How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Wrathamon]

Buy.com has it for $13.26 w/ free shipping over $25 dollars

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=39604185&loc=106&dcaid=1688

incase anyone wanted to pick it up

EDIT: They also have Castles and Crusades Monsters & Treasures for $16.59.
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=39604186&loc=106&sp=1

enjoy!

 

[Tetsubo]

Buy.com has it for $13.26 w/ free shipping over $25 dollars

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=39604185&loc=106&dcaid=1688

incase anyone wanted to pick it up

EDIT: They also have Castles and Crusades Monsters & Treasures for $16.59.
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=39604186&loc=106&sp=1

enjoy!

Thank you for this info.

 

[Karl Green]

Can you GM for me? LOL! In the games I've endured those checks would be 20 and the shear thought of making a Tumble-like check while swining would blow the GM's mind. I mean a Tumble check would be for only Tumbling. There's no way it could be used other acrobatic uses. I'm not saying this is a "fault" of DnD 3.+. I'm sure that some of these guys are going to find ways to increase the "default" of CnC checks once players hit 10th level.

For some GM's the idea of PCs having an easy stunt or job is anthema. It must mean their not being "firm enough."

So it all the GM right? See I do that all the time in my 3.5 games.

And back on topic I looked at it at my FLGS this weekend and put it back. I may pick it up later but for now it reminded me to much of what I dislike about 1st/2nd ed...ALL figthers are more or less the same, same with Rogues, etc. I will wait and see though I may still get it someday

 

[gideon_thorne]

ALL figthers are more or less the same, same with Rogues, etc. I will wait and see though I may still get it someday

See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?

Seriously? I'm not trying to be difficult here, its an honest question.

 

[Treebore]

I asked that same question when kits came out back in 2E. Even earlier, when they came up with specialist mages.

Now the clerics, that made sense, the specialty priest ideas, because that was more representative of the deities.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I asked that same question when kits came out back in 2E. Even earlier, when they came up with specialist mages.

Now the clerics, that made sense, the specialty priest ideas, because that was more representative of the deities.

Aye. Some things made sense, although what makes sense to folks tends to differ per individual.

But I for one never needed skills, talents, feats, or whatever to do my role playing for me.

But thats just a personal preference, clearly there are differences.

 

[Lizard]

See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?

Seriously? I'm not trying to be difficult here, its an honest question.

They're the only way to diffrentiate characters *mechanically* -- by definition.

Any system supports diffrentation by personality, but if there's no way to tie personality into mechanics, it tends to ring hollow. For example, if there's no mechanical support for the dodging/agile fighter type versus the lumbering tank type, then, the swashbuckler who chooses to forego heavy armour is simply tossing away AC -- or he says "I'm a dashing swashbuckler, I just happen to wear heavy plate and carry a two handed sword." If there's no "Ride" skills, then a city boy who never saw a horse rides as well as a Mongol trained from birth to the saddle, provided they have the same Dexterity (or whatever 'ride' is based on). Further, there's no way to improve in a specific area, to show character evolution and change -- such as the city boy learning to ride a horse.

 

[nsruf]

See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?

No one said it was the only way. A PCs personality does not have to be reflected in his stats, but I prefer if his background is. Lizard's swashbuckling fighter is a good example.

But C&C seems to support diversity with primes and (as yet unofficial) multiclassing. A swashbuckler could be a fighter/rogue or even a fighter with Dex prime or rogue with Str prime.

Still, compared to 3E, there are much fewer options in C&C (especially during advancement, as most choices happen during chargen), so I have to see how my players take to it.

 

[Breakdaddy]

But C&C seems to support diversity with primes and (as yet unofficial) multiclassing. A swashbuckler could be a fighter/rogue or even a fighter with Dex prime or rogue with Str prime.

I was going to make this same point, well said! The primes actually help differentiate the classes quite a bit. My Ranger has a Strength and Dex prime, making him a lot more agile and swift that a Ranger with a Str/con prime. I can do those swashbuckling things with much less effort that the con Ranger. By the same token, he is much more of a tank than I am, and can take more punishment and endure harsh climates/conditions much better and longer than I. Also, my Ranger, whose background reflects that he was a trapeze artist that escaped a cruel master in a travelling circus better reflects his agility from the get-go than the same background on a level 1 3.x Ranger would, since my Dex prime makes me better at Dex related skills at level 1 than I would be if I could only spend 3 or 4 points in "tumble" at level 1. Since I had to survive in the wilderness for a good while on my own after I made my escape, I have become relatively adept at surviving in the unforgiving wilderness (thus, Ranger, level 1).

 

[Akrasia]

How did this thread shrink to 8 pages?!