Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[gideon_thorne]

Gideon - that's all well and good, and I rather like the idea of the SEIGE engine. However, my main complain (apart from the seeming lack of opposed rolls) is that there's no way to evolve the character. What if your fighter, after about four levels, decides that he wants to learn some stealth? Can he take another attirbute as his Prime? Does he lose the first one? Is there any accounting for this character development in the game at all?

I can groove on rules-lightness. I cannot groove on characters that are lock in place at generation and have no way to alter their abiltiies in play.

*wry smile* I think my point flew away.

The point, in short, is that 'character development' is not just a function of rules. Rules serve as a base foundation, but are not the end all and be all of the game. Character development has always been about the evolving story of the character.

Sure... your fighter can learn some stealth at later levels, he could have the thief teach him. In that case it would become a great, in depth, rp between two characters as the fighter trails along after the thief, in a series of adventures most appropriately, and picks up 'stealth.

In the C&C game there is provision for a character to use another classes' abilties. However, the fighter simply would not use their level for an attribute 'dex' check. And would learn to move 'stealthy' but by no means ever be as good as the thief who is suposed to be the master of his craft for a reason. (the logic behind archtypes) A fighter with a dex prime is going to naturally have an easier time at this.

This is the default method. Should the player and game master wish to alter this rule with 'the fighter after x months learns a new trick and can use their level' thats find and dandy. And illustrates a perfect example of a 'framework' gaming giving enough information without going overboard.

Again. A variety of hard rules on skills, feats and suchlike does not automatically equate to a 'developed character' IMHO. The rules provide a framework, nothing more.

Im certainly not knocking anyone's choice in game. I am by far the last person to do that, since I personally think mechanics are never more important than the player and the skill of the game master.

C&C, however, simply provides a loose framework and its very looseness implies the respectful assumption that gamers are both creative enough and imaginative enough to evolve the system as they would wish.

 

[Treebore]

One important thing people seem to be missing about C&C. The players character is not limited to ding only what skills or feats are on their character sheet. If you can imagine it, the DM sets a DC, you roll. If you beat the DC you did it.

You want to be a dagger master? What is a dagger master, someone who throws a lot of daggers, therefore generating a lot of potential damage? Then you and your DM are going to need to adapt some house rules.


Whats a duelist? If it is someone who does a lot of fancy maneuvers during a combat round, tell your CK/DM how you want to move, they'll set the DC, you'll roll the check to see if you pull it off. Again, if it something that gets a bunch of bonuses to hit, or AC, or damage, stick with 3E.

Does C&C allow you to buff your character so you can get as many bonuses to hit and damage as you posssibly can? No. C&C isn't as easy to munchkin or powergame as 3E.

Now if you want a system that gives your character a chance to pull off any kind of maneuver, or recall any kind of odd bit of knowledge, or perform some irregular task, then C&C is more your type of game. If you want a set of rules that tells you everything your character can and cannot do, stick with 3E.


Decide what you want in a game, then play the system that gives it to you.

 

[gideon_thorne]

One important thing people seem to be missing about C&C. The players character is not limited to ding only what skills or feats are on their character sheet. If you can imagine it, the DM sets a DC, you roll. If you beat the DC you did it.

You want to be a dagger master? What is a dagger master, someone who throws a lot of daggers, therefore generating a lot of potential damage? Then you and your DM are going to need to adapt some house rules.

Probably wouldnt even need a lot of house rules for a daggermaster. Most of the neccessary is already inherent in the game.

Weapons Spec (already inherent in fighter)

Perhaps a fighter with dex prime for ranged weapons.

And Combat Dominance. Said dagger becomes rather lethal against low HD critters.

Thats it at the most basic and dealing with the sort of thing lower level characters are likely to encounter. (Unless they just are great idiots who like to tackle things too big for em..*chuckles*)

A couple thoughts on house rules on this situation (just as a theory exercise)

Dex bonus can add to the # of daggers able to be hurled at one time. One way to do it.

I and others have suggested that the fighters combat dominance can be pumped up at later levels to work against larger HD critters.

It doesnt take much.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

I wasnt making your piont invalid??? I was stating my experiences.

followed by asking a question "if you are willing to tweak another game why not tweak out the problems you find with D&D, I do".

Thorncrest

PS: how did you know I was waving my hand?

Just because you've seen the argument before doesnt mean you can invalidate it with a wave of your hand. If you think "D&D r00lz on T0ast" good for you. My opinion isnt less valid just because you are already pleased as punch with your game of choice.

 

[gideon_thorne]

"if you are willing to tweak another game why not tweak out the problems you find with D&D, I do".

I guess it comes down to the 'amount of detail' problem.

Perhaps some folks find it easier to add 5% to a set of rules than subtract 90% of rules they don't need? (to cite an extreeme as an example)

Thats the most likely scenario I imagine?

 

[Melkor]

I bought the book, made an adventure and ran some friends through it. We've given the It -was- quick and easy but that came with a cost that we weren't willing to pay. Without feats, skills, PrC's, etc... there just wasn't enough opportunity for the players to customize their characters to their liking.

This may make me sound like i'm being an ass, but believe me, that is not my intention.

What you typed struck me as funny. I remember way back when the way you ROLEPLAYED the character was what "customized" the character and set him apart from every other 1st Level Fighter or 1st Level Magic User.

I playtested C&C, and wanted to state that up front so there's no hiding my association with the game....but after playing D&D in all of it's editions for years (I started back in 85'), the fun we had playing seemed to have dwindled off with 3.0/3.5.....I'm not going to knock D20, in fact, I think it is very smart game design and has a lot of really cool things going for it.

The problem we had was that the prep time, the minutia, and the time it took to run a single tactical combat (and this applies to my group only, I'm sure some of you do it faster) with miniatures and the grid just seemed to suck all of the fun out of the game. It got to the point where the group stopped playing for over a year.

We played C&C during the playtest, but then one of the players had a baby, and work got busy for all of us. We started a new C&C campaign last week and had an absolute blast. The free-flow of the system was a breath of fresh air, and the fact that we could bolt on our old 1E and 2E house rules made it really nostalgiac. We're playing the second session of the new campaign tomorrow, and I am looking forward to it.

I wish there was a little more "crunch" to C&C, but overall, I am very pleased with it.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

What you typed struck me as funny. I remember way back when the way you ROLEPLAYED the character was what "customized" the character and set him apart from every other 1st Level Fighter or 1st Level Magic User.

I remember back when the way you roleplayed the character had no mechanical effect of the game, provided you didn't roleplay the default character archetype you were given.

It's the difference between being able to paint racing stripes on one of your cars and actually having a custom-tweaked engine on one of your cars. Either way it's individualized, but I'd only call the latter customized.

 

[Breakdaddy]

PS: how did you know I was waving my hand?

I got lucky. I had just cast C&C Clairvoyance when you began waving your hand about like a wee magic wand.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I remember back when the way you roleplayed the character had no mechanical effect of the game, provided you didn't roleplay the default character archetype you were given.

Really? We must have been playing two different games.

It's the difference between being able to paint racing stripes on one of your cars and actually having a custom-tweaked engine on one of your cars. Either way it's individualized, but I'd only call the latter customized.

Someone still needs to do the customizing and painting though. In other words, ya need people. Rules are not nearly as important as people.

 

[Tetsubo]

I bought a copy, I read it. It does in fact have that 1st edition feel. And after reading it I have decided that I really like 3.5. C&C just felt incomplete. As a friend said, "Rules Lite means I have to come up with more rules." I'll add it to my gaming collection but I am unlikely to ever take it off the shelf again. I was disappointed in it.

Though I will admit the Ranger +1 damage per level against humanoids and giants did make me smile...