• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

Thunhus said:
Bad points:
-It's not Dungeons&Dragons (harder to get players)

Yes and no. It doesn't have the D&D name, so that'll be a strike against it.

Looking at the game, though, it is at its heart D&D. It takes from all editions of the game to create what is essentially a new "edition".

While not having the D&D logo on it will be a strike against it, having the very heart of D&D will be a bonus. I think that alone will bring in a few players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Henry said:
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.


Yeah, I was disappointed w/ the exclusion of multiclass rules too, but the Trolls assured us that it would appear very soon. There was just a considerable amount of disagreement over the best ruleset for multiclass and duel class characters. They should appear as a free pdf in the very near future and IIRC, they'll be featured in the CKG.

We're currently using the old playtest rules for the time being, but you could easily house rule your own. The game is meant to be houseruled after all.
 

scadgrad said:
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?"
I'd like to hear too. 3.x can be a min/maxers dream system.

But with prime attributes a high score isn't always better in C&C. If you look at pure modifier it seems that way but on closer examination it isn't necessarily going to be better if the stat isn't a prime stat.
 

Akrasia said:
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.
Viability is one thing. However, there are folks out there, yourself included (no offense) who seem to believe that C&C will take the world by storm. I'm just saying I find that incredibly unlikely.

Maybe that's only my personal preference, because I have little interest in, or need of, something like C&C. It seems like it's built primarily to cater to the nostalgia of gamers who didn't like the way 3e went with D&D. Seems to me like that's the constraint on the size of its market, to a large degree. Most D&D players seem to prefer 3e to any other previous edition, and many (myself included) wouldn't be playing D&D at all if it wasn't for 3e, as we had left the game entirely, frustrated with how badly designed it was.

Now, I know that C&C isn't just the nostalgia angle. Seems to me, though, that that's its main marketing schtick, and the majority of players who like it seem to be much more "old skool" in their preferences.
 

Henry said:
From another outside perspective (don't have the rules yet), this is ten times better than 1E and 2E. In fact, this is the progression from the Basic D&D (Holmes/Moldvay/Cook) sets. What it means is that bonuses are not common, but they are not rarefied, either. In 1E, bonuses required 15 and up; when the most powerful generation method until 1985 was 4d6 drop lowest, this meant that most characters didn't have a single plus unless the DM was just handing out high scores. (Like the Unearthed Arcana method seemed to do - its method was basically roll 9d6, 8d6, 7d6, etc. down the line, and arrange according to class. Why not just tell the player they had an 18,17,16,15,14,13, and just do what they wished?)

With C&C, ability scores are lower, I'm GUESSING that hit points are lower (don't know for sure), AC's are lower, pretty much all numbers across the board are slightly lower than their 3E counterparts. Lower means not as much need for high stats.

Yeah, even in my feat-enhanced campaign, HPs tend to be lower, even more so for the bad guys (monsters). ACs seem to be about the same, perhaps just slightly less because of the absence of PC-made magic armor and other goodies.

Both of these apply directly to the monsters as well. They don't have a con bonus and as such have significantly less HPs than in 3.X and since they typically have no bonus to damage (most do straight up damage dice w/ no bonus) you don't take quite as much damage.

But yes your assessment is pretty accurate. C&C just did away with a lot of the Power Creep that's been going on since the introduction of 2nd ed.
 

National Acrobat said:
...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.

Not quite so true. In a party of any characters up until 10th level and using geometric experience tables, the two-classed multi-classer will only be one to two levels behind, and this means that they will have access to all but the highest powers of the single-classers. It's only at high levels that the evened-out xp charts make the level progression fall steadily behind. In a party of 9th level pc's (the max for 70% of the D&D campaigns out there), the multi-classers will be 7th to 9th. In a group of 6th level PC's, they'll be about 5th level.

The arithmetic tables of 3E would actually be a better fit in this regard, because the level gap gets larger quicker.

Now, if the multi-class system is somewhat different from 1E ("best of this, best of that, average of the other") I'll be happier, but the 3E system as is well known would tend to shaft the spell-casters.
 


I'll be living in the Richmond, VA area myself in a few months. ;)

As for multiclassing rules the following are my house rules. They're based on the last playtest version of C&C but I tinkered with them to fix certain problems and came up with something that more matches my playstyle. My group isn't seeing multiclass characters becoming more powerful than single class characters. In fact, many people are staying away from multiclass characters because you have to add your xp charts together before you advance in anything (a balancing change from the 1e/2e system). And dual-class characters are limited to only two classes (as are true-multiclass characters) so that keeps people from taking a few levels in each class (dual-class in my version represents more of a life change). Anyway, here you go:

Multiclassing: Two types of multiclassing are possible; true multiclassing and dual-classing.

When a player wishes to have a true multiclass character he must abide by the following restrictions:

1- No more than two classes may be taken.

2- To advance a level the character must earn enough experience points to advance in both classes at the same time. For example, a 1st level fighter/rogue would require 3252 experience points to advance to a 2nd level fighter/rogue.

3- The character must take the prime from both of his classes. For example a fighter/rogue must have both strength and dexterity as prime attributes. Human characters may still choose their third attribute as they wish.

4- The character uses the best bonus to hit chart available to him. A 2nd level fighter/rogue would use the fighter's +2 bonus to hit.

5- The character averages his hit points by rolling for both classes, dividing each result in half (rounding fractions up), and then adding the two together. Any constitution modifer the character may have is applied to the final total. For example a fighter/rogue rolls 1d10 and gets a result of 8 for his fighter class. The player also rolls 1d6 for his rogue class and gets a 4. Both results are divided in half and then added together for a total of 6. If the character has a constitution of 16 (+2 modifier) the final total would become 8 hit points.

6- The character may use any armor and weapons available to both of his classes (though they still suffer class related penalties if wearing armor not permitted to both classes) unless one class is restricted in the use of either due to spiritual or honorable reasons, such as the cleric, druid, and knight classes. In such a case the character must still abide by these restrictions or risk breaking his spiritual or honorable vows.

7- The character gains all other benefits and penalties of both classes such as a fighter's extra attack and a wizard's inability to wear armor while casting spells.

When a player wishes to have a dual-class character he must abide by the following restrictions:

1- No more than two classes may be taken.

2- The character must advance to at least 2nd level in his first class before switching to his second class.

3- The character's second class must be one for which he already has a prime attribute.

4- If all of the above criteria are met then the character may abandon his first class and begin to gain experience points in his second class. He may not, however, return to his original class at a later date since such class changes usually stem from life altering events.

5- The character uses the best bonus to hit chart available to him. A 2nd level fighter who begins to advance as a druid would continue to use the fighter's +2 bonus to hit until he became a 6th level druid, at which point he would begin to use the druid's +3 bonus to hit.

6- The character may use any armor and weapons available to both of his classes (though they still suffer class related penalties if wearing armor not permitted to both classes) unless one class is restricted in the use of either due to spiritual or honorable reasons, such as the cleric, druid, and knight classes. In such a case the character must still abide by these restrictions or risk breaking his spiritual or honorable vows.

7- The character gains all other benefits and penalties of both classes such as a fighter's extra attack and a wizard's inability to wear armor while casting spells.

8- The character adds his hit dice from both classes together but may still never have more than ten total hit dice. A 2nd level fighter/6th level druid, for example, would have 2d10 hit dice from his fighter class as well as the 6d8 from his druid class. Once the character reaches a total of ten levels (2nd level fighter/8th level druid) he would begin to gain hit points according to his current class upon attaining the next level of experience.

If you like them, tell the Trolls, maybe they'll go in the CKG. ;)
 

For what it is worth, since C&C's ease of introducing house rules is one of its strengths, here is my house rule:

Races with ability adjustments don't adjust the ability: they adjust the ability modifier. Thus a gnome with an INt of 13 with a +1 to Int doesn't get a 14 int, but gets a 13 int with a +2 modifier instead of the standard +1. This was my effort to stop people "cheesing out" with their bonuses and penalties by trying to find ways to gain a bonus an "lose" a penalty in the shuffle, like taking one 12 to 13 (getting a bonus) and another 11 to 10 (losing nothing, pretty much).

In addition, I say that all challenge levels start at 18 (rather than either 12 or 18). Primes give certain stats a +6 bonus to their modifiers for most non-combat actions (so a human with 13 str that is prime would have a modifier of +1/+7, where the former is used in meelee to hit and damage, and a few other things I don't remember right now, and the latter is used for most other things (attribute rolls, str. saves, etc.). Mechanically that is the same, but it is more intuitive to me, somehow.

By the way, the encumbrance rules are interesting, but I don't get how strength and pure weight of items works. I saw that you can military press X, or dead lift Y, where X and Y are based on strength, but is there a list for the maximum that you can simply carry around? Or is that all subsumed in encumbrance?
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top