Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 3780750" data-attributes="member: 20854">I agree that it boils down to taste.  My comments below aren't meant as rebuttals or argument, just as my perspective and experience.I've become less enamored with unified mechanics, in general.  Sometimes, a separate subsystem models the concept better, IMO.  And the subsystems in older editions of D&D are pretty simple, in any case. (<a href="http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Unified_mechanic" target="_blank">RFisher's thoughts on this</a> pretty much sum it up, for me, too.)Addressing the SIEGE engine, in particular, I think it's a good mechanic, but found that I didn't like its application in certain areas (e.g. surprise, saving throws); I house-ruled it away, in those situations.  I also found that I was using it less-and-less for general ability checks; many actions simply didn't require a roll, IMO.  When actions do require a roll, I find it just as easy to think about the chance in percentage terms, and call for a die roll that way.  The SIEGE engine is one of C&C bigs strengths, but I slowly found myself in the position where it didn't really offer me any big advantages.The combat reminds me of a cross of 2E and B/X.  It's pretty nice.  And I, too, prefer the shorter round.  However, there are also things I missed (e.g. rates of fire for missiles, etc).  I've ended up adopting a combat sequence dervied from OD&D's Swords & Spells rules.  I've tried it out with OD&D, C&C, and AD&D, and it integrates well with all of them (unsurprisingly).  Since I'm using the house ruled sequence for any of these systems, the question of BTB combat is a wash, for me.For those interested, here's the system I'm using:<a href="http://www.philotomy.com/combat_sequence.html" target="_blank">Full version (detailed, uses minis)</a><a href="http://www.philotomy.com/simple_sequence.html" target="_blank">Simple version (simplified/lighter)</a><a href="http://www.philotomy.com/#initiative" target="_blank">Initiative & the Combat Sequence</a><a href="http://www.philotomy.com/#movement" target="_blank">Movement in Combat</a>I prefer the 1E Ranger, but I like the C&C Bard.  I also like the idea of using the Rune rules from the 2E HR1 Vikings supplement for Bards.  On the issue of classes, though, I think C&C and AD&D classes are pretty darn close.  In fact, I think you could use 1E classes in C&C or C&C classes in 1E without much trouble.I'm not sure what you mean by balancing points.  C&C definitely lends itself to house-ruling, though.  In fact, it seems to encourage it.  It reminds me of OD&D, in that respect.To my mind, C&C is kind of a via media of D&D.  It's the middle road, from which you can easily pull in elements from various editions, house rule and tweak, et cetera.  I think that's a huge strength, and also the reason it seems to draw fire from both ends of the "D&D spectrum" (i.e. many old-school fans find it too much like 3E, and many 3E fans find it too much like earlier editions).  I think it's an excellent choice for situations like Reynard's, where you have some players who aren't comfortable going with AD&D, but are willing to give C&C a try.  And it's a good fit for anyone else that likes the "via media" position of the system, on its own merits.I loved C&C when I first start playing it (coming directly from 3E).  I still like it; it's a good system.  However, as time has gone on, I've found myself house-ruling my C&C games (I'm currently running two of them) to be more and more like the earlier editions, and at this point I'd no longer consider it my main game (OD&D has usurped that position).YMMV, as always.</blockquote>

Verification