Today's post features a guest appearance from my long-time friend and co-thinker in Seattle, Jon. Like myself, Jon compulsively has to tinker around under the hood with a rules set. Recently he's been striving to "crunch-ify" tactical options in C&C (and AD&D first edition likely with some modification). with a homebrewed grid-based system. You can download the full version here.
Jon's eager to see how they fare in the thunder and fury of actual table top play, so please send along feedback if you decide to experiment with them. Hill Cantons players will be play-testing these rules at our next session.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is what two Hill Cantons players said in response to the variant rules:
ReplyDeleteMax the Fighting Man:
"I am all for trying this. Seems fun. My initial thought on review of the rules overall is positive for all except for low level wizards, who would continue to not be very useful, and suddenly fighter types are getting augmented. I think lvl 2 wizards have something like 2 spells, and then hide and throw darts. A greater emphasis on combat exacerbates this lack of ability for the wizard/illusionist, paper jaw type. That said, I think once we get up to lvl 4 or 5, I think that problem goes away, and fighter types have a more interesting role than they have with the default rules."
Mattias the Mad Monk:
"if you are going to start playing with rules like these,which are simply imported from v3.5 - you can do all this stuff in that system - why not just play 3.5. I like it - you can actually do some very usefull things as a low level wizard (they can actually scribe their own scrolls, which means they walk around with more options), and fighters get all sorts of neat feats that allow them to do this stuff and more. And the other char types get neat goodies too.
I tried to teach this to Chris, but the Boy Just Wont Listen. I think he is stuck somewhere back in the '70s, man. Needs to get hip, get modern, dude."
Ahem, it's more like I'm stuck in 1981, but why split hairs? I'm really not a big fan of long involved lists of feats/skills, overly-defined unique class attributes, "balanced" character classes, etc.--and I like skinny ties.
redbeard here, instigator of the tactical rules being discussed.
ReplyDeleteNo, please not 3.5! As a long time 3.5 DM, I think there is a big difference between over complicated character builds, overly defined abilities, massive class imbalances and what is being presented here.
Wizards:
At least C&C wizards get bonus spells. In 1e, a wizard gets 1 (one) and only one spell at first level. I'd like to talk about wizards getting more options in another post, but I'd also be weary about mid-high level wizards having too many "I win" buttons as they do in 3.5.
Fighters in 3.5:
I'm afraid that despite how many feats fighters get in 3.5, most of their choices are irrelevant in mid-high level play.
I'm sure we'll have to see how the rules work in session but are there any comments on the ideas? Should only fighters get "Hold the Line"?
How has the playtest come? I'm all for keeping the tactical mini-game as part of old-school gaming.
ReplyDeleteHarshax,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we haven't had an opportunity yet to test in the heat of tabletop battle. When we do I'll definitely post our experience up on the site.
Good to see Redbeard getting some decent feedback on Dragon's Foot about this: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=36146