So what's the consensus on Castles&Crusaders

I liked it, though I was never a big fan of the primes and saving throws, though 5e adapted pretty much the same system and it worked OK. Ease of adaption from older editions was a huge plus for me.

Netwatcher said:

This, definitely! I would have been happier had that book just been a set of ideas for familiars, instead of buying a book I thought had been vetted and was ready for use. BoF cannot be used as written.

That said, I've had very few issues with their other products and just LOVE the ease of play that is C&C. Compared to most OSRs I would put them at 'high powered' for your level of experience. Running a group of level one C&C characters through any of the old first level AD&D modules shouldn't challenge them too much, nor stress the DM in converting the material on the fly. It has been my go-to system for years and will continue to be so, despite some meddling with AS&SH of late...

Click to expand...

Yeah, my problems with BoF aside -- and I have several non-wizard characters in my campaign who use the options in the book -- C&C is a really great option to merge 1E sensibilities with 3E math and design.

Flexor the Mighty! said:

I liked it, though I was never a big fan of the primes and saving throws, though 5e adapted pretty much the same system and it worked OK. Ease of adaption from older editions was a huge plus for me.

Click to expand...

I would love a detailed head to head comparison of the two systems. Since I already have C&C, I was never tempted to pick up 5E early on. (If I was going to use a different system, it would be Dungeon Crawl Classics, since it captures the vibe of the games I played early on so well.) But 5E seems to be the real deal and I like what I've heard about it.

(Not saying you need to be responsible for such a comparison -- just putting it out into the universe.)

reelo said:

Too bad, it looks like I missed a "50% off" sale by only a couple of hours.

Click to expand...

They have sales all the time so just keep an eye out

Fun game that's very adaptable!

I think that there’s debatably less “need” for C&C as a D&D alternate these days. Not only does it have its own legs at this point, but the state of D&D at the time it was created is not what it is now. It’s not as rules-heavy as 3e was, that’s for sure. Though, C&C still feels closer to AD&D for me.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

I would love a detailed head to head comparison of the two systems. Since I already have C&C, I was never tempted to pick up 5E early on. (If I was going to use a different system, it would be Dungeon Crawl Classics, since it captures the vibe of the games I played early on so well.) But 5E seems to be the real deal and I like what I've heard about it.

Click to expand...

C&C definitely has it's own legs these days, with multiple campaign settings and tons of source books. I can think of three massive city books/adventures alone, not to mention numerous modules, most set in Aihrde (their home grown setting). Most of the big supplement books have alternate/extra classes and new spells, magic items and critters for challenging the adventurers...Yeah, there isn't a lot of reason to have to adapt old material to new rules.

I think C&C captures the essence of what AD&D was before the 2E rules. Getting characters ready is a breeze and dead simple for new players, while allowing the 'vets' some customization without getting out of control (I'm looking at you 3.xE!) I like the way the primes are handled, for me that makes the classes useful for role playing as well as allowing a player to push their character into a certain direction to support it. Want a fighter who is an intellectual? Strength and Intelligence prime. A Wizard that works out a lot? Int and Con prime. I even like their encumbrance rules, simple, not too game-y, not overly realistic, no, but they do keep the players from hauling around a ton of equipment.

I've introduced the rules to my old AD&D gaming buddies who stopped playing years ago and they 'got it' right away and liked the flavor of them too. C&C has a tendency to support the militant types of characters best. More of this comes out in their earlier adventures (and at the convention games the Trolls run) where the focus is fighting and having a rogue is handy, but not necessary and other classes can be done without. A perfect game for a low magic, gritty setting. Newer settings and adventures do have more for the spell casters to do and account better for the fact that one or more of your players are going to be playing such classes.

I have copies of the 5e books and I have played in some games of it, though I have not run any campaigns using those rules. I do steal what I like from them mercilessly; I love the 'advantage'/'disadvantage' mechanic and several magic items using those rules have appeared in my C&C games. Bolting a home rule onto C&C is as easy as putting a bumper sticker onto a car.

I'd rather play C&C since its not as "easy" as 5e, which to me is D&D on easy mode. YMMV, IME, etc. But the saves tied to each ability and having proficiency in 2 stats for saves is pretty much out of C&C. Skills are just ability checks, though with primes you get the bonus on all checks tied to that ability where in 5e you have certain skills you can use your proficiency bonus on.

I just wish they would reprint the PH with all the errata in it, I think they are on the 7th printing and they still use the text from the original I've been told. I've only got books from the first two runs so I haven't verified this.

I like it. As many have said...old school AD&D feel. It's one of my favourites.

Flexor the Mighty! said:

I just wish they would reprint the PH with all the errata in it, I think they are on the 7th printing and they still use the text from the original I've been told. I've only got books from the first two runs so I haven't verified this.

Click to expand...

I have the 7th printing, and there is a (very minor) typo on the contents page that has been there since the first printing.

It looks like a straightforward and streamlined game, but unfortunately I have never had an opportunity to play it. I do have a lot of issues with the "tone" of the players handbook, but I've never really seen it discussed anywhere so it's probably just me.

For example, there are half a dozen or so player character races, but if someone wants to play a half orc then no one can play a dwarf as dwarves will not adventure with half orcs. Half orcs don't like other half orcs, because they have first hand knowledge of how half orcs are not to be trusted. The few races which give half orcs the benefit of the doubt (goblins and kobolds) are said to do so only because they are too dumb to realise you should never give a half orc an even break.

Ability scores are supposed to be generated in the "old school, let the dice fall where they may" manner, but some of the example characters in the book have 18s and 19s in some of their scores and below average scores are very much the exception (and certainly no 3s and 4s).

One of the examples of play has two rangers wanting to cross a river. The GM rules that one of them can't swim, since before he became an adventurer he grew up in a desert. I don't know how you are supposed to tell if the average C&C character can swim. However, being able to swim is actually in the ranger class description as a class ability. If an actual GM used something as general as "grew up in the desert" in my character's backstory to delete one of his class abilities I would not be happy.

Obviously, in my own game I'd be free to not have half orcs be treated as pariahs (or just remove them altogether as a PC race), and I'd allow all rangers to be able to swim. However, it would be nice if I didn't have to.

amethal said:

Obviously, in my own game I'd be free to not have half orcs be treated as pariahs (or just remove them altogether as a PC race), and I'd allow all rangers to be able to swim. However, it would be nice if I didn't have to.

Click to expand...

This. Exactly this.

Rangers who can't swim? Half orcs who can't be part of the party with dwarves? Nah, where I come from Rangers are consummate outdoors people and half orc rangers thrive in any wilderness situation. I suppose if the DM wanted extra role playing he could tell players his expectations and give warning that some characters could not swim or read (or hated other racial types) before play started.

Having your half-orc ranger, fleeing from their angry dwarven party member (who just discovered they were half-orc after months of travel), jump into the river and then discovering they couldn't swim seems like 'surprise' evidence in a court room trial...