Is anybody else seeing C&C here?

[Alzrius]

Mearls spent time talking to the OSRIC guy according to the rumormill, and Monte did work on Pathfinder...

Bit of a tangent, but my understanding is that Monte didn't work on Pathfinder (that is, he played no part in crafting the rules of the game). Rather, after it was already finished, he was something of an outside consultant to some of the Paizo guys for a short time.

 

[nedjer]

I think it's more of a case of similar design principles:

- Evokes "classic" D&D
- Modular/compatible with nearly all D&D editions
- Easy to run/play

That said, the idea of using attributes for saves, which was mentioned in the seminar, is straight up C&C

I do hope they stick with these principles. My fear is that it's so early in the design/playtest process that things will change drastically towards "improving" the game, and these principles will be left behind on the cutting room floor

I felt they were pretty specific about the design principles when stating there's a lexicon, it's a language-based design, it's modular and it meshes across different styles of gameplay . . . Traveler, Burning Wheel/ Mouse Guard and Treasure pretty much tick those boxes whether by accident or design. I don't know whether C&C ticks the same four boxes, but a lot follows from those four principles.

Admittedly, this can't begin to predict many specifics, but it does point very much in the direction you're outlining. And, personally, I'd swap a few particulars for a fast, smooth, explore and battle, interchangeable version any day

 

[kitsune9]

I'm pleased with this, personally. I think C&C has a lot of good things going for it, and the skill/attribute system is one of them, in my humble opinion.

C&C is my favorite retro-clone. It definitely has that 1st edition feel with 3e rules.

 

[paladinm]

I think C&C would be an Awesome starting point for 5e! They did a good job of going back to the older versions while keeping the best of 3.x (like ascending AC). I do wish they'd kept the 3.5 unified advancement table, and Some of the feats (especially for fighters). "Combat dominance" seems a bit hokey in C&C, and the weapon specialization doesn't seem flexible enough. They also Seriously depowered paladins and rangers.

It would be interesting to see C&C with a good "feat"/skill system and (possibly) some at-will abilities.

 

[Votan]

Was?

Okay, the past tense wasn't an ideal choice.

 

[Votan]

I don't know C&C, but it doesn't exactly sound far from Star Wars Saga Edition skills, either. It isn't like 3e where the number of skill points you spend on a skill equals the bonus you're getting. In SWSE, at creation you get trained in a skill, or not. If you are trained, you get a +5 on the check.

There are other systems too, where skill training is binary - either you are trained or you are not.

Agreed. Non-weapon proficiencies in AD&D 2E worked the same way as well and so did skills in the Rules Cyclopedia. So this approach has a long tradition even within Dungeons and Dragons editions.

 

[MoxieFu]

I think adding feats into C&C would just add more complexity to a simple and elegant game. It's great if a DM wants to house rule them into the game, but adding them into the base system would be a mistake.

 

[harpy]

When Monte was writing about a layered format in the L&L articles, the first thing I thought is that the base ought to resembled C&C. So yeah, it sounds promising.

 

[paladinm]

This echoes another post I did. Has anyone looked at AD&D 3 (Yes, I said AD&D 3). I forget who did it, but someone took C&C and used it as a basis for bringing D20 mechanics to "real" AD&D 1e. I actually thought it was pretty sweet!

My only beef with C&C was that they mostly nerfed the paladins (and rangers too).

 

[Jiggawatts]

This echoes another post I did. Has anyone looked at AD&D 3 (Yes, I said AD&D 3). I forget who did it, but someone took C&C and used it as a basis for bringing D20 mechanics to "real" AD&D 1e. I actually thought it was pretty sweet!

I think you are looking for this Castles & Crusades (scroll down a bit) done by a guy name Chris Perkins (although I dont think its the lovable, bald headed DM of the same name from WotC). I too like this version of the game better than C&C as well (and its free!). There are a few random changes here and there, such as he capped Fireball at 9d6 for some weird reason, rather than the iconic 10d6.