-
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?
- Thread starter Mythmere1
- Start date
Breakdaddy
First Post
Henry said:*PSST* - count the number of posts per page.
P-kitty changed the default from 20 to 40.
dun dun dunnNNnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!
Breakdaddy
First Post
Another thing I've recently decided is that the C&C Turn Undead rules are much better than the 3.5e rules. I have already house ruled my 3.5e Turn Undead rules to reflect the C&C rules. Clerics and Paladins will automatically have WIS as primes and will use the C&C Turn Undead rules exclusively. I have seen the word elegant used to describe certain rulesets here. Some people feel that C&C is elegant and some feel it is inelegant. Personally, my military background rails against the usage of this term in regards to rulesets. I prefer to think in terms of which portions of rulesets are serviceable and which are in need of overhaul. However, for my money, not many rules are as INelegant as the 3.5e Turn Undead rules.
Last edited:
It's a matter of degrees. Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well.gideon_thorne said:See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?
Seriously? I'm not trying to be difficult here, its an honest question.
It's also a matter of taste. I personally prefer ways to tweak the fighter class, but I'm not a fan of seperate XP tables. As a GM, that means levels are sort irrelevent since I now have to deal with XP totals. It's nice to know that an 4th level fighter is equivlent to a 4th level paladin. Now it may be equivlient to two and a half levels of paladin. Not my cup of tea.
You know the biggest irony of discussions about "edition" wars and C&C is that a LOT of discussion mirrors the old arguements of why people liked/disliked DnD compared to other games. i.e. It's highly amusing when the guy who used to defend the level mechanic of older editions suddenly asks, "Why don't we have 20th level fighters everywhere after a few years of war?" He had answered his own question years ago when he was trying sell leveling over a point-buy xp advancement
Breakdaddy
First Post
Von Ether said:
Rangers exist in the C&C game. C&C PHB p. 11.
I haven't seen a single negative review from anyone who actually *has* a copy of the game and has read it.
If you have or haven't looked at the game, mention it - with people posting mistaken statements like "there are no rangers," it's useful to know when that's a conjecture and when it's based on line-of-sight with a rulebook.
One possibility - the digest boxed set only had a few of the classes. Maybe that's what was going on there. I haven't got a boxed set, but maybe there weren't rangers.
If you have or haven't looked at the game, mention it - with people posting mistaken statements like "there are no rangers," it's useful to know when that's a conjecture and when it's based on line-of-sight with a rulebook.
One possibility - the digest boxed set only had a few of the classes. Maybe that's what was going on there. I haven't got a boxed set, but maybe there weren't rangers.
Breakdaddy
First Post
Mythmere1 said:
Good point. From what I understand, only Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric are part of the boxed set. Of course, the boxed set was always touted as a basic set comparable to the old Basic D&D Moldvay boxed set, as opposed to the full hardback set which are more akin to AD&D.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Actually, it seems that Von Ether wasn't saying there were no Rangers in C&C; he was saying (from what I read) that game mechanics determining flavor was a matter of degrees depending on designer. ("Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well" - meaning the Trolls decided as did Gary Gygax that ranger was sufficiently different from fighter as to need a mechanical means of differentiating them.) In other words, some stop at broad archetypes, others stop at specifics such as feats or skills.
Similar Threads
