Breakdaddy
First Post
MoogleEmpMog said:
Well, I'm at work (cant you tell???
) so without my PHB here I couldnt say off the top of my head. Maybe someone else can field this one for me?
Tell me about Castles and Crusades
- Thread starter Narfellus
- Start date
Well, I'm at work (cant you tell???
) so without my PHB here I couldnt say off the top of my head. Maybe someone else can field this one for me?gideon_thorne
First Post
Breakdaddy said:
Monsters have a Physical (STR DEX CON) and or Mental(INT WIS CHA) Prime. Sometimes its one or the other, sometimes its both. I suspect, in polymorph, if someone 'gains the physical attributes' that they are gaining the Physical Prime of the monster and rolls accordingly to the way monster rolls are set up to work.
Sure, Monsters dont have spelled out and statted 6 attributes, but with the P/M system its hardly needed IMHO.
CrusaderX
First Post
How comparable is C&C to Basic/Expert D&D? I was a huge fan of those old red and blue boxed D&D sets, and C&C seems to be similar in many ways.
Is C&C more or less complex than Basic/Expert D&D?
Also, while I loved Basic D&D, I didn't like the whole "race as class" thing for Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. So I'm glad to hear that any race can be any class in C&C, and it seems like C&C is superior (IMO) to Basic D&D in this area. But are there any obvious areas where Basic D&D does something better than C&C? Or is C&C superior to Basic/Expert D&D in every way? Of course, superior is a very subjective term here, but I'm curious to hear from fans of both systems, and a comparison between the two.
Is C&C more or less complex than Basic/Expert D&D?
Also, while I loved Basic D&D, I didn't like the whole "race as class" thing for Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. So I'm glad to hear that any race can be any class in C&C, and it seems like C&C is superior (IMO) to Basic D&D in this area. But are there any obvious areas where Basic D&D does something better than C&C? Or is C&C superior to Basic/Expert D&D in every way? Of course, superior is a very subjective term here, but I'm curious to hear from fans of both systems, and a comparison between the two.
Breakdaddy
First Post
gideon_thorne said:
I understand completely, though I would still feel a lot better if I had some stats for the creatures. This could be redundant in practice, so we will have to see after we get some more mileage under our belt.
Breakdaddy
First Post
CrusaderX said:
I just happen to be in the middle of a Basic D&D (rules cyclopedia) game as well as a bi weekly C&C game. Re familiarizing myself with the old Rules Cyclopedia has been a fun nostalgia trip for me. The RC is definitely a simpler system than even C&C. There are many contrasts and comparisons to be made, and I dont feel comfortable stamping one as superior to the other (opinions being what they are) at being a simple and easy to use system. I do find that the small amount of more complex things within C&C are only there to serve as a buffer to minimize obvious points of contention in-game (such as the basic movement rules, which do not require a battlemat but are compatible with using one if you so choose). To me, nothing made (short of the old white box maybe, I dont own a copy) for fantasy gaming compares to the utility of a nice copy of the rules cyclopedia. I LOVE that book, which is why I can't compare it to C&C without bias. I can say that the rules that differ from the RC are almost invariably there for the sake of clarity or the sake of streamlining the game (such as removing that old monster, Thac0, in place of a more 3.x compatible to-hit system). Overall, I agree with the game designer's choices and think that the system is a lot more serviceable for long term campaigning than the RC.
gideon_thorne
First Post
CrusaderX said:
Id say a more apt comparison would be between Basic (I assume Holmes/Moldov basic/expert?) and the C&C Boxed set. Which one is 'better' is purely subjective and I can't give a fair answer on that. But if your looking for a basis for system complexity comparison id say the C&C boxed set and OD&D basic compaire....
And that the C&C hardbacks would be more apt to equate to AD&D (with a bit of 2eAD&D although I really dont distinguish between the two even a 10th as much as anyone else)
rogueattorney
Adventurer
CrusaderX said:
In terms of the depth of the rules - the degree to which issues are covered - I'd say that they are very similar. A DM that is comfortable running one, will be comfortable running the other. The combat rules are very, very similar, with a basic framework and a few well-defined standard maneuvers - charging, dodging, etc. The general spirit of the SIEGE Engine is similar to the ability check method often suggested for resolving things in the B/X rules. The level focus is about the same - 1st to 14th level - both have suggestions for carrying on beyond that but don't go into detail to the extent of, say, the Companion and Master sets or the Epic Level Handbook.
Obviously there are more classes, more races, more spells - I'd presume there will eventually be more magic items and monsters upon publiscation of the Monsters & Treasures book - in C&C. However there are trade-offs as far as that goes. The B/X rules are still more concise than C&C. The 1981 rules cover everything in about the same number of pages as the C&C PHB, including the monsters, magic items, overland movement, aerial and seaborn combat, henchmen & hirelings, stronghold construction, dungeon creation advise, sample dungeon, sample wilderness area, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something, that aren't in the C&C PHB.
I think, once the M&T book and the CKG (equivalent to DMG) is published, C&C will be at about the mid-point between B/X D&D and AD&D1/2 in terms of rules complexity. It will be a little more detailed than the RC version of D&D, but probably a bit more coherant being developed from whole cloth, rather than compiled over 15 years. I still think B/X D&D, specifically the 1981 boxes with B2 and X1, are the best 'sit down, shut up, and play' versions of D&D ever made. The lack of options has never concerned me in B/X D&D because it is so incredibly easy to toss things in from other sources or ad hoc without upsetting the balance of the game - "You wanna be a halfling thief? BOOM! There ya go." However, the fact that C&C is in print and that it is trying to evoke some of the good things from my preferred edition of D&D, means that it will have a spot at my table.
R.A.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
gideon_thorne said:
The C&C boxed set is awesome! I actually like it better than the PHB as it's a complete game - it even comes with dice. The real comparisons with OD&D or B/X D&D sets would be as follows...
OD&D set
~110 pages, no adventure scenario. Rules for progression to about 10th level. Probably the most detailed except that it assumes you are using the combat rules from Chainmail. So while there are detailed aerial and ship-to-ship combat rules, but there's not much as far as hand-to-hand. Preceded AD&D by about 4 years, so complaints of compatability are kind of silly (unless you're complaining about AD&D's compatability with it).
Basic/Expert sets
~180 pages depending on which versions you have. Rules for progression to 14th level. Will generally include at least one adventure scenario as well as sample dungeons depending on the version and printing. Probably the most 'complete' of the three options, covering essentially the same areas as the OD&D set, adding thieves, hand-to-hand combat, and at least one adventure. Not as compatable with AD&D as the C&C box set is with the C&C PHB.
C&C set
~90 pages including 20 pg adventure scenario. Rules for progression up to 10th level. Probably the least detailed of the three. The rules are completely compatable with the PHB rules.
R.A.
bolie
First Post
gideon_thorne said:Monsters have a Physical (STR DEX CON) and or Mental(INT WIS CHA) Prime. Sometimes its one or the other, sometimes its both. I suspect, in polymorph, if someone 'gains the physical attributes' that they are gaining the Physical Prime of the monster and rolls accordingly to the way monster rolls are set up to work.
Sure, Monsters dont have spelled out and statted 6 attributes, but with the P/M system its hardly needed IMHO.
That doesn't address any of the concerns I brought up. Attribute bonuses can have a significant effect on hit points, armor class, to hit rolls, damage, and any activity which requires a saving throw or attribute roll. Changing primes around can have an affect, too, depending on the character's primes, but that's not the same thing.
Having attributes and having primes are two separate issues. Characters have attributes AND primes.
Bolie IV
Voadam
Legend
OK for C&C what mechanical effects will there be for a fighter who chooses charisma and intelligence as his primes as he tries to make a smart warrior leader concept? Is it just saves and siege engine checks for skill type checks? How will he be different from a str and con fighter in combat?
When you polymorph into a troll how does that affect your combat rolls? Is it undefined and up to the CK?
When you polymorph into a troll how does that affect your combat rolls? Is it undefined and up to the CK?
Similar Threads
