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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1875405" data-attributes="member: 23012">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.Fair enough (though you may want to wait until the full rules are released before making a final judgement).I would like to point out, though, that many longtime fans of OAD&D (people who have enjoyed that game since the 70's) contributed heavily to C&C, and maintain that it does have a very strong "old school" character.  Moreover, the system is apparently close enough to OD&D for Gary Gygax to agree to produce his original campaign setting -- Castle Greyhawk (renamed "Castle Zagyg" for copyright reasons) -- for C&C.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?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> The complete list of classes will include: fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, knight, rogue, assassin, bard, monk, wizard, illusionist, cleric, and druid.As for converting various (nonstandard) 3E classes to C&C, I think that might be possible (depending on what you want from the class), but will say more about that at another time.</blockquote>

Verification