Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2257969" data-attributes="member: 23012">Oh hello JohnSnow!  Nice to see you here.  Did you get bored hanging out over at the WotC boards?   <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Some quick comments: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.)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.)Yes, I think I agree with you about this.    :\  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!   <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    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> Okay ... back to grading freshmen essays ...  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>

Verification