How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Akrasia]

I have the sense that there's a handful of really vocal supporters online, and other than that, it's just another d20/OGL product -- nothing particularly exciting to your average Joe Blow gamer.
...
I think there's an implication amongst many of its fans, though, that it's going to take a lot of D&D players and turn them into C&C players instead.

I think it will appeal to many people who: (a.) never liked 3.x D&D in the first place; (b.) have grown dissatisfied with 3.x; or (c.) want an occasional 'beer and pretzels' or 'old school' alternative to 3.x .

It does not seem unreasonable to think that the combined size of (a.), (b.), and (c.) is large enough to ensure the viability of C&C. Whether that constitutes "excitement" for "Joe Blow gamer" depends on whether "Joe Blow" belongs to one of thes groups.

 

[Akrasia]

... Not woot. This is hardly better than in 2e.

When I first heard about C&C, it was in a playtest thread. I recalled at the time that bonuses did not start until 15, but I believed things had gotten better because of the playtest (eg bonuses starting until 13).

However, these kinds of bonuses mean players are required to have quite high stats to be good at things. Why the higher ceiling?

If you want to use the 3E modifiers to ability scores, go ahead and use them (so long as you apply them across the board). It will not cause a problem for the game at all.

 

[Jackal42]

The reason C&C doesn't make each attribute point different (11 to a 12 for example) is for simplicity. I'm not saying the Alternity system was a lot more complex but it was more complex and C&C is trying to trim the fat so to speak. Keep in mind that also only applies to bonuses. In a way, each attribute point in C&C IS different. Each point of strength allows a character to lift or carry more weight (not for encumbrance), and a higher dexterity (not dex bonus) breaks initiative ties. Also there is a nice section which tells you when you should make attribute checks (not as often as in most versions of D&D) and when you should just decide what happens based on the situation or attribute. For instance, if two characters want to throw the same rock in a contest to see which can throw it farther there is no need for strength checks. Just see which has the highest strength and that character wins. The same can be done for each attribute in several cases making each point in C&C important but not to the degree that it takes over the game.

Also, you have to keep primes in mind. Because of the prime system attribute bonuses are actually less important than they ever were in any version of D&D. That isn't to say it's not nice to have that +1 to your armor class or +2 to break that chain with your hands, etc but you don't need high scores to have good characters in C&C. In addition to primes there are other small reasons for this, like dexterity modifier not being applied to your initiative roll, etc.

My group findes that, for the first time, they enjoy a high score but they don't feel the need for one and I think that's exactly what the Trolls were going for.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In C&C they have 1/3rd the importance of Alternity stats. I don't think that's a good thing, and I certainly don't want to see an overabundance of 13s for no good reason. It also causes me to wonder how they balanced the races. If an elf with Con -2 takes a Con of 15, it drops to 13, giving no penalty whatsoever! Did elves take -3 Con?

None of the races get a +2 to any stat if I remember, its all +1's. The Elf gets a +1 to Dex and -1 to Con, and I can't remember if they get a mod to Cha. The ability system is straight out of the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D as far as I can tell. It works for me.

 

[Sammael]

In other words, the system encourages the min/maxing of attributes. Feh. I thought this was one of the greatest accomplishments of 3.x.

 

[Henry]

However, keep in mind that the min-maxing doesn't get you a whole lot.

The thing that I'm most disappointed to hear (and which worries me most) is that multi-classing is not covered in the CPHB. If using the old multi-classing, or too close to it, multiclassers will have the larger advantage.

 

[Akrasia]

Players who approach this game with a min/max mentality are unlikely to like it very much in any case.

 

[Akrasia]

... The thing that I'm most disappointed to hear (and which worries me most) is that multi-classing is not covered in the CPHB. If using the old multi-classing, or too close to it, multiclassers will have the larger advantage.

Henry -- why would this be the case?

(I am not disagreeing with you here, I am just curious about your reasons for making this claim. I don't recall multiclass characters in OAD&D or elves in RC D&D having any clear advantage over single class characters beyond level 1, given their slower progression rates.)

I was disappointed by the absence of these rules as well, though I have some house rules cooked up that seem to work okay (or so I hope!).

 

[National Acrobat]

Maybe in the Short Term

However, keep in mind that the min-maxing doesn't get you a whole lot.

The thing that I'm most disappointed to hear (and which worries me most) is that multi-classing is not covered in the CPHB. If using the old multi-classing, or too close to it, multiclassers will have the larger advantage.

Maybe in the short term, but I think once the xp starts to pile up and the single classed characters progress farther, you see that the multi-classed characters will fall behind in levels. Certainly what they can do at their levels is probably loaded with more options, but still, since the xp charts are like the old 1E charts, eventually a party with 3 12th level characters and one 9/9 character is going to favor the 12th level characters. Which is the same way it was when I ran 1E Campaigns. Eventually the multi-classed characters begin to fall behind a bit, as it should be.

I use the old 1E rules for multi-classing and my group is comprised of 6 characters. I have a Ranger 5, Cleric 5, Paladin 5, Wizard 5, Thief 5 and Fighter/Thief 4/3.

It really hasn't presented a problem yet, except that the multi-classed character has a lot less hit points on average, and he isn't a terribly good front line fighter due to his armor restrictions.

In other words, the system encourages the min/maxing of attributes. Feh. I thought this was one of the greatest accomplishments of 3.x.

I haven't seen this at all in my group, but never have. I've been dming the same bunch for over 15 years, and no matter what the version of the game, we've always rolled 4d6, drop the lowest for scores, no modifications, and no one ever gripes. Switching to C&C hasn't changed that a bit.

Heck, the 5th Level thief in my group has stats of 9, 13, 8, 14, 8, 13. He does just fine and likes his character.

 

[scadgrad]

In other words, the system encourages the min/maxing of attributes. Feh. I thought this was one of the greatest accomplishments of 3.x.

Actually no. Since all 6 abilities are tied to a distinct save, min/maxing will lead to one, two, or even three dreadfully bad saves. Plus, the standard ability generation method is 3d6 arranged to suit. It's pretty hard to min/max with the kinds of numbers that are typically generated w/ this method. Of course you could use whatever method you want to generate stats.

From my experience 3.5 campaigns feature a more than healthy dose of min/maxing which is only made worse by the addition of feats tailored made to exasperate the min/max effect. Could you please clarify what you mean by "the greatest accomplishments of 3.x?"