FATDRAGONGAMES
First Post
And another great thing about C&C is the CRUSADER magazine. With the end of Dragon, it's a nice substitute with the feel of old Dragon magazines from 25+ years ago.SavageRobby said:
I'm thinking of going back to 2e!
- Thread starter shadow
- Start date
FATDRAGONGAMES
First Post
IMHO, C&C is really the natural evolution of the AD&D system to modern day standards. Not to mention Gary Gygax is releasing a lot of his stuff through Troll Lord for C&C now. Just one more reason to go with C&C.SavageRobby said:
Dragonhelm
Knight of Solamnia
Sounds to me like C&C is the thing for you. It's got a lot of the benefits of 3e while retaining the 2e feel and flavor. It's very easy to adapt to from AD&D, and only requires a little more work for 3e.
For the most part, you just have to adapt your AC and THAC0.
As I often mention, one of my favorite parts of C&C is that you can adapt any variety of subsystems to C&C. So if you like 3e's skills and 2e psionics, you can use both with C&C. Or you could use non-weapon proficiencies, or the Castle Zagyg secondary skill system. Or you could use an adaptation of 3e's psionics. However you want to go.
As for Dark Sun, I think in some ways C&C actually works better for Dark Sun. The problem with Dark Sun in 3e is that all the XP charts are the same, meaning that defilers advance as fast as preservers. So they have to have other "fixes." With C&C, you just need to adjust the XP charts and you're ready to go.
There is a bit of anti-3e bias from some board members, though. I recommend lurking first before posting.
Cool! I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!
Amen, brother!
(Actually, I like a combo of boxed sets and hardcover books. I miss some of the goodies that only a boxed set could provide.)
Now is the new Basic Set the same as their old boxed set?
For the most part, you just have to adapt your AC and THAC0.
As I often mention, one of my favorite parts of C&C is that you can adapt any variety of subsystems to C&C. So if you like 3e's skills and 2e psionics, you can use both with C&C. Or you could use non-weapon proficiencies, or the Castle Zagyg secondary skill system. Or you could use an adaptation of 3e's psionics. However you want to go.
As for Dark Sun, I think in some ways C&C actually works better for Dark Sun. The problem with Dark Sun in 3e is that all the XP charts are the same, meaning that defilers advance as fast as preservers. So they have to have other "fixes." With C&C, you just need to adjust the XP charts and you're ready to go.
Treebore said:If anything confuses you come visit us in the C&C forum. Its very friendly too. To the point that they don't hold my liking 3E against me!
There is a bit of anti-3e bias from some board members, though. I recommend lurking first before posting.
FATDRAGONGAMES said:
Cool! I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!
FATDRAGONGAMES said:
Amen, brother!
(Actually, I like a combo of boxed sets and hardcover books. I miss some of the goodies that only a boxed set could provide.)Now is the new Basic Set the same as their old boxed set?
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
I think late 2e products were often quite imaginative. Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Night Below, Tale of the Comet, A Paladin in Hell, Axe of the Dwarvish Lords...these and quite a few other products had some great ideas. While I could see C&C being used to adapt them to a d20/OGL baseline, I also think it wouldn't be too hard to convert them into 3.5, and would also be in keeping with late 2e's level of complexity. Late 2e products often contained material like proficiencies and variant classes and races which, in retrospect, seem to be forerunners of a number of such things that eventually ended up in 3e/3.5e.
FATDRAGONGAMES
First Post
Dragonhelm said:
No, that was more of a special edition set based on the original 3-book boxed set of D&D from 1974. Their basic Set is all new, comes with several rule books, a CK screen and much more. Here is the link:
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/8951.html
Chainsaw Mage
First Post
I thought you might find this interesting. It's a post from rec.games.frp.dnd from way back in 2003. When I read your thread title, I remembered reading this post.
*******
posted on rec.games.frp.dnd in October, 2003:
I CAME, I SAW...I WENT BACK
First of all, put away your flamethrowers. I'm not trolling, nor do I
intend to offend anyone's RPG sensibilities. But I've come to a
recent gaming epiphany, and I figure if we can discuss motion picture
lawsuits and halfling anal sex on this group, then surely
life-changing realizations are appropriate.
My epiphany is simply this: I'm leaving D&D 3/3.5 and taking up 2e in
its place.
This was not an easy decision and it certainly has nothing to do with
any perceptions I have of which system is "better". Let me go on the
record as saying that D&D 3.0 and 3.5 are superb games in every way.
But I've realized that they aren't for me, and as someone who first
played D&D Basic in 1980, I feel great comfort and relief in welcoming
2e as my RPG system standard.
Here's why:
1. I've realized that the 2e class restrictions make a certain amount
of sense. The thought of a multi-classed
Paladin/Sorcerer/Monk/Fighter is a bit silly, as does the idea of
Dwarven Wizards or Halfling Paladins. The notion that some class
concepts are simply alien to some races and the notion that some
combinations simply make no sense works for me. YMMV. ;-)
2. The more I've studied the 3/3.5 combat system the more troubled
I've been by the extent to which the system seems designed to
encourage the purchase of miniatures, which are conveniently now being
marketed by WotC. I'd hate to think that the design of game mechanics
was driven by marketing considerations but it seems to be the case.
And do we really need a hardcover "Miniatures Handbook"? I suppose I
want to get off the marketing bandwagon. It reminds me of the
contrast between Saturday morning cartoons when I was a kid and
cartoons were imaginative and creative with no product line attached
(Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show, sob, sniff) and nowadays, when cartoons
are essentially 30-minute toy commercials.
3. On the subject of the combat system, 3.0/3.5 seems heavily geared
to a level of detail that risks turning what should be a role-playing
game into a tactical combat game or, even worse, a board game ("My
paladin can move 30 feet and attack. That's six squares. 1,2,3,4,5,6.
There we go! Attack!"). The 2e combat system, with its 1-minute
rounds, encourages a greater degree of imagination and invention due
to its more abstract nature. This is obviously a personal preference,
and I realize many D&D'ers like the 3/3.5 combat system precisely
*because* of its level of tactical detail and wargame-like simulation.
4. Too many unnecessary rules. Studying the skill section of the
3/3.5 PHB one is bombarded with a dizzying array of DC's. Very little
is left to DM fiat. Again, many folks *prefer* 3/3.5 because of its
extensive rules for every conceivable situation. I've realized,
however, that I prefer 2e because it gives much more control to the DM
and the players (except for players who happen to be rules lawyers, of
course. .
5. The comment has been made before that 3/3.5 is like a video game
or, conversely, that it is like Magic: the Gathering. I've come to a
similar conclusion. The design of the game seems to encourage
powergaming, min/maxing. I remember the "Why be a ranger when you can
be a fighter?" or "Bards are wimps! Why play them?" threads. The
answer to those questions should be self-evident: "Some people like to
*role* play. *That* is the reason to pick one class over another."
But 3/3.5 doesn't seem to be about role-playing as much as about
designing and building a powerful character; which is precisely what
video game "RPGs" are about. Which is precisely what Magic: the
Gathering is about. Rather than call it a role-playing game, perhaps
WotC should call 3/3.5 a "Tactical Combat and Power Character Building
Game".
6. One reason I like 2e is the same reason many hate it: its varied
mechanics. I suppose the best analogy is to that lovable old car with
all its quirks and pings and knocks, the kind of car they "just don't
make anymore", the car that you can't bear to part with. Sure, I know
the d20 mechanic is slick and consistent. But it's a slickness that
reminds me of the automobiles of today: All form, all bubble-shaped,
all identical. Give me my inconsistent variable 2e mechanics, please!
I *like* rolling low on a d10 for initiative, then rolling high on a
d20 for attacks! Give me more. This is one thing that 2e has that
3/3.5 simply lacks: character. Personality.
7. The gaming community. 2ers are, for the most part, an older crowd,
more experienced with RPGs, less concerned with eagerly running down
to the store every month and plopping down their cash for the latest
product that WotC has told them to buy. 3/3.5 seems to attract
younger gamers and those who enjoy power gaming and, dare I say it,
munchkinism.
8. 3/3.5 suffers from what I call the "Factory Magic Syndrome". The
mystery of magic is gone, the elusiveness of magic items is a thing of
the past. Spell selection especially is far too mechanical. Instead
of the 2e, "Here you are, young apprentice, a spellbook with three
spells I have chosen for you, now [cough], go forth and [cough] avenge
my death..." We have the Wal*Mart approach: "For my 1st level Wizard,
I will choose the following spells..." Again, it seems geared to
character-building rather than role-playing.
9. A full-scale revision three years after 3.0? Sorry, I just can't go
along with it. Do any of you honestly believe 4.0 is far away? I
predict a full fourth edition will hit the shelves by 2006. And why
not? All the 3.5 loyalists will no doubt run out and buy it.
***
I know 2e is far from perfect. I know it has its warts. But I've
realized that I like those warts. It's that lovable old jacket that
your wife wants you to throw out. But damn it, it has more character
and personality than a hundred Wal*Mart ski jackets. And it keeps you
warm even better than they can. I suppose I'm getting off the WotC
marketing roller-coaster and settling back with the second version of
a game I grew up loving...and will love again.
Now get out there, all of you, and buy those collectible minis!
That's a good consumer! >;-)
Food Vat Worker
[citizen 3981032]
***direct flames to:
foodvatwor...@canoemail.com
YOUR HARD WORK WILL BE REWARDED.
*******
posted on rec.games.frp.dnd in October, 2003:
I CAME, I SAW...I WENT BACK
First of all, put away your flamethrowers. I'm not trolling, nor do I
intend to offend anyone's RPG sensibilities. But I've come to a
recent gaming epiphany, and I figure if we can discuss motion picture
lawsuits and halfling anal sex on this group, then surely
life-changing realizations are appropriate.
My epiphany is simply this: I'm leaving D&D 3/3.5 and taking up 2e in
its place.
This was not an easy decision and it certainly has nothing to do with
any perceptions I have of which system is "better". Let me go on the
record as saying that D&D 3.0 and 3.5 are superb games in every way.
But I've realized that they aren't for me, and as someone who first
played D&D Basic in 1980, I feel great comfort and relief in welcoming
2e as my RPG system standard.
Here's why:
1. I've realized that the 2e class restrictions make a certain amount
of sense. The thought of a multi-classed
Paladin/Sorcerer/Monk/Fighter is a bit silly, as does the idea of
Dwarven Wizards or Halfling Paladins. The notion that some class
concepts are simply alien to some races and the notion that some
combinations simply make no sense works for me. YMMV. ;-)
2. The more I've studied the 3/3.5 combat system the more troubled
I've been by the extent to which the system seems designed to
encourage the purchase of miniatures, which are conveniently now being
marketed by WotC. I'd hate to think that the design of game mechanics
was driven by marketing considerations but it seems to be the case.
And do we really need a hardcover "Miniatures Handbook"? I suppose I
want to get off the marketing bandwagon. It reminds me of the
contrast between Saturday morning cartoons when I was a kid and
cartoons were imaginative and creative with no product line attached
(Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show, sob, sniff) and nowadays, when cartoons
are essentially 30-minute toy commercials.
3. On the subject of the combat system, 3.0/3.5 seems heavily geared
to a level of detail that risks turning what should be a role-playing
game into a tactical combat game or, even worse, a board game ("My
paladin can move 30 feet and attack. That's six squares. 1,2,3,4,5,6.
There we go! Attack!"). The 2e combat system, with its 1-minute
rounds, encourages a greater degree of imagination and invention due
to its more abstract nature. This is obviously a personal preference,
and I realize many D&D'ers like the 3/3.5 combat system precisely
*because* of its level of tactical detail and wargame-like simulation.
4. Too many unnecessary rules. Studying the skill section of the
3/3.5 PHB one is bombarded with a dizzying array of DC's. Very little
is left to DM fiat. Again, many folks *prefer* 3/3.5 because of its
extensive rules for every conceivable situation. I've realized,
however, that I prefer 2e because it gives much more control to the DM
and the players (except for players who happen to be rules lawyers, of
course.
. 5. The comment has been made before that 3/3.5 is like a video game
or, conversely, that it is like Magic: the Gathering. I've come to a
similar conclusion. The design of the game seems to encourage
powergaming, min/maxing. I remember the "Why be a ranger when you can
be a fighter?" or "Bards are wimps! Why play them?" threads. The
answer to those questions should be self-evident: "Some people like to
*role* play. *That* is the reason to pick one class over another."
But 3/3.5 doesn't seem to be about role-playing as much as about
designing and building a powerful character; which is precisely what
video game "RPGs" are about. Which is precisely what Magic: the
Gathering is about. Rather than call it a role-playing game, perhaps
WotC should call 3/3.5 a "Tactical Combat and Power Character Building
Game".
6. One reason I like 2e is the same reason many hate it: its varied
mechanics. I suppose the best analogy is to that lovable old car with
all its quirks and pings and knocks, the kind of car they "just don't
make anymore", the car that you can't bear to part with. Sure, I know
the d20 mechanic is slick and consistent. But it's a slickness that
reminds me of the automobiles of today: All form, all bubble-shaped,
all identical. Give me my inconsistent variable 2e mechanics, please!
I *like* rolling low on a d10 for initiative, then rolling high on a
d20 for attacks! Give me more. This is one thing that 2e has that
3/3.5 simply lacks: character. Personality.
7. The gaming community. 2ers are, for the most part, an older crowd,
more experienced with RPGs, less concerned with eagerly running down
to the store every month and plopping down their cash for the latest
product that WotC has told them to buy. 3/3.5 seems to attract
younger gamers and those who enjoy power gaming and, dare I say it,
munchkinism.
8. 3/3.5 suffers from what I call the "Factory Magic Syndrome". The
mystery of magic is gone, the elusiveness of magic items is a thing of
the past. Spell selection especially is far too mechanical. Instead
of the 2e, "Here you are, young apprentice, a spellbook with three
spells I have chosen for you, now [cough], go forth and [cough] avenge
my death..." We have the Wal*Mart approach: "For my 1st level Wizard,
I will choose the following spells..." Again, it seems geared to
character-building rather than role-playing.
9. A full-scale revision three years after 3.0? Sorry, I just can't go
along with it. Do any of you honestly believe 4.0 is far away? I
predict a full fourth edition will hit the shelves by 2006. And why
not? All the 3.5 loyalists will no doubt run out and buy it.
***
I know 2e is far from perfect. I know it has its warts. But I've
realized that I like those warts. It's that lovable old jacket that
your wife wants you to throw out. But damn it, it has more character
and personality than a hundred Wal*Mart ski jackets. And it keeps you
warm even better than they can. I suppose I'm getting off the WotC
marketing roller-coaster and settling back with the second version of
a game I grew up loving...and will love again.
Now get out there, all of you, and buy those collectible minis!
That's a good consumer! >;-)
Food Vat Worker
[citizen 3981032]
***direct flames to:
foodvatwor...@canoemail.com
YOUR HARD WORK WILL BE REWARDED.
Akrasia
Procrastinator
jdrakeh said:
There are C&C classes for pretty much every AD&D class. In contrast, BFRP only has 4 classes. Yes there are differences between some C&C classes and their AD&D counterparts (e.g. C&C rangers and bards don't cast spells). But at least there are classes to work with!
shadow said:
My groups have never found conversion that difficult in practice. We've almost always choosen system & support separately.
I wouldn't let THAC0 & racial levels limits keep me from playing 2e, though.
The level limits take only a second to house-rule away. (& the DMG even has suggestions for replacing them if you think just eliminating them isn't enough.)
It isn't too hard to convert 2e from THAC0 to 3e style. Or just put a one-line table on each PC's character sheet with the target numbers they need for each AC.
Similar Threads
