Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[gideon_thorne]

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

Indeed Characters do. But Monsters aren't characters. They operate on their own system. Monsters AS characters is a subject likely to be addressed in one of the next two books though. So I imagine that the method for creating stats along those lines will be covered.

 

[Voadam]

To be more explicit, though, what is the armor class of said ranger, and does he get hurt badly often because of it?

I think this is a bit of a red herring.

In 3.5 what is the AC of a level 1 rogue, fighter, ranger, or even swashbuckler (from Complete Warrior) or unfettered (from Arcana Unearthed) trying to model a swashbuckler archetype. I think it would be comparable. Even choosing combat expertise and dodge will give at most +2 on AC in specific combat conditions for these 3.5 characters.

 

[rogueattorney]

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?

All fighters have str as their prime, so a better example would be a human fighter whose other primes were int and cha as opposed to dex and con. A fighter wouldn't lose the benefits of having a high con or dex (more hp, better AC, etc.) if he has int and cha as his primes. So that's not a consideration. Essentially, the cha/int fighter would have a much better chance of succeeding on int/cha tasks than a dex/con fighter. So when trying to do something that would call for a bluff, leadership, etc check in 3.xe or a reaction roll in O(A)D&D, he'd have a much better chance of succeeding. When trying to do something that would call for a Knowledge check in 3.xe or an INT roll in O(A)D&D, he'd have a much better chance of succeeding. And so on.

When you polymorph into a troll how does that affect your combat rolls? Is it undefined and up to the CK?

He'd lose his BAB as a fighter and gain the BAB of a troll (as determined by hit dice).

R.A.

 

[gideon_thorne]

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?

In the players guide thats left up to the CK and the player to determine. The choice of primes does essentially effect most what you suggest. Much more detailed 'rules options' for CK's to include into their campaigns along the lines of 'what can be done with the seige engine' will be included in the CKG book.

Options for modifying core class abilities will also be present. The C&C players guide is essentially for the player to construct a quick character. As davis mentioned in an earlier post, the 'crunchy' bits desired for those who need them for character modification will be present in the CKG. This puts such decisions squarely on the game master as to what they want in their game. Part of the C&C 'design philosophy' as it were.

When you polymorph into a troll how does that affect your combat rolls? Is it undefined and up to the CK?

You make combat rolls as per the troll monster stats/system.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think this is a bit of a red herring.

In 3.5 what is the AC of a level 1 rogue, fighter, ranger, or even swashbuckler (from Complete Warrior) or unfettered (from Arcana Unearthed) trying to model a swashbuckler archetype. I think it would be comparable. Even choosing combat expertise and dodge will give at most +2 on AC in specific combat conditions for these 3.5 characters.

The stat system is probably a bigger difference. A 3.5 character can very easily have a +3 or +4 Dex modifier at 1st level. That plus CE and Dodge gets him to 15 with no armor at all, so if that's your conception of a swashbuckler, he's at least as good as the C&C counterpart we're discussing, who wears studded leather.

If your idea of a swashbuckler doesn't rule out studded leather, the 3.5 character has an AC of 18, which is probably better than a typical armored fighter at 1st level.

And the 3.5 swashbuckler has extensive room to improve - he could take monk levels, for instance, or arcane duelist, or even plain old unfettered - as he gains levels. Can the C&C swashbuckler improve his AC, outside of my personal 3.x bugaboo, buckets o' magic items?

 

[gideon_thorne]

Can the C&C swashbuckler improve his AC, outside of my personal 3.x bugaboo, buckets o' magic items?

See, this is where a 'basic' system comes in handy. Several folks have written up what they think a swashbuckler, archer, ect should be according to the C&C baseline.

AFAIK, there hasn't been one written up for the CKG yet. Most of the C&C variants are fan work at this point (Not knocking the fan work, its great stuff), but this is how I would handle the swashbuckler.

Essentially, due to the class's reliance on maneuverability, I'd require dex as a prime for the base fighter, have them leave off armour (or restricted to light armour) and balance that with A.C bonus being a function of level. Sort of like the 'parry' option used in previous incarnations of AD&D. The rationale is that the character knows a fighting style that emphasises maneuverability.

A nice simple mod.

 

[RFisher]

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.

Very true. I prefer B/X's race-classes & focused set of 7 classes to C&C's ~7 races & ~12 classes. (I'm working from memory. I don't remember the exact numbers for C&C.)

The Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X rules gave you (IMHO) everything you need in 128 pages. (Which could be even fewer pages if the redundant bits were taken out.) The C&C PHB's 128 pages doesn't include monsters or a sample dungeon or a sample wilderness or encounter charts. On the other hand, it gives you the SEIGE system, more race/class PC options, more equipment, more saving throws, & covers some aspects of combat that B/X didn't.

Now, compared to the full RC (with all the options) + Gazs + Creature Crucibles, &c.; C&C is looking to be something simpler with nigh as much scope. (Although, that comparison involves guessing at what C&C might look like after the M&T, CKG, modules, &c. are out.)

I can't really say that B/X D&D or C&C is superior or even clearly superior in a particular area. I can only say that, for the most part, I prefer B/X's way of doing things to C&C's. But I'm crazy.

Although, I can say that I can happily steal/adapt things between the two systems without hardly a thought. & that's a very good thing in my book.

I may allow a C&C Ranger in a B/X game. I may play B1, B2, B4, & X1 with C&C. I may play CZ with B/X. I may use the "skill system" from CZ in B/X games.

 

[RFisher]

Personally, I think this thread is still answering the original question. This kind of discussion is so much more useful than reading one positive review & one negative review & being left wondering how they could both be describing the same thing.

I think one of the underlying principals of C&C is that it is easier for the CK to give than to take away. (Although, it was only one principal & not slavishly adheared to.) Including feats in the PHB, even if they are marked optional, pretty much guarantees that most support material is going to assume everyone is using them & that many CK's would use them more because they felt players expected them than because the CK wanted to use them.

I think there are three preferences in role playing games:

1. Some people look to the rules to decide what their character can be & do. They want lots of options along lots of axes & they want real benefits & penalties from their choices among those options. GURPS is a good example of this kind of game.

2. Some people don't want lots of explicit lists of options because they feel this tends to limit things too much. They want the players to use creativity in coming up with options for their characters rather than looking through lists. They want to leverage the creativity, intelligence, & experience of the players & the GM in coming up with ways of handling these things ad hoc. They don't mind mistakes being made & adjustments being required. Fudge is probably a good example of this kind of game. (Although, I think I got that message more from SOS's other writings about Fudge than from Fudge itself.)

3. Some people think that a good game necessarily restricts the number of options open to the player. Plus, they see a wide range of things as not requiring mechanics at all. You don't need game mechanics to give your character the background of a fisherman. As long as you don't also claim to have grown up in a desert, the GM just allows it. (Although, an entertaining rationalization can convince the GM to allow the desert fisherman.) You don't need game mechanics to handle fishing. You just spend the appropriate amount of game time & the GM decides your yield based on your character's background, the availablity of appropriate equipment, the density of fish in the water, & common sense.

When it comes to the brute-force-warrior v. agile-warrior:

Preference 1 expects the game to offer options along these lines with mechanical differences & appropriate trade-offs.

Preference 3 says, we're happy to model things at a higher level where the differences are a wash. The difference is solely in the description of their style & the description of their gear.

Preference 2 could go either way. It would just reqire some ad hoc rulings if leaning towards preference 1.

The C&C PHB includes aspects of all three preferences, but people of preferences 2 & 3 are going to be happier with it than people of preference 1. Although, there is definately the ability to expand the game to make it more preference-1-friendly.

Or maybe I'm completely off my rocker. That's just some thoughts I had while reading this thread.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Or maybe I'm completely off my rocker. That's just some thoughts I had while reading this thread.

Sounds about right to me, mate.

I for one absolutely hate 'which is the better game questions'. I can offer my opinon based on the style I prefer, but trying to give a rational answer to someone who's stylistic preferences so widely vary from my own is like trying to beat a hole into water.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I can't really say that B/X D&D or C&C is superior or even clearly superior in a particular area. I can only say that, for the most part, I prefer B/X's way of doing things to C&C's. But I'm crazy.

You *ARE* crazy!!!!11111
Actually, Ive been having so much fun with my Rules Cyclopedia based BD&D game that I can't pick a definitive favorite right off the top of my head right now either
They are different enough in their approach to gaming to be excellent in their own right. BD&D is awesome at quick and dirty gaming where you can jump into the action RIGHT NOW. C&C is still quite simple but with the added bonus (and complexity) of answering more possible in-game questions that might arise (who is affected by a spell's area of effect, where is the enemy NPC located, etc.). This, of course, makes it a bit more complex, which isnt everyones cup of tea all the time.