Castles & Crusades: Player's Handbook

[Geron Raveneye]

Looked over the digest basic rules recently, and am right now chasing a C&C PHB on ebay. I simply was curious about how C&C feels, and I think there's one thing that can be said about it: it's easy to grasp and easy to add to. And in my experience, there's always some to whom it comes easier to add stuff to a simple game and keep it working than subtract stuff from a complex game while keeping it working. I'm one of those people. I sometimes feel intimidated by the complexity of rules for D&D 3E, and I actually feel I'm cheating the game when I come up with DCs on the fly instead of calculating them from the tables and modifiers on the DM's screen and the books, or shake an NPC out of my sleeve instead of creating and statting him up beforehand. Call it silly, or whatever you want, I prefer having bare bones and adding as much flesh to it as I want to having a complete living being and taking away all the things I don't like.

So yeah, C&C will find its way into my collection. I'll probably tweak it a bit, and probably never play it, as my current group is die-hard for "more options", but that's not discouraging me. Heh, who knows, I might suddenly find myself trying to teach a group of totally new players, and then C&C will be perfect. To me, C&C represents something I've been waiting for for a few years now...a near-successful "Basic Set" adaption of the D&D 3E rules. And that makes me feel giddy..

Oh, and would you please stop picking each other apart before this thread is closed by some moderator? Thanks.

 

[Turanil]

am right now chasing a C&C PHB on ebay.

You could be waiting for the second printing, which has a much better layout and errata included, that will be released approximately around Christmas.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You could be waiting for the second printing, which has a much better layout and errata included, that will be released approximately around Christmas.

Is actually on my "aprés-christmas shopping list". Just couldn't pass up the chance to grab a C&C PHB for relatively cheap. It's at 1€ bidding price right now, and only one more day and a bit to go. And it probably will be a bit longer before the second printing is available in Germany, too.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Looked over the digest basic rules recently, and am right now chasing a C&C PHB on ebay. I simply was curious about how C&C feels, and I think there's one thing that can be said about it: it's easy to grasp and easy to add to. And in my experience, there's always some to whom it comes easier to add stuff to a simple game and keep it working than subtract stuff from a complex game while keeping it working.

Agreed. I'm currently running a "dumbed down" version of D&D, and sometimes it presents problems when I cut something out (i.e. attacks of opportunity).

I'm one of those people. I sometimes feel intimidated by the complexity of rules for D&D 3E, and I actually feel I'm cheating the game when I come up with DCs on the fly instead of calculating them from the tables and modifiers on the DM's screen and the books, or shake an NPC out of my sleeve instead of creating and statting him up beforehand. Call it silly, or whatever you want, I prefer having bare bones and adding as much flesh to it as I want to having a complete living being and taking away all the things I don't like.

I really don't get why they have all those charts to begin with. In other systems I've played, they describe the skills, then give one basic chart on what target number equals what level of complexity. I just make up the DC on the fly and call it a day.

So yeah, C&C will find its way into my collection. I'll probably tweak it a bit, and probably never play it, as my current group is die-hard for "more options", but that's not discouraging me.

I think you can run C&C and still allow it to have options. As we've already discussed on this thread, one of the beauties about C&C is the ability to customize to heart's content. You can still have plenty of options while sticking with the basics of C&C.

To me, C&C represents something I've been waiting for for a few years now...a near-successful "Basic Set" adaption of the D&D 3E rules. And that makes me feel giddy..

Fully agreed. What I've discovered is that I like the basics of D&D, but I get turned off by certain complexities. Most of what I don't like revolves around the complexity of combat. I find that the way I run D&D is more akin to prior editions. Natural 20's are crits. Natural 1's are fumbles. None of that threat range stuff. No attacks of opportunity. And so on.

I've compared some C&C counterparts to D&D items (especially in terms of equipment and magic items) and the C&C versions are simpler every time.

What I have discovered is that my own tastes lie somewhere between C&C and D&D. I like many of D&D's options, but I want a simpler system like C&C. C&C goes back to prior editions just a little too much in some regards for my tastes (differing XP charts, for example). I want to use a skill system like 3e's, but with a basic "make the DC up on the fly" system. I want track to be a skill rather than a feat. I'm really questioning feats now. Some would make good class features and some really aren't all that necessary. Thing is, some skills and feats cross over with class abilities, so I think that the class abilities would just land up being a bonus to skills.

I think the big thing I don't like about C&C is how class abilities end at 12th level and HD stop along with it, only giving a flat bonus after that (ala AD&D). I found a fan article on how to fix some of this, though, so that helps.

It seems that either way, I'm going to have to redesign something, whether I dumb down D&D or rebuild C&C. There just isn't a perfect system for me. And maybe that's the most heartbreaking part of all of this - two great options, but none fit what I'm looking for exactly.

Okay, I've rambled on enough here. Move along...

 

[Geron Raveneye]

What I have discovered is that my own tastes lie somewhere between C&C and D&D. I like many of D&D's options, but I want a simpler system like C&C. C&C goes back to prior editions just a little too much in some regards for my tastes (differing XP charts, for example). I want to use a skill system like 3e's, but with a basic "make the DC up on the fly" system. I want track to be a skill rather than a feat. I'm really questioning feats now. Some would make good class features and some really aren't all that necessary. Thing is, some skills and feats cross over with class abilities, so I think that the class abilities would just land up being a bonus to skills.

I think the big thing I don't like about C&C is how class abilities end at 12th level and HD stop along with it, only giving a flat bonus after that (ala AD&D). I found a fan article on how to fix some of this, though, so that helps.

It seems that either way, I'm going to have to redesign something, whether I dumb down D&D or rebuild C&C. There just isn't a perfect system for me. And maybe that's the most heartbreaking part of all of this - two great options, but none fit what I'm looking for exactly.

Okay, I've rambled on enough here. Move along...

To quote Meat Loaf: "You took the words right out of my mouth."

I do have a few ideas on how to put a few options into the C&C framework, but I want to take a good, long look at the complete picture in the PHB before I start tampering with stuff. But from what I saw in the basic rules, it's easy enough to do so, and without turning a carefully balanced system upside down.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Well, to think of it another way, just think of it as "core skills." Your strength is the same no matter what, but if the strength-related task is a "core skill", you get a +6 bonus. Makes it ten times easier for players to rationalize and remember.

Yes I understand, but why can't Strength represent "both" raw power and skill? The division seems tacked on to me (quite obvious when using Strength as the example). It is not often I have a character idea that is based around being naturally strong but never having exercised any strength-based skills. I don't suppose many have so, why cater to that notion?

But that's not a big problem at all, certainly not in C&C. I'll just say the DC is 15 for everybody (in lieu of 12/18) and be done with it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Yes I understand, but why can't Strength represent "both" raw power and skill? The division seems tacked on to me (quite obvious when using Strength as the example). It is not often I have a character idea that is based around being naturally strong but never having exercised any strength-based skills. I don't suppose many have so, why cater to that notion?

But that's not a big problem at all, certainly not in C&C. I'll just say the DC is 15 for everybody (in lieu of 12/18) and be done with it.

Well, I guess in C&C, with the attribute bonuses as they are, a character who is exceptionally strong will automatically choose Strength as one of his Primes anyway, to make the most of that nice bonus? Even with non-optimizers, I can only see that problem with a character who has high scores in more than 3 attributes and an interesting character concept in mind that involves only two of them.

 

[Akrasia]

Yes I understand, but why can't Strength represent "both" raw power and skill? The division seems tacked on to me (quite obvious when using Strength as the example). It is not often I have a character idea that is based around being naturally strong but never having exercised any strength-based skills. I don't suppose many have so, why cater to that notion?

But that's not a big problem at all, certainly not in C&C. I'll just say the DC is 15 for everybody (in lieu of 12/18) and be done with it.

The system is not perfect, as the example of strength best illustrates. I think viewing the prime as 'training' works better for attributes like dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. It makes less sense with strength and constitution.

Despite this bug, though, it allows for some 'customization' of characters without skills and feats (e.g. a human fighter who chooses DEX and INT as his extra 'primes' will be quite different from a human fighter who chooses CON and CHA as his extra 'primes'). You could, to some extent, capture this variation by ability scores alone, but the bonus that a prime gives (+6) makes a huge difference in play.

You could get rid of the system for ability checks, as you propose, but I would still keep it for saving throws, otherwise the PCs will be at a huge disadvantage relative to the monsters. (I guess you could get rid of the prime system for monsters too, but then a 'mind-focused' creature like a mindflayer would have similar saves as a 'physical-focused' creature like an ogre.)

 

[Particle_Man]

But that's not a big problem at all, certainly not in C&C. I'll just say the DC is 15 for everybody (in lieu of 12/18) and be done with it.

In that case, you should give humans some other advantage over demihumans. The main rules give them 3 primes to the demihumans' 2.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh, I love eBay. Got the PHB for 9,99€, which translates to $11,80. Postage included. Already looking forward to this book. When the second printing is available here, it will go to a friend, though.