C&C - Maybe A Dumb Question but . . .

[Greylock]

Speaking of dumb questions: Y'know, I've been hearing people talk up C&C for months now, but I've never once seen it for sale at a FLGS. I don't know who puts it out. I don't know its web site. So, uh, where and who?

Troll Lord.

The third printing of the core book just came out. It's been scarce for quite a while now. The adventures have been coming out rather steadily though.

 

[SavageRobby]

If I play C&C but I add 3X D&D's skills, feats and PrCs, does C&C then became 3X D&D?

Have I created what I wanted to get an alternative to?

I'm going to focus on that question. What exactly do you want to get an alternative to?

Are you just looking for a faster version of 3x? In that case, I'd strip out the 3x rules that are bogging you down. The beauty (in my mind) of C&C is that it offers a ruleset to let you and your players use pretty much any skill or feat (via the SIEGE engine), without the complexity of a hardcoded skill and feat system like 3x.

That said, I can also see wanting to add some skills back into the game - background skills (Craft, Profession, Swimming, etc), for example. I'm going to do something similar. I'm also going to add a much-modified version of Savage World's Hindrances to the game. For me, though, this is more about flavor than crunch, and I suspect you're looking for more crunch.

I kind of view it this way. If you want explicit crunch (and loads of it), then 3x is probably a better choice (or Hero, GURPS or Rolemaster). If you want less explicit crunch (but built in rules to handle it implicitly, but with DM discretion) then C&C is a good choice.



For the poster who asked where to find it, its produced by Troll Lord Games. Go to: www.trolllord.com (and Amazon carries the 2nd printing of the PHB for dirt cheap - $13 or some such, and the Monsters & Treasure book for the same, plus the new 3rd printing for $19).

 

[der_kluge]

The C&C game I played in for a time, the GM included Feats. Quite successfully. He didn't include all of them and he C&C-ized them. Little things like modifying the prerequisites and stuff.


I would advice against not adding in skills. It's largely unnecessary. I would also take a lot at C&C spell lists before adding in spells.

 

[Zulgyan]

Feat Systems in C&C:

(you maybe got to scroll down and search a bit)


http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=285965#285965

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11818&highlight=dcs

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19506

http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1214&mforum=trolllordgames


d20 to C&C Conversion:

(I find it very easy myself. I'm playing Lost City of Barakus from Necromancer Games with C&C right now).

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17641&highlight=dcs

http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1793&highlight=dcs&mforum=trolllordgames

http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=885&highlight=dcs&mforum=trolllordgames

http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewt...&highlight=dcs&start=75&mforum=trolllordgames

 

[GVDammerung]

Are you just looking for a faster version of 3x? In that case, I'd strip out the 3x rules that are bogging you down. The beauty (in my mind) of C&C is that it offers a ruleset to let you and your players use pretty much any skill or feat (via the SIEGE engine), without the complexity of a hardcoded skill and feat system like 3x.

In a nutshell, yes, with two explainations. First, I'd like faster combats. Second, I'd like faster prep time. If I strip out everything from 3X that gets me there, IMO there is not much 3X left or at least not enough to make it really stand out. I was thinking C&C as described by many might address this giving me my cake and letting me eat it too, hence my question.

C&C is much more compatible with AD&D 1e and 2e than with 3e. Siege engine is not the d20 DC system; classes are simpler but also less powerful so ADD and C&C monsters fit better, while d20 NPCs won't fit.

You may add back some feats into C&C. The best method is to let PCs gain feats at 1st, 3rd, 6th, etc. level, not add feats in the classes. Then, don't add all 3e feats, just the more easy one, such as Cleave, Toughness or Weapon Finesse (and there is an OSRIC supplement in pdf at RPGnow that would fit very well for this). On the oher hand, it's better to not add skills back into C&C, except maybe Craft and Profession skill turned as PCs' initial background (or 2e secondary skills).

This is interesting. I was understanding C&C was very compatible with 3X but my knowledge is entirely second or third hand.

From your and Treebore's responses it sounds like C&C can hand limited 3X add-ons but (and I'm speculating here as neither of you said this) that if I went whole hog with 3X add-ons that either C&C can't deal with that well or that I would have created a mess like unto the one I find with 3X - overly bogged down in clunky crunch.

This leads me to a kind of a reserve to my original question. If C&C models 1E and 2E better than it models 3X, what is the advantage of playing C&C rather than just going back to 1E or 2E? Is it the limited (and I will emphasize limited) ability to model at least some of 3X?

 

[Treebore]

C&C models 3.X in that it has positive AC values and positive values for saves. Where it models 1E/2E is in the fact that it uses what is referred to as "Iconic Character Classes" like were in 1E and 2E. Plus spells are written with an eye towards their 1E/2E versions.

Plus the overall siplicity of PC and monster write ups by default makes them look like 1E/2E character and monster write ups.

As for ease of use with 3E, I define it as easy. My approach is to strip away what isn't needed when I convert 3E monsters and classes. Whatever power, feat, or skill I want the creature or whatever to keep, they keep. It mainly means they can perform the feat or skill as if they are a "Prime", which means base TN of 12 instead of 18.

Converting stat bonuses. The quick way? Subtract one from the 3E bonus. IE +4 becomes a 3. A little longer way? Look at what bonuses are given in the C&C PH, or on the Giants Belt in the M&T for creatures with stats above 18.

I think this is easy. Far easier than converting 1E/2E to 3E, since you have to decide/work out skills, skill ranks, stat bonuses, add to their spell lists, AC, and decide on feats.

Spells can pretty much be used as is since you would presumably understand how spell saves work in C&C. The only other considerations is whether to classify it as Mental or Physical Primes. Even that is usually done for you. 3E WIS saves=mental saves in C&C. DEX and CON saves in 3E are Physical saves in C&C. Easy.

The only other thing is to change spell durations to the time increments of C&C. Not hard once you know what the two increments are.

So I think this is easy once you know and understand the rules of C&C.

If I were to simplify 3E? I did. I used C&C as my base line and have built up from there. Holds up just fine. Heck, when C&C doesn't have a rule I think is clear enough I still refer to my 3E books to find a rule that covers it to my satisfaction. Recently the rules for how armor bonuses stack and to determine what class scrolls are for. Modified to account for their being Druids, Runemarks, Illusionists, and clerics only in my game. I also use my 3E PH to illustrate what weapons and armor looks like, or my Paladium books.

Another cool website to check out for the C&C Netbook of Classes and other house rules and resources for C&C: www.cncplayer.net

 

[Zulgyan]

One of the coolest conversion guides:

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=785

 

[Dragonhelm]

In a nutshell, yes, with two explainations. First, I'd like faster combats. Second, I'd like faster prep time. If I strip out everything from 3X that gets me there, IMO there is not much 3X left or at least not enough to make it really stand out. I was thinking C&C as described by many might address this giving me my cake and letting me eat it too, hence my question.

I've asked folks if it was better to strip 3.5 down to what I wanted, or to take C&C and add the things I wanted to. Most responses have been that it's easier to add to C&C. Reason is, if you take things away from D&D, there may be repercussions you weren't aware of when you do it.

From your and Treebore's responses it sounds like C&C can hand limited 3X add-ons but (and I'm speculating here as neither of you said this) that if I went whole hog with 3X add-ons that either C&C can't deal with that well or that I would have created a mess like unto the one I find with 3X - overly bogged down in clunky crunch.

If you add the whole thing, then you would be adding rules designed for a different rules system. So, for example, feats affecting attacks of opportunity wouldn't work since AoO don't really exist as such in C&C.

I've played C&C using a slimmed-down skills system, and it worked out rather nicely.

This leads me to a kind of a reserve to my original question. If C&C models 1E and 2E better than it models 3X, what is the advantage of playing C&C rather than just going back to 1E or 2E? Is it the limited (and I will emphasize limited) ability to model at least some of 3X?

That's an excellent question, and one I'd like to hear more responses on too.

I would say the unified mechanic is a huge improvement. Most C&C fans will say the Primes will allow for all sorts of fun that would possibly be limited by AD&D.

 

[Treebore]

I would say it is not limiting. In a way 3E is more limiting than C&C. This is because in C&C any character can attempt just about any kind of action covered by feats in 3E. You can't do that with the rules as written in any edition of D&D. 1E/2E didin't account for such things until the optional books of 2E, and 3E says you can only do the action if you have the feat.

C&C says if you declare the action you can do it as long as the CK agrees its possible and has assigned the difficulty modifers. You succeed on the SIEGE check you perform the "feat" or action, or set up being able to perform the desired attack.

For an example, when a player wants to do what is called a Cleave or Great Cleave in 3E they roll a SIEGE check, with the modifiers being the HD of the creature or creatures you want to hit.

So if you take down a creature and you want to attempt a "Cleave attack" against the second creature standing near you you roll the SIEGE check. If you succeed you get to roll for another attack.

Now say your a 8th level character and your fighting a horde of skeletons or Zombies. Good situation for a Great Cleave/Whirlwind kind of action. So you tell me you want to try and hit 4 zombies with your attack. I add up the HD of the 4 zombies to calculate your Target Number (DC in 3E terminology) and if you beat it, roll a successful hit, AND roll damage greater than their HP you sweep all of them into a pile of undead remains.

So if in my game you had already earned the "Great Cleave feat" I wouldn't have you roll the SIEGE check for setting up the opportunity for the maneuver. You'll automatically set it up due to having the feat and just roll the to hit. If you had earned the "Cleave Feat" I would have subtracted one of the Zombie's HD from your TN for the SIEGE check.

So C&C is much less limiting in that you can try anything you can imagine, as long as the CK agrees it is possible. You just have to roll for it. In 3E you get to do it if you have the feat, but can't do it if you don't have the feat.

So that is what I mean by "limited" versus "unlimited" with regards to C&C and its SIEGE engine.

 

[SavageRobby]

This leads me to a kind of a reserve to my original question. If C&C models 1E and 2E better than it models 3X, what is the advantage of playing C&C rather than just going back to 1E or 2E? Is it the limited (and I will emphasize limited) ability to model at least some of 3X?

That's an excellent question, and one I'd like to hear more responses on too.

I would say the unified mechanic is a huge improvement. Most C&C fans will say the Primes will allow for all sorts of fun that would possibly be limited by AD&D.

The biggest draw for me of C&C over pure 1E or 2E is that C&C is simpler and more elegant, while retaining what I liked most about those versions (and I should say mainly 1E - I didn't get too much into 2E). And because of its simplicity and elegance, it is pretty easy to slot in any additional rules or subsystems without unintended consequences. I find that more difficult to do with 1E, with its many more arbitrary subsystems and charts and all.

And so it is easy to slot in subsystems from any D&D edition, including 3x rules and even BECMI. Not only that, but I've found I can add things from other game systems as well - for example, I'm using some combat rules and modifiers from Savage Worlds, as well as a version of their Hindrances.

Also, C&C combat is a bit more streamlined than 1E, with 10 seconds rounds (not 1 minute), simplified spell casting times and clearer init rules. C&C also lacks AC/weapon adjustments, weapon speed factor and even weapon damage by size. Plus combat mods are easier with a more 3x-like Base Attack Bonus, with monsters simply using their HD as their BAB.

One other reason for using it over 1E or 2E, albeit a minor one: C&C is in print. For someone that has older D&D stuff, that might not be a big deal, but for getting new players on board, that $13 PHB at Amazon looks pretty attractive.



To be fair, on the flipside, the simplicity of the system comes at a price that some people (especially after getting used to 3x and its rules for, well, everything). There are less rules, which means more adjudication and discretion by the DM. (Something shared with older versions, but with far less confusing and/or contradictory rules. ) For example, there is a current thread at the Troll Lords board about armor class and magic items and stacking; there are no explicit rules about how they can all stack. So, you gotta trust your DM.