Castles and Crusades (NDA is lifted - ask questions, get answers)

[Jackal42]

That's how 2e worked, yes. You could use those magic abilities but you got no xp for the encounter and only half for the entire session.

C&C doesn't have any such restriction. As I said above it's just a basic multi and dual class system that allows you to do what you want with it. If your CK feels you shouldn't be able to gain xp for falling back on your old class (until you reach X level) then that's how it works. But if you're playing it "by the book" you don't have any restriction like that, no.

Edit: The other two beat me to the punch.

 

[Staffan]

Actually, you could use those abilities in 1e, you just got penalized EPs for using them.

Which sort of made sense - if you're trying to learn how to cast spells, overcoming obstacles by sword-swinging isn't going to help.

 

[JEL]

Actually, you could use those abilities in 1e, you just got penalized EPs for using them.

IIRC, you stopped getting penalized and could freely use your old class abilities once your new class level surpassed your old.

 

[Acid_crash]

House Rule #1: Mages can wear armor, they suffer from spell failure like in 3e, only the percentages are increased and only if they multiclass with another class that does allow them to wear armor.

House Rule #2: Must create a Mage Blade class (Fighter/Mage) or advanced class. If advanced class, the Mage Blade can be entered when the character is a Fighter 3/Mage 3 and then he can take the Mage Blade class. I dunno, just having fun with the thought.

I can see a lot of house rules being created and meshing so easily with this game.

Another question:

How much of this game is OGL? Will it be possible for us to write up adventures and other settings designed with C&C in mind instead of D&D/other d20 settings?

 

[GravyFingerz]

How much of this game is OGL? Will it be possible for us to write up adventures and other settings designed with C&C in mind instead of D&D/other d20 settings?

I do not believe this information was divulged.

 

[Henry]

In fact, reading the Troll Boards today, I noted that they are still in the process of drafting an OGL for the game.

 

[nicodaudel]

In fact, reading the Troll Boards today, I noted that they are still in the process of drafting an OGL for the game.

While I couldn't (and wouldn't) speak for the Trolls, they seem dedicated to placing as much material as possible under the OGL. (As Henry wrote, the exact details are still in the air.) From what I can tell, anyway, they really do want people to work with the game as much or as little as it suits them, including all the things OGL content might allow for.

-Dion

 

[Acid_crash]

While I couldn't (and wouldn't) speak for the Trolls, they seem dedicated to placing as much material as possible under the OGL. (As Henry wrote, the exact details are still in the air.) From what I can tell, anyway, they really do want people to work with the game as much or as little as it suits them, including all the things OGL content might allow for.

-Dion

Cool.

I like C&C more from what I am hearing and it sounds pretty easy to use.

I know this isn't in the realm of the current game, but just your opinions...how well do you think this game would adapt to a sci-fi setting and create sci-fi based classes for it?

 

[nsruf]

The idea behind C&C initative is that it doesn't really use any modifiers (no dexterity, no weapon speed, no casting time, etc) so you can do it either way. The default is written that you declare your action and then go with it. But there isn't anything keeping you from doing it the other way around. Roll initiative and as each turn comes up ask the player what he wants to do. The mechanic works the same either way, just depends how much freedom you want to give your players.

Good call. I like the randomness introduced by declaring in advance, but was never sure about how specific declarations should be, and how to keep track of a lot of them at once (see below). This part was completely glossed over by 2E rules, and AFAIK by earlier edition rules as well. The Rules Cyclopedia doesn't even mention that you have to declare in advance (bad editing, I suppose).

As to how you keep track of so many combatants at once that's when you'd use group initative (one roll for each group instead of each member).

I'm not worried about keeping track of different numbers. It's having to remember the 24 distinct action declarations of 6 players, 12 goblins and 6 ogers that always got me confused in 2E.

And if you want to use the 3e system it will fit in just fine without causing any problems.

Disrupting spellcasters would have to be done with readied actions and thus happen less often, but that's the only problem I see either. I'll just have to try which system works better for me, once I get my hands on C&C.


And thanks to all the playtesters for doing the Q&A stuff here. I could always create a DF account, but they'd probably flame me to a crisp over there for believing that 3.5 is a decent system up to level 10 or so

 

[nsruf]

Regarding the merits of the 12/18 system:

I don't see it as anything other than adding an extra step. Plus, it forces the DM to reveal to the players the DC of a task before the players roll, thus removing all possible fudge room from the DM.

If you do it like GURPS, your problems might go away and it does indeed become very simple: the players declare margin of success/failure based on their PCs' abilities, and the GM compares it to the difficulty modifier without having to reveal it.

E.g. a Dex check result of 14 if Dex is prime would be "success by 2", or "failure by 4" if it is not prime. The GM knows that the check is made a +5, so both succeed. He doesn't even have to worry about the prime/non-prime issue.