No Love

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:36 am

After several months without any gaming goodness, I've been lucky and now have two games going. The C&C / Pathfinder game and the BECM / Known World game.

The Pathfinder group meets again this Wednesday, and I was speaking with the other group members today. They are new to C&C and so I was asking them the thoughts on the system so far. Unfortunately it was a resounding...

meh.

While they don't think C&C sucks, they all admitted it was just ok and that they preferred AD&D. So, after much discussion, they also brought up that they'd like to convert their characters to 2nd Edition and continue playing the Rise of the Runelords game using AD&D.

More discussion ensued and it was finally agreed upon that we'd switch out to 2nd Edition.

So, now I'm without a C&C game. But, I have to admit, its not entirely a loss. I got a BECM game going and an AD&D 2nd Edition game going?

Gaming is good right now.

Birthright · Post by **Birthright** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:33 am

Interesting. I'm curious as to what the group misses from 2e when they are playing C&C?

Our group has played 2e almost exclusively for many years. We recently dabbled in a 3.5 mini-campaign and while it was fun, we were not overly impressed with D&D 3.5.

I am running a mini-campaign using C&C for our group while our regular DM takes a break. Our initial impressions were that is was so similar to 2e that there was not really a lot of point changing systems for our regular campaigns. However, several features of C&C are a big plus cf. 2e, e.g.:

attack bonuses instead of THAC0 / ascending AC

quicker character generation

standardized ability score modifiers

non need for very high scores to get a few positive modifiers

more spells for the wizard at 1st level (two sleep spells )

I'm looking forward to the CKG guidelines for modifying the PHB classes so I can convert over magicians, specialty priests, spellcasting bardsetc. from the 2e Birthright rules. Also, I think some kind of simple(ish) skill system is in order if we were to go for a longer campaign.

Oh, one thing that's unanimous - XP awards for monsters in C&C REALLY suck, btb.

In fact, can I ask those "in the know" why it was decided that XP should be 1e style (i.e. X +y/hp) instead of a flat amount for each creature a-la Ad&d 2e?

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:46 am

Birthright wrote:
In fact, can I ask those "in the know" why it was decided that XP should be 1e style (i.e. X +y/hp) instead of a flat amount for each creature a-la Ad&d 2e?

It was all to do with a horrific event.. the invasion of the Nostalgia Monkey's.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:00 am

Birthright wrote:
Interesting. I'm curious as to what the group misses from 2e when they are playing C&C?

My personal opinion? I think they prefer the familiarity.

Some of the specific things they mentioned were:

Liked NPW system better than the Secondary skill system.

Preferred 2nd Edition Attacks per round and weapon specialization

Prefer THAC0

Ranger player preferred 2nd Edition ranger (2 weapon fighting mainly)

Also stated they felt the rules were more "complete"".

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:08 am

Oh, and another thing was the SIEGE mechanic/Primes

One of the players mentioned that a 2nd Edition character, even with average stats, could succeed more often in all of his attribute checks than a C&C character who was only likely to succeed in his Primes.

Birthright · Post by **Birthright** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:57 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
It was all to do with a horrific event.. the invasion of the Nostalgia Monkey's.

I thought it must have been. For such a stremlined system, it seemed odd to me that XP would be done in such a way that required a calculation for each creature defeated. I'm considering just jotting in the average XP per creature into my copy of M&T, and maybe doubling or even tripling that amount.

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:51 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
My personal opinion? I think they prefer the familiarity.

Some of the specific things they mentioned were:

Liked NPW system better than the Secondary skill system.

Preferred 2nd Edition Attacks per round and weapon specialization

Prefer THAC0

Ranger player preferred 2nd Edition ranger (2 weapon fighting mainly)

Also stated they felt the rules were more "complete"".

Then, my question is, since they liked those things, why not import them into your C&C game??

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:50 am

Dristram wrote:
Then, my question is, since they liked those things, why not import them into your C&C game??

Why import so many things to make C&C more 2nd Edition-like when you have the exact same effect by just playing 2nd Edition.

Birthright · Post by **Birthright** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:13 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
Why import so many things to make C&C more 2nd Edition like when you have the exact same effect by just playing 2nd Edition.

That is precisely our group's sentiment too. However C&C has "taught" us that ascending AC and bonus to hit are great and weapon speeds and casting times really don't add much to the game.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:18 am

Birthright wrote:
That is precisely our group's sentiment too. However C&C has "taught" us that ascending AC and bonus to hit are great and weapon speeds and casting times really don't add much to the game.

Yeah, I've never made use of those optional rules after the first few times I played 2nd Edition.

Initially I thought the ascending armor and BtH were great. But after using them for awhile, I'm preferring the old THAC0 method.

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:58 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
It was all to do with a horrific event.. the invasion of the Nostalgia Monkey's.

Those nostalgia monkeys sure do get around. That's exactly what 3E players say drives this whole C&C thing.
_________________
http://www.philotomy.com
Lost City Campaign Log

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:09 pm

Yeah, the attribute check method of 2e is much easier for PCs with crappy stats to have a better chance on anything that's actually an attribute check (which, by the rules of 2e, is supposed to be pretty damn rare when you're using the NWPs; otherwise, they are more common) because even a 9 has a 45% of success. This has a wholly different "feel" to the characters though, since it makes those who actually have the ability (a la class or NWP) "less special" than someone who simply has has the same score, or better - it also means your scores are more important because they affect everything. So, in the end, it depends on how easy you want the world to be for the PCs... is everything relatively easy for them, or it is more difficult? If you prefer a harder, more "edgier" feel, C&C is the right choice.

As to the ranger and dual-wielding... yes, they are perverted powerful in 2e. No penalty and multiple attacks, in addition to weapon specialization. Hello cheese, goodbye fighter. Of course, you have to roll good scores, which is just even more of a bonus. So, if you get to be a ranger, you get to be very powerful, and have even better scores for it! Plus, you get all kinds of neat abilities like charming animals on sight, and spellcasting! Yay! Attribute requirements re-enforce munchkinism; 1e should not have had them - its one of a very few things d20 did right.

Anyway, 2e is a great game, and there are things about it that are cool... but its also a game with a certain slant that makes certain things very different... and its those things that I think C&C avoids, which is why I'd prefer it (houseruled to be what it doesn't do).

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:18 pm

serleran wrote:
No penalty and multiple attacks, in addition to weapon specialization.

By the book, only single classed fighters get weapon specialization. Meaning rangers don't, heck even multi-class fighters don't. Unless you go to the later Players Option books crap, which I don't use.

Jyrdan Fairblade · Post by **Jyrdan Fairblade** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:19 pm

Funny, I think the C&C Ranger is one of the best Ranger classes out there (the other being the Midnight setting's Wildlander).

DangerDwarf wrote:
Ranger player preferred 2nd Edition ranger (2 weapon fighting mainly)

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:01 pm

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:
Funny, I think the C&C Ranger is one of the best Ranger classes out there (the other being the Midnight setting's Wildlander).

I agree. The C&C ranger kicks ass (Wildlander does too for that matter).

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:09 pm

Oh, and another note on the Ranger two weapon fighting. It doesn't make the rangers superbad at all.

A fighter with weapon specialization at level 1 gets 3 attacks every two rounds. The dual wielding ranger at level 1 may get 2 attacks per round but is restricted to studded leather armor.

Not exactly overpowering.

The auto befriending of non-threatening animals isn't overpowering either. Yay, the village hound dog likes me!

For threatening natural animals, the critter gets to make a save. Even on a failed save it doesn't make the critter his pet, it just means it wont attack and likely will wander off.

The extra abilities of the ranger add to the XP progression and the three prime requisites make it less likely he'll get the XP bonus, which a fighter only needs a 16 or better in one attribute to get making it more likely he'll advance even faster.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:37 pm

Dogs (though some are incredibly useful) are one thing... bears and dinosaurs are another, as are snakes and spiders. Its an ability easily abused, but entirely circumstantial. The "problem" is that its much better than the "charm animal" spell and even druids, the class that should have something like that, doesn't, except limited by the number of spell slots wasted.

And, by the rules, the animal doesn't have to be non-threatening. The ranger has to. Its just that there is a save needed if the beast is not placid (or untrained to attack), with penalty (and crappy to begin with, seeing as these are animals.) This means a ranger can approach a dog while it is eating the wizard and get it to back off. No spell. He can just do it, if the dog fails its save. This = ridiculous.

Also, the ranger can always dual-wield... they just remove the penalty in studded leather or worse. And, with the Dex requirement of at least 13, they are likely to have both an AC bonus and a reaction adjustment to offset the off-hand penalty. So, even in studded, if they have a decent Dex at 16, they are roughly the same as the fighter in the chain who probably doesn't have the same Dex by force or requirement (he probably has it in Str and Con, though) but the ranger is attacking twice, and the fighter is going once. They also probably have the same general bonus to hit, since the Ranger has that Str 13 requirement.

So, yes, its hard to get the stats of a ranger (at least with 3d6) but the requirements make them even more nasty. If you suck as a ranger (ie, just the requirements) its not so bad, but the class does seem to want to say "hey, powergame me!"

That's one reason I don't like attribute requirements. The class should be good without high scores; high scores should be good without a class... combining them should be good, but not something that is "required."

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:58 pm

I'm still not seeing it Serl.

Saves are required for all wild animals or animals trained to attack, watch dogs, whatever. The auto success is only for domestic animals who aren't trained to attack.Even if the critter fails its save, it only changes its reaction by 1 step.

So, lets say ranger comes across a Hostile bear. He successfully uses his ability and the bear becomes....Threatening. Persistant ranger guy uses it again and succeeds making the bear cautious. One more roll that succeeds moves the bear to Flight, now running away.

So, he used 3 rounds to make the bear run. He and his party whacking on it with pointy things for three rounds would likely have the same effect.

This also only works on natural animals that can be found in the real world. I don't think dinosaur fit that category so thats a no for them. Yes, you could argue that dinosaur used to exist but "Natural Animal" they are not.

Now, lets look at the druid's animal friendship spell. It allows the caster to actually make a companion out of the animal, teach him tricks, etc.

Two very different abilities. One makes the bear less likely to attack, the other makes it your pet.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:12 pm

Pulling out the DMG and looking, I did get the encounter reactions wrong though, the bear would progress to indifferent from cautious (not flight), and then to friendly.

Friendly still doesn't make the bear a pet though any more than the friendly bartender is now your henchman.

Still, not too bad from memory.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:32 pm

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
Those nostalgia monkeys sure do get around. That's exactly what 3E players say drives this whole C&C thing.

*chuckles* In part, this is correct. But in order to be viable in today's market, C&C has to be able to reach a wide audience. So, a mix of old and new.

Although it is more correct to say that its a nostalgia for a 'style' of play than a strict emulation of mechanics.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:42 pm

serleran wrote:
And, with the Dex requirement of at least 13, they are likely to have both an AC bonus and a reaction adjustment to offset the off-hand penalty.

The DEX requirement doesn't make it more likely that the ranger will have extraordinary Dex, just that he will have a DEX of at least 13. 13 confers neither a recation adjustment nor a defensive adjustment.

Beyond 13? the fighter and the ranger are both equally likely to have a score beyond that.

kaomera · Post by **kaomera** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:20 am

Birthright wrote:
I thought it must have been. For such a stremlined system, it seemed odd to me that XP would be done in such a way that required a calculation for each creature defeated. I'm considering just jotting in the average XP per creature into my copy of M&T, and maybe doubling or even tripling that amount.

I don't see what the problem is. Once the creature is defeated it has zero hps, right... Aaaand 0 * n = 0...
_________________
My heart is black, and my lips are cold

Cities on flame with rock and roll

Three thousand guitars they seem to cry

My ears will melt, and then my eyes

~ Blue yster Cult

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:04 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Why import so many things to make C&C more 2nd Edition-like when you have the exact same effect by just playing 2nd Edition.

Well, to me, what makes C&C what it is, is the SEIGE Engine along with the attribute Primes and Non-primes. Importing things like NWP, WP, 2nd Ed. classes, etc. are small additions to C&C. I could take my 1st Edition books and play them with the SEIGE Engine as the mechanic instead of THAC0 and static class chart saves and to me, it would be C&C, not 1st. Edition AD&D. So that's how I see it and why I really dig C&C.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:59 pm

I like the SIEGE engine because 95% of the time I can use the TN Prime system with the CL being the HD of the opponent, or opponents. So I rarely have to think about specific rules issues while running the game. Other than spells, of course.

So I use C&C as my "base" and use whatever else from the other systems I like best.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames