How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Breakdaddy]

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.

It certainly doesnt read that way, but if that is what he meant, then it makes more sense.

 

[Mythmere1]

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.

That's a possibility if he said "Why DIDN'T TL decide to have a fighter class period..." or "Why did TL decide to have a fighter class AS WELL AS a ranger." Asking why TL "decided to have a fighter class period as opposed to a ranger" doesn't jibe with your interpretation, Henry. That word "period" in there indicates that he doesn't know there's a ranger in C&C - which might very well be based on reading only the basic set, in which case I've got no objection other than to correct it.

But it irks me when people read threads about rules, then make statements about those rules without having read them and without making it known that they haven't read them. I think it's fine to comment on rules "based on what I've heard," or "based on what people are saying in this thread," or whatever, but it annoys me otherwise, because there's a big difference to the reader. But I'm also the sort of person who reads footnotes to see where quotations come from, so maybe I'm more sensitive than the norm.

Anyway, I'm a bit off topic - sorry, everyone. And certainly Von Ether wasn't necessarily doing what I'm complaining about, assuming he's got the boxed set.

 

[gideon_thorne]

They're the only way to diffrentiate characters *mechanically* -- by definition.

Any system supports diffrentation by personality, but if there's no way to tie personality into mechanics, it tends to ring hollow. For example, if there's no mechanical support for the dodging/agile fighter type versus the lumbering tank type, then, the swashbuckler who chooses to forego heavy armour is simply tossing away AC -- or he says "I'm a dashing swashbuckler, I just happen to wear heavy plate and carry a two handed sword." If there's no "Ride" skills, then a city boy who never saw a horse rides as well as a Mongol trained from birth to the saddle, provided they have the same Dexterity (or whatever 'ride' is based on). Further, there's no way to improve in a specific area, to show character evolution and change -- such as the city boy learning to ride a horse.

Course there is. If said character wouldnt logically know how to ride a horse he can stumble along and try it at a penalty assigned by the CK. Thats what the 12/18 mechanic already covers. There does not need to be a refined skill system in the game when the seige mechanic and common sense already covers it.

C&C is a baseline game system. Its primarily designed as a framework for those who like to come up with their own answers. Not everything is covered, deliberately.

I have come up with a method to improve in a specific area for the C&C system, that uses the seige engine with only one slight modification (and various ideas on how to do this will be covered in the CKG. So the info will be there, just not covered in the baseline game) If a player feels that his character ought to advance just in one area quicker its easy to simply make a note on the character sheet stating one ability has advanced at the cost of another. Say at a given level the thief wants to advance pick pockets at a +2 instead of the normal +1. Fine, his Open Locks, lets say, advances at a +0 that level. Nice and simple. ANd keeps the advancement progression consistent.

 

[gideon_thorne]

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.

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.

Ah hah.! See? This is a good point. "its a matter of taste." Indeed. C&C is built at what we felt was a minimum baseline so people could easily add what suited their taste. Not that the base line game cant function quite efficiently on its own un modified. Ones personal taste will determine how complex the system eventually gets.

What might help, is to consider C&C a framework for those who like to tinker with rules. More suggestions on how to tinker will show up in the CKG. But the point being, a lot is being left up to how a group individually styles their games.

We're not trying to say 'our way is better.' We're giving everyone a common base to start from and enabling the gamer to expand in the directions they want to go.

 

[bolie]

Classes

So why have Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Knight (four combat classes), and only Wizards for Arcane spell casting? There are only two divine casters (Druid and Cleric) and only one stealthy class (Rogue).

Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes. Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not. By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period. The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth.

Saying that a house rule lets you do x or y isn't really addressing the problem. You can house rule 3e, too. The issue of "breaking" the system is only relevant to game designers and authors. A given group of players with a DM can do whatever they want and a DM can disallow obvious abuse on the spot. A reasonable player will understand. Unreasonable players are unreasonable regardless of the system you are using.

The main advantage of C&C is that it has fewer rules to remember so the game can go more quickly. 3e does have more rules and more options. This is by design. Therefore, you can have more varied characters and monsters in 3e. Which you prefer is up to you.

Overall, I prefer 3e style play to C&C style. This is not an inherent problem with C&C, though, it's just my opinion.

Seperate from play-stile preferences, I do have some complaints about C&C. The major one is the lack of monster stats. I also have some things I really like about C&C, like the way saving throws and turning undead are handled.

Bolie IV

 

[Breakdaddy]

So why have Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Knight (four combat classes), and only Wizards for Arcane spell casting? There are only two divine casters (Druid and Cleric) and only one stealthy class (Rogue).

This is another case where fact checking would go a long way. Illusionists are a separate arcane class from wizards, and the other stealthy class is assassin.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes. Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not. By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period. The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth.

How is a fighter in 3.5e not giving up AC just because he has 10 ranks in tumble? I fail to see a difference here. There are a few feats that help in this regard (slightly) but what you are saying has zero bearing on the differences between 3.5 and C&C. C&C uses dex prime, D&D uses tumble (or name a billion other skills here), the end result is the same.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes. Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not. By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period. The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth

Granted, the depth isn't there in the mechanic. BUT the depth is there if the player chooses to elaborate on the rp aspect of the character.

As for making a swashbuckler. This is simple. Simply make Dex and Cha the other two primes of a human style fighter character. The dex bonus could be houseruled to give an extra bonus to the speed of the sword swing.

And/or... the fighter could use the characters Dex as the base AC and as a sacrefice for the armour the characters ac could go up at various levels.

These sort of things are easy to note down. And demonstrate the inherent flexability of the system.

 

[cleaverthepit]

Quick not before I run off togame

Swashbuckler vs Fighter

Apply the Enc rules and everyone may become a swashbuckler type Morelater this evening because this is a great topic.

davis

 

[bolie]

This is another case where fact checking would go a long way. Illusionists are a separate arcane class from wizards, and the other stealthy class is assassin.

Doh! I'm sorry.

But that still begs the question of why Illusionists and not Enchanters or Summoners?

And why Paladins, Knights and Rangers and no Archers or Fencers?

I am not actually expecting answers to these questions. I just am noting that by having no Prestige Classes, Feats, or Skills, C&C has a rather limited and arbitrary number of archetypes available for characters. These have significant gaps if you are using heroic fantasy as your template.

Bolie IV