Moving to C&C... need help

[Treebore]

This is a deliberately misleading way to describe such things.



There are no feats in C&C. Nobody has them. Anybody can attempt to perform an action with an attribute check (the SIEGE check). Just like AD&D or other pre-feat editions of D&D. Just like 99% of all attribute-based RPGs on the market. This is not the same thing as everybody having feats.



C&C has no skills by default. Primes allow you to choose ONLY what genralized physical aspects a character possesses prowess in. For example, if you select DEX as a prime, you're better at ALL Dex-related action. If you want to custom tailor aptitude to specific skills you need to house rule the system.

Sorry James, yo odn't understand C&C. The SIEGE engine is not like stat checks of old. IT is just like the DC's of 3E. Plus, unlike in 3E, in C&C you can use a SIEGE check to perform any action, including feats. I know. I've been running my C&C game like that for two years now.

If you look at 3E skills are tied to a stat. Just as they are in C&C. So say someone wants to tumble, or some other DEX based type of action, if they have DEX as a Prime their TN for that "skill action" will be 12 instead of 18.

So you apparently need to take a look at C&C again.

 

[Breakdaddy]

And all characters with the same primes are equally good at the same prime related abilities. Whereas with skills, someone who is good at one Strength related activity might not be as trained at another Strength related activity. C&C assumes that all agile guys are equally adept at picking locks, sneaking, and tumbling...

This is wrong. You are specifically speaking of things that are Rogue specific abilities, which means that the fighter that attempts them (even if one of his primes is DEX) cannot add his level to the rolls.

 

[Zulgyan]

Not knocking C&C, I agree it's a great game but I have to ask... why convert at all?

Maybe because you find C&C a better game than 3.5. That simple.

I'd say that unless your players are on board with this, such a game would be headed for disaster - the PCs are going to totally lose all their feats and all their skills. So, if that's important to the players, they need to understand what those changes mean and how they will continue to do those things within the C&C framework.

It's doable, but unless you and your entire group hate 3e, I'd tread cautiously.

After playing 3e for four years, nobody is missing skills nor feats in C&C at all.

We don't even make them work via the SIEGE engine.

Feats are gone, period.

And we are having a blast, and feeling we are playing D&D again.

 

[Treebore]

Maybe because you find C&C a better game than 3.5. That simple.



After playing 3e for four years, nobody is missing skills nor feats in C&C at all.

We don't even make them work via the SIEGE engine.

Feats are gone, period.

And we are having a blast, and feeling we are playing D&D again.

There is that. Plus I have to admit my players hardly ever do a SIEGE check that is based on 3E feats, and even when they do its usually Cleave or Great Cleave. Or maximize spell, or to change its energy type.

 

[Hairfoot]

How DOES it work? I want to run up and attack everyone in a circle around me (whirlwind). How do I do that in C&C?

If I were your GM, I'd do it like this:

Whirlwind is a pretty difficult, high level manoeuvre, even in D&D, so I'd give it a challenge level of about 28*, with strength being the applicable stat. So, if Fuggit the 8th level barbarian tried it, you'd roll D20, add Fuggit's strength bonus (+3), add his level (+8), and add six because strength is one of his prime stats.

So, if Fuggit rolls an 11 or more, he can take an attack at everyone surrounding him, with a -1 for each additional target after the first.

If he fails, he only gets a single attack, but if he fails by 10 or more (by rolling a 1), he fumbles. If Fuggit continues to use the manoeuvre in combat, it might get easier for him.

I want to double my crit chances with a particular weapon (improved critical). How do I do that?

I would only allow that if the character was framed as a weaponmaster, and had continuously used the same weapon for a few levels and worked his specialisation into the story - perhaps by going on an adventure to find a suitable tutor - in which case I may just allow him to do it automatically from then on.


It's interesting that the debate is essentially about one of the greatest changes between AD&D and 3E: taking rules out of the DM's hands and giving control to the players. If a DM is biased, cruel, or simply not very good at improvising, it can be frustrating for players unless there's a defined rule mechanic to use.

Keep in mind that the feat system allows characters to do things which are preposterously far-fetched in a game (like C&C) which aims to foster an OD&D feeling. I like low-ish powered games, in which something like a whirlwind strike is for supernatural killing machines from other planes of existence, and not skilled fighters from the local gladiator school.

The existence of feats has changed the way players approach combat. In an old-school session, a player might say "I want to put my weight behind this swing, even if it leaves me a bit vulnerable", whereas someone coming from 3E might say "I want to Power Attack. Can I swap my bonuses around?". It's a mechanistic approach which is the opposite of what many of us wish to achieve by moving to rules-lighter systems.


* I don't use challenge classes, just +6 for primes

 

[the black knight]

I'm considering changing my game to Castles and Crusades, too.

Considering the recent Wotc money grab, it's the least I can do.

 

[Dragon-Slayer]

If you want a system that is extremely easy to jump into so that you can start roleplaying right away, Castles & Crusades is about your best bet. Anything from the previous versions of D&D or any of the early D&D compatible systems can be added on fairly easily.

I use an adaptive system so that my players can become better in some areas of expertise. For example a fighter that spends a lot of time at sea and wants to basically be a mariner and eventually a ship's captain at this point in time finds many nautical tasks quite easy because they have become routine as he is now focusing more on the leadership qualities he needs to run a ship. This is done with just a few notes, without the need to import a batch of rules.

For a more complicated game, I find the Burning Wheel allows GMs to really sink their teeth into portraying detailed conflict resolution, the rules are more detailed and the game is not for everyone, but the game is a great read even if you never play and can be picked up for less than the price of a 3.5 core book.

 

[Treebore]

I'm considering changing my game to Castles and Crusades, too.

Considering the recent Wotc money grab, it's the least I can do.

I give the link to get things started up above. Look forward to seeing you over on the TLG boards.

 

[Turanil]

I was thinking of taking my regular games, one set in Greyhawk, the other in eberron and possibly moving them to C&C.

Not read all the answers but having C&C (as my prefered D&D system), and knowing enough about Greyhawk and Eberron, I will say this: C&C will be perfect for Greyhawk; but I think it won't fit with Eberron. I think it's better to stick with 3.5 (or try True20) for Eberron.

 

[Treebore]

In some ways, yes, a rules lite system can be pretty cool and for the most part, I actually prefer rules lite systems. But misrepresenting C&C as "having all feats available for all characters" is far from cool. Rules lite systems have lots of strengths, but claiming that they provide an infinite number of tactical and mechanical choices simply because they do not actively exclude any of those choices is disingenuous at best.

If you believe that the difference between "having a feat" and "possibly being able to perform certain feat-like actions IF the GM allows those types of actions in his game and believes it is appropriate for your character to perform such an action at the time you would like to attempt it" is a matter of minutiae, then I think we have very different understandings of the word "minutiae".

Again, I am not misrepresenting anything. C&C may not list "feats", but using the SIEGE engine allows anyone to do anything the CK is willing to allow, including feat actions such as power attack, cleave, whirlwind, and meta magic feats. Read the examples given for using the SIEGE engine, anythng the player can think of doing the CK can allow, and apply whatever they consider to be appropriate modifiers.

D&D tells you that you can only do what you have listed on your character sheet, such as feats and skills. In C&C you can do whats listed as class skills and abilities and whatever else you can think of.

Referring to feats as examples is just that, examples of anything your character can do, CK willing.

Which is the same as 3E feats, you can't even select a feat without the DM's approval/willingness.

So no misrepresentation whatsoever. Just a lack of understanding about the SIEGE engine and how much freedom it gives the players and CK in doing "anything they can imagine".

Something I have been doing in my C&C game for two years, so I am not misrepresenting anything.