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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mythmere1" data-source="post: 1982268" data-attributes="member: 26563">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).</blockquote>

Verification