Ten observations on Castles & Crusades compared to d20.

[Acid_crash]

I'm still gonna buy a copy of this book.......IF my FLGS would ever get a copy of it in stock.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

I'm still gonna buy a copy of this book.......IF my FLGS would ever get a copy of it in stock.

You might have to ask them to special order it for you.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Ouch! That means that you'd be silly to play a human past 5th level! I hated that the most about 2e/1e haste rules.

Or maybe you don't use Haste every combat? It's not "expected" or anything so if you never cast haste you aren't going to be at some disadvantage. You just have to use different tactics if you are a haste happy gamer. It was never a problem in AD&D for me and i don't see the problem unless players simply pick classes based on maximizing every single mechanical advantage no matter how small. I like the feel of the rule and actually wish more magic had a drawback, a price to be paid. I think it makes things more interesting. I'd kind of like magic to be damaging to the caster, ala Call Of Cthulhu, but that would be too big a change from the expected Greyhawk environment we are playing in as it would change the nature of the Wizard class too much.

YMMV.

 

[Mythmere1]

As a house rule for C&C, I wonder if the perennial problem with haste couldn't be fixed by adding one to the spell's level and ignoring all negative effects?

 

[Particle_Man]

As a house rule for C&C, I wonder if the perennial problem with haste couldn't be fixed by adding one to the spell's level and ignoring all negative effects?

My solution was simply to say that no spellcaster can cast haste more than once a fortnight. This gives you the rarity without the pain.

As written, a wizard would be better putting in a different offensive spell in the 3rd level spell slot. If you don't know what is coming, fireball does just fine, thanks.

 

[Andre]

For anyone who's played the game, a quick question on spells:

Are there limits on spell damage? I was glancing through the book and I didn't see anything that said magic missile tops out at 5 missiles, that fireball can only do 10d6, etc.

 

[gideon_thorne]

For anyone who's played the game, a quick question on spells:

Are there limits on spell damage? I was glancing through the book and I didn't see anything that said magic missile tops out at 5 missiles, that fireball can only do 10d6, etc.

I suspect that might be one of those things left intentionally vague so people could 'fill in the blank' on their own.

I for one, and the groups I played with, certainly never put a 'cap' on the damage.

Made the spell caster more powerful, but it also made said caster more cautious when effects like fireball not only expanded in power, but in radius.

heh heh heh.. BOOM!

 

[Tetsubo]

After looking through the book I can say that the game does seem to capture that 1st Edition feel. And the conclusion I can draw from that observation is that I really like 3.5. I'm rather disappointed in C&C. Oh well, it's part of my collection now.

On the upside the Book of Familiars is very good so far...

 

[Mythmere1]

For anyone who's played the game, a quick question on spells:

Are there limits on spell damage? I was glancing through the book and I didn't see anything that said magic missile tops out at 5 missiles, that fireball can only do 10d6, etc.

Wizards are quite vulnerable in C&C, and advance more slowly than most other classes. As they reach higher level (just as in OD&D), they become a tremendously powerful force (part of the reason the level advancement is slower).

 

[Breakdaddy]

After looking through the book I can say that the game does seem to capture that 1st Edition feel. And the conclusion I can draw from that observation is that I really like 3.5. I'm rather disappointed in C&C. Oh well, it's part of my collection now.

On the upside the Book of Familiars is very good so far...

Did you read all of the C&C threads (or at least the big one)? I did, and the vast majority of the rules (as few as there are!) were discussed in detail here. If you didnt like it, and assuming you read the threads, what did you really expect from it? I would be interested to find out what dissapointed you so much about C&C. You admit it caught the 1st edition feel and then said that this is the reason you dont like it . Kind of makes me wonder why you bought it to begin with, knowing that it would probably not be your kind of game at all...