Castles & Crusades...not sure about it

[cleaverthepit]

well, if I could get my head out of the sand today I could find some pertinent links for fixes. The fighter thing - check out Akrasia's fix, you might find these options more suitable.

ohh here

training - who knew, many people are dropping it, I use use every few levels - "you must find your master my young petulant and pouty Darth," "no I am my own master obi whine"
anyway, dropping that is no biggee

spells, weeeeeelllllllll, i am hesitant in saying give more but, what the heck, try it and see.

Several people are using the 3e attribute modifiers. Thats fine, it does not unbalance the game, its not built like that.

That's a few fixes but, I understand if that's too many. me, I am a tinkerer and the gameis built with that in mind, but I know some people prefer not to tinker (my brother steve for example, he really just does not want to think about the rules).

have fun with whichever game yu go with, my follow up suggestion would be Blue Rose.

davis chenault

 

[Mythmere1]

You mentioned that the system has started to grow on you...it does that. C&C is an odd, weird thing - it's much more playable than it appears to be.

Your bad 3E experience is very similar to the experience that pushed me toward C&C, although my peeve isn't the minis (I love minis) but when they're so wrapped into the rules that they become the game's playing pieces instead of just a visual aid.

I agree with you about the fighter's abilities - they might be the weakest part of C&C. However, C&C is, strangely, more than its rules. It's a recalibration of the relationship between the players, the DM, and the rules more than it is a hard-and-fast ruleset.

Picking between C&C and 3E is a matter of deciding whether you game in the forest or amid the trees.

 

[cleaverthepit]

love minis huh

then you'll be glad to hear we contracted for a CnC mini line

davis chenault

 

[Akrasia]

love minis huh

then you'll be glad to hear we contracted for a CnC mini line

davis chenault

Details and/or link?

 

[Treebore]

Yeah, Davis.

Fishing has better results when you put bait on that hook!

 

[cleaverthepit]

we've contracted magnificent egos to do the line of minis

here

we don't have a time schedule ywet but should by the middle of next week.

davis

 

[Dragonhelm]

That's going to be sweet. I love the art in the C&C PHB. The druid and illusionist will both be awesome.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, I'll chip in my two cents about C&C. And I'm one of Akrasia's players who was highly skeptical of the system.

I confess I like C&C. However, there are elements of it that are a return to earlier editions of D&D in ways I don't like. Specifically, my big gripes are as follows:

1. C&C emphasizes "roleplaying" over "roll-playing" in social interaction situations. While this is all well and good, it has always amazed me that Gygax created a game where he made all personality-related "tests" totally character ability independent and was then surprised when the personality score became the dump stat. Here's a hint: if there's no mechanical advantage to a high charisma score, very few people are going to bother to have one. That said, I have to admit that Akrasia's an excellent DM (err...CK) and takes those character abilities into account.
2. C&C returns to one of the tropes of old D&D where the character classes with the most "options" were all spellcasters. While I admit that giving real options to combat-focused classes tends to result in a more tactical game, the alternative is basically limiting the options available to non-spellslinging characters. And a couple of feat-like options doesn't adequately address this IMHO.
3. Variable experience point tables! This one is REALLY annoying. Is it really that hard to balance character classes so that level 1 wizard = level 1 fighter = level 1 rogue? I won't even go into how difficult this is going to make multiclassing.

So, there's a player's perspective of C&C. I'm still enjoying the game thanks to a good CK, but I find myself bored with the "options." As a DM, I can certainly see the attraction of a system that's much easier to prepare and run. However, as a player, I'm annoyed that several of the fun ways to customize my PC have been removed. Yes, as a wizard, I can still pick spells, and I'll have more options as I go up in level. But our combat characters have basically resorted to: "I'll whack him with my (blank)" or "I'll shoot him with my (blank)."

The thing is, RPGs are GAMES - not just interactive theatre. And options mean games have more appeal in the longer term.

Just my opinions obviously.

 

[Akrasia]

Oh hello JohnSnow! Nice to see you here. Did you get bored hanging out over at the WotC boards?

Some quick comments:

1. C&C emphasizes "roleplaying" over "roll-playing" in social interaction situations. While this is all well and good, it has always amazed me that Gygax created a game where he made all personality-related "tests" totally character ability independent and was then surprised when the personality score became the dump stat. Here's a hint: if there's no mechanical advantage to a high charisma score, very few people are going to bother to have one. That said, I have to admit that Akrasia's an excellent DM (err...CK) and takes those character abilities into account.

Even if a C&C group never used Charisma checks when determining social interactions, a high charisma would still be a huge benefit for certain saving throws (death attack, charm, and fear).

But more generally, the dilemma you mention here also applies to 3e: if you have a group that prefers to 'role play' through most encounters, putting skill points into Diplomacy and Bluff is not going to be that useful. Conversely, if you prefer the 'roll playing' approach to resolving social encounters, you could simply use Charisma checks in C&C for everything (with bards, knights, and characters who choose CHA as a prime getting a huge advantage).

That is, striking the right balance between 'role playing' encounters, and using rolls to resolve such encounters, is something that every group needs to decide for itself, whether C&C or 3e. As far as I can tell, my approach here has not changed from our old 3e campaign. (You might have preferred more rolling back then as well -- but that is a separate matter, one having to do with GM style IMO, and not something that has to do with the game system itself.)

2. C&C returns to one of the tropes of old D&D where the character classes with the most "options" were all spellcasters. While I admit that giving real options to combat-focused classes tends to result in a more tactical game, the alternative is basically limiting the options available to non-spellslinging characters. And a couple of feat-like options doesn't adequately address this IMHO.

The system of 'primes' allows for some character differentiation within classes (e.g. a fighter with CHA and INT as primes is going to be quite different from a fighter with CON and DEx as primes). Not as much customization as 3e, sure, but it is unfair to say that C&C returns completely to pre-3e D&D in terms of options (or lack thereof).

If a group added some feat-like options (or more customizable abilities -- as promised in the CKG), I don't see why the resulting game would not allow for a decent range of character options for non-spellcasting classes.

There are trade offs to be made here, but IME I would rather start with a simple framework and 'build up' to the desired level of complexity.

(And as an aside, IME many of the options found in 3e often go unused -- for the simple reason that many of them fail to optimize PCs' strengths. One doesn't have to be a min-max player to see that any melee fighter with any sense is going to aim at getting cleave and greater cleave, other options be damned.)

3. Variable experience point tables! This one is REALLY annoying. Is it really that hard to balance character classes so that level 1 wizard = level 1 fighter = level 1 rogue? I won't even go into how difficult this is going to make multiclassing.

Yes, I think I agree with you about this. :\

The thing is, RPGs are GAMES - not just interactive theatre. And options mean games have more appeal in the longer term.
...

As games they are also meant to be fun. Too many options can slow games down to a tedious grind. I'd rather 'get on' with the advanture than spend 40+ minutes making the necessary calculations to a particular action and spell combination involving a 14th level NPC.

But as I said in another thread, different games have different virtues. I can see the appeal of 3e for players -- but IME DM'ing a 3e game with PCs above level 7 or so is just too much of a pain to be worth it. (My ideal game would probably be somewhere inbetween C&C and 3e in terms of options and complexity.)

Anway, thanks for your kind words regarding my DM/CKing!

Okay ... back to grading freshmen essays ...

 

[Turanil]

IME DM'ing a 3e game with PCs above level 7 or so is just too much of a pain to be worth it. (My ideal game would probably be somewhere inbetween C&C and 3e in terms of options and complexity.)

Me too, I find it difficult to run adventurers past 10th level, while it's extremely easy with C&C. Then, for an inbetween C&C and 3e, I am working on it!! It's just a matter of yet another month or two before the free PDF is released for all to download. I indeed did it to be able to be more like d20 while playing a fast and easy C&C game.