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.   

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!