,rogueattorney wrote:
I don't want another system which is basically a D&D ersatz, nor a WoG hiding behind another name.
I want my favorite game AND my favorite setting, all in one, as it should be.
Fleeing to greener pasture is certainly easier than fighting the system (or, in this case, Hasbro) but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
EDIT:
Clarification: what I meant by the above is that while I cheer any attempt to once again provide GH material to the gamers, the fact remains that I wish I could enjoy GH within the framework of D&D and am ready to fight to see it happen. I like to think that it's because of the support of people like us that Erik Mona was able to insert so much GH in Dungeon lately and that's exactly the way I want things to go because the greater the GH audience gets, the more pression on the Hasbro managers to restore the line.
It doesn't mean I spit on C&C and the current reincarnation of Castle Zagyg but, clearly, I would have preferred to see a d20 version of it rather than a C&C one.
a WoG hiding behind another name.
Better than a different world hiding behind the Greyhawk name?
Like I said, are people seriously going to let the fact that Wizards is hoarding the copyright prevent them from embracing Castle Zagyg (Greyhawk) written by Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz? Seriously? Is it the simple fact that they're doing it for Troll Lords and not WotC? Why the loyalty to a company that has shown you none?
Whatever. I'm going to go crawl back to my hole and not bother people anymore.
R.A.
Castles & Crusades is a really cool game. It does harken back to 1st ed. in style and look, but it is d20 OGL at it's core. I've read the C&C book, and IMO it is BASIC v3.5 D&D. I also think it is way better the the Rules Cyclopedia rulesset.
I'm defintely planning on a C&C game set in Greyhawk (as we know it), Castle Zagyg aside.
..................................Omote
FPQ
If folks love GH, I would expect them to support GH content wherever it appears: Dungeon, Mongoose's few EGG books, TLG (CZ, Dark Druids, etc.), Different Worlds (Maze of Zayene #4), etc., etc. Greyhawk's in the content, not in the name....
Greyhawk is about the content rules are the least important area of the game. However it seems that rules are focused on more than anything else in the game. Rules can be fun but I don't know too many people reading up on opearating systems as a entering read which sparks areas of imagination.
The story is what makes the game the rest is easily adapted to fit the story and not the other way around.
I was actually seriously planning on looking at ZC until I learned that troll lords are releasing it in a series of 8 seperate books... sound suspiciouly like a ploy to milk more money out of Gygax's name to me.... why charge the suckers for two or three books when you can get them to lay out cash for 8 based soly on the name of the author
Reminds me of a certain map that I am buying in 4 parts...
As R.A. mentioned in an earlier thread, there's a new marketing offensive by the before almost unknown Troll Lord Games company to establish their Castles & Crusades/ Erde d20 system.
C&C feels somewhat like *D&D light*, basically leaving the *feat* section out, and so making it easy to use for material from any edition.
First off, repeat after me, so we're on the same page regarding my point of view:
"C&C is not 1e AD&D"
Sorry, but that's the facts.
You're statement about D&D Lite is a little off too, IMO. D20 Lite is more apt.
RULES WISE!!!
Game mechanics do not, and cannot override a setting or campaign's flavor, unless you let them. If you want 3.5 D&D but don't like Dwarven Wizards or Orcish Paladins, leave them out. If you don't want Prestige Classes, feats, skills and such, leave them out, or, better yet, get C&C.
Don't get me wrong, I do not dislike C&C (anymore than I dislike anything non-basic D&D, that is). BUT, despite TLG's promotional hype and the ravings of the game's fans, it's not 1e AD&D, and cannot be, by the very nature of the OGL and/or the lack of a similar license for 1e AD&D.
You also make the case that it's easy to convert material from C&C to AD&D 1e, if I read you correctly. Sure, and that's a good thing, but again, that is not unique to C&C. Basic D&D, OD&D, AD&D1e, AD&D2e, D&D3/3.5e, Hackmaster, C&C, D20 Fantasy, etc. They are all varations on a very similar theme mechanically, and can all be used by a competent DM and his players to play any campaign flavor. Converting between the editions and variants is simple once you have a basic grasp of the rules.
As far as settings go, I like GH. If this 'Rings of Brass'/Erde thing is a quality setting, I'll steal from it, or I'll borrow the bits and pieces I like and pass on the rest. Same as I've done with Mystara, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Darksun, Birthright, Any of the D20 settings, etc. While I agree with the previously posted sentiment that quality doesn't follow brand names, I'm also not a slave to the idea that any one person or era defines said quality. What I mean is, if I read something like the recent Zayene products or the forthcoming Zagyg products (which I haven't btw, so this is a comment on the quality of neither product), I don't automatically assume they are greyhawk or good quality based solely on authorship. I like a good share of the work of both of those authors, but they're both also reponsible for what I see as the garbage of the setting (though they're by no means alone there, hell, some of the material I've contributed to Canonfire and the GreyTalk community over the last 5 or 6 years looks like utter tripe when I review it now.) We all have off days when it comes down to it. The solution is to take each resource at face value and judge it on its own merit, disregarding any loyalty to (or dislike of) a specifc setting, era, or author.
More D&D related product is always good, and I applaud TLG for making their contribution to the hobby, but I honestly cannot fathom the zealous following the game has so early in its shelf life. It's a good thing to have at our disposal, but so is every other D&D related product out there.
You're statement about D&D Lite is a little off too, IMO. D20 Lite is more apt.
...
Don't get me wrong, I do not dislike C&C (anymore than I dislike anything non-basic D&D, that is). BUT, despite TLG's promotional hype and the ravings of the game's fans, it's not 1e AD&D, and cannot be, by the very nature of the OGL and/or the lack of a similar license for 1e AD&D.
...
You also make the case that it's easy to convert material from C&C to AD&D 1e, if I read you correctly. Sure, and that's a good thing, but again, that is not unique to C&C. Basic D&D, OD&D, AD&D1e, AD&D2e, D&D3/3.5e, Hackmaster, C&C, D20 Fantasy, etc. They are all varations on a very similar theme mechanically, and can all be used by a competent DM and his players to play any campaign flavor. Converting between the editions and variants is simple once you have a basic grasp of the rules.
...
As far as rules, go I am one DM who doesn't really care about it, so I personally am unlikely to change, although, from what I personally experienced, C&C is a LOT easier to learn than D&D... But it indeed gave me the impression of being a *LITE* a rpg system for beginners. (No offense anyone, please
)...
As far as settings go, I like GH. If this 'Rings of Brass'/Erde thing is a quality setting, I'll steal from it, or I'll borrow the bits and pieces I like and pass on the rest.
By all means NOOOO!
IMHO, every, yes, EVERY RPG book you can find out there is more original than CoE!
That's what I meant earlier - They don't *rely on* an idea, they just copy it and put a name on it they've supposedly got from glancing a quick moment an a Bavarian landmap!
This setting is really so disgusting...
...
What I mean is, if I read something like the recent Zayene products or the forthcoming Zagyg products (which I haven't btw, so this is a comment on the quality of neither product), I don't automatically assume they are greyhawk or good quality based solely on authorship.
...
It's a good thing to have at our disposal, but so is every other D&D related product out there.
Indeed, as I am DM for *Lost City of Gaxmoor*, I can state that the adventures are really well done and very quick to prepair for gaming!
Indeed, as I am to do an entire campaign based on the TLG adventures, I just thought: *Why spoil my precious WoG with *elseworld* material and don't play it just there?*
I also regard CZ very sceptically - the old Erde/Inzae adventures where nice (because they were cheap
) but an 8 module saga... I'll do better in completing my WoG or Birthright collection with that money...I liked SOME of the original Greyhawk material by Gygax et al, but equally found elements of it way off what I wanted. The Sargent material diverted considerably from what I was using in my campaign , but was a quality product with plenty of stuff to salvage. Equally Forgotten Realms (yes!) and fan based material have elements worth plundering and incorporating to a greater or lesser extent.
I have not looked at C&C in detail. It is exciting in so much as it is driving some people back into a creative process and enlivening an element of the gaming community. That said I will not be embracing it completely, but will again peruse and pick what quality ideas I like from it. CZ will form part of my campaign IF it proves to be of the quality that I like - which I will not take for granted.
I personally think that the era for 1AD&D has moved on. I remember it fondly, even nostalgically, but it had its flaws. The same can be said of all subsequent editions. As Chatdemon said (If I read it correctly) 3.5 is really no different from 1AD&D if you choose to omit the elements that you don't like.
Either way I wish TLG and their system well. Having looked over some of their fans forums it looks as though there's a great deal of energy around them at the moment.
I don't really care what rules system these are under, what I care about is the content. Greyhawk is about quality and if these are anything like the work which started this campaign then they are Greyhawk at heart whatever they are called.
Here, here. While I myself won't be using the C&C rules, if I can find the CZ books locally, I'll use 'em (otherwise, WizCo is coming out with their own Castle Greyhawk stuff in a few months.) It'd be nice to have the stuff direct from the creator, after all.
To put things another way-
Forgotten Realms is... nice...
Eberron is... bloody weirder than Planescape, really (magical robot PC's?)...
...but Greyhawk is HOME
More D&D related product is always good, and I applaud TLG for making their contribution to the hobby, but I honestly cannot fathom the zealous following the game has so early in its shelf life. It's a good thing to have at our disposal, but so is every other D&D related product out there.
Castles and Crusades has a zealous following because it is a superior game system that very closely captures the feel of 1st edition AD&D. IMO C&C is what D&D 3.x should have been instead of the steaming pile of EQ wanna be trash wotc has pushed out on us.
Also I disagree that every D&D related product is a good thing.
I also regard CZ very sceptically - the old Erde/Inzae adventures where nice (because they were cheap ) but an 8 module saga... I'll do better in completing my WoG or Birthright collection with that money.
I have CZ1 on my desk atm. It is a hefty 256 pages of EGG goodness that is much much more than a module and closer to a campaign setting in its own right. the production value is worlds better than anything wotc has released recently and the price is very reasonable. The book fully describes a large river side city and the surrounding 1500 square miles and lists a few hundred adventure hooks and locations. Culture and traditions of this city are described in detail as well. IMHO CZ1 is a must have for any GH campaign.
However, I will agree, it does seem to look like what AD&D would have evolved into, if we'd avoided the whole 2nd Ed debacle.
I still like three logical saving throws over 7 or so...
7? I thought there were only six in C&C, one for each ability scores.
ex. base save verse poison is character level + constitution bonus with a target number of 18 if con is not a primary attribute or twelve if constitution is a primary attribute. add the HD of the attacking monster to the target number.
thus if a lvl 4 fighter with a con of 16 and con as a primary attribute were to be bitten by a 3hd giant spider the save would be like so, target number base 12 + spiders HD =15 1d20 + 4(lvl) + 2 (C&C con mod) or more simply 1d20+6 with a target of 15.
It is supposed to be more "original" than 3.5?
And that's supposed to be "easier" than 3.5?
It is supposed to be more "original" than 3.5?
Aside from my very badly meandering description the answer is that C&C saves are as easy if not easier than 3.5, at least in my experience. I also like the fact that having saving throws linked to all the attributes instead of three helps prevent the rampant munchkinism and dump-stat attitude common in 3.5. In C&C every attribute matters, not just dexterity. :p
As for originality I would say that both 3.5 D&DBZ and C&C are equally unoriginal in that both are derived from and IMO improve on the original D&D saves, Though as stated earlier I believe C&C does a better job then 3.5
Aside from my very badly meandering description the answer is that C&C saves are as easy if not easier than 3.5, at least in my experience. I also like the fact that having saving throws linked to all the attributes instead of three helps prevent the rampant munchkinism and dump-stat attitude common in 3.5. In C&C every attribute matters, not just dexterity. :p
Every ability score matters in 3.5. I've seen multiple parties crash out of adventures because nobody has Diplomacy modifier above +1, the multi-classed fighter has a Will save under +5 at 10th level (including his magical bonuses), or they had a sorcerer or warmage instead of wizard and nobody knew what a Knowledge skill was. Yes, people still have dump stats. That doesn't mean they don't pay for it eventually.
And I doubt there is any more or less munchkinism is C&C than there is D&D. It is a game system. Give people a chance and they will do whatever they can to optimize their characters.
It's a basic given of any game, when a player roles a crappy score, he or she will put it into the stat they think will do the least harm to them.
And as for the saves, I hold to my stance: why have (six) saving throws when it boils down to one of three actions, dodging, bulling through it, or mentally withstanding it?
So you like C&C. Good for you! Find a group of players, and play it! But please, quit being indignant because we won't jump on the bandwagon with you, and abandon a game system that works for us and works for the setting we love. Which is what it seems you want from the rest of us.
And I doubt there is any more or less munchkinism is C&C than there is D&D. It is a game system. Give people a chance and they will do whatever they can to optimize their characters.
Without the assorted feats, prestige classes, non-traditional races and skills of 3.5 the only way to optimize a Character in C&C is to place your best rolled stats where you need them for your class and level in my experience.
And as for the saves, I hold to my stance: why have (six) saving throws when it boils down to one of three actions, dodging, bulling through it, or mentally withstanding it?
So when resisting illusions do we use wisdom or intelligence? when resisting constriction or paralysis do we use strength dexterity or wisdom? It is not clear cut in every situation. Don't get me wrong, I think 3.x has improved a great deal over 1st or 2nd edition saves but I also think C&C has improved greatly over 3.x
So you like C&C. Good for you! Find a group of players, and play it! But please, quit being indignant because we won't jump on the bandwagon with you, and abandon a game system that works for us and works for the setting we love. Which is what it seems you want from the rest of us.
Thats cool. Maybe I will stop being indignant if you stop being defensive. As far as C&C being the bandwagon...
when resisting constriction or paralysis do we use strength dexterity or wisdom? It is not clear cut in every situation.
Constriction is a grapple check. Paralysis effects (not poisons) would be willpower, which is wisdom-based. Poisons are constitution / Fortitude.
Without the assorted feats, prestige classes, non-traditional races and skills of 3.5 the only way to optimize a Character in C&C is to place your best rolled stats where you need them for your class and level in my experience.
So there's nothing in choice of weapon, or armor, or spells, or what not that matters?
There was such in AD&D 1st ed.
That way it sounds like C&C has gone too far and made every character identical except for maybe random ability scores, removing a significant amount of the material that added so much to AD&D.
No subclasses? Druids, rangers, paladins, illusionists, assassins, monks, or bards?
No weapon specialization?
That sounds rather dull and cookie cutter.
So when resisting illusions do we use wisdom or intelligence?
Why would we need to use Intelligence? That might recognize an inconsistency, but it won't overcome the mental effect.
when resisting constriction or paralysis do we use strength dexterity or wisdom?
Constriction, or more likely grappling, is primarily Strength based, with a Dexterity based secondary option in certain circumstances.
Paralysis is either Wisdom or Constitution, depending on the effect causing it.
It is not clear cut in every situation.
Sure it is, just look at the entry for the spell, monster, or other generating effect. You have to specify that no matter what, so what does it matter if you do so in the individual creature descriptions?
So there's nothing in choice of weapon, or armor, or spells, or what not that matters?
There was such in AD&D 1st ed.
That way it sounds like C&C has gone too far and made every character identical except for maybe random ability scores, removing a significant amount of the material that added so much to AD&D.
No subclasses? Druids, rangers, paladins, illusionists, assassins, monks, or bards?
No weapon specialization?
That sounds rather dull and cookie cutter.
I am going to assume you are being sarcastic just for the sake of argument because I know you could not be so ignorant as to not know the answer to the questions you printed above. Here is a hint for you in case I am wrong though.. If it is in the AD&D 1st edition PHB it is probably in C&C PHB.
Why would we need to use Intelligence? That might recognize an inconsistency, but it won't overcome the mental effect.
In your opinion which is as good as anyones.. but why limit yourself? what if a player gives you a really good reason why they should get to use their intelligence? If a person is intelligent enough to notice the inconsistency might he also be intelligent enough to deduce that there is an illusion? The question is this.. does a half wit with a good deal of common sense have a better chance of spotting or figuring out there is an illusion that a genius with limited common sense. which is more important? reasoning or intuition?
Constriction, or more likely grappling, is primarily Strength based, with a Dexterity based secondary option in certain circumstances.
Paralysis is either Wisdom or Constitution, depending on the effect causing it.
According to 3.x but not according to 1st or 2nd edition AD&D and regardless no save is as clear cut as you seem to want to make it. save vs constriction or grapple test? really whats the difference? I'm healthy enough to not be paralyzed or im strong enough to not be paralyzed... again it becomes an argument of semantics.
I will say why I prefer C&Cs save system. Because there is a save assigned to each stat every stat is important. as far as saves go in 3.x all you need worry about is the big three Wis/Con/Dex. So basically if a person wanted to be a min/max monster all he need to is pump those three attributes and play a rogue or a cleric and he/she would have a good character. TBH I can not think of a single thing in 3.x that doesnt lend itself to min/maxing and munchkinism.
Sure it is, just look at the entry for the spell, monster, or other generating effect. You have to specify that no matter what, so what does it matter if you do so in the individual creature descriptions?
A long time ago people played D&D and other games without the need to have every little thing laid out for them in a chart or rule.
Good times...
I am going to assume you are being sarcastic just for the sake of argument because I know you could not be so ignorant as to not know the answer to the questions you printed above. Here is a hint for you in case I am wrong though.. If it is in the AD&D 1st edition PHB it is probably in C&C PHB.
Ah. So you were just using hyperbole to suggest that character optimization is somehow a "bad" thing that only happens in 3.5, and could never occur in AD&D 1st ed or C&C.
In your opinion which is as good as anyones..
Well actually in the opinion of a bunch of professional game designers.
but why limit yourself? what if a player gives you a really good reason why they should get to use their intelligence? If a person is intelligent enough to notice the inconsistency might he also be intelligent enough to deduce that there is an illusion? The question is this.. does a half wit with a good deal of common sense have a better chance of spotting or figuring out there is an illusion that a genius with limited common sense. which is more important? reasoning or intuition?
Anyone with a good spiel can justify anything. If I really cared, I'm sure I could prove why Dexterity should be used to resist illusions.
The questions are;
1. Does something non-standard mean something is automatically an illusion?
2. Does suspecting something might be an illusion overcome the effect?
According to 3.x but not according to 1st or 2nd edition AD&D and regardless no save is as clear cut as you seem to want to make it. save vs constriction or grapple test? really whats the difference? I'm healthy enough to not be paralyzed or im strong enough to not be paralyzed... again it becomes an argument of semantics.
That is why 3.5 is an upgrade to AD&D, clarifying such things.
So it is not an argument of semantics, but a meaningless complaint about an issue that has been resolved.
I will say why I prefer C&Cs save system. Because there is a save assigned to each stat every stat is important. as far as saves go in 3.x all you need worry about is the big three Wis/Con/Dex. So basically if a person wanted to be a min/max monster all he need to is pump those three attributes and play a rogue or a cleric and he/she would have a good character. TBH I can not think of a single thing in 3.x that doesnt lend itself to min/maxing and munchkinism.
Which of course really just shows your lack of understanding of the 3.5 system.
A rogue that treats Int as a dump stat is an incompetent rogue, as Int determines how many skills you get.
A cleric that treats Cha as a dump stat is fodder for undead, as Cha determines how well you turn undead.
That 3.5 allows for that anyway is a strength of the system, as opposed to AD&D 1st ed where a thief with a moderate Dex was nearly useless, as was a cleric with a moderate Wis.
A long time ago people played D&D and other games without the need to have every little thing laid out for them in a chart or rule.
They also played without having saves based on all the ability scores. I guess we can definitely scrap C&C on that basis.
Ah. So you were just using hyperbole to suggest that character optimization is somehow a "bad" thing that only happens in 3.5, and could never occur in AD&D 1st ed or C&C.
I wouldn't say munchkinism could never happen in 1st ed or C&C but I would also say that neither game is as easily abused by twinks as 3.5 is. Other than the acquisition of magical items there is little means to munchkin a character in C&C while the overwhelming numbers of feats, prestige classes, and templates is almost custom made for the munchkin.
There will always be people who think playing a half dragon githyankee abyssal monk sorcerer is a really really cool thing and I fully understand that 3.5 is the game for those people but for those that play a more gritty medieval setting based on a humanocentric world the bulk of 3.5 will be useless. I guess the issue is that AD&D was based off of classic fantasy such as Tolkien, Vance, and Howard while 3.5 is based off of anime such as DBZ or Inuyasha.
Well actually in the opinion of a bunch of professional game designers.
Thats a silly argument when one considers how many game systems there are and have been and how many different methods there have been for saves/harm avoidance/what have you. What makes these particular professional game designers more qualified than any other professional game designers? what makes any game designer more qualified than you or I to determine how things should work in our game?
Anyone with a good spiel can justify anything. If I really cared, I'm sure I could prove why Dexterity should be used to resist illusions.
The questions are;
1. Does something non-standard mean something is automatically an illusion?
2. Does suspecting something might be an illusion overcome the effect?
I think using dex would be a stretch but do not doubt your ability to justify it at all.
1. depends. My argument is that saves can be situational.
2. I would say it is step one.
That is why 3.5 is an upgrade to AD&D, clarifying such things.
So it is not an argument of semantics, but a meaningless complaint about an issue that has been resolved.
Who gets to determine when the issue is resolved? you? I'm not sure why there was a need to release 3.x other than Hasbro wanting to make a buck and honestly I say more power to them but to act like 3.x is somehow an improvement over 2nd ed AD&D is false and is opinion. Thats like saying Eberron is an improvement of forgotten realms or that the realms were an improvement over the World of Greyhawk. opinion does not equal truth.
Some improvement really..I play D&D with 2 C&C books, the players handbook, the monsters and treasure book and the Greyhawk gazetteer. That is all that is required to play and these three books cover all the rules needed to adjudicate any situation that might arise.
How many D&D 3.5 books are generally used in a typical game? Lets say of Eberron setting? PHB DMG MM1 MM2 FF Eberron players guide, all of the complete whatever books, vile darkness ultimate good. ect. ect. No you don't have to use them but then again they are all a part of the system and considered Core books so when a person decides not to use the rules from the complete warrior book his players may be a bit peeved.
Which of course really just shows your lack of understanding of the 3.5 system.
A rogue that treats Int as a dump stat is an incompetent rogue, as Int determines how many skills you get.
Because 32 skill points to start and 8 per level isnt enough to be competent? I think having 8 skills at lvl4 to start and the ability to keep them maxed throughout the characters career is enough. figure... move silently-4 hide-4 open lock-4 disable device-4 pick pocket-4 listen-4 search-4 spot-4
Thats assuming we put our best rolls in Dex Con and Wis. As long as int is at least 10 the character is far from incompetent and being slightly less proficient in a few skills is more than balanced by having better HP and better saves all the way down the line.
A cleric that treats Cha as a dump stat is fodder for undead, as Cha determines how well you turn undead.
No more so than any other class and that same cleric who cranked up his dex con and wis will be able to self buff and beat the undead down better than the fighters he might be grouped with. even for a cleric cha is not that important. all the cleric needs is at least a 10 for three turn attempts each day. the extra turns per day are a fair trade for better AC(dex) more HP(con) and more bonus spells(wis) and better saves all around IMO. with a few self buffs this combat monster of a cleric will be happily man handling the undead with brute force and need not rely on turning. Who needs to turn undead when you can smash them to bits AND be better against every other monster out there as well.
That 3.5 allows for that anyway is a strength of the system, as opposed to AD&D 1st ed where a thief with a moderate Dex was nearly useless, as was a cleric with a moderate Wis.
Yeah. I guess the assumption was that anyone playing a thief or cleric would put their best stat in the classes primary attribute. are you saying that a thief under 3.5 rules with a moderate dex is better off than he would be under the AD&D rules?
They also played without having saves based on all the ability scores. I guess we can definitely scrap C&C on that basis.
I think you would change your mind if you actually read the C&C PHB and gave the defensiveness a break.
I wouldn't say munchkinism could never happen in 1st ed or C&C but I would also say that neither game is as easily abused by twinks as 3.5 is. Other than the acquisition of magical items there is little means to munchkin a character in C&C while the overwhelming numbers of feats, prestige classes, and templates is almost custom made for the munchkin.
So then having ability score be "important" in C&C is in fact "meaningless."
You really need to pick one and stick with it.
Thats a silly argument when one considers how many game systems there are . . .
No, what's silly is your attempt to try and dismiss what I say out of hand. That same applies to anything you might say in support of C&C.
Who gets to determine when the issue is resolved? you?
If you like.
I'm not sure why there was a need to release 3.x other than Hasbro wanting to make a buck and honestly I say more power to them but to act like 3.x is somehow an improvement over 2nd ed AD&D is false and is opinion.
If it is an opinion, it can not be false.
You seem to be confused about that concept.
Some improvement really..I play D&D with 2 C&C books, the players handbook, the monsters and treasure book and the Greyhawk gazetteer. That is all that is required to play and these three books cover all the rules needed to adjudicate any situation that might arise.
"To act like C&C is somehow an improvement over 3.5 is false and is opinion."
Because 32 skill points to start and 8 per level isnt enough to be competent? I think having 8 skills at lvl4 to start and the ability to keep them maxed throughout the characters career is enough. figure... move silently-4 hide-4 open lock-4 disable device-4 pick pocket-4 listen-4 search-4 spot-4
You figure wrong. But that is to be expected as you don't play 3.5. That is the bare minimum, and means the rogue won't be using Tumble to gain flanks, UMD to pop off random magical support, Bluff to lie his way past guards, or several other things. If you just want a cookie cutter rogue it might serve though.
No more so than any other class and that same cleric who cranked up his dex con and wis will be able to self buff and beat the undead down better than the fighters he might be grouped with.
Self-buffing is one of the weakest builds in existence. Unless everyone else in the party likes running a blocker, all you do is get the rest of the party killed while you are getting ready to start fighting.
Yeah. I guess the assumption was that anyone playing a thief or cleric would put their best stat in the classes primary attribute. are you saying that a thief under 3.5 rules with a moderate dex is better off than he would be under the AD&D rules?
Depends on the specific build, but quite often yes.
I think you would change your mind if you actually read the C&C PHB and gave the defensiveness a break.
I think you would change your mind if you actually played 3.5 and learned how the system works before looking for something "better."
There will always be people who think playing a half dragon githyankee abyssal monk sorcerer is a really really cool thing and I fully understand that 3.5 is the game for those people but for those that play a more gritty medieval setting based on a humanocentric world the bulk of 3.5 will be useless. I guess the issue is that AD&D was based off of classic fantasy such as Tolkien, Vance, and Howard while 3.5 is based off of anime such as DBZ or Inuyasha.
Are you saying that having the choice to play that (admittedly absurb) character is a bad thing? Are you saying that C&C is better because it restricts a player's options? 3.5 D&D is worse because it has a larger body of options available?
Which brings me to my second point:
I play D&D with 2 C&C books, the players handbook, the monsters and treasure book and the Greyhawk gazetteer. That is all that is required to play and these three books cover all the rules needed to adjudicate any situation that might arise.
How many D&D 3.5 books are generally used in a typical game? Lets say of Eberron setting? PHB DMG MM1 MM2 FF Eberron players guide, all of the complete whatever books, vile darkness ultimate good. ect. ect. No you don't have to use them but then again they are all a part of the system and considered Core books so when a person decides not to use the rules from the complete warrior book his players may be a bit peeved.
You're playing your game with two rulebooks and one setting book; the hypothetical Eberron player needs three rulebooks (PH, DMG, MM) and one setting book. Not a big difference. All the other books you listed are specifically not Core books, completely extraneous and, most importantly, [b]optional[/b]. The people who use them (not including myself) do so because they like the stuff they find in them.
In reality, I can (and do) run a "medieval setting based on a humanocentric world... of classic fantasy such as Tolkien, Vance, and Howard" with just the three core D&D rulebooks. But if I wanted to run an anime Inuyasha world with githyanki and half-dragons, I could do that too. How is that a shortcoming of the rule system?
Without the assorted feats, prestige classes, non-traditional races and skills of 3.5 the only way to optimize a Character in C&C is to place your best rolled stats where you need them for your class and level in my experience.
So in a nutshell.
3rd edition is not 1st edition, that's bad.
1st edition has no feats or skills, that's good.
C&C has no feats or skills, that's good.
so C&C is 1st edition? Odd logic.
1st edition has no Seige mechanic, so C&C != 1st edition.
C&C does have BAB, Ascending Armor class, 3e style saving throws, etc. That means C&C is d20, not 1st edition.
I have absolutely no problem with d20 lite. I love BFRPG. I despise C&C's "this isn't d20! this isn't d20! this isn't d20!" attitude.
Yeah. I guess the assumption was that anyone playing a thief or cleric would put their best stat in the classes primary attribute. are you saying that a thief under 3.5 rules with a moderate dex is better off than he would be under the AD&D rules?
Yes, he is.
In 1e/2e, the thief class ability set was modified by dexterity and race alone.
In 3e, the ability set is turned into skills. Rogues get a ton of skill points, and if he's got a decent INT, he gets even more. Dex has some influence on some of the skills, but thoughtful allocation of skill points easily overcomes the drawbacks of a mediocre DEX stat.
It's a basic given of any game, when a player roles a crappy score, he or she will put it into the stat they think will do the least harm to them.
Not if you're using Method 1!
:P
So in a nutshell.
3rd edition is not 1st edition, that's bad.
1st edition has no feats or skills, that's good.
C&C has no feats or skills, that's good.
so C&C is 1st edition? Odd logic.
1st edition has no Seige mechanic, so C&C != 1st edition.
C&C does have BAB, Ascending Armor class, 3e style saving throws, etc. That means C&C is d20, not 1st edition.
I have absolutely no problem with d20 lite. I love BFRPG. I despise C&C's "this isn't d20! this isn't d20! this isn't d20!" attitude.
so any game that uses a d20 is d20? doesnt that make 1st and 2nd ed as well as gammaworld 5th edition d20 as well? wait though.. lejendary adventures uses a d20 for damage rolls so that must be d20 also.
So far I have to admit I appreciate the simplicity of the system and the flexibility of character advancement. Our priest of Norebo actually took thief skills while one of the mages is very adept with a sword.
Samwise-Self-buffing is one of the weakest builds in existence. Unless everyone else in the party likes running a blocker, all you do is get the rest of the party killed while you are getting ready to start fighting.
Even the terms have changed. build was a common term used by UO players to describe the most current and efficient character types. completely unknown to D&D prior to 3.5
Incanus-In reality, I can (and do) run a "medieval setting based on a humanocentric world... of classic fantasy such as Tolkien, Vance, and Howard" with just the three core D&D rulebooks. But if I wanted to run an anime Inuyasha world with githyanki and half-dragons, I could do that too. How is that a shortcoming of the rule system?
you make a good point here.
Yes, he is.
In 1e/2e, the thief class ability set was modified by dexterity and race alone.
In 3e, the ability set is turned into skills. Rogues get a ton of skill points, and if he's got a decent INT, he gets even more. Dex has some influence on some of the skills, but thoughtful allocation of skill points easily overcomes the drawbacks of a mediocre DEX stat.
what do you define as overcome?
lvl1 4skill in X dex bonus +1 +1 to dex save AC and ranged attacks
Vrs
lvl1 1skill in X dex bonus +4 +4 to dex save AC and ranged attacks
which do you think is better?
what do you define as overcome?
lvl1 4skill in X dex bonus +1 +1 to dex save AC and ranged attacks
Vrs
lvl1 1skill in X dex bonus +4 +4 to dex save AC and ranged attacks
which do you think is better?
How about comparing it at 10th level, where you can have the difference between 13 ranks in a skill and 1 rank in a skill?
10th level 13 ranks + 1 Dex Bonus = +14 skill modifier
10th level 1 rank + 4 Dex Bonus = +5 skill modifier
I'd have to say a +14 is better than a +5.
Oh, and of the "old" thief class skills:
Climb - Str
Decipher Script - Int
Disable Device - Int
Hide - Dex
Listen - Wis
Move Silently - Dex
Open Lock - Dex
Search - Int
Sleight of Hand - Dex
So a high Dex will only help with half the skills. If you expect to do more than sneak, steal, and pick locks, you had best have a lot of ranks to pump up those other skills.
Even the terms have changed. build was a common term used by UO players to describe the most current and efficient character types. completely unknown to D&D prior to 3.5
Really?
So people didn't plot to take the bastard sword in 1st ed because it could be used one handed or two handed?
Or didn't take the long sword because most magic weapons discovered were long swords?
And the class kits weren't part of building a character?
And I guess the Player's Options rules, which outright had you design a character "class" with a point buy system, never existed.
And there was never a point buy method for ability scores in the Living City campaign.
The concept of a character "build" existed in D&D more than a few years before 3E appeared.
what do you define as overcome?
lvl1 4skill in X dex bonus +1 +1 to dex save AC and ranged attacks
Vrs
lvl1 1skill in X dex bonus +4 +4 to dex save AC and ranged attacks
which do you think is better?
That entirely depends on what type of rogue you want. If I want one who's a bit better in combat, I'd take the latter. If I want one with a wider variety of skills, I'd take the former.
How about comparing it at 10th level, where you can have the difference between 13 ranks in a skill and 1 rank in a skill?
10th level 13 ranks + 1 Dex Bonus = +14 skill modifier
10th level 1 rank + 4 Dex Bonus = +5 skill modifier
I'd have to say a +14 is better than a +5.
Assuming that the second guy never bumped up his skills. even with no int bonus the thief gets enough skill points to keep eight in class skills maxed at every level. so at lvl ten the skill would be more like 10th lvl 13 ranks +4dex and at ten it would probably be +5 dex = +17-18. Did I agree to trade a high dex for the freedom to raise my skills?
Oh, and of the "old" thief class skills:
Climb - Str
Decipher Script - Int
Disable Device - Int
Hide - Dex
Listen - Wis
Move Silently - Dex
Open Lock - Dex
Search - Int
Sleight of Hand - Dex
So a high Dex will only help with half the skills. If you expect to do more than sneak, steal, and pick locks, you had best have a lot of ranks to pump up those other skills.
It will help with the skills that matter most AND make the high dex thief more capable in combat both defensively and offensively.
Really?
So people didn't plot to take the bastard sword in 1st ed because it could be used one handed or two handed?
Or didn't take the long sword because most magic weapons discovered were long swords?
And the class kits weren't part of building a character?
And I guess the Player's Options rules, which outright had you design a character "class" with a point buy system, never existed.
And there was never a point buy method for ability scores in the Living City campaign.
The concept of a character "build" existed in D&D more than a few years before 3E appeared.
I'm not arguing that these systems did not exist what I am saying is that the term build comes from UO and has been co-opted by 3.5 players which makes sense given that 3.5 is little more than a MMORPG converted to pen and paper.
saying that weapon selection amounts to character build is pretty silly though.
It amuses me how defensive the 3.5 fans get over anyone disliking this eventually to be forgotten version of D&D. Will you be so slavish to the 4th edition rules when they are released?
Assuming that the second guy never bumped up his skills. even with no int bonus the thief gets enough skill points to keep eight in class skills maxed at every level. so at lvl ten the skill would be more like 10th lvl 13 ranks +4dex and at ten it would probably be +5 dex = +17-18. Did I agree to trade a high dex for the freedom to raise my skills?
As I recall, you said Int could be a dump stat. That means pick one skill not to have, and you get no other skills.
It will help with the skills that matter most AND make the high dex thief more capable in combat both defensively and offensively.
It doesn't help with Listen and Spot. While they use a non-dump stat (according to you), no ranks in Spot means no surprise rounds a lot more often, which will seriously hurt his offensive and defensive capabilities.
Also, dumping Int means you won't have the skill points for Tumble, even more severely affecting his offensive ability.
I'm not arguing that these systems did not exist what I am saying is that the term build comes from UO and has been co-opted by 3.5 players which makes sense given that 3.5 is little more than a MMORPG converted to pen and paper.
And I am saying the term existed in other games before that, and was co-opted by AD&D players long before then.
Also, 3E/3.5 is a set of tournament and convention rules converted to the default of theg ame syste,
saying that weapon selection amounts to character build is pretty silly though.
Saying that such considerations didn't exist from the beginning shows a serious lack of experience with the system, or knowledge of the history of the system.
It amuses me how defensive the 3.5 fans get over anyone disliking this eventually to be forgotten version of D&D. Will you be so slavish to the 4th edition rules when they are released?
It amuses me how little the 3.5 detractors seem to know about either 3.5 or the past editions they claim things like C&C are similar to.
Will you be so slavish to C&C when they publish the 50th book in their system because they actually want to sell books and make money?
So basically if a person wanted to be a min/max monster all he need to is pump those three attributes and play a rogue or a cleric and he/she would have a good character.
It's sort of been addressed above, but I felt like commenting here too. When I play 3.5e, I play rogues. A rogue with a low intelligence and charisma is not a good character. A large number of the skills required to master the class depend on those ability scores. Of course, if all I want is a high armor class,good wisdom based saving throws and high hit points, at the expense of the actual abilities my class is supposed to excel at, I could "pump those three attributes", but can't I do the same thing in C&C or AD&D?
"Flaming" is a violation of the Wizards Online Community Code of Conduct.
Thanks.
"Flaming" is a violation of the Wizards Online Community Code of Conduct.
So are spamming, baiting and promotion of corporate websites. How many more advertisements for Troll Lord Games disguised as edition wars do we have to sit through before they get enforced?
Will you be so slavish to C&C when they publish the 50th book in their system because they actually want to sell books and make money?
Oh come now, C&C won't publish more rule books. The game is complete! It's perfect! It will stay limited to it's 3 (yes, 3 not two, PHB, M&T, GMG) core books....
Just like AD&D 1e did....
As I recall, you said Int could be a dump stat. That means pick one skill not to have, and you get no other skills.
Still get eight skill ranks per level to add as you with no?
It doesn't help with Listen and Spot. While they use a non-dump stat (according to you), no ranks in Spot means no surprise rounds a lot more often, which will seriously hurt his offensive and defensive capabilities.
Also, dumping Int means you won't have the skill points for Tumble, even more severely affecting his offensive ability.
I think the +4 or so to AC and ranged attacks (and HTH if weapons finesse) are more valuable in combat than tumble. Just my opinion but it does seem the higher AC will help the majority of the time (passive skill) where is tumble is situational.
And I am saying the term existed in other games before that, and was co-opted by AD&D players long before then.
Also, 3E/3.5 is a set of tournament and convention rules converted to the default of the game system,
First Ive ever heard that and as I own a good number of the tournament modules I must say I don't see anything that would lead me to believe 3.x arose from tournament play. I admit that 3.x improves on 1-2nd edition AD&D in a number of ways.. maybe my issue isnt so much with the rules set but rather with the direction those rules have been used to take D&D. I do not like eberron at all. when i think 3.x i see steam punk and rouges
in bondage style straps and buckles.. 3.x seems very gimmicky and far removed from previous editions of the game to me.
Saying that such considerations didn't exist from the beginning shows a serious lack of experience with the system, or knowledge of the history of the system.
Played 3.x since it released and then re-released :p I understand the system just fine. what I do not like is the needless complexity and the fact that the rules systems are so integrated that you can not simply choose not to use any of them without destroying the rest. As far as knowledge of the history of the system /shugs maybe. I have been playing D&D in one incarnation or another since '84.
It amuses me how little the 3.5 detractors seem to know about either 3.5 or the past editions they claim things like C&C are similar to.
Such as? I have my 3.5 core books in a books case by my desk as I type this. test me if you like.
Will you be so slavish to C&C when they publish the 50th book in their system because they actually want to sell books and make money?
Yes if they publish modules or settings. No if they publish a ton of core books or books full of feats or what have you. I still buy and use 3.5 products such as dungeon tiles or modules if they catch my eye but as I choose not to embrace needless complexity and have better things to do than memorize every new core book one of the players may what to use I do not buy them and do not allow them in my rather vanilla and old school Greyhawk game.
It's sort of been addressed above, but I felt like commenting here too. When I play 3.5e, I play rogues. A rogue with a low intelligence and charisma is not a good character.
According to who? you? depends on what kind of thief we are talking about. If you see the thief as a courtesan or con artist then sure.. Cha and Int are good choices but you will get the stuffing knocked out of you by the streetwise, antisocial, strong arm robber/ assassin type of thief that pumped dex, con, and wis. And I never said low Int or Cha.. I said average as in score of 10.
A large number of the skills required to master the class depend on those ability scores.
What CHA based skill is required for mugging people with a knife in the back along some dark alley? Again it depends on your thief concept. Though I will admit that there is no right way to make a character, its your character after all, there are many more advantages to having great saves, improved HP, and a better AC in a great many, if not most situations. when a horde of orcs charges the group which thief do you think they want with them? the socializer or the hardened and agile killer? I know which one I would want. Also as thieves THB increases only by a moderate step with levels the +4 or +5 to hit bonus is much bigger than I think people admit. When the steel is drawn you want to be able to hit your enemy and not get killed for it.
Of course, if all I want is a high armor class,good wisdom based saving throws and high hit points, at the expense of the actual abilities my class is supposed to excel at, I could "pump those three attributes", but can't I do the same thing in C&C or AD&D?
That leads to another debate. What exactly is a rogue supposed to excel at? I think the rogue class has become so diluted that it really is a catch all class that can be a real jack of all trades but suffers from a lack of identity. everyone knows the fighter or the wizard does in the group but rogues are not so simple as one can be worlds different from the other based on a few skill selections and the assignment of attributes. I don't know that this is a bad thing but it does lead to people claiming this skill or that skill are required to master a class that truly is a jack of trades and master of none. It is entirely possible to make a rogue that is not a thief and has no ability at any thief like skill. can one make a fighter that cant fight? a caster that cant cast? every other classes arch typical skill sets are tied into the class as ability where the rogues arch typical abilities are skills that may or may not be taken.
So are spamming, baiting and promotion of corporate websites. How many more advertisements for Troll Lord Games disguised as edition wars do we have to sit through before they get enforced?
I thought we were debating editions/incarnations of the game especially where it relates to Greyhawk. I have yet to promote the troll lords as a corporate entity and see C&C as part of the natural progression of D&D not separate from it.
Oh come now, C&C won't publish more rule books. The game is complete! It's perfect! It will stay limited to it's 3 (yes, 3 not two, PHB, M&T, GMG) core books....
Which one is the GMG? I do know that ATM there are only two rule books out. Like I said above I have been using Lejendary adventures rules for a couple of weeks with my greyhawk game.
As I recall, you said Int could be a dump stat. That means pick one skill not to have, and you get no other skills.
Still get eight skill ranks per level to add as you with no?
It doesn't help with Listen and Spot. While they use a non-dump stat (according to you), no ranks in Spot means no surprise rounds a lot more often, which will seriously hurt his offensive and defensive capabilities.
Also, dumping Int means you won't have the skill points for Tumble, even more severely affecting his offensive ability.
I think the +4 or so to AC and ranged attacks (and HTH if weapons finesse) are more valuable in combat than tumble. Just my opinion but it does seem the higher AC will help the majority of the time (passive skill) where is tumble is situational.
And I am saying the term existed in other games before that, and was co-opted by AD&D players long before then.
Also, 3E/3.5 is a set of tournament and convention rules converted to the default of the game system,
First Ive ever heard that and as I own a good number of the tournament modules I must say I don't see anything that would lead me to believe 3.x arose from tournament play. I admit that 3.x improves on 1-2nd edition AD&D in a number of ways.. maybe my issue isnt so much with the rules set but rather with the direction those rules have been used to take D&D. I do not like eberron at all. when i think 3.x i see steam punk and rouges
in bondage style straps and buckles.. 3.x seems very gimmicky and far removed from previous editions of the game to me.
Saying that such considerations didn't exist from the beginning shows a serious lack of experience with the system, or knowledge of the history of the system.
Played 3.x since it released and then re-released :p I understand the system just fine. what I do not like is the needless complexity and the fact that the rules systems are so integrated that you can not simply choose not to use any of them without destroying the rest. As far as knowledge of the history of the system /shugs maybe. I have been playing D&D in one incarnation or another since '84.
It amuses me how little the 3.5 detractors seem to know about either 3.5 or the past editions they claim things like C&C are similar to.
Such as? I have my 3.5 core books in a books case by my desk as I type this. test me if you like.
Will you be so slavish to C&C when they publish the 50th book in their system because they actually want to sell books and make money?
Yes if they publish modules or settings. No if they publish a ton of core books or books full of feats or what have you. I still buy and use 3.5 products such as dungeon tiles or modules if they catch my eye but as I choose not to embrace needless complexity and have better things to do than memorize every new core book one of the players may what to use I do not buy them and do not allow them in my rather vanilla and old school Greyhawk game.
It's sort of been addressed above, but I felt like commenting here too. When I play 3.5e, I play rogues. A rogue with a low intelligence and charisma is not a good character.
According to who? you? depends on what kind of thief we are talking about. If you see the thief as a courtesan or con artist then sure.. Cha and Int are good choices but you will get the stuffing knocked out of you by the streetwise, antisocial, strong arm robber/ assassin type of thief that pumped dex, con, and wis. And I never said low Int or Cha.. I said average as in score of 10.
A large number of the skills required to master the class depend on those ability scores.
What CHA based skill is required for mugging people with a knife in the back along some dark alley? Again it depends on your thief concept. Though I will admit that there is no right way to make a character, its your character after all, there are many more advantages to having great saves, improved HP, and a better AC in a great many, if not most situations. when a horde of orcs charges the group which thief do you think they want with them? the socializer or the hardened and agile killer? I know which one I would want. Also as thieves THB increases only by a moderate step with levels the +4 or +5 to hit bonus is much bigger than I think people admit. When the steel is drawn you want to be able to hit your enemy and not get killed for it.
Of course, if all I want is a high armor class,good wisdom based saving throws and high hit points, at the expense of the actual abilities my class is supposed to excel at, I could "pump those three attributes", but can't I do the same thing in C&C or AD&D?
That leads to another debate. What exactly is a rogue supposed to excel at? I think the rogue class has become so diluted that it really is a catch all class that can be a real jack of all trades but suffers from a lack of identity. everyone knows the fighter or the wizard does in the group but rogues are not so simple as one can be worlds different from the other based on a few skill selections and the assignment of attributes. I don't know that this is a bad thing but it does lead to people claiming this skill or that skill are required to master a class that truly is a jack of trades and master of none. It is entirely possible to make a rogue that is not a thief and has no ability at any thief like skill. can one make a fighter that cant fight? a caster that cant cast? every other classes arch typical skill sets are tied into the class as ability where the rogues arch typical abilities are skills that may or may not be taken.
So are spamming, baiting and promotion of corporate websites. How many more advertisements for Troll Lord Games disguised as edition wars do we have to sit through before they get enforced?
I thought we were debating editions/incarnations of the game especially where it relates to Greyhawk. I have yet to promote the troll lords as a corporate entity and see C&C as part of the natural progression of D&D not separate from it.
Oh come now, C&C won't publish more rule books. The game is complete! It's perfect! It will stay limited to it's 3 (yes, 3 not two, PHB, M&T, GMG) core books....
Which one is the GMG? I do know that ATM there are only two rule books out. Like I said above I have been using Lejendary adventures rules for a couple of weeks with my greyhawk game.
According to who? you? depends on what kind of thief we are talking about. If you see the thief as a courtesan or con artist then sure.. Cha and Int are good choices but you will get the stuffing knocked out of you by the streetwise, antisocial, strong arm robber/ assassin type of thief that pumped dex, con, and wis. And I never said low Int or Cha.. I said average as in score of 10.
Here are the class skills for the rogue:
Appraise (Int)
Balance (Dex)
Bluff (Cha)
Climb (Str)
Craft (Int)
Decipher Script (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Int)
Disguise (Cha)
Escape Artist (Dex)
Forgery (Int)
Gather Information (Cha)
Hide (Dex)
Intimidate (Cha)
Jump (Str)
Knowledge (local) (Int)
Listen (Wis)
Move Silently (Dex)
Open Lock (Dex)
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Search (Int)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Spot (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Tumble (Dex)
Use Magic Device (Cha)
Use Rope (Dex)
As you can see, INT and CHA are pretty important to play a rogue, the PHB says so.
I thought we were debating editions/incarnations of the game especially where it relates to Greyhawk. I have yet to promote the troll lords as a corporate entity and see C&C as part of the natural progression of D&D not separate from it.
Indeed?
Castles and Crusades has a zealous following because it is a superior game system that very closely captures the feel of 1st edition AD&D. IMO C&C is what D&D 3.x should have been instead of the steaming pile of EQ wanna be trash wotc has pushed out on us.
Which one is the GMG? I do know that ATM there are only two rule books out.
The Castle Keeper's Guide. May not be out yet, but it's definitely coming. And oh, there's a few more than 2...
Player's Handbook
Player's Handbook Personalized/Collectors edition
Monsters & Treasure
Monsters & Treasure Personalized/Collectors edition
C&C Collectors Box Set
C&C Condensed edition
C&C Quick Start
Coming soon:
Castle Keeper's Guide
Castle Keeper's Guide Personalized/Collectors edition
Castle Zagyg: Class Options & Skills
Monsters of Aihrde I
Monsters of Aihrde II
Monsters of Aihrde III
Dragons of Aihrde: Miasmal Wyrms (Quoth TLG: Dragons of Aihrde: Miasmal Wyrms is not campaign specific, but integrates easily with any ongoing home brew campaign. Each entry comes complete with a separate heading for “The Creature in Aihrde” that can be used or discarded as needed.)
There are in fact 43 items on the C&C products page, though I've left out the campaign setting books and adventure modules.
Here are the class skills for the rogue:
Appraise (Int)
Balance (Dex)
Bluff (Cha)
Climb (Str)
Craft (Int)
Decipher Script (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Int)
Disguise (Cha)
Escape Artist (Dex)
Forgery (Int)
Gather Information (Cha)
Hide (Dex)
Intimidate (Cha)
Jump (Str)
Knowledge (local) (Int)
Listen (Wis)
Move Silently (Dex)
Open Lock (Dex)
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Search (Int)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Spot (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Tumble (Dex)
Use Magic Device (Cha)
Use Rope (Dex)
As you can see, INT and CHA are pretty important to play a rogue, the PHB says so.
Indeed?
The Castle Keeper's Guide. May not be out yet, but it's definitely coming. And oh, there's a few more than 2...
Player's Handbook
Player's Handbook Personalized/Collectors edition
Monsters & Treasure
Monsters & Treasure Personalized/Collectors edition
C&C Collectors Box Set
C&C Condensed edition
C&C Quick Start
Coming soon:
Castle Keeper's Guide
Castle Keeper's Guide Personalized/Collectors edition
Castle Zagyg: Class Options & Skills
Monsters of Aihrde I
Monsters of Aihrde II
Monsters of Aihrde III
Dragons of Aihrde: Miasmal Wyrms (Quoth TLG: Dragons of Aihrde: Miasmal Wyrms is not campaign specific, but integrates easily with any ongoing home brew campaign. Each entry comes complete with a separate heading for “The Creature in Aihrde” that can be used or discarded as needed.)
There are in fact 43 items on the C&C products page, though I've left out the campaign setting books and adventure modules.
the thief skills are as I said.. opinion. and listing the PHB and the collectors PHB as two books required to play the game is misguided. also the monsters of aihrde and castle Zagyg are setting books for the campaign world not core books for the system.
seems like you are argueing semantics at this point.
the thief skills are as I said.. opinion.
The 3rd edition PHB is opinion?
and listing the PHB and the collectors PHB as two books required to play the game is misguided.
OK....
You said, AND I QUOTE:
I do know that ATM there are only two rule books out.
Not required to play the game. Not all you use. Not all someone needs to get started. "only two rule books out"
And I'm arguing semantics?
No, what the situation is here, is that like all rabid C&C fans, you are ignorant about half of what you post, and absolutely refuse to admit when you are corrected.
This conversation is over, I don't need you whining to the WizOs again.
I don't need you whining to the WizOs again.
Chatdemon, I was the one who raised your behaviour with the WizOs. Your aggression serves no purpose and makes this forum an unpleasant place to visit.
Chatdemon, I was the one who raised your behaviour with the WizOs. Your aggression serves no purpose and makes this forum an unpleasant place to visit.
If you'd rather listen to self serving lies and arguments in the name of someone making himself look good to the rest of the C&C fanboys, be my guest.
I love it when someone with 34 posts decides to come around and tell me how to behave, I simply love it.
Chatdemon, I was the one who raised your behaviour with the WizOs. Your aggression serves no purpose and makes this forum an unpleasant place to visit.
Wait a minute...
YOU WERENT EVEN PARTICIPATING IN THIS THREAD!
Got nothing better to do than cry to a WizO every time someone posts something you don't like? Here's a suggestion, use that free time to read up on C&C a bit, you might understand where I was coming from.
I love it when someone with 34 posts decides to come around and tell me how to behave, I simply love it.
For the record, I've been lurking here for many years; I registered in 2004 but had been around a long time prior to that.
My sole point is that the argument can and should be conducted without personal insults. PM me if you want to discuss this further; it's off-topic for the thread.
Still get eight skill ranks per level to add as you with no?
No.
A dump stat means leaving it at 8, which means 1 less skill point per level. So only a human would still get 8 skill ranks per level.
I think the +4 or so to AC and ranged attacks (and HTH if weapons finesse) are more valuable in combat than tumble. Just my opinion but it does seem the higher AC will help the majority of the time (passive skill) where is tumble is situational.
Except tumble means you can be immune to all AoOs for moving. Immune is a significantly higher AC than any modifier which still allows for a critical hit.
Tumble also adds to your AC when fighting defensively, partly negating loss.
And you have the modifier differential wrong, since it would usually just be be the difference between a +4 for an 18 Dex or a +2 for a 14 Dex.
First Ive ever heard that and as I own a good number of the tournament modules I must say I don't see anything that would lead me to believe 3.x arose from tournament play.
Tournaments need hard and fast rules for everything, and standardization of character creation. Thus, D20 (tries to) define EVERYTHING whether it needs it or not.
Played 3.x since it released and then re-released :p I understand the system just fine.
If you build a rogue as you describe you need a lot more experience with the system.
what I do not like is the needless complexity and the fact that the rules systems are so integrated that you can not simply choose not to use any of them without destroying the rest.
Given that C&C is in fact a D20 system, that doesn't speak well for it.
As far as knowledge of the history of the system /shugs maybe. I have been playing D&D in one incarnation or another since '84.
I've been playing since '79.
And I quite remember using the term "build" well before 3E was released.
Such as? I have my 3.5 core books in a books case by my desk as I type this. test me if you like.
I prefer to let your statements speak for themselves.
Yes if they publish modules or settings. No if they publish a ton of core books or books full of feats or what have you.
It will be books of feats and such in due course.
According to who? you? depends on what kind of thief we are talking about. If you see the thief as a courtesan or con artist then sure.. Cha and Int are good choices but you will get the stuffing knocked out of you by the streetwise, antisocial, strong arm robber/ assassin type of thief that pumped dex, con, and wis. And I never said low Int or Cha.. I said average as in score of 10.
Me and dozens of other character designers out there. Check these boards, there are several character design forums.
And it has nothing to do with conception but with ability. Even the most thuggish rogue finds a use for those other skills.
And you said "dump stat." That means one in which you add no points at character generation.
What CHA based skill is required for mugging people with a knife in the back along some dark alley?
Intimidate to demoralize the target.
Bluff to set the target up for repeated sneak attacks.
Again it depends on your thief concept.
No, it depends on your knowledge of the rules.
If you don't know that Intimidate can be used to make the target take a -2 penalty to attacks, saves, and ability checks for one round, or Bluff can be used to deny the target its Dex bonus against your next attack, you won't realize that Cha is very useful even for an ally basher.
That leads to another debate.
No, it remains with the simple question of understanding the system well enough to provide an informed critique of it.
I thought we were debating editions/incarnations of the game especially where it relates to Greyhawk.
At no point has this touched on whether D&D 3.5 or C&C does a better job of "simulating" Greyhawk.
Let's see... Castle and Crusades is 1e, OD&D, 3.5, 2e, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Gangbusters, role-master, hackmaster, mastermaster, and the basic set all combined!!!!
Woo-hoo!!!
I love it when someone with 34 posts decides to come around and tell me how to behave, I simply love it.
And I love ad hominem attacks. :P
No, what the situation is here, is that like all rabid C&C fans, you are ignorant about half of what you post, and absolutely refuse to admit when you are corrected.
This conversation is over, I don't need you whining to the WizOs again.
I didn't whine chat and I am not the one being rabid here. As I have mentions I have been trying out Lejendary adventures with my Greyhawk campaign. So far I like it even if it is very different an approach to fantasy gaming than what I am used to. namely AD&D and until the last 4 months 3.5
The only game thing I am rabid about is my love for old school greyhawk and my distaste for eberron :p
No.
A dump stat means leaving it at 8, which means 1 less skill point per level. So only a human would still get 8 skill ranks per level.
responding to this one specifically only to say that I have always random rolled stats. never really liked the point buy for D&D which is odd since LA uses a point buy+random system for stat generation that is pretty cool.
The rest are for the most part valid points. not saying I agree with you but that I can see what you are saying and understand why you feel that way.