power level of C&C versus D&D 3rd edition?

[Geoffrey]

While I am familiar with Castles & Crusades, I am not familliar with D&D third edition.

How do player characters of the two games compare? Is a 5th-level C&C fighter about as tough as a 5th-level D&D fighter? What about 10th level? 20th? Wizards? Rogues? Clerics? Etc.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

While I am familiar with Castles & Crusades, I am not familliar with D&D third edition.

How do player characters of the two games compare? Is a 5th-level C&C fighter about as tough as a 5th-level D&D fighter? What about 10th level? 20th? Wizards? Rogues? Clerics? Etc.

I'd say that they're pretty close at low-levels, but the 3E power-curve goes up much faster than the C&C power-curve, so the higher the level, the larger the disparity.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'd say that they're pretty close at low-levels, but the 3E power-curve goes up much faster than the C&C power-curve, so the higher the level, the larger the disparity.

Actually, I think that D&D characters are generally more competent from the start. While my experience with C&C was admittedly limited to a five month campaign, one thing that came up time and time again was that if a character was not performing an action associated with a Prime, success was rare.

 

[Melan]

In absolute power, 3e PCs surpass their C&C companions by far. In relative power (vs. monsters in the monster book), this is not the case... a party of four 5th level C&C characters can take on a horde of humanoids and expect to win; this is not so in 3.0 based on my experience. By 9th-10th level, C&C PCs can go up against anything a regular fantasy world could have - 3e's power curve tops out around 15th to 20th before going into the "epic" sphere.

 

[Treebore]

Actually, I think that D&D characters are generally more competent from the start. While my experience with C&C was admittedly limited to a five month campaign, one thing that came up time and time again was that if a character was not performing an action associated with a Prime, success was rare.

Thats good, since Prime versus non-Prime is supposed to work that way. It could also have been (depending on your PC levels) that the CK kept putting unreasonable CL's onto the needed target numbers.

As for generally more competent, again it depends on what the CK is willing to allow to happen. Since I have the "anything can be attempted" attitude as a CK my players are actually more competent, because they can try anything. Attempts based off of Prime are obviously going to succeed more often, but at least you aren't restricted to a list of feat and skills being the only thing you can even attempt to do.

Take all DEX based skills from 3E, in C&C if you have DEX as a Prime you have an excellent chance of being successful attempting any of them, not to mention all saves versus fireballs, breath weapons, etc...

CHA will allow you to be more successful in "role play" situations, such as Diplomacy, Initimidating, etc.... Plus your saves versus mind control (Charms, hold persons) and fear effects, and death effects.


Now as far as actual "power", 3E can be more powerful, unless your like me and allow actions based on 3E feats, or anything you can imagine, and I can agree is doable. Then the power level is pretty much on par with each other.

So it boils down to what a CK is willing to allow to happen with the SIEGE rules.

If they are like me, and have DMed many systems, I would hope they are more likely to allow a broader range of things to be attempted by their players.

So in my view, the relative power scale of the two systems is determined by the CK's comfort zone. IE what they allow to happen.

 

[S'mon]

C&C numbers are lower; tasks are a bit harder, but C&C PCs are much more powerful vs the monsters, especially at mid to high levels. C&C monsters do much less damage and C&C PCs, like 1e, will rarely be killed in melee with monsters after the first few levels.

 

[S'mon]

How do player characters of the two games compare? Is a 5th-level C&C fighter about as tough as a 5th-level D&D fighter? What about 10th level? 20th? Wizards? Rogues? Clerics? Etc.

A C&C F5 can beat a small group of C&C ogres (hd 4, dam 1d10), a 3e F5 can beat one 3e ogre, maybe two if he's lucky. An F10 can beat a group of hill giants, where 3e F10 would struggle with 1 hill giant. Per the RAW though a C&C F20 isn't much better than F10 (more hit points and better BTH), whereas 3e F20 gets 4 attacks/round, can power attack for lots of damage, etc.

C&C Wizards are a bit more powerful as their spells are harder to save againt.
C&C Clerics aren't as good in melee as 3e, and have mostly less powerful spells.
C&C Rogues level up faster relatively than 3e Rogues, but 3e have a better attack bonus and more special abilities like Evasion.

 

[Melan]

C&C numbers are lower; tasks are a bit harder, but C&C PCs are much more powerful vs the monsters, especially at mid to high levels. C&C monsters do much less damage and C&C PCs, like 1e, will rarely be killed in melee with monsters after the first few levels.

Yup, you phrased it much better than I did. I ran a 5th level party against an army of 80 gnolls fortified in a dungeon, and the creatures were forced into abandoning their lair in only two forays with two PC casualties (both killed by lucky javelineers). They didn't even have fireballs or lightning bolts (although they had a 3e-style flaming sphere).

In fact, if they have magic weapons, a similarly powerful party can even bring down a demon or a mid-range dragon (although the latter's a bit of a gamble due to breath weapons).

 

[Dragonhelm]

Another thing to take into account is that at higher levels, classes in 3e gain multiple attacks. In C&C, not too many classes gain another attack.

 

[jdrakeh]

Thats good, since Prime versus non-Prime is supposed to work that way. It could also have been (depending on your PC levels) that the CK kept putting unreasonable CL's onto the needed target numbers.

I was the CK. And I didn't use CLs at all. Using CLs at low levels, didn't make success rare -- it made it almost impossible. Without a CL and an associated Prime, a PC has a roughly 15% chance to succeed at an action (i.e., rolling an 18 or better). That came up quite often for us, in a really unfun, way.

Conversely, a Level 1 character has roughly 25% chance to succeed at a task when an associated Prime is involved, which created another whole set of problems for my group. Basically, all non-class dependent stats becamed dump stats, and any action unrelated to a Prime was left unattempted at lower levels. And why not? This is the kind of play that the system rewards mechanically.

Part of me likes that (it keeps players from doing some stupid stuff) but part of me intensely disliked it as an adventure without risks and populated with mechanically one-dimensional characters isn't very much fun (or wasn't very much fun for our group).