Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mythmere1" data-source="post: 2043645" data-attributes="member: 26563">I think there's no question that C&C doesn't permit as much character specialization as 3E, at least not in terms of specialization that impacts the die-rolling mechanics of the game.  In order to lighten the framework rules of the d20 system in any way, you've either got to not apply the rules to the monsters (C&C does this, too, to a degree) or cut back on player options to some degree).Example: To have a large selection of feats, you need the feats to do something.  In 3E, feats can affect spells, skill results, Aoo, hps, movement, ROF, damage, or any of the various in-combat tactical options such as bull rush.Whether you think the complex system came first and permitted the player options, or whether you think the designers built the complexity as a vehicle for player options, or some combination, it's intuitive that the complexity of the 3E mechanics are integrally tied into the variety of options for players.Like it or hate it or not care, I don't think it's a compelling argument that C&C's system supports player options equivalent to 3E - if you're talking about having a specific die roll modifier resulting from a player's choice.This is one instance of where people are arguing past each other without understanding what's being said, I think.   And it covers two areas.1) C&C players are often saying that such player complexity and specialization comes from non-die roll mechanics just as easily as from the 3E rules.  3E players think this is a ludicrous statement, and resent the implication that they don't roleplay distinctions between characters as WELL as what they're talking about.  What the C&C players MEAN, though, is that there's a style of gaming in which, because the player has stated that the character is of a particular type, he gains modifiers on an ad-hoc basis.  "My fighter's a swashbuckler type.  Can I get a +1 to hit since I'm drawing the orcs down the stairs in a running fight?"  If the answer is yes, you've got one kind of gaming going on.  If the answer is "no, that's not one of the modifiers you gain from your specializations," it's another kind of gaming.  Both are valid - what I'm pointing out is what's meant by the apparently strange statement that C&C permits the same kinds of character specialization as 3E.  It's not about roleplaying, it's about ad-hoc discussions in a rules system that's designed to hang loosely, rather than tightly, around the events of the story.2) Some C&C players have said that you can easily house-rule in anything from 3E.  3E players point out that if you have to house rule it, it isn't there to begin with.  Again, there's a miscommunication based on a basic difference of game philosophy.  C&C is designed to have house rules built into it.  The xp system is a basic points-per-monster system, with no adjustment for the level of the party that fights it.  Such returns to AD&D mechanisms have been derided as "nostalgia," but they aren't.  There's an important reason for avoiding a CR-type system - the DM (CK) doesn't have to worry that if he makes a party more or lesss powerful using house rules that he is throwing off the xp calculations for the monsters.  In 3E, changing a party's overall power level with house rules can require the DM to recalculate CR, EL, etc.  Lots of the precalculated balancing of 3E can be thrown off by aggressive houseruling, which is why there is so much discussion of "broken" this or "broken" that.This is why C&Cers don't necessarily accept as final the argument that "if you can house rule up to it with C&C, you can house rule down to it from 3E."  It's true as a theoretical statement, but C&C has been designed as a platform for house ruling, whereas each component of 3E is much more highly tied in with the other components.  Again, neither system is inherently better or worse - 3E is designed to be comprehensive, where C&C is designed to allow easy tinkering.</blockquote>

Verification