Has anyone played Castles & Crusades? What was your experience?
I recently downloaded the free PHB (7th printing, 2017) and upon looking through it, the system just looks like a mess. The basic mechanics are your standard d20 Ascending vs static Armor Class, but the issues lie with the details. Most combat actions (including spellcasting) must be declared BEFORE initiative is rolled, which seems like it would severely hamper any tactical roleplay. Unless the players are good at guessing, they would generally be resigned to reacting to what happened in the LAST round rather than what's happening in the CURRENT round. "Locking in" actions might be more "realistic" considering that events in a round are supposed to be happening simultaneously, but from a gameplay perspective, it just doesn't sound fun.
Spellcasting is also gimped, IMHO, unnecessarily. A character cannot move while casting a spell, and getting hit in the same round causes the spell to automatically fail (unless the GM is magnanimous as fuck and allows a Concentration check). Combine this with the "declare before rolling initiative" rule and you can begin to see the concerns I'm having. And let's hope your Cleric didn't take a vow of chastity, because she's get fucked; healing spells are a range of Touch, meaning she'd need to Move to the target in one round, then cast heal in the next. Alternatively, she declares healing and hopes her target comes to her, like a child running to mommy after he fell down and scraped his knee.
There's also a whole slough of minor issues, such as a punishing Encumbrance system, unbalanced classes, a too-long list of weapons and armor (without any real meaningful distinction between them), and a god-awful confusing layout.
Are my concerns unfounded and the system plays better than it sounds?
While I have no experience with this system, I can assure you that there's no core issue with declaring actions then rolling iniative- that's how Advanced Dungeons and Dragons worked for decades before 3ed, after all. I'm not sure how that would work with d20 systems, where initiative is super variable (it using a d20), nor am I sure if the system has casting times and weapon speed factors as older editions did. But I do know that you aren't "responding to last turn", any more than other modern games with action programming have that issue. You tend to make assumptions about what the enemies will do, and then declare your action based on that, with some input as to whether you think your action will resolve before or after. For instance, if you are good at striking first, you might try to attack a caster to disrupt their spells in those OSR type games.
Castles and Crusades is pretty much AD&D 1st edition.
Therefore it is actually good. :)
I've played a ton of C&C, and consider it my go-to system. We've switched our campaign to several different games over the years, but always come back to C&C as it seems to have the right amount of detail and flexibility for our group.
I don't believe most actions need to be declared before initiative, just declaring a spell or disengagement or evading (which don't roll initiative at all).
Spell casting is NOT automatically disrupted by damage. The CC may allow a concentration check to successfully cast the spell if the caster has taken damage, failed a save, or been otherwise assaulted.
I actually like the encumbrance system, especially the ability to determine the Encumbrance Value of virtually any item that's not included on any gear listings. I don't always use encumbrance myself, but only in situations where it would make sense to use it.
Just because there is a long list of weapons doesn't mean you have to use them. Just pick the weapons appropriate to your campaign and ignore the rest.
The classes are generally balanced well enough, and if something does seem out of whack for your playstyle then it's super easy to tweak them to your liking. I'd say it's fairly close to AD&D1e/2e in this respect.
On one thing we agree, and that's that editing and layout are not TLG's strengths. I still love the game however, which is why we always come back to it.
Bearing in mind that I haven't played it since first edition. I dislike the SIEGE Engine, a rule that makes a prime 3 as good as a non-prime 18. That can be fixed by making the target numbers 12 and 15 but even then it's just too broad for me. Bearing in mind that Rolemaster Standard System's 600 odd skills is my minimum comfort level ;)
The encumbrance system has probably been toned down since first edition in which it was really restrictive. I get that the author didn't want characters carrying around half a dozen pole arms, a crossbow and a small cannon but it was too much.
There's too many class abilities. Something like that, I don't know, it bothered me a bit. I like to play knights but I didn't like their version of the knight. One thing I did like is the fighter actually being the best fighter. Because, you know, you'd kinda think they should be. A fighter is pretty likely to be +4 to hit at first level because they can put their best roll in Strength and get a flat +1 nobody else gets and a +1 for weapon specialization. Most knights, paladins, and rangers will be sitting at a +2 from a stat bonus.
Castles & Crusades, is a system I have often considered. If it was a single volume game, I'm sure I would have bought it by now. But it is at least a 2 book system at the table.
There are a lot of variations on the Primes in the CKG, so it's not like TLG doesn't expect you to tweak it to your liking. That being said, it's probably the most common criticism of the system.
We just make the challenge base 15 and roll with advantage for primes. Seems to be the sweet spot for our group.
It's AD&D 3.0
I would happily run it for a group who wanted to play AD&D with in-print books. It's got Ascending AC and the Prime system is easily replacable with Advantage.
I've run one-shots (of their first printing / edition) and it's been fun. The only reason C&C isn't my home system go-to is because I prefer the rawness of OD&D to the more expansive AD&D.
Quote from: rkhigdon on August 02, 2022, 07:12:51 PM
I've played a ton of C&C, and consider it my go-to system. We've switched our campaign to several different games over the years, but always come back to C&C as it seems to have the right amount of detail and flexibility for our group.
I don't believe most actions need to be declared before initiative, just declaring a spell or disengagement or evading (which don't roll initiative at all).
Thank you for this!
I think part of the issue is that the layout is so terrible (at least for the free PHB) that it's hard for me to really grok the rules. I'm sure with multiple readthroughs, and once I commit some things to memory, it will start to make more sense, but with just a first pass it didn't read well.
QuoteSpell casting is NOT automatically disrupted by damage. The CC may allow a concentration check to successfully cast the spell if the caster has taken damage, failed a save, or been otherwise assaulted.
Sure... but the Castle Keeper also may NOT allow a Concentration check. ;) The way the rule is written though is that damage (or other things) ruin a spell, unless the CK says otherwise. It's a default position that Concentration checks are an exception. At least that's how it reads.
QuoteI actually like the encumbrance system, especially the ability to determine the Encumbrance Value of virtually any item that's not included on any gear listings. I don't always use encumbrance myself, but only in situations where it would make sense to use it.
I have no issue with the method, only that it's quite punishing. Unless you've got a decent STR score, or set STR or CON as a Primary, you'll tap out pretty quickly.
QuoteJust because there is a long list of weapons doesn't mean you have to use them. Just pick the weapons appropriate to your campaign and ignore the rest.
Sure, but that wasn't my criticism. I was criticizing the fact that with so many weapons, the designer seemed to struggle with making each one unique, and that resulted in some clearly being inferior to others. I mean, there's something like 8 or 9 different polearms. Why? Just offer two with their own stats and say "polearm 1 covers ABC and polearm 2 covers DEF."
I know, this is such a petty thing to gripe about, but there's a sidebar in the combat section going into detail about how combat is supposed to be abstract and that verisimitude wasn't the goal, but then they provide a laundry list of weapons. All I'm saying is follow the same guideline: make weapons abstract and nebulous (i.e., provide only stats and basic descriptions) and just let the player define what it looks like. It would cut down on "analysis paralysis."
QuoteThe classes are generally balanced well enough, and if something does seem out of whack for your playstyle then it's super easy to tweak them to your liking. I'd say it's fairly close to AD&D1e/2e in this respect.
I suspected this was the case. It's why I only listed it as a minor concern. It's just that several classes are very front-loaded, which means they probably play a bit better at lower levels, but then "even out" around LVL 4-6.
I only know C&C 1st ed. I dislike the Prime system strongly enough I gave up running it pretty fast. Also TLG are reliably amateurish on layout/presentation. But most of the OP's complaints stuff is from 1e AD&D and works fine. Side based init and declare actions then roll init works fine, and plays much faster than iterative init. I find it works particularly well with AD&D segments (or how OSRIC does it), the B/X approach of move-missile-melee-spell phases works well too. AFAICR C&C lacks these nuances and feels a bit cargo-cult at times.
I'd much rather run OSRIC or BFRPG or Labyrinth Lord, or 1e AD&D for that matter. But the AD&D-isms work fine in practice. BTW in AD&D 'can't move' means 'can't move more than 10'' since a character's location is only supposed to be defined down to a 10' area in the first place.
Personally, I find that C&C plays "weird." It's similar to TSR D&D, but it *isn't* TSR D&D, and the subtle differences add up and can be jarring if you're expecting it play like TSR D&D.
Right after I abandoned 3e I ran a C&C campaign (I think this would've been the second printing of C&C). At first, it seemed like just what I was looking for. It was very similar to TSR D&D. However, as time went on and I gained more experience with the system I found a lot of little differences and details that I didn't like so much. Most of those had to do with the use of the SIEGE engine and how it affected things like balance (e.g. saving throws), the importance of stats, etc.
I started house-ruling C&C. I replaced C&C saving throws with 1e AD&D saving throws. I replaced the C&C surprise rules with AD&D surprise. I removed spells that had been carried over from 3e and affected the balance and archetype-roles between clerics and magic-users. I replaced the C&C encumbrance rules with AD&D encumbrance. I replaced C&C initiative. I looked for ways to minimize the use of the SIEGE engine and "skills" (I prefer a very class/level driven D&D without a skill system -- I don't even use the "non-weapon proficiency" stuff that got introduced into later AD&D). I looked for tweaks to smooth the rough edges off some of the C&C classes. Probably other stuff, too -- hard to remember.
Eventually I realized that what I was doing was ridiculous and that I should just play AD&D, again, since that was clearly what I wanted to begin with.
I think one thing to remember is that, unlike a lot of other OSR products, C&C is designed to replicate ANY version of D&D rather than just a specific flavor. That means a lot of cases of "MAY" or "MIGHT" end up in the rules, with the expectation that the DM is going to play the way his favorite version plays (or the way the edition of the specific module was written for uses). I do think that this gives C&C a less precise feel than other OSR sets (or even the original rules), and I certainly understand where others might not enjoy that.
Of course, C&C basically sparked the entire OSR because it wasn't perfect for everyone. The big winners being clones of AD&D and OD&D. I wrote a neo-clone but I was never really quite happy with it.
Quote from: S'mon on August 03, 2022, 01:56:22 AM
But most of the OP's complaints stuff is from 1e AD&D and works fine. Side based init and declare actions then roll init works fine, and plays much faster than iterative init.
Yeah, everyone's been saying this and it makes me feel like an idiot. Granted, it's been about 25+ years since I played AD&D, but I can't ever recall playing initiative that way. I wonder if our DM was just using his own rule, or if the years spent playing "roll first" initiative poisoned my perception?
QuoteBTW in AD&D 'can't move' means 'can't move more than 10'' since a character's location is only supposed to be defined down to a 10' area in the first place.
If this is the intention in C&C, it isn't being presented that way. There is a small blurb in the Movement section that says regardless of how much a characters pace is reduced, they should always be allowed to move at least 5 ft. But then is this an example of "specific rules trump general rules", and a caster simply cannot move at all? Or are they still allowed a 5-foot step?
After years of playing other systems, I've only recently come to the OSR, and I'm looking for a system that caters to my style. C&C looked interesting, but I had my concerns. Hence, the reason for the thread (otherwise, I would have deleted the pdf and moved on). Everyone's posts and insights have been very helpful so far. Thank you.
Greetings!
Effete, I haven't personally played Castles & Crusades, though I have consistently heard from many gamers that it is a solid system and worth embracing.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on August 03, 2022, 02:13:30 PM
Greetings!
Effete, I haven't personally played Castles & Crusades, though I have consistently heard from many gamers that it is a solid system and worth embracing.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thank you.
And Welcome Back!
C&C is my go to game.
In my experience it works quite well; and really captures the old school vibe with adding some new school trappings (like ascending AC).
As I recall, you don't have to declare all your actions before your turn in the initiative (that's not the way my group plays).
Casters can't move and cast, but to me that helps level the playing field and eliminates some of the martial / caster imbalance that exists in many games.
Don't feel bad about making minor tweaks to the rules to make it better suit your style. I don't think any two tables of this game play exactly the same way. The flexibility is part of it's charm.
Quote from: Hackmaster on August 03, 2022, 03:44:16 PM
C&C is my go to game.
In my experience it works quite well; and really captures the old school vibe with adding some new school trappings (like ascending AC).
As I recall, you don't have to declare all your actions before your turn in the initiative (that's not the way my group plays).
Per the 7th printing rules (only ones I currently have), Standard Actions don't need to be declared, but any spells or Combat Maneuvers that alter AC do need to declared before Initiative.
QuoteDon't feel bad about making minor tweaks to the rules to make it better suit your style. I don't think any two tables of this game play exactly the same way. The flexibility is part of it's charm.
Thanks! Yeah, I have the feeling I'll need to make a few tweaks if I run it.
A few months ago Stephen Chenault mentioned that they are planning to release a "Castles & Crusades Basic Set", which will be a boxed set with softcover rulebooks, ala the old D&D Basic and Expert boxes. He stated this in response to a question on Reddit asking if there was ever going to be a "Castles & Crusades Lite" type of game, as the current hardback rulebooks are rather dense.
I would imagine that a Castles & Crusades Basic Set would involve truncated rules which might be easier to grok than what's in the current C&C rulebooks. It may even have new and different rules, in the same way that Basic D&D is very similar but still somewhat different than AD&D. As a fan of rules-lite games, I hope this is the case. I would definitely buy a C&C Basic boxed set with stripped-down rules.
Technically they've had 2 box sets already; a white-box basic game and a black-box addition. These were in the ODD small box format and each included 3 boos and dice.
I'd be interested in seeing what they could do with a larger size B/X style set up.
Quote from: Crusader X on August 03, 2022, 09:23:44 PM
A few months ago Stephen Chenault mentioned that they are planning to release a "Castles & Crusades Basic Set", which will be a boxed set with softcover rulebooks, ala the old D&D Basic and Expert boxes. He stated this in response to a question on Reddit asking if there was ever going to be a "Castles & Crusades Lite" type of game, as the current hardback rulebooks are rather dense.
I would imagine that a Castles & Crusades Basic Set would involve truncated rules which might be easier to grok than what's in the current C&C rulebooks. It may even have new and different rules, in the same way that Basic D&D is very similar but still somewhat different than AD&D. As a fan of rules-lite games, I hope this is the case. I would definitely buy a C&C Basic boxed set with stripped-down rules.
Dense is pretty relative. C&C is basically OSR with a d20 chassis, but way less crunch than Pathfinder. I'd say it's no more dense than early 2e or 5e (both pre-supplements).
And the only books you really need are the Players Handbook and Monsters & Treasure unless you plan to do a lot of customization.
C&C is my go to game. Feels like AD&D but I like the mechanics better.
Quote from: Crusader X on August 03, 2022, 09:23:44 PM
A few months ago Stephen Chenault mentioned that they are planning to release a "Castles & Crusades Basic Set", which will be a boxed set with softcover rulebooks, ala the old D&D Basic and Expert boxes. He stated this in response to a question on Reddit asking if there was ever going to be a "Castles & Crusades Lite" type of game, as the current hardback rulebooks are rather dense.
I would imagine that a Castles & Crusades Basic Set would involve truncated rules which might be easier to grok than what's in the current C&C rulebooks. It may even have new and different rules, in the same way that Basic D&D is very similar but still somewhat different than AD&D. As a fan of rules-lite games, I hope this is the case. I would definitely buy a C&C Basic boxed set with stripped-down rules.
As mentioned upthread, there were two (that I'm aware of) boxed sets. If you like C&C but want a lite version, you could do worse than looking at my own Tombs & Terrors, which has a basis in C&C with several tweaks and stuff culled from other editions of DnD. It's also the system from Go Fer Yer Gun! and Medieval Mysteries. The pdf (on Drivethru) is not expensive either.
I tried it and dumped it. I don't like the SIEGE mechanic, and I got tired of the nonchalant inconsistency about weapon damages. Also the illuisionist's healing spells break its own rules about illusion magic. I can't recommend it.
Quote from: pawsplay on August 05, 2022, 06:03:32 PM
I tried it and dumped it. I don't like the SIEGE mechanic, and I got tired of the nonchalant inconsistency about weapon damages. Also the illuisionist's healing spells break its own rules about illusion magic. I can't recommend it.
Thank you.
It seems the biggest criticism is the SEIGE Engine, but that looks like an easy fix. I'd probably also streamline the weapon list and a few encumbrance values.
It's a great game. Got a lot of flavor and is a decent system.
Quote from: pawsplay on August 05, 2022, 06:03:32 PM
I tried it and dumped it. I don't like the SIEGE mechanic, and I got tired of the nonchalant inconsistency about weapon damages. Also the illuisionist's healing spells break its own rules about illusion magic. I can't recommend it.
It definitely needs a few house rules other than that I like it.
Thanks Rob!
Quote from: Effete on August 05, 2022, 09:48:28 PM
Quote from: pawsplay on August 05, 2022, 06:03:32 PM
I tried it and dumped it. I don't like the SIEGE mechanic, and I got tired of the nonchalant inconsistency about weapon damages. Also the illuisionist's healing spells break its own rules about illusion magic. I can't recommend it.
Thank you.
It seems the biggest criticism is the SEIGE Engine, but that looks like an easy fix. I'd probably also streamline the weapon list and a few encumbrance values.
I've never had an issue with it. Not sure what anyone's problem with the weapon's list is. Honestly it's the smoothest system I've ever played. Sure we use house rules, but I have with every other system too. It just adds some flavor and preferences.
Quote from: The Spaniard on August 05, 2022, 10:25:30 PM
I've never had an issue with it. Not sure what anyone's problem with the weapon's list is. Honestly it's the smoothest system I've ever played. Sure we use house rules, but I have with every other system too. It just adds some flavor and preferences.
My only issue with the weapons is that there are too damn many and a lot are far too similar to make any real difference. I have a couple players that will sit there for ten minutes unsure of whether to take a glaive or a fauchard, when functionally they're the same thing. The real world differences just aren't interesting enough to warrant a distinction in game mechanics.
Quote from: Effete on August 05, 2022, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: The Spaniard on August 05, 2022, 10:25:30 PM
I've never had an issue with it. Not sure what anyone's problem with the weapon's list is. Honestly it's the smoothest system I've ever played. Sure we use house rules, but I have with every other system too. It just adds some flavor and preferences.
My only issue with the weapons is that there are too damn many and a lot are far too similar to make any real difference. I have a couple players that will sit there for ten minutes unsure of whether to take a glaive or a fauchard, when functionally they're the same thing. The real world differences just aren't interesting enough to warrant a distinction in game mechanics.
Understood. My players are ususally interested in the basics, so we never get that granular.
Quote from: The Spaniard on August 05, 2022, 11:06:15 PM
Understood. My players are ususally interested in the basics, so we never get that granular.
I'm the same way. I much prefer generic weapons that the players can describe however they want. A "one-handed sword" can be anything from a gladius to a scimitar to a khopesh. "Two-handed axe" would cover a bardiche, dane's axe, and perhaps a poleaxe.
Quote from: Effete on August 05, 2022, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: The Spaniard on August 05, 2022, 10:25:30 PM
I've never had an issue with it. Not sure what anyone's problem with the weapon's list is. Honestly it's the smoothest system I've ever played. Sure we use house rules, but I have with every other system too. It just adds some flavor and preferences.
My only issue with the weapons is that there are too damn many and a lot are far too similar to make any real difference. I have a couple players that will sit there for ten minutes unsure of whether to take a glaive or a fauchard, when functionally they're the same thing. The real world differences just aren't interesting enough to warrant a distinction in game mechanics.
I got kind of burned when I bought some of the supplements, and the damage values for weapons diverged strongly from the main book, both in scale and diversity.
Re fixing the Primes system - it's pretty obvious that 5e had some C&C influence with the Proficiency Bonus, and I'd use that instead of the C&C Primes bonus/TN reduction: +2 at 1-4, +3 at 5-8, +4 at 9-12, +5 at 13-16 and +6 at 17-20. With a base TN of 15 rather than 12/18.
This reduces the value of Human PCs getting 3 Primes. I'd suggest give them +1 STR +1 CON as well, or even two floating +1s, assign as desired.
Apologies if it's a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I'm in a similar position to Effete. First, I'm wondering if you tried it and how it went. And if others have thoughts on the subject I'd love to hear them. For my next campaign I'm really down between running AD&D or C&C. I'm reading the C&C books now, hoping that'll feed the need.
Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 11, 2022, 04:14:25 PM
Apologies if it's a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I'm in a similar position to Effete. First, I'm wondering if you tried it and how it went. And if others have thoughts on the subject I'd love to hear them. For my next campaign I'm really down between running AD&D or C&C. I'm reading the C&C books now, hoping that'll feed the need.
No res needed for a thread only a month old here! FWIW, I started out playing AD&D in '81, played 2E for a bit but found I didn't like it. Then took a hiatus until 2015 when my son showed an interest. I had kept up on what was out in the market a bit, so I tried a few things. 3E and Pathfinder were too rules heavy, and there were a few mechanical things I didn't like from AD&D so when I found C&C I was intrigued. It feels like AD&D, but the Siege Engine mechanic seems smoother to me. Some folks complain about power balance at high levels, but since most campaigns rarely reach high level anyway, and I've never had a character go over 11th level ever, that is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. If I didn't play C&C, AD&D would be my next choice. I generally use old 1E modules or similar OSR material and just convert it on the fly. It's fairly easy to do.
Much like The Spaniard, I have found that I can run OSR modules with little conversion. When I playtested C&C I used some AD&D modules (the Giants series) as well as some 3E stuff I had laying around. Overall I found that C&C worked well with pretty much anything.
And I also agree about the SIEGE engine. It gets a bad rep, but mostly for levels that I don't run games. I started with OD&D and back then most of our campaigns ended somewhere around level 8 to level 10. I think that most games that use d20 rolls start to "break" somewhere after that, and C&C is no exception. I dislike 5E after level 10 or so. Not a fan of AD&D after level 10 or so. There just aren't many d20-based games that work when levels creep up there, so I don't really understand why C&C gets so much bad press over it.
Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 11, 2022, 04:14:25 PM
Apologies if it's a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I'm in a similar position to Effete. First, I'm wondering if you tried it and how it went. And if others have thoughts on the subject I'd love to hear them. For my next campaign I'm really down between running AD&D or C&C. I'm reading the C&C books now, hoping that'll feed the need.
I suppose it's just a question of what you like. Like a lot of people, I have my reservations about the SIEGE engine, particularly the way it resolves attribute checks. This thread is relevant to the issue, if you haven't checked it out, and lists a number of similar games with different check resolution systems.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/3-x-style-osr-games/
Of the games that came up there, Blood and Treasure would be my pick for a very similar game that has a task resolution system I would prefer.
Thanks, ForgottenF. I'm definitely watching that thread as well. We have tried a few systems and just haven't found that silver bullet yet. Chances are it's not out there but I'm just trying to get close and then we'll house rule the rest.
I have the C&C core books, but I must have bought them a decade ago. How out of date is my stuff? Would it be considered essential to get the newer printings?
Quote from: Arkansan on September 12, 2022, 05:29:46 PM
I have the C&C core books, but I must have bought them a decade ago. How out of date is my stuff? Would it be considered essential to get the newer printings?
You can still easily use older core versions. There have been a few changes, but mostly cosmetic.
Quote from: Arkansan on September 12, 2022, 05:29:46 PM
I have the C&C core books, but I must have bought them a decade ago. How out of date is my stuff? Would it be considered essential to get the newer printings?
C&C just fixes errata between printings. I doubt anything too significant has changed.
Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 11, 2022, 04:14:25 PM
Apologies if it's a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I'm in a similar position to Effete. First, I'm wondering if you tried it and how it went. And if others have thoughts on the subject I'd love to hear them. For my next campaign I'm really down between running AD&D or C&C. I'm reading the C&C books now, hoping that'll feed the need.
Hi. Personally, I don't care about necroing a thread as long as the post adds something to the conversation. It's probably better than starting a new thread and just having everyone repeat what's already been said before. Anyway...
Yeah, I joined a Castles & Crusades game since posting this thread and it's going well. The GM homebrewed some minor changes to the SIEGE engine, but overall it's not bad. If I had a choice, I wouldn't use it, but it plays fine.
I'm a pretty big fan of castles and crusades. To address some concerns,
Spell casting is actually stronger than in dnd, especially as you level. Because your saving throws are your ability checks, which have a base of 12 and 18 depending on if it's a prime or not. Then the caster level of the spell caster plus modifiers adds to this. If you target a non prime they're very unlikely to save against you.
Primes and secondaries take a bit of getting used to, a common strategy is to only use base 18 dc and all prime rolls get to add +6, this keeps the maththe same but keeps you from needing to ask whether it's a primary or secondary attribute.
The game is exceptionally easy to run and create content for. It really does feel like adnd. I use it as a middle ground between 5e and osr because I refuse to run 5e anymore. Cnc is also very well supported.
Quote from: Ocule on September 12, 2022, 07:06:09 PM
Spell casting is actually stronger than in dnd, especially as you level. Because your saving throws are your ability checks, which have a base of 12 and 18 depending on if it's a prime or not. Then the caster level of the spell caster plus modifiers adds to this. If you target a non prime they're very unlikely to save against you.
Primes and secondaries take a bit of getting used to, a common strategy is to only use base 18 dc and all prime rolls get to add +6, this keeps the maththe same but keeps you from needing to ask whether it's a primary or secondary attribute.
The game I'm in, the GM added a tertiary tier to abilities. So it's...
Primary = 12
Secondary = 15
Tertiary = 18
Humans get their three Primes and two Secondary, while all other races get two Primary and two Secondary.
I've never played C&C, but upon reading it I felt it seemed full of good ideas but a little clunky in implementation, especially the "primes" bit.
Curiously enough, my own game uses primary/secondary/tertiary skills, but this is just adding a fraction of your level to your rolls (e.g., a ranger has primary combat, secondary nature and perception, etc.).
Glad to hear you're playing it and enjoying it, Effete. And thanks for all the great comments all around. I think I'm going to give it a try with my next campaign. We've still got about a year to go with the current one (in The Dark Eye) but I'm already working on the next one as well. 8)
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 12, 2022, 09:22:52 PM
Curiously enough, my own game uses primary/secondary/tertiary skills, but this is just adding a fraction of your level to your rolls (e.g., a ranger has primary combat, secondary nature and perception, etc.).
Would that be:
Primary = Add class level
Secondary = Add half class level
Tertiary = Do not add class level
? ? ?
Quote from: Effete on September 12, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 12, 2022, 09:22:52 PM
Curiously enough, my own game uses primary/secondary/tertiary skills, but this is just adding a fraction of your level to your rolls (e.g., a ranger has primary combat, secondary nature and perception, etc.).
Would that be:
Primary = Add class level
Secondary = Add half class level
Tertiary = Do not add class level
? ? ?
Almost!
Primary = Add class level
Secondary = Add 2/3 class level
Tertiary = Add 1/3 class level
There are about a dozen skills, you have ONE primary, TWO secondary, and TWO tertiary in my current game. This has worked very well for me to fit paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc., in this simple system - while at the same time giving each class (fighter/MU/cleric/thief) a distinct niche ("primary" combat, spellcasting, turn undead, and thievery).
The game is Dark Fantasy Basic BTW, but I'm still trying to improve some other parts.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 12, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Effete on September 12, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 12, 2022, 09:22:52 PM
Curiously enough, my own game uses primary/secondary/tertiary skills, but this is just adding a fraction of your level to your rolls (e.g., a ranger has primary combat, secondary nature and perception, etc.).
Would that be:
Primary = Add class level
Secondary = Add half class level
Tertiary = Do not add class level
? ? ?
Almost!
Primary = Add class level
Secondary = Add 2/3 class level
Tertiary = Add 1/3 class level
There are about a dozen skills, you have ONE primary, TWO secondary, and TWO tertiary in my current game. This has worked very well for me to fit paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc., in this simple system - while at the same time giving each class (fighter/MU/cleric/thief) a distinct niche ("primary" combat, spellcasting, turn undead, and thievery).
The game is Dark Fantasy Basic BTW, but I'm still trying to improve some other parts.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide
Nice!
I've been meaning to check out more of the "local" OSR. So far I've been looking at the bigger names (ose, osric, acks, basic fantasy, swords&wizardry, etc.) and each one has something that irks me. Most of the time it's an adherence to vancian magic (which I hate with a passion), or at least some derivative of it. Other times it's a clunky mechanic, like the combat system in ACKS.
I'll have to check out Dark Fantasy.
It's the game that introduced me to the OSR and is still our preferred option when not playing OSE/B/X, which my players tend to like a bit more. Super easy and fast at the table if you know 1e. My main reason for liking it comes down to the fact that when I looked at my house rules, there are fewer for C&C than for any other game, making it closest to my ideal game. You can also play pretty much any 1e/2e AD&D module on the fly with it, which is an added bonus if you have lots of those laying around like I do.
And, if such things matter to you, the creators are cool dudes who keep political non-sense out of the game and are super military/veteran friendly. A negative is that their editing can be pretty shaky, but that's true of a lot of games these days.
There's a new S&S game about to drop called "Swords & Chaos" that is based on their Siege Engine but brings in elements from DCC, Modiphius Conan & other games to get the right vibe. We will be trying that next.
Quote from: Effete on September 12, 2022, 11:21:57 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 12, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Effete on September 12, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 12, 2022, 09:22:52 PM
Curiously enough, my own game uses primary/secondary/tertiary skills, but this is just adding a fraction of your level to your rolls (e.g., a ranger has primary combat, secondary nature and perception, etc.).
Would that be:
Primary = Add class level
Secondary = Add half class level
Tertiary = Do not add class level
? ? ?
Almost!
Primary = Add class level
Secondary = Add 2/3 class level
Tertiary = Add 1/3 class level
There are about a dozen skills, you have ONE primary, TWO secondary, and TWO tertiary in my current game. This has worked very well for me to fit paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc., in this simple system - while at the same time giving each class (fighter/MU/cleric/thief) a distinct niche ("primary" combat, spellcasting, turn undead, and thievery).
The game is Dark Fantasy Basic BTW, but I'm still trying to improve some other parts.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide
Nice!
I've been meaning to check out more of the "local" OSR. So far I've been looking at the bigger names (ose, osric, acks, basic fantasy, swords&wizardry, etc.) and each one has something that irks me. Most of the time it's an adherence to vancian magic (which I hate with a passion), or at least some derivative of it. Other times it's a clunky mechanic, like the combat system in ACKS.
I'll have to check out Dark Fantasy.
Thank you! Alas, I'm on the same boat as you: I keep trying to make my own games because I cannot find a perfect feat elsewhere. FWIW, I dislike Vancian Magic too, and DFB uses a different system. I did write a whole book (Alternate Magic) on non-vancian OSR systems.
I hope some day I can publish a "complete" game with all the parts I like!
Quote from: Effete on September 12, 2022, 11:21:57 PM
Most of the time it's an adherence to vancian magic (which I hate with a passion)
Honest question, not intended to provoke, but what do you hate about Vancian magic? Maybe I don't get out much, but the alternative is usually the "sorcerer" approach to magic where you just have a certain amount of mana/spell points, etc. that you can cast at will. I've kinda always liked the need to think about what spells to prepare and determine an approach to what the party is about to do rather than just going in all guns blazing. And there's few things sweeter than seeing the look on the player's face when he/she chose just the right spell to prepare.
Of course, the opposite can be true but I usually have some method available for the caster to trade out a spell or have one in reserve (Ring of Spell Storing, etc.).
Just wondering what you prefer better since our tastes run kind of similar (it seems).
Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 13, 2022, 11:19:13 AM
Quote from: Effete on September 12, 2022, 11:21:57 PM
Most of the time it's an adherence to vancian magic (which I hate with a passion)
Honest question, not intended to provoke, but what do you hate about Vancian magic? Maybe I don't get out much, but the alternative is usually the "sorcerer" approach to magic where you just have a certain amount of mana/spell points, etc. that you can cast at will. I've kinda always liked the need to think about what spells to prepare and determine an approach to what the party is about to do rather than just going in all guns blazing. And there's few things sweeter than seeing the look on the player's face when he/she chose just the right spell to prepare.
Of course, the opposite can be true but I usually have some method available for the caster to trade out a spell or have one in reserve (Ring of Spell Storing, etc.).
Just wondering what you prefer better since our tastes run kind of similar (it seems).
I hope you don't mind if I chip in too...
My dislike of Vancian is basically bookkeeping. But, in short, here is what I dislike in, say, B/X magic:
* You have to pick spells every day while other PCs wait. (easily solved if you pick spell by "expedition", while other players buy equipment, and I agree with your point on 'choosing the right spell").
* Magic is too safe (always works), which is not even "Vancian" because IIIRC Vance's books had spell mishaps.
* Too many spells lead to analysis paralysis.
* It requires keeping track of each spell you memorized (which is 14 spells at level 10, B/X... not horrible, TBH, but too many for me).
This is not necessarily related to Vancian magic but:
* Magic is too powerful compared to fighters etc.
* Spell level is not clearly correlated with caster level.
* Spell level is not clearly correlate with spell power, TBH. (Cure Light Wounds (healing 1d6+1 HP) is a 1st level spells, while Cure Serious Wounds (2d6+2 HP) is a fourth level spell. With a 5th level spell, you can raise the dead... or create lots of food.)
* Intelligence doesn't affect spellcasting (it does in AD&D, but it gives you even more spells), except in giving more XP to MUs.
Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 13, 2022, 11:19:13 AM
Quote from: Effete on September 12, 2022, 11:21:57 PM
Most of the time it's an adherence to vancian magic (which I hate with a passion)
Honest question, not intended to provoke, but what do you hate about Vancian magic? Maybe I don't get out much, but the alternative is usually the "sorcerer" approach to magic where you just have a certain amount of mana/spell points, etc. that you can cast at will. I've kinda always liked the need to think about what spells to prepare and determine an approach to what the party is about to do rather than just going in all guns blazing. And there's few things sweeter than seeing the look on the player's face when he/she chose just the right spell to prepare.
Of course, the opposite can be true but I usually have some method available for the caster to trade out a spell or have one in reserve (Ring of Spell Storing, etc.).
I realize the question wasn't asked of me, but for my money, the biggest issue with Vancian magic is that it encourages conservative play. In theory it's supposed to encourage reconnaissance, but in actual play, DMs almost never give players the opportunity to scout challenges a full day before having to deal with them. So instead, most players just choose the spells which are going to be most reliable in most situations, and prepare those every time. Something like "Move Earth" or "Magic Mouth" might be extraordinarily useful once in a very long while, but most of the time it's going to be a wasted spell slot. Spells like "Lightning Bolt", "Fly", or "Dispel Magic" are so reliably useful that most casters are going to stick with them.
I'm playing in a Hyperborea campaign right now as a thief-wizard (they call them legedermainists in that game), and I pretty much just prepare "Haste", "Mirror Image" and "Invisibility" every day. I've got plenty of other spells, but they're either too situational or too unreliable to be worth it.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 13, 2022, 01:32:14 PM
My dislike of Vancian is basically bookkeeping. But, in short, here is what I dislike in, say, B/X magic:
* Magic is too safe (always works), which is not even "Vancian" because IIIRC Vance's books had spell mishaps.
Yeah, Cugel has multiple spells backfire on him due to mispronunciation. In fairness though, there's no saving throws in Vance, so it kind of evens out. If you're going to incorporate spell failure rolls, I feel like you have to have way fewer spells that are wholly negated by a saving throw. Having to pass two rolls or else have your spell do nothing strikes me as unnecessarily punitive.
All voices are welcome! That's good feedback.
Quote
My dislike of Vancian is basically bookkeeping. But, in short, here is what I dislike in, say, B/X magic:
* You have to pick spells every day while other PCs wait. (easily solved if you pick spell by "expedition", while other players buy equipment, and I agree with your point on 'choosing the right spell").
* Magic is too safe (always works), which is not even "Vancian" because IIIRC Vance's books had spell mishaps.
* Too many spells lead to analysis paralysis.
* It requires keeping track of each spell you memorized
These are good specifics. I think if the Magic-User gets some practice at it, the selection of spells gets a little quicker and just requires a check mark on the character sheet. The analysis paralysis, I think, happens regardless. It's a question of when you pay the piper in my experience. Vancian, you wait for the MU to pick their spells before adventuring. Others, you wait for the MU to pick their spells in the middle of combat. I'll grant that even with the Vandian approach you still get that, but at least they're not picking from all the spells ever, just the ones they selected.
You make a great point on magic being too safe. I may have to bake that in. I already liked Pundit's video on, "playing with too much magic can make you crazy" (my words) so baking some additional risk in sounds fun to me.
Thanks for weighing in Eric Diaz and ForgottenF!
I generally like Vancian magic, but I agree that it breaks down as the number of spells increase. Perversely, it is quite limiting at the beginning. It is yet another reason why there is typically a sweet spot in D&D play in the mid character levels. Note that in Vance's writing there are different kinds of magic, that gets around this issue.
Quote from: Persimmon on September 13, 2022, 12:31:59 AMThere's a new S&S game about to drop called "Swords & Chaos" that is based on their Siege Engine but brings in elements from DCC, Modiphius Conan & other games to get the right vibe. We will be trying that next.
Is this being published by Troll Lord Games? If so, I must have missed an e-mail but color me interested! 8)
Quote from: finarvyn on September 13, 2022, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on September 13, 2022, 12:31:59 AMThere's a new S&S game about to drop called "Swords & Chaos" that is based on their Siege Engine but brings in elements from DCC, Modiphius Conan & other games to get the right vibe. We will be trying that next.
Is this being published by Troll Lord Games? If so, I must have missed an e-mail but color me interested! 8)
The kickstarter has finished: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blackspirefantasy/swords-and-chaos/description
No, I don't think it's Troll Lord Games doing Swords & Chaos. It's a group out of MI.
It is, however, based on the Siege Engine from TLG.
Bummer that I missed it. Looks like it's based of the type of S&S literature that I enjoy the most. :'(
Quote from: finarvyn on September 13, 2022, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on September 13, 2022, 12:31:59 AMThere's a new S&S game about to drop called "Swords & Chaos" that is based on their Siege Engine but brings in elements from DCC, Modiphius Conan & other games to get the right vibe. We will be trying that next.
Is this being published by Troll Lord Games? If so, I must have missed an e-mail but color me interested! 8)
No, it's by a new outfit called Blackspire Fantasy. Here is the most recent KS update, which includes info on ordering if you were not a KS backer: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blackspirefantasy/swords-and-chaos/posts/3591337
Also, since we've been talking about it, I'll note that it does not use Vancian spell-casting and there is a corruption system built into spellcasting that seems adapted from DCC from the previews we've seen. The full pdf should drop soon.
Nice! The link you provided had a section about adding if you missed the KS, so I will have to check back to see if they end up with some guidelines on that process. (They acknowledge that they want this option, but I didn't actually see a process outlined.)
Thanks for the tip! 8)
Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 13, 2022, 11:19:13 AM
Honest question, not intended to provoke, but what do you hate about Vancian magic? Maybe I don't get out much, but the alternative is usually the "sorcerer" approach to magic where you just have a certain amount of mana/spell points, etc. that you can cast at will.
Just to put it in the proper context, I'm referring to the original designs around vancian magic, where casters needed to memorize spells and any little distraction caused them to lose it completely for the whole day.
That right there is my primary complaint. It's an entire magic system built up around an obscure book series and doesn't accurately model the way magic is depicted in the majority of pulp fiction
Also, "forgetting spells" is a shit mechanic. I get that DnD magic is generally more powerful than standard attacks and that a mitigating factor needed to be put in place, but the "5-minute wizard" always sucked to play. The fighter can fight all day, and the cleric can turn undead whenever they wanted, but the mage could only use magic once or twice and was then pretty much useless. The 3e Sorcerer was a big step in a better direction, and 5e is divergent enough where I wouldn't really call it "vancian" anymore. Personally, I thought the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook was a better "magic" system than any of the above (it butchered everything PSIONICS was, but it was still a better SYSTEM).
I should probably mention that I really have nothing against 'spell levels', but I also feel there are better approaches. As a gate to more powerful spells, I get why they exist, but they always felt lame. Like, why are
minor illusion and
major illusion two different spells and not just different versions of the same spell? I'd much prefer a system where you just had "
illusion" and got better at it as you level up. No need to learn a new spell. Then, if you just wanted to cast the "minor" version, you could; nothing's stopping you.
QuoteI've kinda always liked the need to think about what spells to prepare and determine an approach to what the party is about to do rather than just going in all guns blazing. And there's few things sweeter than seeing the look on the player's face when he/she chose just the right spell to prepare.
That's probably the look of shock and relief.
As opposed to the look of exasperation and disappointment. ;)
QuoteOf course, the opposite can be true but I usually have some method available for the caster to trade out a spell or have one in reserve (Ring of Spell Storing, etc.).
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? You need to have these contrivances to make up for where the system is lacking. Magic items is actually another one of my peeves. They are totally out of hand, imho. AD&D had its creep, but WotC D&D got really bad with the magic item bloat. It gets to the point where the magic classes become redundant. I hesitate to say "useless" only because spells get stupid powerful at mid-high level.
But I'm going off on tangents...
In short, I just don't like the way vancian magic feels in play. It makes playing a mage feel like a crutch, where you need to micro manage everything and hope you pick the right spells. It's probably the reason later versions introduced spell-swapping, either on-the-fly or with a few minutes prep. But honestly, once you hit the point where you need special rules that change the core function of the magic system, you're probably better off scraping it for something simpler.
QuoteJust wondering what you prefer better since our tastes run kind of similar (it seems).
Skill-based magic. Progressive-leveling on spells. Chance of failure instead of "forgetting." And maybe an option for indefinite durations with concentration, rather than fixed durations (active spells could make subsequent castings more difficult). On the fence with that last one, but I like the idea in concept.
That's a great summary, Effete. Thanks for typing it out. Yeah, I guess I sort of compensated for some of the shortcomings without even realizing it. Thanks for the perspective.
Effete's complaints about Vancian spell-casting mirror my own, and are why I'm increasingly drawn to using Chainmail's roll-to-cast system in D&D style games: the cap is action economics (i.e., one spell-cast attempt/round) and spells known, no limit on "spells per day" or need to "memorize". If you know a spell you can cast it.
The system I'm currently playing, The Dark Eye, works around some of the issues by having Arcane Energy, essentially a mana pool. Each spell has a base AE cost and you can speed the casting of the spells or the effectiveness of the spells by spending additional AE. That feels closer to a good solution. The effectiveness of the spell is then determined by the QL (Quality Level) achieved with the dice rolled for the attributes associated with the spell being cast. There exists the potential that the spell will fail as well.
Checks a lot of boxes except the mechanic used is overly fiddly (check three dice, three attributes, buy down rolls to achieve success, check the remaining pool, determine QL, find the related effect on the spell you cast ???) and the spells are kinda meh.
Quote from: rhialto on September 14, 2022, 05:35:03 AM
Effete's complaints about Vancian spell-casting mirror my own, and are why I'm increasingly drawn to using Chainmail's roll-to-cast system in D&D style games: the cap is action economics (i.e., one spell-cast attempt/round) and spells known, no limit on "spells per day" or need to "memorize". If you know a spell you can cast it.
I've done this before in some campaigns and it's a great alternative. :)