Kickin' it Old-School - C&C Rocks

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

While C&C does use the d20 mechanic, I have a very hard time seeing how one could view it as 'd20 lite'. There are just too many things essential to d20 that C&C lacks (for good or ill) IMO. In particular:

(a.) No feats or skills. (Optional rules may be added later, but they are not part of the core.)

(b.) No easy multiclassing. (The collectors' editition does not include rules for multiclassing, but the full rules will resemble 1/2E AD&D more than the 'easy' multiclassing rules of 3E.) Consequenty no 'prestige classes'.

(c.) No 3E/d20 combat rules. (There are no AoOs, 5-foot steps, etc. in C&C. In short, it lacks completely the 'tactical combat system' of d20.)

(d.) Lower overall power level. (Both characters and monsters tend to be somewhat weaker at any given level than their 3E equivalents. The power level in C&C resembles pre-3E D&D. Characters do not gain HD indefinitely. Unlike d20, power gain per level diminishes after a certain point.)

(e.) All kinds of 'details'. (There are a number of minor things -- e.g. circumstance modifiers, etc. -- that are different.)

I see C&C as an attempt to revise the 'essentials' of OAD&D or RC D&D by means of the d20 mechanic. Someone looking to C&C for a 'rules lite' version of d20 will be sorely disappointed IMO.

Sounds like d20-lite to me. Which is proof that its just a matter of opinion. I can't wait to get my hands on this, though. Just need to get some money first...

 

[J_A_Garlock]

Sounds like d20-lite to me. Which is proof that its just a matter of opinion. I can't wait to get my hands on this, though. Just need to get some money first...

I agree. I think that it's the "D20" thing that's doing it if you know what I mean.

 

[Akrasia]

Sounds like d20-lite to me. Which is proof that its just a matter of opinion. I can't wait to get my hands on this, though. Just need to get some money first...

Fair enough, I guess.

However, IMO, a 'lite' version of a game should be fully, or almost fully, compatible with the 'full' version. That is, you should be able to 'upgrade' a campaign using the 'lite' rules to the 'full' rules with little or no work.

E.g. GURPS lite is fully compatible with GURPS; Sidekick is fully compatible with HERO; Cinematic Unisystem is (almost) fully compatible with normal Unisystem; etc.

At best, I'd say that C&C is "70 percent" compatible with d20.

But if M&M can be considered a "d20" game, then I suppose so can C&C. (And OAD&D, for that matter...)

 

[Erekose]

Originally Posted by Akrasia
This is simply incorrect. The four main classes in C&C are not broad enough to 'cover all the archetypes'. If they were, why would nine additional classes be included in the full PHB?

I bow to your superior knowledge of the full system . . . although this does show that the game is a version of AD&D rather than OD&D. I had presumed that, like the original, it was a simple four class system

I think this will be my final post on this topic but I feel compelled to clear any misunderstanding that my previous posts may have caused.

I'm not saying that C&C is a bad system - in fact it looks quite good and I will be getting the full system when it's published.

What I am saying (trying to say? badly?) is that it didn't meet my expectations. I guess I was hoping for a simplified version of 3.5E, i.e. still with some options (i.e. feats, skills, etc.) but very streamlined. [I can't articulate the exact system I was expecting because if I could I'd probably be a game designer rather than a player.] What C&C actually feels like is probably what you describe - something that is based on the core d20 resolution system but little else . . . (i.e. the ability modifiers/saving throws/weapons/etc. all have their roots in earlier editions rather than the current one).

 

[fuindordm]

Yes C&C does indeed rock!
(Imagine: a ranger without spells; a paladin without spells; a real 'skald-like' bard without spells. A system that recognizes that, gee, maybe the majority of adventuring classes should, you know, not have spells. At last.)

Lemme hear you say amen!

AMEN!

 

[Dragonhelm]

I picked up the C&C boxed set recently (autographed!), and was very pleased with it. It seemed to combine some of my favorite elements from AD&D and D&D 3e. Very nicely done.

My main issue of concern is compatability. Could I utilize feats and prestige classes from D&D with minimal tweaking? Likewise, would there be material from C&C that I could import into a D&D game?

Now, if I'm lucky, hopefully my better half will get me the C&C player's book for Christmas.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

At best, I'd say that C&C is "70 percent" compatible with d20.

Sooo...70% isn't lite compared to 100%? I do see your point, though, just being snide this morning.

 

[Treebore]

I would like to know how C&C could possibly meet a d20 lite criteria without staying d20? Feats are dropped? So? How hard could it possibly be to just say that players can select them based on whatever criteria?

AoO, 5' step, etc.... aren't there? What will be so hard to use them if you want to?

C&C meets my definition of d20 lite, it gets rid of the elements that have caused so many arguments and overpowered characters and overly complex combat and allows the DM to DM and the players to play. If there are d20/3E rules that I like C&C definitely alllows me to add them.

It also appears to me that the system will stand on its own and let me decide how to adjudicate situations not covered by the rules. Plus it obviously allows me to import anything I want to use from 3e. Looks like a win/win situation to me. Of course I am an "old school" DM who doesn't like rules that tell me how everything "must" be done. So I am happy to go to a system that gives me solid guidelines and allows the decisions to be made as I see fit.

Yes, this will lead to a lot of house rules for each C&C campaign, but it will be no worse than what I have seen for 3E.

So I am very eager to see if C&C delivers what I am looking for in a game system. It sure sounds like it will.

 

[MonsterMash]

My brother has a copy of the boxed set and I really want to play it now. Get back to where we started from with three rulebooks in a box.

 

[Akrasia]

... My main issue of concern is compatability. Could I utilize feats and prestige classes from D&D with minimal tweaking?
...

Regarding Prestige Classes:

Adding prestige classes might be tough. C&C does not use the 3E D&D system of multiclassing -- instead, it is more similar to the 1/2E version. Switching classes is thus not as easy as it is in 3E.

I think it can be done (e.g. the 1E Bard class was very much like a prestige class; the fighter in RC D&D could become a knight, paladin, or avenger at level 9, and the cleric could become a druid). But it would probably have to be implemented in a non-3E way. For example, characters could either 'dual class' into the prestige class (as per the 1E Bard), or perhaps they could choose a 'sub class' at a certain level (as per the RC fighter and cleric classes at a certain level). The latter option seems more viable and balanced IMO.

Regarding Feats & Skills:

There is no 'feat system' in C&C, though I suppose you could add one if you wanted. (You would need to be careful to make sure that the feat system benefits all characters equally, as they are already 'balanced' in the core rules. Hence fighters should not get more feats than other characters, as feats are not necessary to make the fighter 'equal' to other classes.)

Alternatively, you can let players 'fine-tune' their characters by 'trading' a class ability for an equivalent feat. This would require a judgment call on your part, but I don't think it would be unbalancing, say, to let fighters 'trade' their 'combat dominance' ability for 'two weapon fighting'. The same thing could be done with some class abilities and skills. For example, if you wanted to play an 'acrobatic' kind of thief, you could substitute the rogue's 'pick pocket' ability for the 'balance' and 'tumble' skills.

An optional skills system will be available at some point (IIRC). However, adding one should be relatively easy, so long as it benefits all classes equally. (Again, all classes are already 'balanced', so a rogue does not need more skill points in order to be 'equal' to other classes.) Something along the lines of the RC skill system would work well IMO.

Alternatively, you could use the 3E skills, after removing all the skills that correspond to specific 'class abilities' (disarm traps, etc.). The remaining skills could be chosen by all classes. Giving them 2+Int bonus "skill points" to allocate each level would work fine, I think.