Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1806067" data-attributes="member: 23012">That is a good question.&nbsp; I would say that it is most similar to Rules Cyclopedia D&amp;D (though I am a bit biased here, as I am very fond of the RC&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).&nbsp; Like the RC, C&amp;C gives you a basic, very flexible system (though C&amp;C is much more flexible than the RC), and a system that is quite &quot;DM-friendly&quot; (in the sense that it is comparatively easy to prep and run adventures), but with plenty of options for expanding or changing the core rules (e.g. just like skills were optional in RC, there will be optional skill systems for C&amp;C, etc.).Some class abilities are pretty specific (e.g. the rogue's &quot;back attack&quot; ability), but many are not, and open to plenty of interpretaton and DM (er... CK) adjudication.&nbsp; This is even more true for the &quot;Prime&quot; system of ability score checks -- while ability score checks are used for saving throws, the extent to which they will be used as a de facto skill system, or used to determine the success/failure of various tasks in general, is really up to the group in question. So I would say that the mechanics, in terms of &quot;feel&quot; and &quot;ease-of-use&quot; (and especially the lack of a need to refer to the books on a regular basis), C&amp;C bears a strong &quot;family resemblance&quot; to the RC.Of course it has elements of 1E/2E AD&amp;D as well -- e.g. the assassin, illusionist, and knight (cavalier) classes.&nbsp; And unlike RC D&amp;D, there are no &quot;race classes,&quot;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp; no level limits, options for any race to play any class (and multiclass), etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I would say that, overall, C&amp;C feels like what the RC would be if it were rewritten to include the &quot;d20&quot; mechanic for all task resolutions, versions of some 1E classes, and various other bits from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition (A)D&amp;D.The system is rules lite (like RC or B/X D&amp;D, but even more so).&nbsp; But it is very easy to add things to it (just as the Gazeteers added optional skills, classes, background options, abilities, etc. to the B/X rules during the 1980s).I hope that makes sense!&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 1806067, member: 23012"] That is a good question. I would say that it is most similar to [U]Rules Cyclopedia[/U] D&D (though I am a bit biased here, as I am very fond of the RC ;) ). Like the RC, C&C gives you a basic, very flexible system (though C&C is much more flexible than the RC), and a system that is quite "DM-friendly" (in the sense that it is comparatively easy to prep and run adventures), but with plenty of options for expanding or changing the core rules (e.g. just like skills were optional in RC, there will be optional skill systems for C&C, etc.). Some class abilities are pretty specific (e.g. the rogue's "back attack" ability), but many are not, and open to plenty of interpretaton and DM (er... CK) adjudication. This is even more true for the "Prime" system of ability score checks -- while ability score checks are used for saving throws, the extent to which they will be used as a de facto skill system, or used to determine the success/failure of various tasks in general, is really up to the group in question. So I would say that the mechanics, in terms of "feel" and "ease-of-use" (and especially the lack of a need to refer to the books on a regular basis), C&C bears a strong "family resemblance" to the RC. Of course it has elements of 1E/2E AD&D as well -- e.g. the assassin, illusionist, and knight (cavalier) classes. And unlike RC D&D, there are no "race classes," :p no level limits, options for any race to play any class (and multiclass), etc. But I would say that, overall, C&C feels like what the RC would be if it were rewritten to include the "d20" mechanic for all task resolutions, versions of some 1E classes, and various other bits from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition (A)D&D. The system is rules lite (like RC or B/X D&D, but even more so). But it is [I]very easy [/I] to add things to it (just as the Gazeteers added optional skills, classes, background options, abilities, etc. to the B/X rules during the 1980s). I hope that makes sense! :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification