Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[National Acrobat]

They get a d10, because they are basically fighters, with a few morale boosting abilities. They do not have spells, nor do they have many of the other bardic powers that the DnD Bard has.

It's no different than the paladin, who gets a d10 and has a bunch of abilities.

In C&C, the Ranger, Paladin and Bard do not get spells.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But they do have more hit points than God, apparently ...

They really shouldn't have more than barbarians

Yeah, I know it's only one review (I've read others) but it's pretty revealing. Except about the opposed check (I noticed that error in the review).

 

[Breakdaddy]

I have seen this several times, where my fellow gamers knock d&d and hype up some other roll playing game. They usually start out by saying something is easier with the other and then they quote several, what they perceive as problems with D&D. And when I question them almost universal is "it's just easier to tweak the rules"...

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.

 

[maddman75]

So is there a way to do opposed checks? Because from what it sounds like to me the suggested mechanic of having all rolls default to DC 18, and give the player a +6 if its in his prime sounds a lot more elegant.

Personally, I'd like a rules-lighter version of D&D. But C&C has too many downsides for me. There's not enough character specialization or evolution. With no feats and no dynamic skills, characters can't decide to change directions or tactics. In 3e, my fighter can decide to learn to use stealth, or my barbarian can convert to the civilized gods and become a cleric. They lost the feats and the multiclassing rules, which are two of the most elegant parts of the game. I could never go back to straight-jacket classes. Sounds more like its feeding 1e nostalgia than making a rules-light d20. And that's cool, but not what I'm after.

Maybe I need to talk my players into fantasy Unisystem...

 

[Maliki]

They lost the feats and the multiclassing rules

Feats are easily ported to the game(I made a list of 20-25 feats that suited my campaign)

The rules for multiclassing will be in the Castle Keepers Guide(DMs guide) and they are also posted online ot TLGs website among others. Also many examples of peoples house ruled multiclass options are posted.

Sounds more like its feeding 1e nostalgia than making a rules-light d20.

It's not just about nostalgia(I could find as many things about earlier editions that I disliked as I find in 3.0/3.5 that I dislike) And it is very rules lite(which means the DM(CK) has to make more calls) And though not that different than d20 it is not a d20 game.

 

[gideon_thorne]

To clarify:

Monsters do not have ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha). They have an AC, attack bonus, damage, etc... but these values are not derived from HD and ability scores as they are in 3e.

Monsters do have ability scores, in a sense. They have a Physical (STR, DEX CON) and/or Mental (INT WIS CHA) Primes.

 

[maddman75]

Feats are easily ported to the game(I made a list of 20-25 feats that suited my campaign)

The rules for multiclassing will be in the Castle Keepers Guide(DMs guide) and they are also posted online ot TLGs website among others. Also many examples of peoples house ruled multiclass options are posted.



It's not just about nostalgia(I could find as many things about earlier editions that I disliked as I find in 3.0/3.5 that I dislike) And it is very rules lite(which means the DM(CK) has to make more calls) And though not that different than d20 it is not a d20 game.

Yeah, but with different XP values for each class, you aren't going to have the easy, intuitive, flexible multiclassing that is one of the best parts of 3e (IMO). And its not that feats would be hard to put in, just that I don't understand why they were left out in the first place. Sure, you don't include the ones that focus on AoOs and such, but they're just character abilities. Those are a good thing in my book.

I guess I'd be more interested in a rules-light d20 than an updated AD&D/BD&D that C&C seems to be.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Regarding 'customization', while there are no skills and feats in C&C, the system of primes does allow for a fair degree of customization in characters, if used properly.

QUOTE]

To add to Akrasias point and to cover the topic of the lack of skills feats and whatnot.

I ask this question. What are rules for? And a simple answer. They are designed to provide a framework.

The only difference that C&C really has compared to 3rd edtion is the amount of detail. All these details, like feats and skills and talents and the various sorts of 'character development' tools that have come out over the years do only one thing. They provide a guide to character development. The amount of 'detail' neccessary to a system seems to be at the heart of much of these debates.

C&C has a pseudo skills system inherent in the seige engine. If you want your fighter to be stealthy or your mage to know something about weaponcrafting or whatever it is that one feels is needed to 'flesh out' your character, the seige engine, with a bit of help from the player on character backstory, provides. It just doesn't do so in the exhaustive detail that 3rd ed does.

The questions remain the same in both cases. WHY does your fighter know stealth? WHY would the mage know how to weaponssmith? In my game it had better be a reason much more compelling than 'it sounds cool'.

In my case, exhaustive mechanics are largely unneccessary. They always have been since, even from day one (back in 1978 or so) the groups I played with ignored large amounts of the rules (or made up stuff that made more sense to us) and stuck with the basics. And the more rules I have to ignore, the less inclined I am to fiddle with a system.

But irrergardless, at the heart of any game system, there are still those that play the game. And they are the ones ultimately responsible for the choices relating to character development. All the mechanics in the world wont help make a good solid character, without a person playing them.

Of course, the even more basic question was posed by a long time friend of mine and a gamer from way back. "What ever happened to just whapping something with a sword and killing it?"

This in relation to my explanation on the progress of rpgs.

 

[maddman75]

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.

 

[bolie]

Okay, so monsters do have attributes. They have two: Mental and Physical. And these have only two values, 0 or 1. That's not the same as having the six attributes that PCs have. And it doesn't really help you polymorph or customize.

And while there are 13 classes in C&C, they consist of fighter-types, theif-types, wizard-types, and cleric-types. And if you are one, you are one.

Primes allow for a certain amount of customization, as does race. But not a lot. There are only six primes. There are a lot of skills and feats. Far more than six.

I realize that different people make different arguments, but I would like to clarify something. C&C is not as flexible as D&D3 and does not offer near the variety. Some people seem to believe that less is more and that not having options spelled out means you have infinite options. While that's sort of true, it's not very useful to someone who doesn't want to make up rules for everything they want to do on the fly.

I am currently playing a C&C game and am happy because the DM is good and the campaign is interesting. But I don't like the system and would rather play the same campaign with D&D3. But the DM doesn't want to and that's his call. And I sympathise. He prefers to spend his time working on the campaign and doesn't want to get bogged down by the variety of rules in 3e.

I will most likely DM our next game and I will use 3e because that's what I prefer.

But I may import the idea of having six saving throws with a standard bonus. I like that.

Bolie IV