More Castles & Crusades details

[Remathilis]

I dunno. I love old basic/cyclopedia D&D, but it just seems to be the wheel reinventing itself.

Ability Score Mods: I actually like these, it's not as steep as the current system.

Saves: I'll wager as guess as to what types of saves you use each score for...

Str: Restraining/Hold spells (Hold Person)
Dex: Dodgible/Reflex (Fireball, Dragon Breath)
Con: Poison
Int: Illusions
Wis: Most Everything else
Cha: Mind Control/Psionics

Classes: What is the diff between a fighter and knight? Otherwise, they look like the current crop of D&D classes

1 Action Thing: I think its implied you can "move your movement and do one action" an "action" includes make an attack, cast a spell, drink a potion, or move again.

Skills/Feats: BOOO! Feats I can live without, but no meaningful skill system? Even Basic/Cyclopedia rules had rules for that. Welcome back to the "optional skill system" method.

At least Thac0 is gone. If it was included, I'd just bust out my Cyclopedia and start gaming.

 

[MerricB]

One attitude that seems to be much more prevalent with d20 gamers, if it isn't d20 they don't want to know about it or check it out. What happened to all of us who play several different systems?

That attitude has always been around, Treebore, and it's no more prevalent with d20 gamers than with other gamers. There are just more d20 gamers, so you hear it more.

Cheers!

 

[jmucchiello]

Classes: What is the diff between a fighter and knight? Otherwise, they look like the current crop of D&D classes

(Scratches head, looks at NDA, looks at two classes, pauses)

Flavor

 

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

I can't say this enough:

C&C is not "3.5e Lite", nor is it "Return of the D&D Basic Set", or even "1e Stealth Revision" - it takes the best from all three of these concepts (and more) and builds a truly new game aimed at enjoyment, ease-of-play and ye olde-tyme feel.

I wish I was as liberty to give details, but IMO C&C does the nigh-impossible job of being maximally backward-compatible with AD&D, while having clean, clear, modern mechanics carefully extracted from the SRD, with acres of complexity discarded.

I am oathbound not tell you all why the C&C Ranger rules the universe...dang.

 

[Geoff Watson]

rules-lite 1st Edition

How was 1st edition rules lite?

It was very un-lite IIRC.

Geoff.

 

[VorpalBunny]

How was 1st edition rules lite?

It was very un-lite IIRC.

Geoff.

Sure, 1e wasn't as rules lite as say, a game like FUDGE, but IMO 1e was rules-lite insofar that there were no skills and feats, NPC/creature stat-blocks usually took up one or two lines in an adventure, and there was a lot more leeway given in the rules for the DM to do his own thing. Compare the thickness of the 1e PHB to the 3.5 PHB. Some parts of 1e were clumsy and counter-intuitive, but it's still a very simple system at its core.

 

[johnsemlak]

Sure, 1e wasn't as rules lite as say, a game like FUDGE, but IMO 1e was rules-lite insofar that there were no skills and feats, NPC/creature stat-blocks usually took up one or two lines in an adventure, and there was a lot more leeway given in the rules for the DM to do his own thing. Compare the thickness of the 1e PHB to the 3.5 PHB. Some parts of 1e were clumsy and counter-intuitive, but it's still a very simple system at its core.

It was also much easier and quicker to roll up characters, and much much much easier to create high-level characters in 1e; character advancement was a simpler issue.

 

[Melan]

How was 1st edition rules lite?

It was very un-lite IIRC.

Geoff.

Mechanically: definitely not (matrices are never rules lite in my book)
In the way most of us actually played it (without weapon vs. AC, etc.): yes. By the time I fully stat out a 5th level 3e PC, I could have a full party ready in 1e. Which isn't much of a difference as a player, but DMs don't have it that easy.

Now, C&C is simpler than both AD&D and 3e (not as simple as Basic, but it is almost there) - it combines simple mechanics with simple concepts. Skills aren't included in the basic game, but it is easy to put them back in. I would say that C&C is less integrated than 3e - removing and adding house rules doesn't mess that much with individual subsystems, whereas, for example, removing feats from 3e would seriously affect the Fighter.

I don't know whether people will like it or not - I sure hope so, as most of us playtesters do. But you have to keep in mind that this game was created for a gaming niche; those who like their games simple and old school. It may not be your cup of tea, and that is fine, too.

 

[Silver Moon]

Personally, I'm very much looking forward to playing Castle Zagyg! I think that Troll Lords should be commended to helping bring this product to market!

 

[Particle_Man]

Hmmm...the ability adjustment (+3 for 18) make me wonder what was done with racial ability adjustments. They could have been scrapped, a la Basic D&D, or left in (with the chance of min/maxing that could entail, as players take races that change their bonuses but not their penalties -- A Dex 15, Con 11 character could get cheese this way with a +2 Dex, -2 Con or +1 Dex, -1 Con if an elf), or perhaps "virtual" bonuses were put in, a la the Basic D&D halfling. Here, for instance, a character with 16 dex who was an elf would be treated as if it had a +3 bonus, instead of a +2 one, and a 3 dex elf woudl be treated as if it had a -2 penalty instead of a -3 one, but the ability score would not change).

This is all speculation on my part, as I have not seen the C&C rules. But since this means I have not signed any nda, I am free to speculate.

I would also assume that the ability to "charge attack" is still there, thus alleviating the "2 lines of warriors, both afraid to move" problem a bit. Although I suppose the same problem occurs if those 2 lines are sufficiently far from one another. But here I will put my faith in the playtesters.