Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2310917" data-attributes="member: 32164">Yes scadgrad, but if I understand correctly, you've added feats back into C&amp;C, restoring the 3e-derived power boosts to the fighting classes. Akrasia, by contrast, added 3e-style critical hits back in but not feats, so while a rapier is different from a longsword, two-weapon fighting isn't really an option. My point was that in C&amp;C's &quot;default&quot; mode, without the 3e feat and combat system, the tactical options open to non-spellcasters in combat are greatly diminished.By the way, unless I'm misremembering RPG Design 101, any class that has a steeper xp chart has one specifically as a counterbalance to prevent it from overpowering the other classes. Which means the classes are not inherently balanced as written. And while I understand those attracted to C&amp;C for its more open rule system, I think the claim that C&amp;C is &quot;balanced&quot; and therefore more &quot;plug-and-play&quot; than 3e is belied by this simple fact.So while I think some simplification of the D&amp;D 3e system can be done (and maybe should be), I think C&amp;C (as written) goes too far. And to my mind, what it sacrifices for simplicity are the tactical options available to players. For those who don't have any use for a tactical game, this is obviously an improvement, but for those of us who prefer chess to checkers, it's a loss worth mourning.As a sometime DM myself, I certainly understand the attraction of a game with less prep time, which is why I agreed to a C&amp;C game for our group despite my reservations with aspects of the C&amp;C system. I'm also eagerly awaiting the release of Mike Mearls' Iron Lore...err...I mean Iron Heroes, which hints at solving some of these issues. Of particular interest to this discussion is Mearls' claim that once you become familiar with the system, you can &quot;stat up&quot; a high-level NPC in about 15 minutes. IH certainly has tactical options available to players and without magic, &quot;stacking&quot; seems to become much easier to adjudicate (e.g. Defense is 2 types - active and passive). If combat is also fun and exciting, Mearls may have hit the &quot;sweet spot.&quot; Obviously, only time will tell.Just as an aside, your game world sounds quite similar to both Akrasia's and to one I've been working up for a while now. Funny. For the record, I've decided to table rules-related development on that setting and wait for Iron Heroes, since I think it'll be such a natural fit for that type of setting.Just my opinions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 2310917, member: 32164"] Yes scadgrad, but if I understand correctly, you've added feats back into C&C, restoring the 3e-derived power boosts to the fighting classes. Akrasia, by contrast, added 3e-style critical hits back in but not feats, so while a rapier is different from a longsword, two-weapon fighting isn't really an option. My point was that in C&C's "default" mode, without the 3e feat and combat system, the tactical options open to non-spellcasters in combat are greatly diminished. By the way, unless I'm misremembering RPG Design 101, any class that has a steeper xp chart has one specifically as a counterbalance to prevent it from overpowering the other classes. Which means the classes are not inherently balanced as written. And while I understand those attracted to C&C for its more open rule system, I think the claim that C&C is "balanced" and therefore more "plug-and-play" than 3e is belied by this simple fact. So while I think some simplification of the D&D 3e system can be done (and maybe should be), I think C&C (as written) goes too far. And to my mind, what it sacrifices for simplicity are the tactical options available to players. For those who don't have any use for a tactical game, this is obviously an improvement, but for those of us who prefer chess to checkers, it's a loss worth mourning. As a sometime DM myself, I certainly understand the attraction of a game with less prep time, which is why I agreed to a C&C game for our group despite my reservations with aspects of the C&C system. I'm also eagerly awaiting the release of Mike Mearls' [i]Iron Lore[/i]...err...I mean [i]Iron Heroes[/i], which hints at solving some of these issues. Of particular interest to this discussion is Mearls' claim that once you become familiar with the system, you can "stat up" a high-level NPC in about 15 minutes. IH certainly has tactical options available to players and without magic, "stacking" seems to become much easier to adjudicate (e.g. Defense is 2 types - active and passive). If combat is also fun and exciting, Mearls may have hit the "sweet spot." Obviously, only time will tell. Just as an aside, your game world sounds quite similar to both Akrasia's and to one I've been working up for a while now. Funny. For the record, I've decided to table rules-related development on that setting and wait for [i]Iron Heroes[/i], since I think it'll be such a natural fit for that type of setting. Just my opinions. [/QUOTE]

Verification