who else loves the C&C...?

[Philotomy Jurament]

Maybe they could compile the best stuff from [the Gygaxian Fantasy Worlds] line into one book and put the C&C logo on it.

Part of that, at least, will happen. Currently, the line has stats for d20 and for Lejendary Adventure; the next printings will have C&C stats (I don't know if that's in addition, or replacing the current stats). That said, stats in those books aren't that important, for the most part.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

In C&C, two options.

1. He is a Fighter with a piratical background. He isn't a pirate any more, but his Climb skill is anyway good (STR based, he has a STR Prime), he will add his level to regular climb checks on rigging etc, but not to thief-style 'climb walls'.

Hmm. That's not really a satisfying solution - why is climbing rigging considered so very different from climbing a ruined castle wall? - but I see how it works.

2. If you want your PC to still be a real Pirate, use the Freebooter class from the netbook.

We're getting back to the point where a game which already does what I want it to in the published rules is easier.

 

[S'mon]

Hmm. That's not really a satisfying solution - why is climbing rigging considered so very different from climbing a ruined castle wall? - but I see how it works.


We're getting back to the point where a game which already does what I want it to in the published rules is easier.

On the second point - the Troll Lords have frequently said that the game is designed for house ruling. You don't like it, ok.

On rigging & castle walls - I have tried climbing both, believe me there is a BIG difference.
Edit: In C&C terms, there's at least a 10 point CL difference between the two. If climbing a castle wall is CL1, CC 19 for a Rogue, then he'd climb rigging at CC 9, but anything below 18 is supposed to be automatic.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I also think that variable XP tables by class and nonstandard attribute bonus schemes are goofy. I've heard the justifications, and they just don't wash with me.

This is one of my criticisms as well. A single XP chart is much simpler. My other criticism on class advancement is that the HD stop around level 9 and you have the +X HP after that.

I have no idea why they didn't stick with the 3e attribute modifiers. The difference is so miniscule anyway. An 18 Str in C&C gives a +3 bonus, while D&D gives a +4 bonus.

I may go with D&D's take on all of this. I know the classes are designed to work around variable XP charts, but it wouldn't break the game to use a unified chart.

C&C bards and monks are well done --

I like a monk a lot better than its 3e counterpart. It's so much easier.

What strikes me about the bard is how well it would work in Dragonlance, which is my setting of choice. In the current rules, a bard casts arcane spells (wild magic) while they worship deities such as Branchala, the Bard King. Long story short, arcane wild magic and divine magic from a god don't mix. It would make more sense if the bard in Dragonlance either gained divine spells or didn't have spells at all, which is how C&C's bard does it. I do wish that C&C's bard had spells, since that's the classic approach, but I know of a house ruled arcane bard version.

 

[S'mon]

I find the variable XP charts work much better, they mean you don't require the sacred god Balance to anything like the extent of 3e. I also find the B/X-C&C stat bonuses far better than 3e's overpowered version - that +4 to hit/+6 2-h damage with STR 18 makes a huge difference, but far worse is the way bonuses and penalties apply to all but a 10-11, so every bloody NPC will have them and it's a pain to detail. C&C you can just say "Stats: 8+1d4" and not worry about it.

 

[Particle_Man]

The trouble I have with the variable XP charts is that, when combined with the training rules they don't do what they are supposed to do.

The rogue is meant to level up faster than the fighter (and most of the rest of the party). But the rogue needs to train for (a) week(s) while the fighter does not yet need to train. If the rest of the party keeps adventuring, guess what, the rogue does not level up because he didn't get a chance to train. Thus the party levels up at the same time anyhow.

Or, the rogue is "temporarily out of action" and that player plays some temp character while the rogue is training?

The other option is that training takes place for each character, while the other characters each wait around for that character to tain. Cue the aging rules?

Or you just ignore training times. Or allow "pre-training" for those characters that have not yet leveled up. So the fighter would train when the rogue does, and just level up later, when the fighter gets the right experience point total.

I also had a problem with dragons, but based upon wanting more simplicity in these monsters. I didn't find out about balance issues because I haven't used them yet.

 

[S'mon]

I'm using the pre-training option. It's only really Rogues of the standard classes who are likely to level up much earlier, and it won't happen often, they'll mostly just be 1 level higher than the others. If there is a problem here it's that some campaigns won't fit the training rules, not with variable XP charts.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I find the variable XP charts work much better, they mean you don't require the sacred god Balance to anything like the extent of 3e.

lol Yeah, I can understand what you mean by Balance.

To me, though, it seems like it's easier to reference one single chart rather than several.

I also find the B/X-C&C stat bonuses far better than 3e's overpowered version - that +4 to hit/+6 2-h damage with STR 18 makes a huge difference, but far worse is the way bonuses and penalties apply to all but a 10-11, so every bloody NPC will have them and it's a pain to detail. C&C you can just say "Stats: 8+1d4" and not worry about it.

I can see having a greater range for not having modifiers. Beyond that, though, the ranges seem a bit off to me. To illustrate...


Attribute Modifier
9-12_________0
13 - 15______+1
16 - 17______+2
18 - 19______+3

Okay, so we have a range of 4, a range of 3, and two ranges of 2. The inverse applies for negatives. So there is a system, but it isn't that standardized. Though perhaps this isn't such a big deal.

To me, it's more game-breaking to have primes. They effectively give a whopping +6 to various rolls, compared to the occasional extra +1 D&D would give.


As far as I can tell, the main reason for the various XP charts and attribute modifiers is more for a sense of nostalgia than anything. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. I disagree with the idea that this approach is simpler, but as always, one's mileage may vary.

What I have to ask myself in all of this is whether these issues are enough to warrant some house rules or not. As time goes on, I think I feel that there are some points to argue, and some things that I can live with. I think these are minor points, so no big deal. *shrugs*

 

[Grimstaff]

I don't get this need for a DMG. Everything you need to know to run the game is in the PH, except for a way to handle magic and treasure, and that is in the M&T.

So I don't see what is missing that the DMG type book is supposed to fill.

Well, I used my 1E DMG almost the whole time we played C&C. Wandering monster charts, city encounters, NPC stuff, environmental stuff, names, titles, random towns and hamlets, etc, etc.

Maybe I'm unique in this, but everything that happens "in-between" modules in my campaigns comes from the DMG. So perhaps I felt its absence more than most, but I never really thought I was so unique in my use of such an iconic tome.

I had also hoped for some missing C&C content like extensive SIEGE difficulty matrices, how commoners should be handled (1E-style 0-lvl's or 3E-style NPC classes?), official multi-classing rules, some cool optional rule stuff, and even some cool flavor stuff, like artifacts, pre-made NPCs, dungeon dressings, and so on.

I'm an experienced enough (is 20 years enough?) DM to wing all that stuff or pull it from other rulebooks and sources, heck I even published multi-class rules for C&C on Dragonsfoot, but I can't imagine everyone is willing to do that kind of legwork to play a new game when there are much better supported (3.5) and free (OSRIC, BASIC, Microlite20) games out there.

Don't get me wrong, I love C&C, but you have to admit it seems like the PHB and M&T were produced by two different companies with conflicting agendas, and the lack of DM-material seems unnecessarily inadept from both a gaming standpoint and a business standpoint.

C&C is certainly wonderfully supported module-wise, with a great selection of available adventures, some even for free. A0, A1, and A2, all played very well, despite not reading very well, whereas Dark Chateau read well but played like crap. The two Goodman Games addies read and played beautifully. But such a huge pile of published adventures makes one wonder even more fervently, "but where is my DMG? Where is my Screen?" Ok, so maybe the screen finally came out a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately not during the 9 months my group devoted solely to the game.

So, its really up to the individual to decide whether C&C is "Wonderfully Customizable" or "Woefully Undersupported".

But I can cetainly vouch for "fun" either way!

 

[Grimstaff]

Well, OSRIC will have 1e-style dragons.

Hooray!