Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 2391918" data-attributes="member: 945">For the record, I'm currently playing in a C&C game. My GM is Scadgrad, and he has turned what would otherwise be a pile of crap (IMNSHO) into a really playable, fun, fast-paced game.Let's consider C&C RAW -- boiler plate classes, little to no customization from a mechanical standpoint- no feats- no skills- horrible layout, tons of typos- no rules for miniatures (that I am aware of)At face value, C&C is an awful game, especially coming from the flexibility of 3rd edition.3e RAW -- feats and skills- prestige classes (not that I care much about these)- suffers from some "boiler-plate" issues, like racial abilities, class abilities (let's face it, it's no GURPS or HERO)- rules for miniatures- great production values, TONS of supportScadgrad has taken what I would consider to be a nearly unplayable game into something great.  How?  He added back in feats, some basic miniatures rules, and some basic criticals rules. There are still a few things he and I disagree on, like weapon damage, for starters, but that's a minor thing.  (In C&C, the only differentiator between weapons is damage, and how many hands it takes to wield).In short, I would hate playing C&C as written. From a player's standpoint, it's very restrictive - no customization (see my thread a while back about trying to make a dex-based fighters with C&C rules). The lack of miniatures play devolves into "Where am I? Can I get there? Where is the creature at? How many can I get with my fireball?" kinds of discussions, which I suffered through in 2nd edition.That said, the major benefit of C&C, as written, is the simplicity of the stat block. It utilizes a more 1st edition/2nd edition style stat block. Something more or less like:skeletons (3): AL: NE; Init: +1; AC: 15; HP 6; notes: half damage from non-bludgeoning weaponsthat's basically it.[code]Compare that to a 3rd edition skeleton stat block:     Medium Undead Hit Dice:     1d12 (6 hp) Initiative:     +5 Speed:     30 ft. (6 squares) Armor Class:     15 (+1 Dex, +2 natural, +2 heavy steel shield), touch 11, flat-footed 14Base Attack/Grapple:    +0/+1Attack:    Scimitar +1 melee (1d6+1/18–20) or claw +1 melee (1d4+1)Full Attack:    Scimitar +1 melee (1d6+1/18–20) or 2 claws +1 melee (1d4+1)Space/Reach:    5 ft./5 ft.Special Attacks: —    —Special Qualities:    Damage reduction 5/bludgeoning, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to cold, undead traitsSaves:    Fort +0, Ref +1, Will +2Abilities: Str 13, Dex 13, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1    Str 13, Dex 17, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1Feats:    Improved InitiativeEnvironment:    Temperate plainsOrganization:    AnyChallenge Rating:    1/3Treasure:    NoneAlignment:    Always neutral evilAdvancement:    —Level Adjustment:    —[/code](as a side note, since when are skeletons only found in temperate plains?!?!)wow, what a difference. The game play in the middle of the game is not any different, nor should it be. People still role-play, they still roll dice, they still eat cheesy poops and drink Mountain Dew.The lack of complexity in the stat block greatly simplifies the work of the GM, and detracts very little from actual game play, freeing up the GM to do more things with his time, rather than tweaking a creatures feats, or whatnot. The idea of scaling a creature to be more powerful by adding levels has always been there - it's called adding more hit points! Looking at it a different way, if you take the concept of the game itself - applying rules to simulate real-world (albeit fantastical) situations.The number of those situations is infinite. So, is it better to try to cover as many of them as possible, or just admit right up front "hey, this is impossible, so I'm just going to cover the bases". I think the latter.I don't think C&C is perfect - far from it. I think there's a happy middle ground. I think the game we have currently is damn nearly there.I've rambled on enough.</blockquote>

Verification