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: 2102834" data-attributes="member: 8312">My big problem with C&C is not the rules or the system per se, it's the execution.  I have been pretty hard on the system probably because I do like the idea of a simplified system.  Unfortunately, the C&C PHB is riddled with grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors as well as significant rules problems.The rules in the PHB were obviously written from the 3e SRD and then modified.  In many places, though, rules are still there from the SRD that don't make sense with the changes that have been made.  In other cases, rules in the PHB were obviously written by someone who did not know (either because no one knew or someone didn't tell him) how monsters would be handled.  This has led to no end of frustration for me as I try to figure out how the system should work.Advocates of the system continually point out that the system is designed to be house ruled.  I'm all for that and I'm all for the idea of modular subsystems in the CKG.  I think that's a really cool idea.  Here's a basic system.  Want feats?  Here's a feat subsystem.  Want more detail on skills?  Here's how.  Etc.. .However, being "designed to be house ruled" does not make up for inconsistencies in the rules as written.Hopefully, the second printing will fix all of these problems and then I will most likely be very happy.I still like 3.5e for it's tactical complexity, but that doesn't prevent me from liking C&C for it's simplicity.  I eat and enjoy both McDonald's AND Pappasitos.Bolie IV</blockquote>

Verification