Seriously considering Castles & Crusades: How much does it differ from 3.X?

[Angel Tarragon]

I noticed over at Amazon that the new Castles & Crusades PHB is $13.57. I would like to know more about it, because I am seriously considering picking it up with my next paycheck. I see a lot of people giving the game high praise and I think it is high time that I considered getting it.

So tell me all bout the system - the good, the bad, and everything else pertinent to how it differentiates itself from DnD [3.X].

 

[Treebore]

Its probably easier to read this thread on page two of this forum:


Why check out C&C?

 

[Treebore]

You may also want to look at this. Probably a bit biased sounding, but all true as far as we are concerned. (We being those who play C&C as our primary fantasy game)

Why we play C&C, opinons of 23 Castle Keepers representing over 100 players

 

[S'mon]

Lots of threads here currently:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=37&sid=e653839a87b52585f486c58b4801eeb7

 

[Particle_Man]

The short version: More bare-bones but you can add stuff easily.

Archtype friendly (no multi-classing unless you add it in), class abilities (*and just trying wacky stuff*) replace feats, ability score rolls replace skills and saves, monsters don't have ability scores and are simplified.

Hope that helps.

[edit: added bit in stars]

 

[Cam Banks]

Different XP progressions for each class, etc. Very much like the older AD&D classes, in fact. It's like taking the AD&D class structure and marrying it to a system that's essentially "make an ability score check against a DC of X if your character isn't strong in that ability, or Y if it is." It's a strange combination of AD&D's clunky character generation with a very rules-light and fast-and-loose resolution mechanic.

I don't like it at all, but there's no denying that it has a strong appeal to folks who prefer that looser approach to gameplay and/or want to make use of their older AD&D products.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Imaro]

Different XP progressions for each class, etc. Very much like the older AD&D classes, in fact. It's like taking the AD&D class structure and marrying it to a system that's essentially "make an ability score check against a DC of X if your character isn't strong in that ability, or Y if it is." It's a strange combination of AD&D's clunky character generation with a very rules-light and fast-and-loose resolution mechanic.

I don't like it at all, but there's no denying that it has a strong appeal to folks who prefer that looser approach to gameplay and/or want to make use of their older AD&D products.

Cheers,
Cam

Just curious what was "clunky" about character generation in C&C? I find it pretty straightforward and quick myself.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Just curious what was "clunky" about character generation in C&C? I find it pretty straightforward and quick myself.

Cam was talking about character generation in AD&D being clunky, not C&C per se.

Here's my thoughts on things...

The good...rules-light D&D system. Despite not having the D&D logo, it feels very much like D&D. Quick resolution to combat. It's an old school feel, which some people may or may not like. Everything scales up, as in 3e. C&C is wide-open for customization. You can add non-weapon proficiencies, skills and feats, or whatever. It's compatible to all editions of D&D.


The bad...differing XP tables, ala AD&D. Hit die stop at around 10th level, giving a flat +X number of hit points per level. It isn't a modular system, though the SIEGE engine may allow for a variety of characters anyway. And, as I mentioned above, it is open to adding subsystems.


That's just a few thoughts off of the top of my head.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Character generation is quick and easy, the SIEGE engine is very easy to use and covers a wide variety of skills without the granularity, and combat is very fast to resolve. There are no AoO's or caps on spell damage. The saving throw system helps make sure there are no "throwaway stats". As was previously stated, each class has a different XP table reminiscent of previous versions of (A)D&D. It's quite easy to simply add feats or even skills, and is easy to houserule without "breaking". It does not have the tactical combat focus of D&D 3.x, and pares down the potential combat modifiers. Some of these or all of these may or may not appeal to you, but I love the game and find it very easy to run in the fast-paced manner I am accustomed to.

 

[Korgoth]

I think C&C is excellent. As some have observed, it is where all the editions of D&D meet. It is nearly as simple as Classic, with the extra bells and whistles of AD&D and the unified mechanic of 3E.

Hit Dice topping off at high level is a good feature in my opinion. There's no inflation into the huge numbers for hit points, which means that the damage that characters deal out will always be adequate... you don't have an 'arms race' of feats and so on. Character generation is very smooth and not clunky at all.

For my purposes I don't consider it my preferred system... I like Classic the most, and I'm also comfortable with house-ruled 1E. C&C doesn't have demi-human level limits, whereas I like the limits, and it has saving throw difficulty increase with caster level like 3E, which I don't much care for. But it is an in print system that is compatible with all the old D&D stuff, and would be my first choice if I were playing an in print system.