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="bolie" data-source="post: 2044778" data-attributes="member: 8312">The problem with this "system" of ad hoc rulings made on the fly is that it makes it difficult for a player to plan ahead.  He will make decisions about his character based on what he thinks is reasonable.  If the DM disagrees, then his decisions have been invalidated and his character may not be what he wanted.  Also, it makes it more difficult for a player to plan ahead what his tactics will be in certain situations if he doesn't know how the DM will rule.  With 3e, you can look up all the rules and figure out your tactics ahead of time.  Then you can write it down and you know what the rules are.  If the DM doesn't know the rules, you can show him.A DM can obviously house rule anything, but at least with 3e, you have a basis to start from for a lot of things.  With C&C, you have no guidance.  I've asked a number of questions and pointed out what I thought were missing rules and I keep getting told "Just make it up!  What's the problem?"  That's not a very helpful answer.  If I wanted to make it up, I'd be a game designer.  As you know, I have a job, two kids, a wife, etc... all competing for my time.  Making up rules is not what I'd rather be doing.  Nor is arguing about them during the game session.I consider myself lucky in that I generally agree with my DM, so C&C is working okay for us.  I have had DMs, though, who I did not agree with on game rulings.  Even with rules, we had some problems.  With an open system like C&C, we would have probably come to blows.The C&C system has some good mechanics (six saving throws, undead turning), but I feel like it has some serious holes (monster abilities).Bolie IV</blockquote>

Verification