Tell me about C&C

[der_kluge]

There are a few reviews of the C&C PHB here at ENworld by people who have actually read the book.

Here is the most recent one:

http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2232573

And here is my own, from a few months ago:

http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2082201

I think TLG will be having a free pdf download of the 'basic' rules in the near future.

You know, for someone who disagrees with me on my "nostalgia" point, I do find it curious the number of references to "nostalgia" in those reviews. I'm apparently not the only one with that opinion.

 

[Akrasia]

You know, for someone who disagrees with me on my "nostalgia" point, I do find it curious the number of references to "nostalgia" in those reviews. I'm apparently not the only one with that opinion.

I do not disagree that nostalgia is part of C&C's appeal.

I do disagree with your claim that it is based entirely on nostalgia.

 

[Akrasia]

Well, that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree with it.

I would not have a problem with your opinion if it happened to be based on the game rules.

Unfortunately, it appears to be based primarily on incorrect information.

I don't like Exalted. But I don't go around comenting on it -- simply because my minimal experience with the game is not adequate for me to give an informed opinion about it.

Maybe I am mistaken on this point, but I do recall my GM mentioning that he would simply have to reverse the ACs of creatures in 3rd edition modules. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Yes, you are mistaken and thinking of something else.

You are thinking of pre-3e modules (i.e. the only change you need to do in order to convert a pre-3e module over to C&C is reverse the ACs).

If it's so intuitive how come I still don't get it after my GM tried explaining it to me three times? About all I understand is that there are 5 saves, not three (in homage to 1st edition, not 3rd), and people have different saves depending on whether the stat tied to the score is "primary" or secondary. All I know is that we had DCs of like 26 to beat a fireball, which was next to impossible, unless you had "dexterity" as a primary save.

Really, why do you comment on things about which you have such incorrect information?

The saving throw system in C&C -- just like the skill/task system -- is based entirely on ability scores. So there are six saving throws -- one for each ability score. This has the benefit of ensuring that there are no 'dump stats'. The 'primes' give one a bonus to the relevant saving throws (and hence is no more complex than the system of 'good saves' in 3e). As for the saving throws themselves, they correspond to the appropriate ability scores (e.g. overcoming paralysis or constriction is a strength check, fighting off a poison is a constitution check, etc.). It is pretty intuitive.

Here is a quick primer on the basic system in C&C:

Resolving Almost Everything in C&C -- the Core Mechanic
For resolving any task (combat, skill, or saving throw): roll d20, add modifiers, try to beat the relevant targent number (TN).

In combat: roll d20, add modifiers (class level modifier, +/- ability score modifier, +/- miscellaneous modifiers, e.g. magical bonuses or disease penalties), try to beat target number (enemy's armour class).

All other tasks and saving throws are determined by the relevant attribute (i.e. a task/saving throw is 'strength' related, 'dexterity' related, etc.).

So for all noncombat tasks and saving throws: roll d20, add modifiers (+6 if the attribute in question is a 'prime', +/- relevant attribute modifier, + level if the task in question is a class-related one or you are rolling for a saving throw). The PC must beat the target number (18 +/- relevant modifiers, + enemy's level if appropriate) in order to succeed. For all noncombat rolls, assume that you add your prime if the roll concerns a prime attribute...

 

[driver8]

Hhehe cant resist chiming in.

Does nostalgia play a part in C&C? Id say yes, but not as a negative, as in thats the gimmick of the whole thing. It was developed as an alternative to what many see as the rules heavy excess of d20. Me I like d20, and d20 can do many things well especiallu in making the exact kind of character you want.. But I also like the vibe of C&C.

C&C is rules lite. Its base mechanic may not necessarily be simpler, but its rules can be implemented easier IMHO, and there are less of them. Like many rules lite systems, the role of a DM becomes much more important. C&C is very much a DM's system (as opposed to d20 which is players system.)

All in all I think the OGC aspect of C&C is fairly slight. It does take some ideas from d20. Most are non mechanical, I think. AC is more like d20, as are spells, whose characteristics have been slightly modified.

But alot of game decisions are definately throwbacks, especially as it regards the classes. Although class restrictions on demi humans are gone from AD&D, they are not copies of d20 classes. There are fewer spellcasting classes. Also, they are not about gaining superheroic power as you level. The overall feel I think is more "Gygaxian". The classes are heroic, and they are archetypes- dont expect your wizard to be able to track or lockpick.And you dont gain a whole lot of abilites over your career-in fact several classes are front loaded in what they get.

The attribute modifiers are more OD&D. They are weighted lower, so 18 str will just give a +3 mod. There are also fewer modifiers in game, so even a small bonus is important. And your prime attributes are almost as important (if not more so) than having high attribute scores.

The SIEGE system isnt so unintuitive. It can take some getting used to, but its not so far off from the task resolution of d20. And the savings throws are probably my favorite aspect of C&C..all the attributes are important, and min maxing can be harder in C&C.

The biggest gripe I have with C&C so far is the PHB. It is an unedited nightmare. Anyone new to rpgs would be lost reading it, and it is full of errors ommisions and weird layout choices.

All in all, I think C&C is fine. I think its unfair to label it somehow as a gimmicky system. Its a lowered powered copy of D&D, with fluffy parts thrown in from past systems. It runs under a simple but different engine.

To me personally, its less cluttered than HARP, whose character creation is a bear. Nostalgia is a big selling point, but it is a great system for those who want a simpler easy to run system. It will appeal to a certain age group of those who played older edition of AD&D, as well as those who like less rules.

But as with any rules lite system you lose the detail in modelling the action. Whether youd like it or not depends on how important that is to you.

 

[Particle_Man]

Maybe I am mistaken on this point, but I do recall my GM mentioning that he would simply have to reverse the ACs of creatures in 3rd edition modules. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

If it's so intuitive how come I still don't get it after my GM tried explaining it to me three times? About all I understand is that there are 5 saves, not three (in homage to 1st edition, not 3rd), and people have different saves depending on whether the stat tied to the score is "primary" or secondary. All I know is that we had DCs of like 26 to beat a fireball, which was next to impossible, unless you had "dexterity" as a primary save.

On the armour class. Your DM probably meant he would have to reverse the AC's on his 1st edition AD&D monsters or Basic/Expert monsters, since C&C uses the newer, 3rd edition AC.

On the saves: They are ability checks. You roll a d20, add or subtract the relevant ability modifier, and add your level. Since this is technically easier than the fort save = constitution mod + class mod, reflex save = dexterity mod + class mod, and will save = wisdom mod + class mod, the only difficulty you are having is unfamiliarity at having 6 saves (not 5 saves, but 6 -- one for each ability).

Now the Dungeon Master (er...Castle Keeper) has a little more work to do:

First, before you roll the d20, the dungeon master (er...castle keeper) must tell you what type of save it is (poison, or illusion, or what have you), then you look at your character sheet (downloadable for free off the troll lord games web site) or ask your DM which of the six ability scores this would be based off. This will tell you which of your six ability score modifiers you use on your d20 roll. But that is the DM's job, not yours. So from a player's point of view, the DM will likely say "You have been poisoned! Make a constitution save".

Second, after you roll the d20, you tell your DM (er...CK) whether or not the relevant ability score is Prime or not. This affects the DM's (ok, the joke is getting old and I will stop) calculation of your save DC. However, your primes are set at character creation and never change, so this should not be hard to remember. A human has 3 primes. A nonhuman or semihuman or demihuman has 2 primes. Again, the calculation of the save DC is not your problem as a player.

So, let us review: Your DM says something like "You have been poisoned! Make a constitution save." You roll 1d20, add or substract your constitution ability modifier (usually between -3 and +3) and tell your DM the result. You also tell your Dm whether your constitution is one of your Prime abilities or not. Then your DM makes a calculation and tells you whether you save or not.

[For those who care, from the DM's side the calculation of the DC for "prime" saves is DC = 12 + level of the challenge (this could be "level" of the trap, or level of the spellcaster, or whatever -- note that because the spell saves are tied to spellcaster level instead of spell level, a 12th level wizard has a very high DC to beat even when casting a "puny" 1st level spell). On the other hand, the calculation of the DC for "non-prime" saves is DC = 18 + level of the challenge]. (Note that in D&D, there is a difference between "good" and "bad" saves for characters -- in C&C this difference between "good" and "bad" saves is more dramatic (except at very high levels in D&D), but one has greater flexibility over what the good saves will be (a fighter must have a strength prime, but could be the "intelligent" fighter, the "dextrous" fighter, etc.)

So let us examine the DC 26 "fireball casting wizard". I do not know what level your character was or what level the BBEG wizard was. If you are both, say, 8th level, then the DC for the wizard's fireball would be either 12 + 8 = 20, or 18 + 8 = 26 (I am trying to match your example as closely as possible). So since your character did not have dexterity as a prime, you would roll your d20, add or subtract your dexterity modifier, and add your level. If this was the BBEG, he might be a few levels higher than your party. So say you are 6th level. Say your dex was, what 13?. Then you would roll d20, add 1 (dex mod), add 6 (level), and try to get 26. So you would need a natural 19 or 20 (If you were the same level as the wizard, you would need a natural 17-20 to save). On the other hand, the party 6th level rogue, with dex as a prime, and a higher dex (say 16?), would only need to get DC 20, and could do that on a natural d20 roll of 12 or higher, or if he is an 8th level rogue, a natural roll of 10 or higher.

Does this make magic spells more deadly? You bet. Even the minor spells have the same DC as the biggest spells the BBEG wizard will throw at you. But that is a fact about spellcasters, not about saving throws in general.

So let us compare: from the player's point of view you have to roll a d20, add your ability modifier (using the ability your DM tells you to use), add your level, and say whether the ability is prime or non-prime. Your DM then finds the DC of the save by taking the level of the "challenge" and adding 12 or 18, depending on whether you said prime or not.

In D&D you roll a d20, add your ability modifier, add your base save modifier (calculated from a table that is provided with each class). Your DM then finds the DC of the save (either provided in the book, or perhaps calculated by various means related to the ability score of the monster, spell level of the effect, etc.). ("Advanced" monsters could take some work here)

So saving throws in C&C provide less work for the player (since level is easier to calculate than base save, and since you know at character creation what is prime and what is not). It arguably would provide more work for the DM (since the DM has to know what ability save you must make, and the DM must remember that a "prime" ability has a different save DC than a "non prime" ability), but I think overall complexity is reduced. For example, the DM only has to remember the spellcaster level, not the level of the various spells cast, when calculating the DC for the save vs. the spellcaster's spells. That reduces the number of potential save DCs from 10 (one for each possible spell level) to 2 (one for prime, one for non-prime). This would also make things easier for a pc spellcaster, I would imagine.

So as long as you can remember what is prime (and since this is generated at 1st level and doesn't change, it should be easier than remembering your alignment, which is generated at 1st level but is subject to possible change), and so long as you can roll a d20 and modify it with an ability score modifier (like a strength check, intelligence check, etc., in D&D), and your level (surely you can remember your level) you should be able to figure this "Seige engine Saving throw" thing out.

Hope that helps.

Personally, I favor the C&C system for simplicity (monsters are extremely simple from the DM point of view, which makes them easier to prepare), but feel it could go even further. But that is just me. Luckily, it is easy to house rule without breaking the system (another purported plus for C&C). I do hope that "Monsters and Treasure" comes out before I die of old age, however.

Edit: I see akrasia beat me to it. I should add that I introduced C&C to a group of 9 year olds. They got the game immediately (they spent a lot of time shopping for equipment, they are experience point glory hounds, they are greedy for treasure and magic items, they have macho competitions over who is the "best" character, the boys once tried to "gang up on the girls" and they saw no conflict in having paladins adventuring with assassins, but they got the rules pretty darn quick). So either my 9 year olds are very bright, or...

 

[driver8]

Personally, I favor the C&C system for simplicity, but feel it could go even further. But that is just me. Luckily, it is easy to house rule without breaking the system (another purported plus for C&C). I do hope that "Monsters and Treasure" comes out before I die of old age, however.

LOL so do I.

 

[Stalker0]

Based on what I've heard about the saves:

Why not just let the players add 6 to their saves if that stat is prime?

That seems a whole lot quicker and simpler than requring teh dm to change the save dc, a player can always remember that his con save is 6 better than normal...or his int saves or whatever...dms will likely have to ask each time as they have so much more to keep track of.

Just a nitpick.

 

[Particle_Man]

Actually, adding 6 if the save is prime is a popular house rule (so popular that Akrasia explained it as such). It puts less work on the DM (who now just needs to add the level of the challenge to 18 to figure out the save DC) and a little more work on the player (who now, with his primes, will have two modifiers on the ability - one for "combat stuff" and one for "saves, skill rolls and other stuff"). So a character with a str of 13 that is prime would have a modifier or +1 for "to hit" and "damage" in meelee, and +7 for "saving throws" related to the strength ability score.

I have no problem with that and favour it myself. I just wanted to explain the RAW for C&C, to show that it is *even easier* for the player (since he only has to remember one modifier, and whether or not the ability is prime) although at the cost of being *slightly harder* for the DM (who has to be ready to add either 12 or 18 to his challenge level). Thus when DMing 9 year olds, I put it on me. Btw, 9 year olds are the most literal-minded rules lawyers ever. Down to quoting the "rule" in C&C at me as DM that "the rules are your servant, not your master" to try to browbeat me into giving them more magic items!

 

[Turanil]

If it's so intuitive how come I still don't get it after my GM tried explaining it to me three times? About all I understand is that there are 5 saves, not three (in homage to 1st edition, not 3rd), and people have different saves depending on whether the stat tied to the score is "primary" or secondary. All I know is that we had DCs of like 26 to beat a fireball, which was next to impossible, unless you had "dexterity" as a primary save.

Reading this, I think your GM did add a whole slew of strange houserules to his C&C game (as indeed C&C enables for a lot of houserules: it's one of its selling points). That or he didn't read the book (which indeed has a poor layout, and I haven't heard of the second printing with a nice layout having been released yet).

 

[der_kluge]

On the armour class. Your DM probably meant he would have to reverse the AC's on his 1st edition AD&D monsters or Basic/Expert monsters, since C&C uses the newer, 3rd edition AC.

On the saves: They are ability checks. You roll a d20, add or subtract the relevant ability modifier, and add your level. Since this is technically easier than the fort save = constitution mod + class mod, reflex save = dexterity mod + class mod, and will save = wisdom mod + class mod, the only difficulty you are having is unfamiliarity at having 6 saves (not 5 saves, but 6 -- one for each ability).

Thanks for this (lengthy) explanation. I think the confusing point, for me, coming from d20, is that players had different target numbers for the same effect.

And I'll fully admit that probably a lot of what left a bad taste in my mouth for C&C is my GM, who chose to use that rule set while running us (1st level characters) through World's Largest Dungeon. So, 4 out of 6 of us died when one of the players decided to attack a lone orc who happened to be a 6th level mage. The orc cast a fireball, enveloping all of us, and the target for non-primes was 26, which most of us couldn't conceivably beat if we wanted to.

And the main thing that confused me was the "18" for high and "12" for low thing. The conversation went something like this:
GM: "If it's non-prime, the number is 18, if it's prime, the number is 12."
Me: "So, rolling low is better?"
GM: "No, rolling high is better, just like d20."
Me: "Then you must mean the other way around, right? Because if it's non-prime, I'm already higher than the guy who is prime."
GM: "No, that's right, non-primes are 18."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense."
GM: "No, the target numbers are different for people depending on whether the attribute is prime or not."
Me: *confused* "um, ok" -> decides he hates C&C forever.

And the d10 for initiative really irks me. Our group switched between d20 and C&C and every other week half the people were rolling the wrong die for initiative because we'd forgotten from one week to the next what we should have rolled. This is where I'm coming from on the nostalgia factor. There is no mechcanical reason why a d10 should be favored for initiative. They could have easily left it at d20 and made it more compatible with d20, and easier for people to transition to. This is the design philosophy of C&C, IMO. They went more with nostalgia than with convention, in terms of d20 conventions.