Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[Ourph]

.....strictly inferior to a straight wizard.

......still strictly inferior to a straight wizard.

Not really a fair comparison, since after about 5th level, every character (other than perhaps a straight cleric or straight druid) is strictly interior to a straight wizard (at least if played intelligently ).

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Not really a fair comparison, since after about 5th level, every character (other than perhaps a straight cleric or straight druid) is strictly interior to a straight wizard (at least if played intelligently ).

Does that make wizards munchkin, though?

OK... perhaps it does.

Still, I'd prefer to see examples that are actually pushing the envelope - say, the specialist Hulking Hurler, or the truly munchy Cheater of Mystra.

 

[Akrasia]

I thought C&C was going to be "lite" D&D, basically 3.x but without lot of complications (feats, skill points, prestige classes, large monster stat blocks) however, I'm seeing it more of "Lets take AD&D1/Basic and reverse the armor class" Less use of the d20 mechanics, more of the refining 1e with a fresh coat of paint.

Neither is exactly correct. Or rather, both are kinda correct.

C&C should appeal to people in one (or both) of the following categories:

(1.) People who want a FRPG that has many mechanics that are similar to d20, but is much more 'rules light'. Though not simply a '3.x light' game, much of C&C is close enough that it might appeal to people who like 3.x but want something with fewer rules (and does not require minis).

(2.) People who want something like a version of OD&D or OAD&D that is 'rationalized' by means of a unified d20 mechanic, and that overcomes most of the perceived deficiencies of the earlier versions of the game (e.g. racial class restrictions and level limits, etc).

Now neither group may be entirely satisfied -- C&C is not simply a 'rules light 3e' or an 'updated OAD&D'. But hopefully it is adaptable enough that many people belonging to either group will like it. Some groups who like aspects of 3e have added feats to C&C. Some groups who like OAD&D have added some OAD&D rules to their games.

That might be grossly unfair to a game I've not seen in person (and you don't have to tell me so), but some of the things mentioned (different XP charts, no skill/nwp style system, monsters as cardboard cutouts) seem counterproductive and limit my options as both a player and a DM. I hated 2e because my house rules binder was nearly as large as the monster's manual.

But keep in mind that many options will be available when the full rules are published (e.g. the M&T and CKG)!

It seems to me that C&C is built for two distinct types of players: "Hack it and take its treasure. Next room!" style where the rules beyond killing it or it killing you are unnecessary or "We ROLE-play so hardcore we only use stats for manditory rolls like saves or combat" where game sessions can go by without the need of a character sheet. Both are extremes, but it does leave out alot of middle ground where the C&C rules don't tread.

I will leave aside the first 'distinct type' of player. But as for the second, while you only NEED to use die rolls for saves and combats (and other tasks like picking locks or hiding), you CAN use die rolls for social interactions, etc. That is what the PRIME system is for! It is really adaptable to all kinds of different uses, depending on the group in question.

This from a person who believes Rule's Cyclopedia was one of the best versions of D&D ever.

The Rules Cylcopedia is my favourite version of D&D. And I see C&C as very similar in many respects -- but broken into more books.

The PHB only covers the 'core rules' that are essential for playing the game. However, the CKG will include additional options that can add flexibility and/or complexity to those players who want it, just as the optional rules in the RC (skills, weapon mastery rules, etc.) added flexibility and/or complexity to the base D&D rules.

The Trolls are promising to include plenty of options in the CKG.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Thanks for the help on grappling guys.

I must say though, if TLG doesn't do a lot better job on layout and rules presentation in the M&T & CKG I'm going to be very dissapointed. I've already told my players they are better off waiting for a new printing of the PHB before buying a copy for thier own use.

 

[bolie]

I suspect that many/most of your complaints against C&C will be addressed by the additional information provided in the M&T and CKG books. (I sincerely hope they will be!) For some reason, though, you seem determined to preemptively declare the system unplayable because of these issues.

I've looked at the M&T preview pdf on Troll Lord's sight and I've been told repeatedly that monsters don't have and don't need attributes by people involved.

The game is not unplayable, it's just got a few problems. I've been playing for over a month (5 or 6 sessions) and been having fun. I am mainly trying to point out to folks who ask about the system that it does have some rule problems and that the folks who say that the rules are complete and consistent are wrong. The rules are incomplete and have some internal inconsistencies. Unless they drastically change the way monsters are presented from what is available on their site and from what they've said they are going to do, the problems will remain.

They can be house ruled or worked around. We've done so.

I even posted some of our house rules on the Troll Lords forums.

Bolie IV

 

[Akrasia]

I've looked at the M&T preview pdf on Troll Lord's sight and I've been told repeatedly that monsters don't have and don't need attributes by people involved.

Well most monsters obviously will not need ability scores (i.e. the 'mental' and 'physical' primes system will suffice more most), since only a small number are likely to be 'grappled'. And even polymorph is limited to monsters within a very limited size range. I really hope (and expect) that these particular matters will be addressed by TLG, and think it can be done without introducing full-blown 3e-style stats for monsters.

I must say though, if TLG doesn't do a lot better job on layout and rules presentation in the M&T & CKG I'm going to be very dissapointed. I've already told my players they are better off waiting for a new printing of the PHB before buying a copy for thier own use.

While the editing obviously does indeed need to be improved -- and TLG seem to be getting this message -- the PHB is nonetheless perfectly usable, especially by people already familiar with D&D. (And if people stop buying the first print PHB, we may have a longer wait for the improved second printing. )

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Druid/Wizard/Mystic Theurge - practically crippled against CR appropriate foes from level 4 to 10, the most common range, not terribly strong afterwards, and bereft of benefits from his druid levels. He should be CR -1 in that range.

Fochlucan Lyrist - crippled basically his entire career unless used in combination with many other oddball options. He should be CR -1 almost his entire career.

Spellsword - without other PrCs, average at best and strictly inferior to a straight wizard.

Eldritch Knight - better than average but still strictly inferior to a straight wizard.

Verdant Lord - don't know this one.

These are not very munchy.

Compared to a wizard, maybe. But compared to a 1st edition fighter/mage?