Treebore
First Post
I definitely agree wiith C&C being very "universal". I use 3E materials all the time, and have integrated rules concepts from every edition of D&D, including 4E, which is where my Eldritch/Divine Blasts house rule comes from. I also ran the 4E Punjar modules done by Goodman Games using C&C.
Plus, the rare times where I do not find a rules guide line in C&C for something I refer to the 3E SRD.
I think C&C is different enough that it takes a while to really see how C&C works. Plus I think the Prime/nonPrime system intimidates a lot of people because they don't believe math really works. After nearly 6 years of running C&C weekly, usually a couple of times per week, I can say that I absolutely love the Prime/nonPrime system, with regards to both skills and saves.
It is refreshing to see players constantly worried about being able to making a save. I only hear, "Oh, I will only fail this save if a roll a 1." in games other than C&C, in C&C they are always worried about making it. That is good. Fear is good. Adrenaline is what makes the game fun. Since my games have kept a core group of at least 3 players, and old players return to my games as soon as they can, and my groups stay at 6 players even when people have to leave, I think my players like it too. Plus I am a pretty good CK.
Now it does take a lot of thought to build good encounters. Generally you only need to consider HD, but when you add spellcasters that changes a bit. You have to look at the spells you give them, and look at your players Prime attributes. You then have to have an understanding of how likely it will be that they will fail those saves. Once you get comfortable with considering these probabilities encounters become easy to build. Until then it is tricky.
But I do like the versatility of C&C. When I have had players who wanted to do something a bit more unique than their Iconic class allows I looked to the various PrC's in my multitude of 3E and Pathfinder resources to use as a guideline for modifying their iconic class to fit their concept much better. I also looked to old D&D sources, such as Dragon magazine, for various iconic style class write ups, and went with what fit the players situation best. So most of the time I used a PrC as a template for adapting the iconic class to better fit the players ideas.
The only old style classes I have used is the Archer and the Necromancer.
So I do love the fundamental creative freedom I have with C&C, and it is much easier to do with C&C than it was for me with 3E. Now that all the old D&D versions have so much material, and I own it, my work usually involves looking at what has been done, and then tweaking it to fit what my players or I want, which is much easier than creating it from whole cloth. Plus by looking at the various versions and ideas I think it helps me make these changes with much better balance.
Plus, the rare times where I do not find a rules guide line in C&C for something I refer to the 3E SRD.
I think C&C is different enough that it takes a while to really see how C&C works. Plus I think the Prime/nonPrime system intimidates a lot of people because they don't believe math really works. After nearly 6 years of running C&C weekly, usually a couple of times per week, I can say that I absolutely love the Prime/nonPrime system, with regards to both skills and saves.
It is refreshing to see players constantly worried about being able to making a save. I only hear, "Oh, I will only fail this save if a roll a 1." in games other than C&C, in C&C they are always worried about making it. That is good. Fear is good. Adrenaline is what makes the game fun. Since my games have kept a core group of at least 3 players, and old players return to my games as soon as they can, and my groups stay at 6 players even when people have to leave, I think my players like it too. Plus I am a pretty good CK.
Now it does take a lot of thought to build good encounters. Generally you only need to consider HD, but when you add spellcasters that changes a bit. You have to look at the spells you give them, and look at your players Prime attributes. You then have to have an understanding of how likely it will be that they will fail those saves. Once you get comfortable with considering these probabilities encounters become easy to build. Until then it is tricky.
But I do like the versatility of C&C. When I have had players who wanted to do something a bit more unique than their Iconic class allows I looked to the various PrC's in my multitude of 3E and Pathfinder resources to use as a guideline for modifying their iconic class to fit their concept much better. I also looked to old D&D sources, such as Dragon magazine, for various iconic style class write ups, and went with what fit the players situation best. So most of the time I used a PrC as a template for adapting the iconic class to better fit the players ideas.
The only old style classes I have used is the Archer and the Necromancer.
So I do love the fundamental creative freedom I have with C&C, and it is much easier to do with C&C than it was for me with 3E. Now that all the old D&D versions have so much material, and I own it, my work usually involves looking at what has been done, and then tweaking it to fit what my players or I want, which is much easier than creating it from whole cloth. Plus by looking at the various versions and ideas I think it helps me make these changes with much better balance.
