Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 2048339" data-attributes="member: 7635">I dunno...  :\ 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.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. 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.This from a person who believes Rule's Cyclopedia was one of the best versions of D&D ever. YYMV.</blockquote>