Review of Castles & Crusades

[Treebore]

My copy finally arrived today (thank you stiggybaby!) After a quick read through I agree this is exactly what it claims to be, a stripped down game that you can modify to your tastes.

It is kind of wierd to go back to "simplified" character classes where your biggest differences will be your stat bonuses and racial advantages.

As for the initiative and spellcasting, seems straight forward to me. The only thing that threw me was that you actually are casting your spell from the beginning of the round and it actually completes/goes off on your initiative. Get hit by someone who goes before you the risk of losing your spell rests on your stat based save/check.

I also like the return to "basic" spell lists. IE the spells you really need. Want something else? Create it yourself (import it from "insert game here").

Now I will have to look at the downloads for the monsters and such to get a claerer picture of the game.

As it is I totally agree with the review by Mythmere so far.

 

[Ron]

Did I got right? There are no bestiary of any sort in the C&C PHB? I thought they were trying to produce a book comparable to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, which not only included a bestiary but also mass combat and domain rules, as well a short introduction to the Mystara setting.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No, it's more comparable to the staggered release of the three 1e core book back in the last 70's. For one I think thier claims of it being a complete RPG are invalid, it's as complete as the 3e PHB and that's not billed as a complete game.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Sounds interesting. But I don't think I'd like it.

What I really liked about 3e was the fact that two characters could have the same class and ability scores and still be very different from each other via skills and feats. I never liked PCs of the same class and similar ability scores being clones more or less.

I know someone is going to say 'they're different because of how the players roleplay their characters' but I'd like a bit more than just personality differences. And someone else is going to say 'you could house rule in feats and skills and etc.' but if do that then I might as well just play regular d&d 3e.

What can I say? I like character customization.

 

[The_Universe]

Get's the big ol' "meh" from me.

Glad you guys and gals that own it are digging it, though!

Based on what I have seen and heard, it pretty much just trades one kind of complexity for another, and one kind of awkwardness for another.

Perfection remains outside our grasp...

 

[Mythmere1]

Both bolie and JRRNeiklot are right, because character tailoring exists in C&C, but much less so than in 3E.

A ranged weapon fighter will have weapon specialization for a bow, where a melee fighter has his bonus in a melee weapon. There is the DEX/STR bonus, which the two fighters will allocate differently. When you use the encumbrance rules, only a very strong fighter has an advantage for using heavy armor. It makes sense at some point for a fighter to stack his dex rather than his str and use light armor under these rules. However, he will be pushed into a ranged role b/c there is no mechanism for using dex in melee (no weapon finesse feat). Thus, there's a good split between a ranged fighter and a melee fighter, but no good way of making a swashbuckler who can stand against a tank in full plate armor. The "fast fighter" is probably a viable new class. Such a class could easily be created by using the key 3.5 "fast fighter" feats as class abilities.

The real difference for tailoring happens in the skill system. You can have a dexterous wizard, but you don't get to the detail level of a wizard who is good at picking locks but not at moving silently, as you can do in 3E. That's where the systems diverge in terms of character tailoring.

In C&C, without feats you don't get specialized in ranged vs. melee vs tripping vs. two-weapon attacks vs. offensive feats like power attack vs. defensive feats like combat expertise. This level of specialization in tactical combat is not in C&C in order to allow a more abstract combat with a faster pace. That's absolutely a matter of taste. It is much easier for the DM, and I think more exciting for players who think C&C is tactical enough without the rules required to implement all of these tailored effects. But highly tactical players won't enjoy it as much (though there are still significant tactical elements).

 

[Mythmere1]

Based on what I have seen and heard, it pretty much just trades one kind of complexity for another, and one kind of awkwardness for another.

Perfection remains outside our grasp...

I don't think it trades complexities - C&C is less complex. I think it does trade one awkwardness for another - slow pace is traded away and you get less comprehensiveness.

 

[blizack]

I hope the product reviews section is fixed soon. I just got my copy of the C&C Players Handbook a few days ago and I'm about halfway done reading it. My take it on it is a bit... different from yours, and hopefully I'll provide a useful perspective on the book.

 

[Mythmere1]

I hope the product reviews section is fixed soon. I just got my copy of the C&C Players Handbook a few days ago and I'm about halfway done reading it. My take it on it is a bit... different from yours, and hopefully I'll provide a useful perspective on the book.

When I was still halfway done reading it, my take on it was different from my take on it. "Livid" about described it - I'm really annoyed by grammatical errors and poor layout. After playtesting it with my group, though, I relegated that to one paragraph at the end. The game delivered so well that I wanted to convey the quality of the game, as opposed to the layout.

 

[blizack]

Wow, you must be psychic! You already know what my main complaint is.

I'm going to do my best to move beyond the editing/layout issues, though there really is no excuse for some of it. Don't get me wrong, though - it seems like an eminently playable, fun game.

I could say more, but I'll save it for my review.