee. That's included with the + to strength.

That's pretty good. And given enough time, he can mow through scores of 3rd level orcs! In fact he can brag that he killed two hundred of them if he's good enough.

The Fighter? Well, at fourth level he gets a free attack against 1hit die critters (As long as the die isn't more than a d6) and at 10th he gets an extra attack.

Let's take a look at what the fighter

[pacalypse]

These are all cool ideas, but if I might be snarky for a moment: Dull fighters are always played by dull players. Unless you're into extreme wargame-style play, then the focus should be on roleplaying and creativity not having fancy doodads. And what ever happened to being interesting because your character's background is interesting?

Sorry, but it irritates me when people don't understand how to play games like C&C. Old-school is a different beast than new school. Both are valid and good approaches, it's just that a lot of people don't understand that games like C&C and Classic D&D doing things under a different philosophy than 3e or HERO or GURPS.

WTF? Are you serious?:confused: You know what irritates me...someone who thinks they can tell me how I "should" be playing an rpg that I bought with my money(especially since I'm not forcing them to play with me). You know what else irritates me...the fact that one of the design goals of C&C is "easily houseruled" and then somebody comes along and says no, houseruling is badwrongfun, gimme a break. How about you go play your game the way you want to and those of us that are actually interested in furthering the ideas and thoughts of the OP keep posting? Huh, how about that? There isn't a rule in C&C that contradicts what the OP is proposing.

Besides I fail to see how the "philosophy" of 3e has anything to do with what we are talking about. Where in 3e are passions or bonuses for anything like them even mentioned?

[pacalypse]

It irritates me that lazy system design is always blamed on the players, not the fact that the creators could have thought it out better.

Seriously. This is the SAME game that gives Rangers an ability called Combat Marauder, which allows them to use their BtH and add it as damage to creatures that can be qualified as humanoid or giant. That includes: Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Ettin, the various class of Giants, like Frost, Fire, Hill, as WELL as Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings and the crossbreeds.

At tenth level we are taking a +10 damage per hit on the above creatures, and it can be used with ranged weapons as well as melee. That's included with the + to strength.

That's pretty good. And given enough time, he can mow through scores of 3rd level orcs! In fact he can brag that he killed two hundred of them if he's good enough.

The Fighter? Well, at fourth level he gets a free attack against 1hit die critters (As long as the die isn't more than a d6) and at 10th he gets an extra attack.

Let's take a look at what the fighter

Agree with you to a point,(Humans and Demi-humans shouldn't be included in that ability), but the Ranger doesn't have as high a Base to Hit, can't wear the heavier armors, or get the extra attack, or the other +1 to hit from weapon specialization...combat with anything other than his special foes and the fighter clearlyy wins out.

Look at it this way by 10th lvl(without magic items) the Ftr has a +12 to hit, +2 to dmg w/specialized weapon, has an AC of +9(w/shield) and 2attks per round

10th lvl Ranger has +9 to hit, +9dmg (only on special foes) otherwise +0dmg, has an AC of +7(w/shield) and 1attk per round

I don't know, against his "specialized" foes the Ranger barely outclasses the fighter, since depending on what weapon the fighter chooses to specialize in he could actually do more damage than this(+9/+11) with his two attks, has a higher to hit chance in any situation than the Ranger does(except against the Rangers one actual favored enemy), has a higher possible AC than the Ranger ever will, and advances levels quicker than the Ranger. Actually as an all around combatant the Ftr kills the Ranger.

[Dragon_Blooded]

These are all cool ideas, but if I might be snarky for a moment: Dull fighters are always played by dull players. Unless you're into extreme wargame-style play, then the focus should be on roleplaying and creativity not having fancy doodads. And what ever happened to being interesting because your character's background is interesting?

There's nothing extreme in wanting a bit of mechanical differentiation between the fighting types in C&C (or any game, for that matter). After all, if all you want is roleplaying and creativity, you don't need things like classes, levels, dice... heck, you would have a better time doing some improvisational storytelling than playing an RPG.

In other words: some people like the "G" part of RPG. A nicely designed dungeon crawl, using a system where the Fighter and the other warrior-types can each shine in their individual roles, in a thousand times more satisfying to some of these people than knowing the background of Fido the Elf.

Eduardo Penna

[Christopher V. Brady]

These are all cool ideas, but if I might be snarky for a moment: Dull fighters are always played by dull players. Unless you're into extreme wargame-style play, then the focus should be on roleplaying and creativity not having fancy doodads. And what ever happened to being interesting because your character's background is interesting?

Sorry, but it irritates me when people don't understand how to play games like C&C. Old-school is a different beast than new school. Both are valid and good approaches, it's just that a lot of people don't understand that games like C&C and Classic D&D doing things under a different philosophy than 3e or HERO or GURPS.

It irritates me that lazy system design is always blamed on the players, not the fact that the creators could have thought it out better.

Seriously. This is the SAME game that gives Rangers an ability called Combat Marauder, which allows them to use their BtH and add it as damage to creatures that can be qualified as humanoid or giant. That includes: Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Ettin, the various class of Giants, like Frost, Fire, Hill, as WELL as Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings and the crossbreeds.

At tenth level we are taking a +10 damage per hit on the above creatures, and it can be used with ranged weapons as well as melee. That's included with the + to strength.

That's pretty good. And given enough time, he can mow through scores of 3rd level orcs! In fact he can brag that he killed two hundred of them if he's good enough.

The Fighter? Well, at fourth level he gets a free attack against 1hit die critters (As long as the die isn't more than a d6) and at 10th he gets an extra attack.

Which is nice, until you realize that most enemies at 10 are not level 1, and the extra attack doesn't always hit. While that +10 will always work as long the ranger hits, including multiple attacks if he likes.

Now admittedly Humanoids is a limited group, but the Ranger's terrain is mostly going to have those over other types of critters.

[Nifelhein]

Hmm, this gone off topic, even thoguh still C&C. I like C&C myself but do feel the Combat Marauder is a bit too sweet, humanoids includes anything a player will be using as well, if it were goblinoids it would be much more limited and it works on all giants, which is another large group.

A friend approaches that by making a ranger choose either of the groups. I still think a ranger can easily outshine a fighter, not because he is more capable in combat, the fighter is pretty capable, but because humanoids and giants are a good deal of the encounters for a good number of levels.

[Nelzie]

Seriously. This is the SAME game that gives Rangers an ability called Combat Marauder, which allows them to use their BtH and add it as damage to creatures that can be qualified as humanoid or giant. That includes: Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Ettin, the various class of Giants, like Frost, Fire, Hill, as WELL as Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings and the crossbreeds.

It most certainly does not include Humans and Demi-Humans. Those aren't considered "Humanoids" in regards to this kind of ability.

C&C is geared for the kind of epic campaigns along the vein of Lord of the Rings, where the party could/should end up leading an army of low-level fighters against an army of 1Hit Die Goblins, Hobgoblins and others.

Sure, the 10th level Ranger will one-hit kill each and every Goblin he strikes with his weapon or bow.

Meanwhile, the 10th Level Fighter is mowing down waves upon waves of Goblins with every swing of his sword.

Let's look at 3 Hit Die Orcs for a second. The 10th Level Ranger has a +10 to damage. The Ranger also has a +9 to hit these creatures. The Fighter has a +10 to hit (+12 with a specialized weapon) and can make two attacks per round against these creatures. While it certainly isn't a perfect balance of damage, the Fighter can cause equal to more damage to those same Orcs.

What happens when the enemies aren't Humanoid Monsters from that short list of Humanoid Monsters? Well, the Fighter seriously outshines the Ranger for damage output and number of attacks.


BTW, Ignoring the suggested mode of play can make any game look like it was poorly designed by lazy bastards. Unlike D&D 3.5, C&C is just not geared to create a continually increasing CR portfolio of foes for the players to face. It's an entirely different style of play. It's meant to foster the kind of stories along the lines of LotR, with players leading or acting as heroes within grand armies.

[The Grey Elf]

http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/backgrounds.pdf
http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/traits.pdf

There you go. I did the work for you. ;)

[Nifelhein]

It most certainly does not include Humans and Demi-Humans. Those aren't considered "Humanoids" in regards to this kind of ability.

I would have to disagree with you the intention behind it seems to be to include the humanoids in the old school sense, but the system also uses humanoids to define a type in the same way 3.X uses, in that group you can check the elves, humans and dwarves in M&T and see they should be included.

So when the system has a precise answer to what a humanoid is, the ability should also follow that or be re-written. ;)

[Nifelhein]

http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/backgrounds.pdf
http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/traits.pdf

There you go. I did the work for you. ;)

Yeah, this might fit well enough. :D

[The Grey Elf]

Yeah, this might fit well enough. :D

Been using them in my home game and they work out great, as long as you're willing to roll with the fact that when using backgrounds, characters *will* generally succeed at whatever task they're trying to do (which is usually something int-based).

I also allow my characters to take specialized knowledge or craft skills, which work exactly like backgrounds, but again are more specialized (mostly I use the knowledge and craft skills from d20), in place of bonus languages for a high int, if they so choose.

[Nelzie]

I would have to disagree with you the intention behind it seems to be to include the humanoids in the old school sense, but the system also uses humanoids to define a type in the same way 3.X uses, in that group you can check the elves, humans and dwarves in M&T and see they should be included.

So when the system has a precise answer to what a humanoid is, the ability should also follow that or be re-written. ;)

Maybe I am remembering it wrong.

I seem to recall it specifically spelling out the humanoids that the Combat Marauder ability is usable with/against and Humans and Demi-Humans weren't part of that list.

[Nifelhein]

I do not blame you, the first tiem i read it i got the same impression, it comes mainly from the examples they give in the paragraph, coupled with the old school feel of the gaemt hat is the impression we end up with, but by taking C&C as a stand alone game, it does not hold itself against a C&C interpretation. ;)

[Nelzie]

I do not blame you, the first tiem i read it i got the same impression, it comes mainly from the examples they give in the paragraph, coupled with the old school feel of the gaemt hat is the impression we end up with, but by taking C&C as a stand alone game, it does not hold itself against a C&C interpretation. ;)

Here's what it says:

"Bugbears, Gnolls, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Orcs and the like", and "Giants, Ogres and the like"

I had a friend look it up and IM me the wording.

Personally, I don't consider humans and demi-humans to be in the "and the like" in regards to Humanoids. This is also the official point of view from the publishers. Player's suggesting otherwise are most likely trying to over broadly interpret the rules to enhance their advantages.

[Nifelhein]

Well, they are humanois according to their very entry in the M&T, as I said, and according to the humanoid dedscription on the beggining of the M&T booka s well. If you have a category called humanoid in one of the two core books and a class in the other book uses the category humanoid to describe an ability they better be the same thing.

A i said, it seems the intent was what you describe but the result is not, they are giving examples and not being exhaustive, and humans and demi-humans are humanoids anyway, regardless of one's feelings towards the and the like expression.

You are approaching it from a traditional perspective and not from a C&C perspective, but then, the book does not really use demi-humans and humnas as a category. ;)

[pacalypse]

It irritates me that lazy system design is always blamed on the players, not the fact that the creators could have thought it out better.

Seriously. This is the SAME game that gives Rangers an ability called Combat Marauder, which allows them to use their BtH and add it as damage to creatures that can be qualified as humanoid or giant. That includes: Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Ettin, the various class of Giants, like Frost, Fire, Hill, as WELL as Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings and the crossbreeds.

At tenth level we are taking a +10 damage per hit on the above creatures, and it can be used with ranged weapons as well as melee. That's included with the + to strength.

That's pretty good. And given enough time, he can mow through scores of 3rd level orcs! In fact he can brag that he killed two hundred of them if he's good enough.

The Fighter? Well, at fourth level he gets a free attack against 1hit die critters (As long as the die isn't more than a d6) and at 10th he gets an extra attack.

Which is nice, until you realize that most enemies at 10 are not level 1, and the extra attack doesn't always hit. While that +10 will always work as long the ranger hits, including multiple attacks if he likes.

Now admittedly Humanoids is a limited group, but the Ranger's terrain is mostly going to have those over other types of critters.

I think a few of your points are a little off...

1.) Rangers never get more than one attack in C&C(only Ftrs and Mnks ever get this and it's a hell of an ability.).

2.) Enemies(monsters per RAW in M&T) don't have levels. So Combat Dominance works on goblins, kobolds, baboons, jackals, jaculus, giant rats, stirges, sprites, certain spiders, etc. and the Ftr's number of attacks continues to increase against them, the Ranger only ever gets one attack per round.

3.) The "humanoids" thing actually happens as often or not as the CK uses them.

4.)You're comparing a 10th lvl Ranger with a 4th lvl Ftr.

5.) The fighter still gets better AC(without loosing his abilities), so when fighting say a Frost giant(+11 to hit) Avg Dmg/rnd=12pnts & avg HP's=50
Both combatants are wearing highest possible non-magic armor & using broadswords(specialized for Ftr))

Ftr AC:9 55% chance to be hit(60% to hit giant; Avg dmg/rnd 11pnts(+2)=13
RngrAC:7 65% chance to be hit(45% to hit giant; Avg dmg/rnd 10pnts


The Ftr wins: he's hit less, has a better chance to hit on both attacks than the ranger has on his one, has the potential to miss once and still do damage and does a higher amount of damage per round. This is all against one of the Rangers "combat marauder" foes. Add in favored Enemy "Frost Giant" and the Ranger gets a +2 attk(55% to hit giant) and Avg dmg/rnd=12. Still outclassed by the Ftr in combat.

I think you're missing just how much more a Fighter is going to hit with either attack than a Ranger. "Combat Marauder in no way increases your chances of hitting your foe.

[Rob Doupe]

C&C is geared for the kind of epic campaigns along the vein of Lord of the Rings, where the party could/should end up leading an army of low-level fighters against an army of 1Hit Die Goblins, Hobgoblins and others.




Really? I never came across that assumption in C&C. Seems to me that C&C is set up to be a rationalized AD&D. And in our AD&D games, we rarely fought 1 HD creatures once we were past 3rd level.

So when I came across the Ftr bonus against 1 HD monsters I realized it would be useless for our style game. I immediately houseruled it to an extra attack against any creature with half or fewer HD than the level of the Fighter.

[SteamPulp]

Really? I never came across that assumption in C&C. Seems to me that C&C is set up to be a rationalized AD&D. And in our AD&D games, we rarely fought 1 HD creatures once we were past 3rd level.

So when I came across the Ftr bonus against 1 HD monsters I realized it would be useless for our style game. I immediately houseruled it to an extra attack against any creature with half or fewer HD than the level of the Fighter.

I like that Variation...
Concider it stolen;)

[Christopher V. Brady]

4.)You're comparing a 10th lvl Ranger with a 4th lvl Ftr.

Incorrect, I was basing a tenth level Ranger against a tenth level Fighter. You missed the part in which I compared the Combat Marauder with TWO fighter abilities, one of which will mostly be moot when they'll BOTH be the same level.

Seriously, what kind of GM in a level based game throws level 1 critters at level 10 characters??

I think you're missing just how much more a Fighter is going to hit with either attack than a Ranger. "Combat Marauder in no way increases your chances of hitting your foe.

No, but unlike the second attack, it's guaranteed extra damage on that single hit. I have run about three games and it plays exactly AD&D 2e save some small changes, namely that players DON'T LOOK AT THE MATH AT ALL and just see the extra damage bonus. And thus, players will look at me and say, "So... What's the point of the Fighter again?" Three different games with three different groups more or less the same thing.

Not everyone here is into the math aspect, they'd rather see it in play but sometimes certain things stand out and make you wonder.

(Ironically, I have a bigger issue with the Bard getting a D10 in hit dice, when their abilities are best uninterrupted, and thus not in the front line, wasting the high die, but most of the players thought it was cool, and wanted to play that class instead.) :p

[pacalypse]

Really? I never came across that assumption in C&C. Seems to me that C&C is set up to be a rationalized AD&D. And in our AD&D games, we rarely fought 1 HD creatures once we were past 3rd level.

So when I came across the Ftr bonus against 1 HD monsters I realized it would be useless for our style game. I immediately houseruled it to an extra attack against any creature with half or fewer HD than the level of the Fighter.

Is that for any type of HD, example a 2nd level ftr gets 2attacks on a monster with 1d12HD?


I was thinking something along the lines of

4th level 1d8 HD or lower(1d4,1d6&1d8) 2attks

8th level 1d10 HD or lower(1d4,2d4,3d4,1d6,1d8&1d10) 3 attks

12th level 2d10 HD or lower(1d4,2d4,3d4,4d4,5d4,1d6,2d6,3d6,1d8,2d8,1d10 & 2d10) 4attks

After 10th level the extra attack works against all foes so increasing the HD of the foes that combat dominance works on after a certain point decreases the value of that ability. Plus it puts a cap on damage when facing tougher opponents since this is when I want the fights to be more memorable and challenging. Plus like I said before the Fighter really does outshine every other class in combat already. Just my thoughts though.

[DavidStallard]

I love the simplicity of C&C over any of the OGL/D20 games out there (save True 20, but to me that is a different animal), but I have had players tell me pretty much the same thing. All the character classes are the same character mechanically.

That's the whole point! You're playing an archetype, dammit! :)

This is true to a degree, but my love of it is that it brings me back to an earlier time when you actually made up a persona for your characer and the mechanics were secondary.

Exactly. I remember the days when we thought nothing about two fighters only being differentiated by their gear, number of hit points, and their persona/background. "My fighter is different because he uses an axe, and yours uses a sword!"

Well in a time of merits and flaws, aspects, gifts, feats, bells and whistles I can see why people want more.

Not everything needs to be quantified with a rule, but I guess for some, mechanics make things more real because then it's measurable and exploitable. :)

[Breakdaddy]

I know that the Troll Lord guys do not include Humans and Demi Humans in the Humanoid descriptor for their own personal games, but this doesn't mean that you can't add Humans and Demi Humans to your rangers combat marauder ability in your own games.

[pacalypse]

Incorrect, I was basing a tenth level Ranger against a tenth level Fighter. You missed the part in which I compared the Combat Marauder with TWO fighter abilities, one of which will mostly be moot when they'll BOTH be the same level.

Seriously, what kind of GM in a level based game throws level 1 critters at level 10 characters??

You're right my mistake, but you we're still taking singular abilities and comparing them outside of the contexts of the two classes other abilities, which for comparison purposes isn't valid.

I consider them mook rules, other games have them and I like them, though I will concede even I have modified the combat dominance ability in C&C(see above). It's a playstyle thing and in my mind the fighter is the perfect class to be able to pull this off in combat.


No, but unlike the second attack, it's guaranteed extra damage on that single hit. I have run about three games and it plays exactly AD&D 2e save some small changes, namely that players DON'T LOOK AT THE MATH AT ALL and just see the extra damage bonus. And thus, players will look at me and say, "So... What's the point of the Fighter again?" Three different games with three different groups more or less the same thing.

Not everyone here is into the math aspect, they'd rather see it in play but sometimes certain things stand out and make you wonder.

(Ironically, I have a bigger issue with the Bard getting a D10 in hit dice, when their abilities are best uninterrupted, and thus not in the front line, wasting the high die, but most of the players thought it was cool, and wanted to play that class instead.) :p

Well I can't speak for other groups but it's the same as picking feats, abilities, advantages and disadvantages in any other game except it's a package.

Point of the fighter: All around better killer than the Ranger. More attacks, better chance to hit, better armor, better damage average, etc.

The funny thing is my group tends to look at chance to hit before damage. It don't matter how much damage you do if you can't land it. The Ranger depends on one blow to land all or nothing and has less chance to succeed than either of the Fighter's attacks(that even if one misses can still cause damage with the other.)

The Bard: I think his high hit die is so that once he's used his abilities the maximum amount he is allowed then he can help by opening up a can of whup ass :D . It's sorta like having a very limited cleric and giving him the extra hit points cause he doesn't have the flexibility of spells but can fight.

Exalt(1/day/lvl)
Fascinate(3x/day)
Exhort Greatness(??1/day) I think??

[Iceberg3k]

You have essentially described the Spiritual Attributes from "The Riddle of Steel". There are 5 possible:

Passion: Love or hate for a specific person, place or thing
Drive: What is the PC compelled to do?
Destiny: What is the PC fated to become?
Conscience: Doing the "right thing" instead of the expedient thing
Luck: Self explanatory
I'm pretty sure these were old hat when RTG put out Cyberpunk 2013 in 1987.

[Nifelhein]

I know that the Troll Lord guys do not include Humans and Demi Humans in the Humanoid descriptor for their own personal games, but this doesn't mean that you can't add Humans and Demi Humans to your rangers combat marauder ability in your own games.

Well, then they should clearly say that either the humanoid type for humans, dwarves, elves and the like on M&T is wrong, or clarify that combat marauder does not work with some humanoids, like those.

If they haven't done that, then they are just playing a house ruled version of C&C, which does not impress me at all, given their stated intent of the game being prone to that. But how the designers prefer to play despite of what they have wrote into a book does not work the same as what is written in the book for me, and we are not really discussing a house ruled ranger... ;)

[Nelzie]

Seriously, what kind of GM in a level based game throws level 1 critters at level 10 characters??

One concerned with verisimilitude.

Seriously, a gameworld doesn't just reflect the current level the PCs have. Lower and higher level things are still walking the surface of the world. Sometimes it's fun to mow through an army of mooks that used to be something the PCs were scared enough to run away from some time in their past.

I have absolutely no problem with pointing out direct flaws like that in a gameworld that seems to radically change in power as the PCs do. I mean, why bother playing a level based game in the first place, if the Goblins the party barely survived at level 1 are still just as comparatively as tough when the party is at 10th level? That's just silly. Granted, they probably won't be fighting Goblins ALL the time, but still there will be Goblins out there, somewhere.


No, but unlike the second attack, it's guaranteed extra damage on that single hit. I have run about three games and it plays exactly AD&D 2e save some small changes, namely that players DON'T LOOK AT THE MATH AT ALL and just see the extra damage bonus. And thus, players will look at me and say, "So... What's the point of the Fighter again?" Three different games with three different groups more or less the same thing.

They haven't read the whole character descriptions then. The character descriptions describe more of the difference between the classes on the Role-Playing level.

Rangers, no matter how badass they are, just won't feel comfortable in the limelight. They will always feel restless within the confines of the "civilized" lands, as that is their nature.

Fighters aren't like that. They are more geared for the civilized lands and thus more open to hanging out in big cities, enjoying the benefits of being seen as heroes by the populace.


Not everyone here is into the math aspect, they'd rather see it in play but sometimes certain things stand out and make you wonder.

Then you realize they playtested the heck out of the game for a significant period of time, seeking plenty of input from their playtesters. It's then easier to consider that things are more balanced out than they initially appear to be.


(Ironically, I have a bigger issue with the Bard getting a D10 in hit dice, when their abilities are best uninterrupted, and thus not in the front line, wasting the high die, but most of the players thought it was cool, and wanted to play that class instead.) :p

C&C Bards aren't the "Fancy Pants" Bards of D&D. They are the "Viking Skald" leading charges against the lines of attacking forces.

[Rob Doupe]

Is that for any type of HD, example a 2nd level ftr gets 2attacks on a monster with 1d12HD?





Never really thought of that. Sure, any type of HD. In our style of game, it just won't be that common anyway. I tend to run encounters against smaller numbers of tough monsters (at least as many HD as the PCs), rather than larger numbers of weaker monsters. So a level 4 or 5 fighter might enjoy a few encounters worth of extra attacks against gnolls or zombies, but by the time he's 6th level he'll have graduated past 2 and even 3 HD monsters.

[Rob Doupe]

I have absolutely no problem with pointing out direct flaws like that in a gameworld that seems to radically change in power as the PCs do. I mean, why bother playing a level based game in the first place, if the Goblins the party barely survived at level 1 are still just as comparatively as tough when the party is at 10th level? That's just silly.

And yet right from the outset D&D was based on the premise that the level of the dungeon matches the level of the PCs matches the level of the monsters. How many low HD monsters do you find in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl or White Plume Mountain?

And what if prefer playing in a setting with few humanoids? My worlds aren't teeming with orcs and goblins. Our adventures center around exploring deadly ruins full of creatures way tougher than the PCs. Sure, I suppose my players could decide they want to go to hack down a bunch of brigands when they're 7th level. It could happen. Just not often enough to make the C&C extra attack for Fighters a worthwhile class bonus.

[pacalypse]

And what if prefer playing in a setting with few humanoids? My worlds aren't teeming with orcs and goblins. Our adventures center around exploring deadly ruins full of creatures way tougher than the PCs. Sure, I suppose my players could decide they want to go to hack down a bunch of brigands when they're 7th level. It could happen. Just not often enough to make the C&C extra attack for Fighters a worthwhile class bonus.

Wow, I guess the Ranger is screwed as well, huh? Unless it's all giants in those ruins :D

[Cthultist]

http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/backgrounds.pdf
http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/traits.pdf

There you go. I did the work for you. ;)


THANK YOU!!!!!!

[Christopher V. Brady]

C&C Bards aren't the "Fancy Pants" Bards of D&D. They are the "Viking Skald" leading charges against the lines of attacking forces.

I'd give them a D8 and I'd be satisfied. Their abilities work best when at the back, so jumping into combat isn't exactly what they want to do.

YMMV.

[Maedhros]

I'm pretty sure these were old hat when RTG put out Cyberpunk 2013 in 1987.

Could be - I've never played any of the CyberPunk games...

[Nelzie]

And yet right from the outset D&D was based on the premise that the level of the dungeon matches the level of the PCs matches the level of the monsters. How many low HD monsters do you find in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl or White Plume Mountain?

I dunno how many low HD monsters you find in those places. The names seem familiar, like they are from one of the filled with interesting ideas, yet often inconsistent officially published game worlds.


And what if prefer playing in a setting with few humanoids? My worlds aren't teeming with orcs and goblins. Our adventures center around exploring deadly ruins full of creatures way tougher than the PCs. Sure, I suppose my players could decide they want to go to hack down a bunch of brigands when they're 7th level. It could happen. Just not often enough to make the C&C extra attack for Fighters a worthwhile class bonus.

Even if you have few humanoids, there will still be the same types of 1HD opponents walking the world in the same numbers that made the PCs run for their lives back when they also had 1HD.

[Nelzie]

I'd give them a D8 and I'd be satisfied. Their abilities work best when at the back, so jumping into combat isn't exactly what they want to do.

YMMV.

Those abilities still work fine right at the front of the line, belting out a battle cry and or started at the beginning of combat (Where it would have the most effect) as a quick story, poem or song of greatness and glory.

The case of the Exhort Greatness ability, everyone under the effect must remain close enough to the Bard to continue to hear him/her belting out prose, singing over the din of battle or yelling forth a mess of battle cries, in order to remain under the effect of the ability.

Bards in C&C are another branch off the Fighter Tree, along with Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Knights and sort of Monks.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Those abilities still work fine right at the front of the line, belting out a battle cry and or started at the beginning of combat (Where it would have the most effect) as a quick story, poem or song of greatness and glory.

The case of the Exhort Greatness ability, everyone under the effect must remain close enough to the Bard to continue to hear him/her belting out prose, singing over the din of battle or yelling forth a mess of battle cries, in order to remain under the effect of the ability.

Bards in C&C are another branch off the Fighter Tree, along with Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Knights and sort of Monks.

Fair enough. I'd still house rule it. :D

[Breakdaddy]

Well, then they should clearly say that either the humanoid type for humans, dwarves, elves and the like on M&T is wrong, or clarify that combat marauder does not work with some humanoids, like those.

If they haven't done that, then they are just playing a house ruled version of C&C, which does not impress me at all, given their stated intent of the game being prone to that. But how the designers prefer to play despite of what they have wrote into a book does not work the same as what is written in the book for me, and we are not really discussing a house ruled ranger... ;)

Im unaware of anywhere that they specifically stated the humanoid descriptor includes Demi Humans and actual Humans, although I would have to check my books to verify that. To me, it's a bit vague, sure, but they do clearly state in the Combat Marauder text what they mean by humanoids and they do not state humans/demihumans. If this is a "house ruled" game, then so be it, I can't be bothered to argue fine points like this when I can be playing the game instead ;)

[Nelzie]

Well, they are humanois according to their very entry in the M&T, as I said, and according to the humanoid dedscription on the beggining of the M&T booka s well. If you have a category called humanoid in one of the two core books and a class in the other book uses the category humanoid to describe an ability they better be the same thing.

A i said, it seems the intent was what you describe but the result is not, they are giving examples and not being exhaustive, and humans and demi-humans are humanoids anyway, regardless of one's feelings towards the and the like expression.

You are approaching it from a traditional perspective and not from a C&C perspective, but then, the book does not really use demi-humans and humnas as a category. ;)

The examples in the ability used along with the qualifier "...and the like" makes it clear to anyone with average reading comprehension skills and a basic understanding of the background material, that they are refering to "Monstrous Humanoids". The assumed setting makes it clear that while humans and demi-humans are humanoids, they aren't "Monstrous Humanoids".

One would also have to ignore the entire description of how Rangers fit into the assumed setting of C&C to consider Humans and Demi-Humans to be part and parcel of the "...and the like." portion of the ability description.

Now, assuming one wishes to ignore/rewrite the implied aspects of the Ranger class for their house rules. Cool. Having Humans and Demi-Humans as part of the list of "Monstrous Humanoids", is a perfectly acceptable house rule.

[Springaldjack]

The examples in the ability used along with the qualifier "...and the like" makes it clear to anyone with average reading comprehension skills and a basic understanding of the background material, that they are refering to "Monstrous Humanoids". The assumed setting makes it clear that while humans and demi-humans are humanoids, they aren't "Monstrous Humanoids".


Actually it's a difference in reading styles.

He reads "Humanoids" in the Ranger and finds that M&T has a classification called "Humanoids" that does in fact include Humans and Demi-Humans. While the example doesn't point to Humans and Demi-Humans he feels it applies unless they are specifically excluded by the text which they are not. Call this a "legal" reading style.

You read "Humanoids" and interpret it in the context of years of the term being used to identify a certain group of monsters and assume that that is what it means. You see the example dovetails exactly with your reading. In M&T, true you see "Humanoid" applied to Humans and Demi-Humans but you assume that this is a different term than is in Combat Marauder despite the fact that it's the same word. Call this a "customary" reading style.

Now the Troll Lords wrote it, as another poster has shown, with an eye to "customary" reading, but I think it's a flaw to write it in such a way that the "legal" reading differs in this fairly important way.

[Nelzie]

Actually it's a difference in reading styles.

He reads "Humanoids" in the Ranger and finds that M&T has a classification called "Humanoids" that does in fact include Humans and Demi-Humans. While the example doesn't point to Humans and Demi-Humans he feels it applies unless they are specifically excluded by the text which they are not. Call this a "legal" reading style.

You read "Humanoids" and interpret it in the context of years of the term being used to identify a certain group of monsters and assume that that is what it means. You see the example dovetails exactly with your reading. In M&T, true you see "Humanoid" applied to Humans and Demi-Humans but you assume that this is a different term than is in Combat Marauder despite the fact that it's the same word. Call this a "customary" reading style.

Now the Troll Lords wrote it, as another poster has shown, with an eye to "customary" reading, but I think it's a flaw to write it in such a way that the "legal" reading differs in this fairly important way.

"Legal Reading" still needs to account for context. Ignoring context and qualifiers to interpet things to one's advantage is disingenious, to say the least, and absolutely morally corrupt at its worst. (Of course that is depending upon context as well, ignoring the provided context of someting like the C&C rules is hardly morally corrupt, while doing the same with something like the US Constitution strongly borders on morally corrupt.)

The context is provided through the entire lengthy description of what the Ranger class is, what its objectives are and how it fits into the assumed setting's societal structure. If one wishes to ignore all of that or rewrite it to make a Ranger more fluid and ignore the whole concept of "One who hangs out at the fringes of civilized society, because they are totally uncomfortable within civilized society, and strikes at the monstrous agrressors in the wild lands." that's a perfectly valid house rule.

[pacalypse]

Never really thought of that. Sure, any type of HD. In our style of game, it just won't be that common anyway. I tend to run encounters against smaller numbers of tough monsters (at least as many HD as the PCs), rather than larger numbers of weaker monsters. So a level 4 or 5 fighter might enjoy a few encounters worth of extra attacks against gnolls or zombies, but by the time he's 6th level he'll have graduated past 2 and even 3 HD monsters.

I would be careful with this, as well as the Bard nerfing posted above, for the following reason

1.) it's a big adjustment and, contrary to what most believe, the classes are balanced by the experience cost in relation to abilities(this includes BtH, HD,etc.). That is why a Fighter wil always be ahead of a Ranger or Barbarian in level.(Thus he will at numerous times throughout a campaign have a +2 over them in BtH after level 1) If your going to increase or decrease the potency of an ability you should look at adjusting the appropriate XP cost for it.

[Nelzie]

I would be careful with this, as well as the Bard nerfing posted above, for the following reason

1.) it's a big adjustment and, contrary to what most believe, the classes are balanced by the experience cost in relation to abilities(this includes BtH, HD,etc.). That is why a Fighter wil always be ahead of a Ranger or Barbarian in level.(Thus he will at numerous times throughout a campaign have a +2 over them in BtH after level 1) If your going to increase or decrease the potency of an ability you should look at adjusting the appropriate XP cost for it.

I completely agree with this.

[Nifelhein]

Oooookay, so i lack average reading comprehension and I simply ignore text to make my own twisted and corrupted interpretation of the rules, leading to morally corrupt and being disingenious. And for some reason I clearly said the reasons I can understand where Nelzie and others are coming from, but they account to nothing.

Seems like my day can't get any better then. :p

First things first, interpretation, semantics and hermeneutics. There are many ways to read a text and many different understandings one can have from it. <edit out reference that rbought problem because it was related to church>

Labelling the way I was expressing the rules of the game as legal only ends up with the usual stuff, which is it being labelled wrong, corrupt and twisted, not according to a metaphysical entity people like to speak of called the spirit of the rules. I go in a very different direction though.

Nelzie and Breakdaddy, you are reading the text with your own backgrounds in the area as reference, you are applying categories you have learned from other sources to your interpretation of the text, this is what I will be calling Personal Interpretation, first because i do not want to use more scientific terms, second because it really depends on the person reading it.

I am reading the book as is, based on the variables and categories it presents me, given that C&DC is not a complete game with only the PHB I am also using the M&T as a source of information, for no other reason than to fill the empty spots left by the PHB alone. Let us call this Systemic Interpretation.

When reading both of the core books for C&C in no place have I found a single mention of the word "demi-human", there are playable races, each with its own name, all of them lacking a type attribute. The ranger combat marauder ability makes reference to two types, humanoids and giants, they follow by giving examples to each, and they do not close them by giving them an expansive term.

You guys use that term to weave a category you brought back from older D&D editions (because the current one does not make use of it) and apply it to your reading, ruling all playable races out of the scope of the ability. I for a different take note the category down, seek other instances where it may be referenced or if they clearly define what it is. I find a clear category definition on the M&T book, where they have printed the following:

TYPE refers to the classification of the monster. A monster's type can be particularly important where spells and magical summonings are concerned.

(...)

Giant: Giants are large-sized humanoid creatures of great strength and bulk.

Humanoid: A humanoid is a medium-sized creature that is anthropomorphic: they have two arms, two legs, one head, and a human-like torso.

(....)

Monstrous Humanoids: These are humanoid creatures with monstrous or animalistic features, occasionally possessing supernatural abilities.

So I use those categories to apply to the ranger's abilities, this fits perfectly with the rules, and according to the text involving the ranger it is fitting perfectly as well, fighting in the fringes of civilization against those that try to destroy it, serving as scouts for armies. There is no reason to believe that one of the playable races is not among those who may bring danger to the civilized world the ranger protects.

If the trolls wanted the meaning to be anything other than what i stated here, they have made a mistake and really should change the wording of the ability for future printings, and it is said a 3rd printing is not far on the horizon too. Despite of how they are playing the game, that is not how they have made it available for others, using this an authority matter will not work with me, just like in 3.0 they had skill focus giving +2 to one skill and it was a common house rule among many of the designers of the edition to have it as giving +3 instead. There is what they play and what they work with, they can do whatever they want with their games, but their work demands other concerns they might not have when gaming.

Is there a flaw in my way of interpreting the rules? There is, I am not using older D&D designing to base my reading, in so doing I am also choosing to look to C&C as a complete game, with references starting and ending inside their own books, but I am also favouring the C&C printed words over the so called old school feel it uses as marketing.

You are also making mistakes though, you choose to use alien categories to read into another game, based on how you feel them being close, when doing so you are actually creating three new categories for your game, demi-humans, humanoids and monstrous humanoids, they are widely different from those the game presents and can lead to many other troubles that you are not seeing, specially as the C&C game line expands.

I am not saying you are wrong, neither that I am right, but one thing I know, to agree with your vision of the rules a person has to share the same background with you, else it would not make any sense to him or her. To agree with my own interpretation a person can have any background, if they have both books and look at C&C as a complete game, they will be able to come to the same conclusion.

It ends up as being very close to how we are told science and common sense works, one is only logical to a group that shares some traits, qualities or backgrounds (common sense) the other allows any person to check the intended result by following self contained steps, that regardless of your origin or ideas will lead to one result.

If you want C&C to spread, and conquer new audience, you would better have the trolls putting an effort to define the C&C game on its own books, else it will only be able to target an audience that can hardly get any larger, and is in fact, getting smaller, of people who played D&D for more than 10 years, with editions and rules that are harder to get by and less elegant in many ways than the current ones they have access to.

Use it however you like, but I am not corrupting anything, neither am being disingenious, twisting the intent of the ability or corrupting metaphysical entities like spirits of rules. I am simply choosing to use a game as a stand alone. :D

[Christopher V. Brady]

Im unaware of anywhere that they specifically stated the humanoid descriptor includes Demi Humans and actual Humans, although I would have to check my books to verify that. To me, it's a bit vague, sure, but they do clearly state in the Combat Marauder text what they mean by humanoids and they do not state humans/demihumans. If this is a "house ruled" game, then so be it, I can't be bothered to argue fine points like this when I can be playing the game instead ;)

Here's a conundrum for you:

What do you classify a Half-Orc? Would it fall under the 'Monstrous Humanoid' (which BY THE WAY does NOT include Orcs and Goblins according to M&T, go figure) or would it 'Demi-Human'?

[Nifelhein]

Here's a conundrum for you:

What do you classify a Half-Orc? Would it fall under the 'Monstrous Humanoid' (which BY THE WAY does NOT include Orcs and Goblins according to M&T, go figure) or would it 'Demi-Human'?

I can have more than one problematic instance of the rules for their line of thought, some spells for instance, the half-orc is the earliest and easiest to find example, that is all. ;)

[The Grey Elf]

First things first, interpretation, semantics and hermeneutics. There are many ways to read a text and many different understandings one can have from it, this is why, for one thing, the Catholic Church named priests to read the bible and give it significance, to avoid people giving different readings to it, this is also one of the reasons that brought the protestantism to bear, though there are many others that were more important to cause the event.

Okay, I'm not going to get into this "what's the definition of humanoids" debate, but please refrain from speaking outside your area of experience. Priests in the Catholic Church have absolutely nothing to do with them needing someone to interpret the Bible consistently. Indeed, ask ten different priests to interpret any given passage in the Bible and you'll likely get six or seven different readings.

Priests were around, in fact, BEFORE the Bible was canonized. And early protestantism had nothing to do with biblical interpretation AT ALL. It was entirely based upon perceived (correctly, in many cases) corruption within the Church.

[Nifelhein]

Interesting since you do not really know my area of expertise. But I am not really interested in making any religious concern come to life in the thread, so i will edit that part out of my post.

But as an aside, we today have the idea that there is mroe than one way to read a text, this is not how they envisioned things before the industrial revolution.

[The Grey Elf]

Interesting since you do not really know my area of expertise. But I am not really interested in making any religious concern come to life in the thread, so i will edit that part out of my post.

I don't, but from your statement, it's clearly not religious studies, in which I am wrapping up a degree as we speak.

[Nelzie]

Here's a conundrum for you:

What do you classify a Half-Orc? Would it fall under the 'Monstrous Humanoid' (which BY THE WAY does NOT include Orcs and Goblins according to M&T, go figure) or would it 'Demi-Human'?

Is this hypothetical Half-Orc raised by humans (thus learning the ways of fighting and livng as humans) or is it raised by Orcs (thus learning the ways of fighting and living as an orc)?

Humans have a different style of fighting than Orcs do. (At least in the assumed setting.)

A human raised Half-Orc, would be treated like a human, in terms of the CM ability of the Ranger. The assumed setting would make this half-orc likely to be a PC.

An orc raised Half-Orc, would be treated like an orc, in terms of the CM ability of the ranger. The assumed setting would make this half-orc likely to be a foe of PCs, leading Orcs.

EDIT: It is this way, because the Ranger CM ability is based off the Ranger having assumed studies in the battle tactics and individual combat moves that both the "evil" Humanoids and Giants regularly utilize.

[Nifelhein]

I don't, but from your statement, it's clearly not religious studies, in which I am wrapping up a degree as we speak.

Certainly not, neither religious studies nor theology, being an atheist, but hermeneutics has been one of the fields I have studied for the past 7 years, and that is a pretty common example. And history too.

I won't say it is not debatable though.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Is this hypothetical Half-Orc raised by humans (thus learning the ways of fighting and livng as humans) or is it raised by Orcs (thus learning the ways of fighting and living as an orc)?

Humans have a different style of fighting than Orcs do. (At least in the assumed setting.)

A human raised Half-Orc, would be treated like a human, in terms of the CM ability of the Ranger. The assumed setting would make this half-orc likely to be a PC.

An orc raised Half-Orc, would be treated like an orc, in terms of the CM ability of the ranger. The assumed setting would make this half-orc likely to be a foe of PCs, leading Orcs.

EDIT: It is this way, because the Ranger CM ability is based off the Ranger having assumed studies in the battle tactics and individual combat moves that both the "evil" Humanoids and Giants regularly utilize.

As most real life fighters will tell you, a humanoid body (Which for the sake of argument we'll assume has all the basic parts, in all the basic positions, after all a Rogue can sneak attack most humanoids because their vitals are in the same place) only has a certain limited range of motions, and just because you're 6 or 15 feet tall, doesn't mean that anything smaller or uses different combat systems, but with the same biology will somehow be magically different. Unless you're claiming that Orcs and Goblins are magically created.

Which brings us back to to the Half Orc problem, does or does he not fall under the CM ability?

For myself: I used a pseudo-scientific approach. Most humanoid creatures will have the same organs in the same placement in their bodies, thus they ALL fall under the purview of Combat Marauder.

After all if a Ranger has to deal with human bandits all the time (Or Elf and Dwarf, or just mixed groups) he's going to pick up how they fight rather easily. And let's face it the odds of finding HUMAN bandits are more often than finding Orc or Goblin tribes, in most gameworlds that try to maintain a sense of coherency, and 'internal logic'.

But then, consistency and coherence is what I LIKE in my 'stories', whether or not I'm the one creating them.

[pacalypse]

As most real life fighters will tell you, a humanoid body (Which for the sake of argument we'll assume has all the basic parts, in all the basic positions, after all a Rogue can sneak attack most humanoids because their vitals are in the same place) only has a certain limited range of motions, and just because you're 6 or 15 feet tall, doesn't mean that anything smaller or uses different combat systems, but with the same biology will somehow be magically different. Unless you're claiming that Orcs and Goblins are magically created.

Sorry I gotta agree with the statement above. It's not about their "biology" this isn't a sneak attack where your victim is unaware, it's combat. It's the same reason boxers and freestyle fighters study other fighters moves. It gives you an advantage because you know what to most likely expect and how to counter it best.

Which brings us back to to the Half Orc problem, does or does he not fall under the CM ability?

For myself: I used a pseudo-scientific approach. Most humanoid creatures will have the same organs in the same placement in their bodies, thus they ALL fall under the purview of Combat Marauder.

The book specifically says this ability is a result of intense training and studying of their fighting techniques, where are you getting this biology stuff from?

After all if a Ranger has to deal with human bandits all the time (Or Elf and Dwarf, or just mixed groups) he's going to pick up how they fight rather easily. And let's face it the odds of finding HUMAN bandits are more often than finding Orc or Goblin tribes, in most gameworlds that try to maintain a sense of coherency, and 'internal logic'.

But then, consistency and coherence is what I LIKE in my 'stories', whether or not I'm the one creating them.

Huh? This makes no sense...Even if there are proportinately less goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, etc. They live in raiding societies and don't have civilizations, so all of them would be mostly bandits and brigands. Humans on the other hand would mostly congregate in civilized society where less would be forced to live like this.

[SteamPulp]

Wow, I am starting to get the opinion that all C&C threads can only end up in nasty debates that stray way off topic.

[pacalypse]

Wow, I am starting to get the opinion that all C&C threads can only end up in nasty debates that stray way off topic.

Hey SteamPulp I did throw you my system out there before I started. :D

[Nifelhein]

And there is jaso'ns excellent systems as well. ;)

[Christopher V. Brady]

Sorry I gotta agree with the statement above. It's not about their "biology" this isn't a sneak attack where your victim is unaware, it's combat. It's the same reason boxers and freestyle fighters study other fighters moves. It gives you an advantage because you know what to most likely expect and how to counter it best.

And I'm saying that the 'monstrous' humanoids (Like Orcs and Goblins) won't be all that different from another fighting man.

The book specifically says this ability is a result of intense training and studying of their fighting techniques, where are you getting this biology stuff from?

Simple. Where are the Orc's and Goblins arms attached, or how are their hips joined to their legs and waist? Last I checked they were at the same joint location as the human body. Which also means they have about the same range of motion, same basic ways to stand and swing their weapons of choice.

I have a hard time seeing how an Orc or Goblin's combat style is such esoteric set of maneuvers that they are UNIQUE compared to the Demi-humans.

At the same time, now that I think about it, it also implies that they ALL fight the SAME way (Orcs, Goblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Ogres, Ettins, Giants and all the rest.) Like being 'Evil' gives them a kung fu so different that the 'good' races can't copy it.

That sounds pretty goofy even to me.

So unless you're saying that Orcs and Goblins have more joints or more motions than the humanoid body says there is, I don't buy it.

YMMV.

Huh? This makes no sense...Even if there are proportinately less goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, etc. They live in raiding societies and don't have civilizations, so all of them would be mostly bandits and brigands. Humans on the other hand would mostly congregate in civilized society where less would be forced to live like this.

Which also means because they're rarer, they are not as likely going to be as encountered as often as the more 'social' or 'civilized' races. Meaning, to me, more often than not you're going to have to deal with your own kind.

Again, YMMV.

[pacalypse]

And I'm saying that the 'monstrous' humanoids (Like Orcs and Goblins) won't be all that different from another fighting man.

What is a fighing man??? Men fight differently that's why we have different fighting styles. Knowing how to defend or attack a striker doesn't work effectively if you face a grappler. If you watch the earlier UFC tournaments there was a point where grapplers dominated because strikers didn't know how to deal with their techniques effectively. Royce Gracie ring a bell.

Simple. Where are the Orc's and Goblins arms attached, or how are their hips joined to their legs and waist? Last I checked they were at the same joint location as the human body. Which also means they have about the same range of motion, same basic ways to stand and swing their weapons of choice.

I have a hard time seeing how an Orc or Goblin's combat style is such esoteric set of maneuvers that they are UNIQUE compared to the Demi-humans.

At the same time, now that I think about it, it also implies that they ALL fight the SAME way (Orcs, Goblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Ogres, Ettins, Giants and all the rest.) Like being 'Evil' gives them a kung fu so different that the 'good' races can't copy it.

That sounds pretty goofy even to me.

So unless you're saying that Orcs and Goblins have more joints or more motions than the humanoid body says there is, I don't buy it.

YMMV.

I"m not talking anatomy, I'm talking fighting styles and tecniques, and no they don't all fight the same...the ranger has been trained to recognize their individual tactics and techniques..like the following in M&T

Hobgoblins:...smart tacticians...They favor tight formations, using their armor and polearms to great effect.

Goblins:Only attack if they are confident in victory, whether by great numbers or some infallible trap...They use bows and occasionally wear leather and metal ring garments for armor.

Elf:...They always soften an enemy up with missile fire before closing with them...They try to use the terrain to their advantage...combining ranged attacks, magical spells and melee...

Hill Giant: First they hurl rocks, small trees,...When they're foes are weakened ,they will close and finish the enemy...They loathe Dwarves, killing them anytime they can...

How are these battle techniques and styles of fighting the same? so learning to fight someone who flings boulders at you is the same as fighting someone who uses a polearm. C'mon you're talking about realism and totally ignoring it.


Which also means because they're rarer, they are not as likely going to be as encountered as often as the more 'social' or 'civilized' races. Meaning, to me, more often than not you're going to have to deal with your own kind.

Again, YMMV.

Depends on what the population numbers are, not to mention it's a fantasy game and thus leans towards fantasy tropes. This is a personal preference on your part not a function of the game itself.

[SteamPulp]

Hey SteamPulp I did throw you my system out there before I started. :D


Very true, and I did get a lot of good feedback.
I just hate when a friendly topic becomes heated.

I know... I need to "grow a pair":(

[SteamPulp]

And there is jaso'ns excellent systems as well. ;)

Jason Vey is just a kick ass writer, if he wrote a suppliment on how to eat marshmallows, I would prolly be doing that as well.
I do draw the line at being a follower at some point...
hones:o

[Christopher V. Brady]

pacalypse, you aren't following me.

What I am saying is that if you have six different grapplers each with different teachers, your going to see similar moves from each. Mainly because the humanoid frame only bends in certain ways.

Same thing with 6 boxers, swordsmen, axemen and other weapons.

Combat Marauder is not just HOW to hit a target with one set of moves. It's not like all Orcs and Goblins are 'just grapplers' to use your example, they all are going to have weapons skills, ways and avenues of attack that simply WILL be the same as if an Elf or a Dwarf or a Human.

This is not a Wrestler vs. a Boxer. It's warrior against warrior, each of which will have similar moves, despite their training and/or culture.

If you watch the UFC bouts, you will notice that once the submission experts get going, they all have similar moves and styles despite some being Brazillian Jujutsu, Full Contact Karate or Russian Sambo experts.

THAT is my reasoning, and THAT is why in MY C&C games CM works on anything that claims it's humanoid.

[Tori Bergquist]

Wow this thread has legs. I haven't had time to read it all yet, but wanted to add my "fighter mod ideas" for C&C.

Key in my fighter mods is to keep the simplicity of C&C (i.e. no skills or feats) while making the fighter seem like a beefier package to those who think otherwise. My solution is to offer some combat maneuvers to fighters that other classes do not have, namely:

The Cleave: if a fighter drops a foe in one hit, he can make an attack roll against an immediately adjacent target for a follow-through hit. Only one, mind you....I do not believe in the "inertialess swing" method of 3.5 and it's super cleaves. This is a lot like the Combat Dominance feat except the fighter loses his next attack action in the following round....because he has to regain his bearing, after such an amazing cleave-through, and most likely even yank his weapon out of some corpse, unless he makes a Strength check. If he makes the check, he's okay for next round and does not lose his next attack.

Accurate Attacks: Fighters are proficient and deadly, they do not worry about namby-pamby lorship stuff likeKnights, they do not obsess about specific foes like rangers, the do not lose control like barbarians. As such, fighters may do double damage on a roll of 20 on the hit die....or if you are using critical hit rules for everyone (like I do) then I would suggest either that fighters can crit on a 19 or 20, or that fighters automatically do max damage (or max double damage). Either way makes them alarmingly more dangerous in the long run.

[pacalypse]

pacalypse, you aren't following me.

What I am saying is that if you have six different grapplers each with different teachers, your going to see similar moves from each. Mainly because the humanoid frame only bends in certain ways.

Same thing with 6 boxers, swordsmen, axemen and other weapons.

Combat Marauder is not just HOW to hit a target with one set of moves. It's not like all Orcs and Goblins are 'just grapplers' to use your example, they all are going to have weapons skills, ways and avenues of attack that simply WILL be the same as if an Elf or a Dwarf or a Human.

This is not a Wrestler vs. a Boxer. It's warrior against warrior, each of which will have similar moves, despite their training and/or culture.

If you watch the UFC bouts, you will notice that once the submission experts get going, they all have similar moves and styles despite some being Brazillian Jujutsu, Full Contact Karate or Russian Sambo experts.

THAT is my reasoning, and THAT is why in MY C&C games CM works on anything that claims it's humanoid.

We agree to disagree. I gave you examples of how different humanoids go about fighting and you say a sword swing is a sword swing. well then I guess body types don't matter, reach doesn't matter, weight classes are irrelevant and every warrior throughout history fought the same regardless of culture, developed techniques, etc.

Let me just throw this out there HP's are an abstraction, most people agree on this, they represent the ability to take damage, roll with a blow, take a blow on a more durable spot. Different types of "fighting styles" emphasize different ways of going about this. I have taken capoeira for six years and most of the time you don't block, you evade...however in Karate it's acceptable to block. Think of the Ranger's CM ability as having studied the general fighting techniques of these creatures, based on physical and cultural traditions, so that he better minimizes they're particular way of doing these things. Sooo, taking a real world example, he's studied capoeristas enough to know they won't block but wil sidestep or dodge, thus he expects it and minimizes they're ability to take "hp damage" (whatever this may mean in your rationalization)

[pacalypse]

Accurate Attacks: Fighters are proficient and deadly, they do not worry about namby-pamby lorship stuff likeKnights, they do not obsess about specific foes like rangers, the do not lose control like barbarians. As such, fighters may do double damage on a roll of 20 on the hit die....or if you are using critical hit rules for everyone (like I do) then I would suggest either that fighters can crit on a 19 or 20, or that fighters automatically do max damage (or max double damage). Either way makes them alarmingly more dangerous in the long run.

I like this one alot I might yank it for my next game, and it feels around the same power level as combat dominance. Consider it stolen. :D

[SteamPulp]

I like this one alot I might yank it for my next game, and it feels around the same power level as combat dominance. Consider it stolen. :D

That is pretty damn cool!
I think I will yank this as well;)

[E.T.Smith]

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the "humanoid" debate in this thread for the warm feelings of nostalgia it ignited within me. I reminds me of the heyday of these forums, and even the letter columns of the old Dragon magazine, wherein folks would offer long, informed and determined debates over matters which had absolutely no consequence at the gaming table whatsoever. I mean, really, are you actually going to take the half hour it would take to explain the accumulated reasoning on display here to Jimmy when he asks why his Ranger can't stab a hobbit with finesse?

[SteamPulp]

I like this one alot I might yank it for my next game, and it feels around the same power level as combat dominance. Consider it stolen. :D

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the "humanoid" debate in this thread for the warm feelings of nostalgia it ignited within me. I reminds me of the heyday of these forums, and even the letter columns of the old Dragon magazine, wherein folks would offer long, informed and determined debates over matters which had absolutely no consequence at the gaming table whatsoever. I mean, really, are you actually going to take the half hour it would take to explain the accumulated reasoning on display here to Jimmy when he asks why his Ranger can't stab a hobbit with finesse?

This argument aside... Trollbones kicks arse! I love the site:)

[Nelzie]

pacalypse, you aren't following me.

What I am saying is that if you have six different grapplers each with different teachers, your going to see similar moves from each. Mainly because the humanoid frame only bends in certain ways.

Same thing with 6 boxers, swordsmen, axemen and other weapons.

Combat Marauder is not just HOW to hit a target with one set of moves. It's not like all Orcs and Goblins are 'just grapplers' to use your example, they all are going to have weapons skills, ways and avenues of attack that simply WILL be the same as if an Elf or a Dwarf or a Human.

This is not a Wrestler vs. a Boxer. It's warrior against warrior, each of which will have similar moves, despite their training and/or culture.

If you watch the UFC bouts, you will notice that once the submission experts get going, they all have similar moves and styles despite some being Brazillian Jujutsu, Full Contact Karate or Russian Sambo experts.

THAT is my reasoning, and THAT is why in MY C&C games CM works on anything that claims it's humanoid.

Then you have houseruled it.

The Rogue's Backstab is all about biology, it's right in the description of that skill.

The Ranger's Combat Marauder ability is all about effectively fighting against a given set of tactics and "training", it's also right in the description of that skill.

Certain fighting styles are far more effective against other styles of fighting and the Ranger class is written to have been trained in a style of fighting that is far more damaging against the fighting styles used primarily by the 'Evil' humanoid races and giants.

[Nelzie]

Wow this thread has legs. I haven't had time to read it all yet, but wanted to add my "fighter mod ideas" for C&C.

Key in my fighter mods is to keep the simplicity of C&C (i.e. no skills or feats) while making the fighter seem like a beefier package to those who think otherwise. My solution is to offer some combat maneuvers to fighters that other classes do not have, namely:

The Cleave: if a fighter drops a foe in one hit, he can make an attack roll against an immediately adjacent target for a follow-through hit. Only one, mind you....I do not believe in the "inertialess swing" method of 3.5 and it's super cleaves. This is a lot like the Combat Dominance feat except the fighter loses his next attack action in the following round....because he has to regain his bearing, after such an amazing cleave-through, and most likely even yank his weapon out of some corpse, unless he makes a Strength check. If he makes the check, he's okay for next round and does not lose his next attack.

We use this as an option with the SIEGE Engine.

The character has to make a SIEGE Check on strength with the Challenge Level being the number of Hit Dice the opponent has. Fighters and mostly fighting types, get to add their level to perform this. If succesful, they are able to push their weapon swing into the next opponent. (This is assuming a hit is scored after the SIEGE check is made.)

We do the same with "Power Attack", a SIEGE check success means the same basic effects as the D&D3.5 Feat, a failure means no additional damage, but the penalty to hit still stands.

[Nelzie]

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the "humanoid" debate in this thread for the warm feelings of nostalgia it ignited within me. I reminds me of the heyday of these forums, and even the letter columns of the old Dragon magazine, wherein folks would offer long, informed and determined debates over matters which had absolutely no consequence at the gaming table whatsoever. I mean, really, are you actually going to take the half hour it would take to explain the accumulated reasoning on display here to Jimmy when he asks why his Ranger can't stab a hobbit with finesse?

I won't have to.

In my game, that ruling stands as I state it stands. If Jimmy wants it to be different in his gameworld, that works fine.

An example of this in my gameworld, is that I have houseruled that Divine casters can cast whatever spell, whenever, as long as they don't overstep the number of spells per day per level. Arcane casters are able to "prepare" one spell more than they can cast per day and then can cast any spell they have prepared, up to the normal daily limit from that slightly expanded list of available spells.

Another guy in the group will allow an arcane caster to cast any spell in their book, up to the daily limit. Yet another guy sticks to the default spell list, since C&C spells can so radically alter the face of battle.

[The Grey Elf]

Jason Vey is just a kick ass writer, if he wrote a suppliment on how to eat marshmallows, I would prolly be doing that as well.
I do draw the line at being a follower at some point...
hones:o

:eek:

Wow...:o

I just don't know what to say in response to that. Seriously, man...you just made my week. You have no clue how cool it is to see or hear someone say something like that.

[Nifelhein]

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the "humanoid" debate in this thread for the warm feelings of nostalgia it ignited within me. I reminds me of the heyday of these forums, and even the letter columns of the old Dragon magazine, wherein folks would offer long, informed and determined debates over matters which had absolutely no consequence at the gaming table whatsoever. I mean, really, are you actually going to take the half hour it would take to explain the accumulated reasoning on display here to Jimmy when he asks why his Ranger can't stab a hobbit with finesse?

The fact that I made a post that none bothered to answer either means I am so utterly wrong or so utterly right that I should be avoided heh. Funny thing is, I believe we are just debating something i think has a different word then the intent of the trolls was, wanna know what? I will submit it to them to make sure they make it how they wanted it to be when they made it.

[pacalypse]

The fact that I made a post that none bothered to answer either means I am so utterly wrong or so utterly right that I should be avoided heh. Funny thing is, I believe we are just debating something i think has a different word then the intent of the trolls was, wanna know what? I will submit it to them to make sure they make it how they wanted it to be when they made it.

For the most part I agree with your assumption, this actually came up in my game with a ranger PC. In that game I ruled that the ranger couldn't use CM on elves, halflings, humans, dwarves,etc. He thought it was fine and understood the "...and like." was to be interpreted by the CK according to his game.

I think for the next game I'm going to houserule that yes you can pick those races to begin with, but the Ranger starts with four humanoids and two giant types that CM applies to(basically these are the ones he's encountered so far), after that whenever he fights a new species of humanoid or giant he can apply the bonus to them after that fight. I consider this a sort of adjustment to their peculiarities when it comes to tactics, while incorporating what he already knows about the other sub-species of that type.

I like this rule because it means a ranger raised in a arctic region may be able to fight Frost Giants effectively but probably has never encoutered a Fire Giant. Once he does however his familiarity with the Giant types and general tactics gives him a basis to adjust his style now that he knows how to fight them.

Any suggestions on this?

[Nifelhein]

I usually take that kind of approach myself, with the starting number of humanoids and giants being the same, I doubt you will have any problem, really. :)

[Nifelhein]

And because I do not like being alone... the humanoid includes what debate is not new and is in fact left there to make both me and Nelize satisfied, i have found this post (http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=125&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=combat+marauder&mforum=trolllordgames) on the troll lords forums that touches the issue and btoh the problems of having it speak humanoid and the reasont he list is given that way is that both ways of reading the rules (Nelzie and mine) can be taken into account.

The nicest trick? Using something like pacalypse just thought using is a very good middle ground between us. I might just settle for that approach myself. :D

[Nelzie]

The fact that I made a post that none bothered to answer either means I am so utterly wrong or so utterly right that I should be avoided heh.

I didn't want to continue down a path that would lead to being extremely rude.

[Nifelhein]

I didn't want to continue down a path that would lead to being extremely rude.

I can understand that, really, that is why I tried my best to avoid being rude with you, I find this kind of debate entertaining. but you really should check the link I posted last. :D

[Christopher V. Brady]

Then you have houseruled it.

The Rogue's Backstab is all about biology, it's right in the description of that skill.

The Ranger's Combat Marauder ability is all about effectively fighting against a given set of tactics and "training", it's also right in the description of that skill.

Certain fighting styles are far more effective against other styles of fighting and the Ranger class is written to have been trained in a style of fighting that is far more damaging against the fighting styles used primarily by the 'Evil' humanoid races and giants.

Maybe I have.

You know, I went through Paca's posts and it would have changed my opinion on the ability if it were one niggling, but to me, critical detail.

Combat Marauder works at any range the Ranger can reach. With both sword or bow (and any other weapon in between) and I'm having a hard time seeing that it has anything doing with just fighting style.

At a long range, you can barely see your opponent and often he isn't fighting so much as running to get in or out of range. So, I'm going to stick with my 'house rule' of allowing anything that can be called a humanoid.

YMMV, and that's the last I am touching this subject here on this this thread.

[SteamPulp]

:eek:

Wow...:o

I just don't know what to say in response to that. Seriously, man...you just made my week. You have no clue how cool it is to see or hear someone say something like that.

Hey, Just a shout out to one of my favorite Eden writers. :)