[C&C] Holy Smokes ... I'm REALLY Impressed!

[Deuce Traveler]

I think I'm going to try a CnC game, but allow all the extra classes, races, and PrCs from v3.5. This way I can keep the variation of v3.5 while playing a more streamlined game. Maybe I'll also use Wilderness of High Fantasy for the world, Ptolus for the major city, and ODnD and 1st edition dungeon crawls as places available for exploration. If the party ever gets really powerful and also bored of the world, I can send them off to 2nd editions Sigil and the planes.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

My game allows fey characters, and uses feats as a mechanic to seperate them into different types of fey. Would that still work?

Well, you could do that. However, you could also step away from the concept of feats as a separate mechanic. What I mean by that is that you can keep the idea of feats/special abilities, but get rid of feat "slots" or "picks." Some feats would become class abilities. Some feats would become racial abilties. Some feats are just "special manuevers" that can be attempted by anyone: assign them a difficulty and make an ability check under the SIEGE engine. Gives you lots of options.

 

[Treebore]

I think I'm going to try a CnC game, but allow all the extra classes, races, and PrCs from v3.5. This way I can keep the variation of v3.5 while playing a more streamlined game. Maybe I'll also use Wilderness of High Fantasy for the world, Ptolus for the major city, and ODnD and 1st edition dungeon crawls as places available for exploration. If the party ever gets really powerful and also bored of the world, I can send them off to 2nd editions Sigil and the planes.

You can definitely do this, as long as you understand the SIEGE engine well enough to see how easy it si to adapt classed from any edition of D&D. Especially since you can essentially eliminate feats since with the SIEGE system anyone can attempt about any feat type of action.

The only reason for a feat in C&C is to permanently award a feat to someone who successfully used it a lot, and therefore has mastered it so well a roll to attempt is no longer needed. (IE DM award)

 

[molonel]

C&C draws from all editions, so you would think that its fans would also do the same. If the idea is to promote C&C, then don't push off potential fans by putting down any one edition. Most fans I've spoken to (but not all) go back to prior editions of D&D when adapting to C&C. Nothing wrong with that.

Few adapt from d20, which I think is a shame. How many times do we see threads on these boards where someone is looking for that rules-lite d20 system? There's a decent demand for this sort of subgenre, as seen with Microlite20, Quick20, etc.

To me, C&C should market itself not only as an old-school game that works great with AD&D and basic D&D, it should also market itself as a rules-lite d20-based system. Don't put down the d20 system. Just say, "Hey, for anyone looking for a rules-lite variant, give this a try."

Personally, I think it's great that C&C works with older editions. I know I'm having a blast pulling out old tomes. However, I feel that C&C should be approached as a system that is so well-rounded that it could work with any edition of D&D.

Imagine a game where you are going through a classic module and you're playing a truenamer. Picture a game where you're using the 2e Arms & Equipment Guide side-by-side with the Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium. Or a game where you're playing in Eberron or Ptolus and using materials from the AD&D Unearthed Arcana.

This is my vision for C&C. A basic rules set that allows you to play quickly, to customize your game, and to use materials from all editions of D&D.

Well said.

I'm probably going to purchase C&C later this year. I have a big old stack of my 1st Edition AD&D books sitting around, and a comparable stack of 3rd Edition books. A system that would allow me to use both is extremely tempting to me.

And since I'm not really interested in bashing 1st Edition AD&D, which I loved, I'm pretty turned off by people trying to bash 3rd Edition if they're trying to sell me on this game.

 

[Treebore]

Well said.

I'm probably going to purchase C&C later this year. I have a big old stack of my 1st Edition AD&D books sitting around, and a comparable stack of 3rd Edition books. A system that would allow me to use both is extremely tempting to me.

And since I'm not really interested in bashing 1st Edition AD&D, which I loved, I'm pretty turned off by people trying to bash 3rd Edition if they're trying to sell me on this game.

I use my 1E, 2E, 3E, Old D&D, Paladium Fantasy, etc....

 

[S'mon]

Okay S'mon ... I signed up. I will take a look at the hundreds of posts (!) ... wow ... a fair amount of activity there.

Compared to my B/X pbem it's quite quiet, actually.
If you want to see how C&C works in practice, a good place to look is the orc ambush at the start, with the Rogue PC sneaking around backstabbing orcs, and the heroic escape by Garth on the slave wagon.

 

[rounser]

I can't speak for him but posts like this is why I usually tend to avoid threads about C&C and avoid the game in general...

I think the lady doth protest too much, because not only are you reading this thread but you're contributing to it. It's like those old ladies who write into TV stations about shows they've watched all the way through in order to be offended by them so they can complain about them.

And I don't see what's so offensive and off-putting about suggesting that C&C and 3.5E are deep down, just variations on the same old D&D. Because they are.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I use my 1E, 2E, 3E, Old D&D, Paladium Fantasy, etc....

I want to be Treebore when I grow up.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I think the lady doth protest too much, because not only are you reading this thread but you're contributing to it. It's like those old ladies who write into TV stations about shows they've watched all the way through in order to be offended by them so they can complain about them.

First you missed the part in that sentence where I said "usually". I can deal with C&C topics as long as there's no bashing of D&D which is a system that I happen to like. For a good example of "positive promotion of C&C, without the bashing" see the latter half of this thread. I thought I made that pretty clear in my posts. Next time actually read my post before trying to be snarky.

Second that whole part of the discussion was dead until you brought it up again.

So If the old lady riff was your cute way of trying to toss an insult my way close, but no cigar.

 

[Breakdaddy]

...The only reason for a feat in C&C is to permanently award a feat to someone who successfully used it a lot, and therefore has mastered it so well a roll to attempt is no longer needed. (IE DM award)

I've never thought to do this, how has it worked in your game? It hasn't unbalanced anything too terribly has it? I would consider awarding permanent styles or maneuvers if I was more certain that it wouldn't give the recipient an unfair advantage.