Some issues regarding Castles and Crusades - help!

[Talyn]

So, after getting some wonderful feedback in my last thread about a good system that hybridizes 2nd Edition with later editions, I was able to get my hands on the Players' Handbook and Monters & Treasure Book for Castles and Crusades.

After giving them a quick run-through, I have a couple of issues regarding the system.

1) First, it seems like the Assassin is borderline unplayable. Except for Death Attack (which requires that a PC spend three rounds not doing anything, which equates to a bored player, in return for a resistable chance at a one-shot-kill) there is nothing they can do that a Rogue can't do better. Which brings me to my next point...

2) Rogues are terrible! They have the mage attack progression, no armor better than leather, d6 hit dice, and Back Attack and Sneak Attack are both unwieldy and kind of pathetic, especially compared to Rangers adding their level to damage and Fighters getting extra attacks.

3) Saving Throws never get better. Because they are based purely on your starting stats, which cannot be improved in play, a 20th level character has the exact same chance of resisting a spell as a 1st level character.

4) Do bards get spells? Somewhere in one of the early class descriptions it indicates that they do, but no where in the class description or stats block does it include spellcasting.

5) Being a human sucks. I know that this is basically universal in all pre 3rd edition style games, but come on.

6) It seems that there are no skills or nonweapon proficiencies. There are some class features that look like skills, but basically everything boils down to a Roll vs. Stat check - and since, as mentioned previously, stats cannot improve as you level up, it seems that you will never get better at anything.

7) How the heck does Encumbrance work? I've read through that section three times and can't figure it out. It seems needlessly complex.

8) Can only wizards and illusionists advance past level 12? None of the stat blocks continue after 12 except the spells/day of the wizard and illusionist.

9) Monsters are strictly better in combat than players - +1 to hit/HD, almost always better defenses, and multiple attacks. While this seems to be a concious design choice, it means that players are going to get hit more often than they hit their foes, so even with (sometimes) more hit points and access to healing magic, almost every "fair fight" is going to be fairly desperate and severely deplete the party's resources. Especially since natural healing doesn't scale with level...

[TheHarshax]

I can't comment on everything you've said above, but there are a few things you've gotten wrong:

Saving Throws: PC's always add their level to rolls. (Monsters add HD)
Characters can rise to whatever level you wish. I believe there is a static number of experience points needed to gain levels after reaching 'Name Level', if it isn't listed in the PH, it might be in the C&C Keepers Guide, or just consult the 1E PH.

Bards don't get spells.

Any 'Skill' or 'NWP' that is listed as a class feature, earns a bonus to d20 rolls equal to the Character's Level. For example, all the thiefy things that thieves do get a bonus to the Siege check equal to the character's level.

There's a whole section devoted to understanding the Siege Engine. I encourage you to read that more closely.

[Matthew]

If I recall correctly, the PHB only goes up to level twelve, but the GMG has rules for going beyond.

[LibraryOgre]

1) First, it seems like the Assassin is borderline unplayable. Except for Death Attack (which requires that a PC spend three rounds not doing anything, which equates to a bored player, in return for a resistable chance at a one-shot-kill) there is nothing they can do that a Rogue can't do better. Which brings me to my next point...

Not quite. Assassins also have disguise abilities, can use poisons, and start with Sneak Attack (which rogues do not have until 4th level). An assassin is an infiltrator, whose main purpose is to get close to people and learn about them... and kill them. They, and rogues, are not stand-up combatants.


2) Rogues are terrible! They have the mage attack progression, no armor better than leather, d6 hit dice, and Back Attack and Sneak Attack are both unwieldy and kind of pathetic, especially compared to Rangers adding their level to damage and Fighters getting extra attacks.

Again, rogues are not stand-up combatants. Remove the 3e idea of rogues-as-damage-dealers from your mind. They're not big fancy daggers... they're Swiss Army Knives. Sure, you can do damage with them in a pinch, and maybe even kill someone if you surprise them, but you mostly carry them because of the other things they do.

IMO, a great inspiration for a C&C rogue (or a D&D thief) is Indiana Jones. Over the course of the three movies, you see him use almost every thief skill except, IIRC, Pick Locks... and he also tends to suffer any time he has to face a REAL fighter (like the big German on top of the flying wing).


3) Saving Throws never get better. Because they are based purely on your starting stats, which cannot be improved in play, a 20th level character has the exact same chance of resisting a spell as a 1st level character.

As mentioned, you always add your level to saving throws.


4) Do bards get spells? Somewhere in one of the early class descriptions it indicates that they do, but no where in the class description or stats block does it include spellcasting.

No, they do not get spells. Instead of the more traditional D&D bard, think of them as being akin to Herger the Joyous from 13th Warrior (the one who does most of the talking). Bards in C&C are warriors, on par with Knights, Rangers, and Paladins, but with fewer specifically combat-oriented abilities.


5) Being a human sucks. I know that this is basically universal in all pre 3rd edition style games, but come on.

This is where you are most emphatically wrong. Most races get two primes... one determined by their class, the other as they like. Humans get three, two of them of choice. This means that their saves are better, their SEIGE checks are better, and you can do a heck of a lot more with a human than most other races.

For example, compare a human and an elven Ranger. Both will have Strength as Prime. Aside from that, class abilities are based on Dex and Wisdom. The elf must pick one. Is he good at sneaking and climbing, or is he good at traps, poisons, survival and tracking? The human can have both Wisdom and Dexterity, though, making him a better ranger. In classes where fewer stats are important (like a wizard), this is less pronounced, but it still means humans are more flexible... your Elf might be prime in Int and Charisma as a eloquent and intelligent speaker, but the human also has Wisdom or Constitution.

In the several games I have run and played of C&C, anyone not choosing a human did so for specific character reasons. Humans were the min-max character of choice.


6) It seems that there are no skills or nonweapon proficiencies. There are some class features that look like skills, but basically everything boils down to a Roll vs. Stat check - and since, as mentioned previously, stats cannot improve as you level up, it seems that you will never get better at anything.

There aren't, though I've tended to add Secondary skills. However, in SIEGE checks that are directly related to class abilities (or, as I play, also Racial abilities and things having to do with your secondary skills), you add your level. So a 3rd level ranger is better than a 1st level ranger, since he adds +3 to his check, instead of +1.


7) How the heck does Encumbrance work? I've read through that section three times and can't figure it out. It seems needlessly complex.

Rather than go strictly on weight, you base it on Encumbrance value. Everyone has a base Encumbrance Rating of 10, plus their strength mod. If you have Strength or Constitution as prime, you get to add +2 to that, meaning if you have both prime and a 18 Strength, you get a total of 17 ER (10+ 3 for strength +2 for Strength Prime +2 for Con prime). Rather than add up poundage, you add up EV, which tends to be a smaller number.


8) Can only wizards and illusionists advance past level 12? None of the stat blocks continue after 12 except the spells/day of the wizard and illusionist.

Note that at 13 for most classes, it says "+X per level". After level 12, you have to earn a flat amount of XP for each subsequent level; thieves must earn 125,000 per level after 12. Spellcasters continue higher because they get new spells as they advance.


9) Monsters are strictly better in combat than players - +1 to hit/HD, almost always better defenses, and multiple attacks. While this seems to be a concious design choice, it means that players are going to get hit more often than they hit their foes, so even with (sometimes) more hit points and access to healing magic, almost every "fair fight" is going to be fairly desperate and severely deplete the party's resources. Especially since natural healing doesn't scale with level...

Yep. Monsters are pretty nasty. And healing can take a while.

[Talyn]

Hmm.

Thank you for clarifying some things. I guess I wasn't quite as keen on keeping that really old-school feel as I thought I was, because I can't seem to get past how unhappy I am with the rogue and assassin. I guess I'm still too enamored with the "everyone has a role in combat" idea behind character classes to go strictly old-school.

I don't know how I missed the "add your level to checks" part - that's what I get for skimming, I guess!

I think, before I play C&C, I'll need to do some fairly heavy home-brewing and basically rebuild most of the classes from the ground up, especially if I want to put some kind of rudimentary feat or secondary skill system in. Thank you to everyone for their help!

[LibraryOgre]

Really, if you want everyone to have a role in combat, probably the easiest thing to do is open up sneak attack and backstab a little bit. If you make Sneak Attack more like 3e's (with it working pretty much any time you've got people flanked), rogues and assassins become a lot more viable in combat, with the +2 to strike closing the gap between them and warrior-types, and the +4 to damage making them pretty nasty. They're still fragile, but they can dish out damage.