How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Akrasia]

That's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus an omission from same rulebook. As such, I don't think it's out of bounds to note that multiclassing is not in the rulebook.

No it is not 'out of bounds' at all, and I expressed my disappointment about this fact earlier in this thread. I also pointed to the ways in which TLG is trying to address this problem.

If this is the only 'incomplete' aspect of the rules that you can point to, then I think you are grotesquely exaggerating when you claim that C&C is 'not viable' and merely a 'fad' aimed at nostalgia.

Again, that's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus noting that you don't get a bestiary in what some folks have been billing as a "complete" game doesn't seem especially out of bounds to me. YMMV.

C&C is a complete game in exactly the same way that D&D is. Both systems have PHBs that lack bestiaries. Why exactly is C&C 'incomplete' whereas D&D is 'complete'? Please explain the difference here.

(In fact, with C&C you only need two books -- the PHB and the MT volume -- not three.)

If the D&D PHB were put forward as a complete, rules-light system that captured the feel of some other game, then such critical omissions would indeed be knocks against the PHB.

Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong here. :\

The C&C PHB only purports to include all the rules players need to play -- plus some advice for GMs on how to run their games. It is no different than the D&D PHB in that respect (except that it also includes advice for GMs).

.... What that has to do with C&C, I don't really know, but presumably it's important to you to know these things.

It is important because your criteria is either inconsistent (one standard for D&D, another for C&C), or based on faulty information.

Well, let's see. My "claims" are that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. You "corrected" me by showing that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. And you then decided to throw in a bunch of dismissive statements about how my claims lack substance, even as you're agreeing with them. Hmm, sounds like affecting a superior attitude to me.

Unless you plan to - for the very first time - point out some factual inaccuracy in what I've said, I think it's best to just leave it at that. Have fun.

I agree that C&C lacks ONE important rule: viz. multiclassing rules. If that is a 'deal breaker' for you (despite the upcoming pdf, despite the fact that it is easy to house rule this ommission, yada yada), then fair enough.

However, I am still waiting to see how your use of the plural 'rules systems' in reference to what is missing from C&C is in any way justified.

Or why the fact that the C&C PHB lacks a bestiary is somehow a huge blow against the game, but for some reason is not a blow against the D&D PHB.

Or how C&C is 'not a viable game' but merely a 'fad' (your words), despite being supported with a future products, including a number of modules (including the original Castle Greyhawk)...

Please feel free elaborate anytime.

(And I apologize in advance for the snarky tone.)

 

[Akrasia]

... Lets stop beating this particular dead horse, folks. ...

Sorry for the final kick I posted. (I wrote it before I saw your post.)

You're right that it's time to move on...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've heard that before, that the C&C PHB advertisements and advocates were billing it as a complete fantasy game, which to many means monsters & treasure as well as player rules. I can understand that. I love C&C so far and I don't really consider the PHB to be a complete game any more than I consider the D&D PHB's to be complete games. Now the only rules I think that are missing from the PHB is the multiclassing rules, everythign else that the game "needs" is going to be covered in the appropriate books, M&T or CKG.

 

[drnuncheon]

Several people have mentioned C&C's saves and how they are based on all stats. Can someone provide a quick rundown of what they are and how they work?

J

 

[VorpalBunny]

Several people have mentioned C&C's saves and how they are based on all stats. Can someone provide a quick rundown of what they are and how they work?

J

Saving throws are relegated to attribute checks (d20 + ability modifier + character level), with the type of save dependent on the attribute:

Strength: Paralysis & constriction
Dexterity: Breath Weapon & Traps
Constitution: Disease, energy drain, poison, or breath weapon
Intelligence: Magic/illusion
Wisdom: Confusion, gaze attack, petrafication, polymorph
Charisma: Charm, fear and death attack
Variable: Spells

Each character has "primary" and "secondary" attributes. Every character has one prime attribute determined by his character class, with others picked by the player during chargen. A check based on a prime attribute has a DC of 12, while a check based on a secondary attribute has a DC of 18. So if I have an elf rogue (primes INT and DEX) that comes across a pit, his save DC to keep from falling in would be 12, and I'd roll a d20 plus his DEX mod (if any) plus his character level for the check (trap save is based on DEX, DEX is a prime attribute for a rogue). On the other hand, if my dwarf fighter (primes STR and CON) comes across the same pit, I'd roll a d20 + the dwarf's DEX mod (if any) plus his level against a DC of 18. Of course, rolls and DCs can be subjext to situational modifiers.

Pretty easy.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Several people have mentioned C&C's saves and how they are based on all stats. Can someone provide a quick rundown of what they are and how they work?

J

The saves are basically attribute checks. For instance, a fireball requires a DEX save for 1/2 damage. Target numbers are based on whether or not the attribute in question is one of your chosen Primes. It is harder to save versus this fireball if DEX is not a Prime than it is if you have chosen DEX as a prime. You roll a D20, add your level and other appropriate modifiers, and check to see if you meet or beat the target number. Its really quite simple and intuitive, allowing for a wide variety of scenarios to be covered without trying to address every single situation that might arise within your game with a specific rule, as the Prime system isnt just for saves, but also for "skill checks" for lack of a better term (even though skills are not integral to default C&C).

 

[trollwad]

I am curious which prestige classes jstater is keeping in his c&c/3e hybrid

 

[JRRNeiklot]

C&C is based on nostalgia about as much as Ford Motor Company. After all, Ford still uses that damned outdated wheel in all it's products. Pathetic.

 

[jstater]

I might as well wade in ...

This Saturday, my gaming group and I will begin playing a hybrid C&C/3.5. I'm keeping prestige classes, because I like the options (I converted the entry requirements, which mostly involved changing skill requirements to prime attribute and character level requirements). I'm also keeping feats, which I also spent some time modifying.

We will use the SIEGE engine for attribute checks and saving throws, and the combat rules (though I will, at my discretion, allow attacks of opportunity). So, the question is, I suppose, why go to the trouble. Two reasons:

1) I was tired of the skill system in 3.5. I enjoyed it immensely at first, and then I started DM'ing. While players only need to concentrate on one character, DM's usually have quite a few NPCs running around, and it took too long to flesh out their skills. I don't have an immense amount of time to do prep work for my campaign, so I had already began combining skills (hide and move silently into sneak), and had even begun to ignore skill ranks for NPCs when I DM'd. This dovetails into reason 2 ...

2) I found that I was so tired of looking up modifiers and DC's, that I was just throwing out the numbers based on the best of my judgement. This was standard operating procedure when I DM'd first edition games.

So I found C&C, which keeps the best of 3rd edition, and makes the changes I would like to simplify 3rd edition for me. I'll let you know how the first game goes.

 

[VorpalBunny]

I might as well wade in ...

This Saturday, my gaming group and I will begin playing a hybrid C&C/3.5. I'm keeping prestige classes, because I like the options (I converted the entry requirements, which mostly involved changing skill requirements to prime attribute and character level requirements). I'm also keeping feats, which I also spent some time modifying.

Interesting. One of the things that's really drawing me to C&C is the lack of PrCs. Maybe it's the old-school in me talking, but I've always felt that if I want to play a "deepwod sniper" or a "frenzied beserker" or some such I can accomplish 99% of my goal through developing a character background, role-playing and working with my GM.