Troll Lord Games

Looking into 5e again for various reasons (one being you can find a million more games running of it), which lead me to look up discussion of "5e vs C&C".

I found this one here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewt ... 20&t=69423

Someone named rabindranath72 said this:
The biggest offender in C&C in this regard is the saving throw system. It doesn't scale well, it's too harsh, one can lose high level characters easily to a single failed save. Whereas in AD&D high level spells with high output damage (or monsters with powerful effects like breath weapons) were mitigated by good saving throws on the receiving side, in C&C the save depends on the level/hit dice of the adversary, which scales like the receiving end, with the result that a 10th level fighters vs. a 10th level wizard saves like a 1st level fighter. Not bad per se, but it doesn't feel like D&D at all.

My brain doesn't get the issue. I think his complaint is a 10th level fighter vs 10th level wizard has the same odds as a 1st level fighter vs a 1st level wizard. Well, why shouldn't the odds be the same? The wizard has advanced to 10th level as well...why should their odds decrease against an equivalent fighter?

Yea, somehow that guy inevitably shows up to knock C&C when a discussion is posted. It's his opinion, which is fine. What I don't agree with is his implication that whatever game he is playing is BTB. I kinda doubt that. Like every D&D game I've played in, C&C is likely to be house ruled somewhat by the DM to fit the flavor of his campaign. The Monday nite game I play in has a list of house rules which work great, but adjusted saves aren't among them. Not sure how this will work at higher levels (we're all about 7th level now), but honestly I'm not concerned with it. The game flow has been great so far, and we certainly aren't lacking for challenges. If it concerns you, my suggestion is to look at the easy solutions guys like Rigon, Omote, or Treebore have offered.

And it's a shame that Rab is always running C&C down. At one point , he was a major proponent of the system. Hell, he was one of the guys that steered me this way back in my Dragon's Foot days. He wanted C&C to be exactly like AD&D, not it's own game. Which makes me wonder why he just didn't stick to playing AD&D. That being said, I'll move on.

I love the fact the saves in C&C remain challenging at higher levels. I think it makes the game more fun and interesting. That's why I don't have a house rule for saves. But if you did want to house rule it, here are two simple "fixes."

1. Save CL is equal to the spell level not the caster level.
2. Use half the level/HD of the caster as the CL.

I think it detracts from the game, but that's just me.

R-

Yes, ignore Rab. Everyone else does. He goes out of his way to find problems in C&C that don't exist, except in his mind.

I think Rab has a point. It's been a while since I've been to Dragonsfoot, so I could be wrong, but I believe Rab was one of the early C&C adopters who thought C&C was going to be a retroclone when it was in development and felt a bit "bait and switched" when C&C turned into its own thing. The "Rosetta Stone of gaming" advertising language also sat poorly with people looking for C&C to be a true 1E retroclone. Saving throws absolutely scale differently in C&C than 1E. If that is an important factor to you, then it's a big deal. If you are good with C&C being its own game, then it's not a big deal.

Just looked back at Rab's post and saw he brought up the "Rosetta Stone" claim, so I guess I'm on to something. Rab is the type of OSR guy who is looking for a game that feels like 1E. At high levels, C&C will feel different due to the difference in saving throw scaling, so C&C doesn't scratch his particular itch. 5E scales more like what he likes, so he prefers 5E. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean C&C is broken. It just isn't the best fit for that particular guy (and like-minded folk).

Buttmonkey wrote:I think Rab has a point. It's been a while since I've been to Dragonsfoot, so I could be wrong, but I believe Rab was one of the early C&C adopters who thought C&C was going to be a retroclone when it was in development and felt a bit "bait and switched" when C&C turned into its own thing. The "Rosetta Stone of gaming" advertising language also sat poorly with people looking for C&C to be a true 1E retroclone. Saving throws absolutely scale differently in C&C than 1E. If that is an important factor to you, then it's a big deal. If you are good with C&C being its own game, then it's not a big deal.

Just looked back at Rab's post and saw he brought up the "Rosetta Stone" claim, so I guess I'm on to something. Rab is the type of OSR guy who is looking for a game that feels like 1E. At high levels, C&C will feel different due to the difference in saving throw scaling, so C&C doesn't scratch his particular itch. 5E scales more like what he likes, so he prefers 5E. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean C&C is broken. It just isn't the best fit for that particular guy (and like-minded folk).

Which I'm ok with. My problem is that I've seen him actively dissuade people from C&C and intimate that C&C (and the SIEGE Engine in particular) is a broken.

R-

Yeah. I love 1E AD&D, I still play it when I can, which most recently was 2 or 3 years ago. One of the things I dislike about higher level play in 1E AD&D is how unhittable and unharmable the high level characters become. Games are much more fun when your worried about surviving, and if your still worried about dying at high levels, when in all liklihood you can be raised/ressurected, because the saves stay just as difficult at high level as they were since you were level 1 because your opponents *GASP* remain just as much of a threat at high levels as they were at level 1... Well I guess they just like playing in games with all the weapons rubberized and the power of the spells gutted. They probably like their dungeons padded with nice thick safety rubber so they don't bruise their knees if they trip.

Me? Give me a high level C&C game where my adrenaline still gets pumping because my 14th level Mage/Thief can still die relatively easily against their level appropriate opponents. Instead of the game like AD&D where I think, "Oh, I have a 95% liklihood of saving versus that spell, so am extremley likely to be just fine." Ho hum, no thrill of surviving against the odds. What is the point of playing such a game? That is BORING! I know, I have been there, done that. Give me a thrilling high level C&C game any time.

Rabindranath's argument in the quoted text is the exact reason why I find C&Cs save system superior to D&D in every way. I always hated high-level characters in D&D pushing aside spells in such an easy manner -- that may have worked for classic and AD&D, but I want high-level wizards to be terrifying with saving throw difficulties to match. Much like Treebore states, let's get the adrenaline pumping and roll the dice *prays to the dice Gods.*

High adventure is back in the game with C&C!

~O

I dunno. When I plays C&C I plays C&C, and when I plays AD&D I plays AD&D. Maybe it's a crummy Rosetta stone, but we stopped needing one when WoTC reprinted AD&D and RPGNow started carrying the rules pdfs again (and half of the groaners went on to the "meh, I guess it's not horrible" 5e).

Aergraith wrote:I dunno. When I plays C&C I plays C&C, and when I plays AD&D I plays AD&D. Maybe it's a crummy Rosetta stone, but we stopped needing one when WoTC reprinted AD&D and RPGNow started carrying the rules pdfs again (and half of the groaners went on to the "meh, I guess it's not horrible" 5e).

Yep, I still play AD&D, but the guy who runs it never goes above 9th level, so it never gets to the boring levels of play.

My post wasn't "against this Rab" guy/gal.....it was really about the logic of the statement. I didn't get why a 10th level Fighter should be better against a 10th level Wizard than a 3rd level Fighter against a 3rd Level Wizard. What's the point of having levels if they don't (roughly) scale the same? Sounds like everyone here "agrees" with me.

capmarvel wrote:My post wasn't "against this Rab" guy/gal.....it was really about the logic of the statement. I didn't get why a 10th level Fighter should be better against a 10th level Wizard than a 3rd level Fighter against a 3rd Level Wizard.

The only reason is because that's how they did it in 1E.

Just seems like he has an axe to grind. Whatever, that's his business, but if he wanted a game that played like 1E, he should've just played 1E. I liked it, but the game we played was always house ruled (no weapon speed factors, weapons vs armor types). Its been a long time since I've played it, but I seem to remember that higher level characters had too easy of a time against high level opponents (demons, devils, and dragons in particular). Although I haven't played C&C at high levels yet, as referred to above, I'm looking forward to seeing the Siege Engine work. So far it feels like D&D to me.

Buttmonkey wrote:

capmarvel wrote:My post wasn't "against this Rab" guy/gal.....it was really about the logic of the statement. I didn't get why a 10th level Fighter should be better against a 10th level Wizard than a 3rd level Fighter against a 3rd Level Wizard.

The only reason is because that's how they did it in 1E.

Do, present tense. The material is still readily available, especially in PDF. Yeah, that is how they do it, and obviously something I do not like, but like I have said, up until about 11th level, I still have fun playing 1E AD&D. For levels beyond that, give me the SIEGE engine.

capmarvel wrote:My post wasn't "against this Rab" guy/gal.....it was really about the logic of the statement. I didn't get why a 10th level Fighter should be better against a 10th level Wizard than a 3rd level Fighter against a 3rd Level Wizard. What's the point of having levels if they don't (roughly) scale the same? Sounds like everyone here "agrees" with me.

I didn't mean it to sound like I was bagging on Rab. I just think if you have a prefer a style of game then play it. And I'm ok with him pointing out his opinion of a rules set, just don't actively try to steer people away from a game because you feel that it is broken. And like I said, if not for Rab, I'd probably not be here or playing C&C.

R-

The guy is clearly just looking for something to complain about and grasping at straws.
As you said, a level 10 guy against another level 10 guy should be in a very similar position to a level 1 guy vs a level 1 guy. Both people should scale equally, one scaling more than the other is just poor game design.
However, that is still one of C&C's flaws imo. That guy cited an aspect of the system that isn't an issue but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue - he just pointed to the wrong direction. The issue itself does exist with respect to the issue of scaling BtH vs the non-scaling AC. Ac counts for a lot more at low levels and a whole lot less at high levels - it should scale with the exact same equivalence so the high level person isn't getting less value against an even-leveled opponent than he was at low levels.

Giant2005 wrote:The guy is clearly just looking for something to complain about and grasping at straws.
As you said, a level 10 guy against another level 10 guy should be in a very similar position to a level 1 guy vs a level 1 guy. Both people should scale equally, one scaling more than the other is just poor game design.
However, that is still one of C&C's flaws imo. That guy cited an aspect of the system that isn't an issue but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue - he just pointed to the wrong direction. The issue itself does exist with respect to the issue of scaling BtH vs the non-scaling AC. Ac counts for a lot more at low levels and a whole lot less at high levels - it should scale with the exact same equivalence so the high level person isn't getting less value against an even-leveled opponent than he was at low levels.

BtH vs AC scaling has always been a part of D&D style gaming. So again, I don't see it as an issue.

R-

1E AD&D has made spell casters weaker and weaker all these decades, and no one has complained about that. So C&C makes it to where spell casters actually stay scary, and they complain. Sorry, its far more of a "crime" enabling all their opponents to make their saves versus their spells 95% of the time, than it is to actually keep their spells dangerous.

Don't agree? Then run an AD&D 1E gamed where every time a Fighter, or Fighter type hits, their opponent gets to save versus Magic, and take only half damage if they do. Doing that to spell casters all this time has been one of the most agregious rules in 1E AD&D.

Rigon wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:The guy is clearly just looking for something to complain about and grasping at straws.
As you said, a level 10 guy against another level 10 guy should be in a very similar position to a level 1 guy vs a level 1 guy. Both people should scale equally, one scaling more than the other is just poor game design.
However, that is still one of C&C's flaws imo. That guy cited an aspect of the system that isn't an issue but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue - he just pointed to the wrong direction. The issue itself does exist with respect to the issue of scaling BtH vs the non-scaling AC. Ac counts for a lot more at low levels and a whole lot less at high levels - it should scale with the exact same equivalence so the high level person isn't getting less value against an even-leveled opponent than he was at low levels.

BtH vs AC scaling has always been a part of D&D style gaming. So again, I don't see it as an issue.

R-

I don't see how you can acknowledge that saving throws vs CL dynamic remaining relative throughout the levels as a good thing, while not acknowledging the issue of the AC vs BtH dynamic failing to remain relative throughout the levels as a bad thing.
That doesn't make sense to me.

Giant2005 wrote:

Rigon wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:The guy is clearly just looking for something to complain about and grasping at straws.
As you said, a level 10 guy against another level 10 guy should be in a very similar position to a level 1 guy vs a level 1 guy. Both people should scale equally, one scaling more than the other is just poor game design.
However, that is still one of C&C's flaws imo. That guy cited an aspect of the system that isn't an issue but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue - he just pointed to the wrong direction. The issue itself does exist with respect to the issue of scaling BtH vs the non-scaling AC. Ac counts for a lot more at low levels and a whole lot less at high levels - it should scale with the exact same equivalence so the high level person isn't getting less value against an even-leveled opponent than he was at low levels.

BtH vs AC scaling has always been a part of D&D style gaming. So again, I don't see it as an issue.

R-

I don't see how you can acknowledge that saving throws vs CL dynamic remaining relative throughout the levels as a good thing, while not acknowledging the issue of the AC vs BtH dynamic failing to remain relative throughout the levels as a bad thing.
That doesn't make sense to me.

Non scaling AC? Only if you don't allow magic items and spells.

Giant2005 wrote:

Rigon wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:The guy is clearly just looking for something to complain about and grasping at straws.
As you said, a level 10 guy against another level 10 guy should be in a very similar position to a level 1 guy vs a level 1 guy. Both people should scale equally, one scaling more than the other is just poor game design.
However, that is still one of C&C's flaws imo. That guy cited an aspect of the system that isn't an issue but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue - he just pointed to the wrong direction. The issue itself does exist with respect to the issue of scaling BtH vs the non-scaling AC. Ac counts for a lot more at low levels and a whole lot less at high levels - it should scale with the exact same equivalence so the high level person isn't getting less value against an even-leveled opponent than he was at low levels.

BtH vs AC scaling has always been a part of D&D style gaming. So again, I don't see it as an issue.

R-

I don't see how you can acknowledge that saving throws vs CL dynamic remaining relative throughout the levels as a good thing, while not acknowledging the issue of the AC vs BtH dynamic failing to remain relative throughout the levels as a bad thing.
That doesn't make sense to me.

Don't forget hit points go up. A straight BtH vs. AC comparison isn't entirely fair.

Antonio knows his math.

But, the premise is flawed as are all "it remains 50%" because, while technically true, it is not how the game was intended to play. But this is an argument of boredom.

And... please don't diminish others here. That's the same kind of BS that used to happen to us in other places. We're better than that. Disagree with the argument. Counter it. But leave the individual out of the equation.

This has been an incredibly useful thread for me! As a group who has never played above level 5, I did not realize this important point about Saves in C&C.

I'll need to explain this to my players (or at least the missus) and get feedback on her opinion. I admit, I'm somewhat rather split down the middle on it.

One the one hand, I get that a 7 HD giant spider's poison might be harder to save against than a 3 HD giant spider. Even if you argue that poison is the same, the 7 HD spider probably puts a bigger hole in its victim, meaning more poison gets in.

And we've seen this in D&D, too. "The spider's poison is potent: saves against it are at -4" and stuff like that.

On the other hand, to my mind it increases the "video game" feel (the way that when you enter a new area with tougher monsters, the new area is just as tough for you as the old area was when you were weaker; that limits the feel of "improving"). I like the other way, too, where your character literally gets tougher and more capable of fending off special attacks as he increases in level.

Of course, the easiest way to avoid this issue is to simply fight weaker monsters. Yes, the 7 HD spider's poison is harder to save against, so if you're 7th level then it's just as hard to save against it as it was to save against 3 HD spiders when you were third level. So the solution: Don't fight 7 HD spiders at 7th level. Always try to fight monsters of lower level than you are (which, really, is good advice no matter what game you're playing).

I definitely see both sides of this issue, and neither side seems wrong, but it's definitely a change from the original game. Whether or not it's *better* I couldn't say (because I don't know), and now that I'm aware of it, I need to bring it before my players and see how they feel about it. They may like it better, or may prefer the other way. Since I'm ambivalent at this point, I'll leave it up to them.

I liked Tree's comment:

Me? Give me a high level C&C game where my adrenaline still gets pumping because my 14th level Mage/Thief can still die relatively easily against their level appropriate opponents. Instead of the game like AD&D where I think, "Oh, I have a 95% liklihood of saving versus that spell, so am extremley likely to be just fine."

And I don't disagree completely, but I also think it's great fun to have worked your way up the ladder to power and to not have to be frightened of instant death around every corner. The fact that even the lowliest goblin can take out even a powerful fighter is part of what makes Savage Worlds so much fun. However, the fact that a high level fighter can take out a nest of goblins with little to fear is part of what makes D&D fun. Both are great in their own way.

Man, I'm really split on this, lol. I'm glad it was pointed out.

Another thing to factor in is the PC spellcaster. In the 1E paradigm, monsters of comparable hit dice are going save against the PC's spells a lot (at least, I assume that's how the save chart works; I could be remembering inaccurately). What's the point of becoming a high level magic user when the damn monsters keep saving easily? Monsters in C&C have something to fear as well.

Here's your scary wandering monster encounter for mid-level C&C parties (say levels 5-7): 4 or 5 NPC clerics of comparable level with a few meat shields in front to prevent the party from engaging the clerics in melee right away. If the monsters win initiative, a whole bunch of hold person spells could rain down on the party's heads. That can mean some very scary saving throws. If things go poorly in round 1, the party may be wiped. This is the sort of encounter the party could prep for if they see it coming (e.g., employ stealth/invisibility to get the drop on the clerics, etc.), but if they aren't expecting a roving band of killer clerics, it's about to get intense.

Well, this took a little more study on my part, so I went to an online SRD and read about how Saves are done in 3.5 (and, I presume, probably similarly done in all WotC editions).

What I found is that C&C's method is more closely akin to the newer editions of D&D than the older TSR versions of the game. Why this should surprise anybody, when the game already uses a BtH instead of THAC0, an ascending armor class instead of a descending armor class, and other "new ways" of doing things is beyond me.

At first I was a bit unsure about this differences in Saves, but at that time I was thinking that we were comparing C&C against D&D, but we're not; we're comparing C&C against a specific iteration of D&D that's not currently in use. That's not to say that the old game isn't still great, but it has moved on, and C&C represents a unique fusion of the old and the new.

If you don't like C&C's way of handling Saves, you should be equally unhappy with D&D 3e+'s way. (Actually, C&C's way is still more logical than later edition D&D). The only other option is to play the earlier editions, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but to say that there's something wrong with C&C's way is to say that there's something wrong with D&D, and most gamers would seem to disagree.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:Well, this took a little more study on my part, so I went to an online SRD and read about how Saves are done in 3.5 (and, I presume, probably similarly done in all WotC editions).

What I found is that C&C's method is more closely akin to the newer editions of D&D than the older TSR versions of the game. Why this should surprise anybody, when the game already uses a BtH instead of THAC0, an ascending armor class instead of a descending armor class, and other "new ways" of doing things is beyond me.

I don't think it's that similar. C&C is a SIEGE check (with all that entails: primes, level) vs. caster level. D20 is d20+attribute bonus+(fort/reflex/will) vs. spell level and caster attribute bonus.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: At first I was a bit unsure about this differences in Saves, but at that time I was thinking that we were comparing C&C against D&D, but we're not; we're comparing C&C against a specific iteration of D&D that's not currently in use. That's not to say that the old game isn't still great, but it has moved on, and C&C represents a unique fusion of the old and the new.

Which version of D&D is not in use?

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: If you don't like C&C's way of handling Saves, you should be equally unhappy with D&D 3e+'s way. (Actually, C&C's way is still more logical than later edition D&D). The only other option is to play the earlier editions, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but to say that there's something wrong with C&C's way is to say that there's something wrong with D&D, and most gamers would seem to disagree.

Incidentally, in 5e it's d20{advantage} + ability modifier vs 8 + your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers. The proficiency bonus is sort of a BTH/Level kind of thing used all over the place. Advantage is used for the class's proficient abilities and means to roll 2d20 and take the highest.

In 4e saves are a totally different thing. D20 vs. 10; but they aren't used in the same way. Defense against spells uses fort/ref/will in a way more similar to Armor Class.

I don't think anyone is astonished that C&C is a d20 derivative. My guess though is most of the people you find playing C&C came to it during an exodus from 3rd edition due to its rule-for-everything restrictive nature in hopes that the more laid back 70s/80s/90s play experience was available in a new off the shelf game (old editions weren't legally available in PDF and spotty in used book stores.) A significant portion of the remaining players never played 3rd edition and again wanted something like AD&D but available and not much work to play. Also, the Trolls were playing AD&D well into the years they developed C&C. So it's natural that comparisons will be made to AD&D.

Aergraith, maybe I'm misunderstanding your tone, but I think you have taken my reply as a critique of C&C and the Save system. If so, I have been gravely misunderstood, and I apologize for that. Just the opposite, I was saying that, upon reflection, I see that the Save system is close to the one in use in the current version of D&D, and so therefore there is nothing wrong with it.

A lot of the thread seems to say, "Some people don't like the way C&C does saves because it's not really like the game that it's supposed to be recloning (specifically 1e)." I read what they are saying, and I saw the differences. Because the only D&D I'm familiar with are BECMI, Cyclopedia, and 2e, I saw where this would be a radical departure from how I'm used to playing it. For this reason, I needed to discuss it with my players, and help them see the differences, to see which way we all think feels "more right" to us.

After some additional reflection, however, I realized that how C&C does it is really more akin to just "how it's being done nowadays." That makes it a living game, growing with the current editions, rather than just a photograph of a different time, or a love song to a previous age.

Aergraith wrote: I don't think it's that similar. C&C is a SIEGE check (with all that entails: primes, level) vs. caster level. D20 is d20+attribute bonus+(fort/reflex/will) vs. spell level and caster attribute bonus.

The two systems are more similar than they are different when comparing "old" to "new" D&D, at least on paper. In the old versions, as you improve in ability to avoid being turned to stone or being poisoned or whatever, your ability improves regardless of the toughness of the monster. In the new versions, the monsters scale in toughness with the Player Characters.

Yes, they use two different systems, but they achieve the same goal: to scale difficulty so that saves get tougher against tougher monsters. This is different from the older game where you just "saved" versus an effect that improved as you got more powerful. (Yes, I know some monsters had penalties to saves to account for them being more or less tougher than usual in their abilities, but it seems that by and large that was mainly for special cases, whereas nowadays even a small difference is accounted for).

Aergraith wrote: Which version of D&D is not in use?

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse here, probably because my reply came across to you as an attack on C&C, so you're perhaps a bit insulted?

My statement is obvious and shouldn't require clarification or explanation, but here it is: "we're comparing C&C against a specific iteration of D&D that's not currently in use" means "we're comparing C&C against 1e, not 5e."

Yes, people play 1e, I get it. But I think it's understood that Hasbro/WotC is pushing 5e. All of the other versions still exist, and are still played, but they are not the versions currently being focused on either by Hasbro or by the D&D community at large.

If you really didn't understand what I meant by that, I apologize. I'm not sure how I could have said it better without the long explanation given here. Everyone still loves all the old D&D, yes. 5e is the only one currently being "pushed" in an active sense.

Aergraith wrote: In 4e saves are a totally different thing. D20 vs. 10; but they aren't used in the same way. Defense against spells uses fort/ref/will in a way more similar to Armor Class.

I'm convinced: you know more about D&D than I do. Whether that's good or bad is not for me to say. I've never been a big D&D fan; I played it, yes, but spent far more time on many other games: T&T, MERP, Cyberpunk 2020 and Vampire were the main games I spent most of my life on. I played a little 2e and a little BECMI, and that's all the D&D I've ever done.

I bought C&C on a lark; it looked good, it was inexpensive compared to other games, and it read well. I was in the market for a new fantasy game, so we bought it and tried it out.

C&C won me over NOT because it was a D&D based game... just the opposite, that was the negative it had to come out from under first. It won me over by being a really good game. I honestly wanted to hate it, because I'm not really fond of the whole d20 system. But the more we played, the more enamored I became with it. We've only ever played up to 5th level, but it is truly one of my top 5 all time games now. It earned that by being awesome. I was not prepared to just give it to it.

Aergraith wrote: I don't think anyone is astonished that C&C is a d20 derivative. My guess though is most of the people you find playing C&C came to it during an exodus from 3rd edition due to its rule-for-everything restrictive nature in hopes that the more laid back 70s/80s/90s play experience was available in a new off the shelf game (old editions weren't legally available in PDF and spotty in used book stores.) A significant portion of the remaining players never played 3rd edition and again wanted something like AD&D but available and not much work to play. Also, the Trolls were playing AD&D well into the years they developed C&C. So it's natural that comparisons will be made to AD&D.

Again, my saying that is not to be construed as an attack. The last page of each copy of C&C, you know, the one that talks about the "license," clearly indicates that it is a derivative work. That isn't in any way an insult or an attack. Just the opposite, actually, in my opinion they have mostly made a silk purse out of a sow's arse.

I see you on the boards all the time, and I respect your opinions... I don't want to be on the wrong side of you or anybody, so I'm sorry if my comment was misunderstood. Perhaps it was my unusual brevity that made it come across as a negative post.

But again, it was not intended to be a negative statement at all. I was -- and am -- saying that the old way of doing saves was a fine way to do it, and the only way that I'm used to... but the way C&C does it now is more closely akin to what is being done in the current gaming arena by the biggest names in gaming, so if it's good for the masses, it's good for me.

In addition, by choosing to stay "current" in these ways, they have made a game which bridges the gap between "the old way" and "the new way," making a game that can be enjoyed both by grognards and newbies.

In every way, my comment was intended to be positive. I'm sorry if I was misunderstood.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:Aergraith, maybe I'm misunderstanding your tone, but I think you have taken my reply as a critique of C&C and the Save system. If so, I have been gravely misunderstood, and I apologize for that. Just the opposite, I was saying that, upon reflection, I see that the Save system is close to the one in use in the current version of D&D, and so therefore there is nothing wrong with it.

No, just pointing out a few facts. It's pretty hard to get on my bad side: I usually don't have one.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: After some additional reflection, however, I realized that how C&C does it is really more akin to just "how it's being done nowadays." That makes it a living game, growing with the current editions, rather than just a photograph of a different time, or a love song to a previous age.

I don't really agree that C&C is trying to track any current edition, but I wasn't there for the old Dragonsfoot conversations. After all, 3rd edition is 17 years old and C&C hasn't changed for 4e or 5e. I know at the time C&C wasn't enough like AD&D to make some people happy. I think all that really happened is that TLG took advantage of the OGL to put out a system, gutted all the stuff from the SRD that had to do with feats, skills, multiclassing, prestige classes, and fiddly conditions, stacking, etc, and then were left with something they needed to smooth over to make playable. I don't think a lot of thought went into trying to be like 3rd edition, as that was sort of what people DIDN'T want to play (who were looking for an alternative).

Aergraith wrote: I don't think it's that similar. C&C is a SIEGE check (with all that entails: primes, level) vs. caster level. D20 is d20+attribute bonus+(fort/reflex/will) vs. spell level and caster attribute bonus.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: The two systems are more similar than they are different when comparing "old" to "new" D&D, at least on paper. In the old versions, as you improve in ability to avoid being turned to stone or being poisoned or whatever, your ability improves regardless of the toughness of the monster. In the new versions, the monsters scale in toughness with the Player Characters.

Yes, they use two different systems, but they achieve the same goal: to scale difficulty so that saves get tougher against tougher monsters. This is different from the older game where you just "saved" versus an effect that improved as you got more powerful. (Yes, I know some monsters had penalties to saves to account for them being more or less tougher than usual in their abilities, but it seems that by and large that was mainly for special cases, whereas nowadays even a small difference is accounted for).

That is clear. Fair enough.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Aergraith wrote: Which version of D&D is not in use?

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse here, probably because my reply came across to you as an attack on C&C, so you're perhaps a bit insulted?

My statement is obvious and shouldn't require clarification or explanation, but here it is: "we're comparing C&C against a specific iteration of D&D that's not currently in use" means "we're comparing C&C against 1e, not 5e."

Yes, people play 1e, I get it. But I think it's understood that Hasbro/WotC is pushing 5e. All of the other versions still exist, and are still played, but they are not the versions currently being focused on either by Hasbro or by the D&D community at large.

If you really didn't understand what I meant by that, I apologize. I'm not sure how I could have said it better without the long explanation given here. Everyone still loves all the old D&D, yes. 5e is the only one currently being "pushed" in an active sense.

Literally just the "not currently use" phrase. I have been known to be deliberately obtuse, it's true. Here though I am just saying that every edition of D&D continues to be played, and they haven't been obsoleted or superseded in any way except for sales.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Aergraith wrote: In 4e saves are a totally different thing. D20 vs. 10; but they aren't used in the same way. Defense against spells uses fort/ref/will in a way more similar to Armor Class.

I'm convinced: you know more about D&D than I do. Whether that's good or bad is not for me to say. I've never been a big D&D fan; I played it, yes, but spent far more time on many other games: T&T, MERP, Cyberpunk 2020 and Vampire were the main games I spent most of my life on. I played a little 2e and a little BECMI, and that's all the D&D I've ever done.

Not trying to be a know it all. This is a response to "I presume, probably similarly done in all WotC editions". Just pointing out to what degree that may or may not be so.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: Again, my saying that is not to be construed as an attack. The last page of each copy of C&C, you know, the one that talks about the "license," clearly indicates that it is a derivative work. That isn't in any way an insult or an attack. Just the opposite, actually, in my opinion they have mostly made a silk purse out of a sow's arse.

Feel free to attack D&D and C&C: I didn't write them! I play all kinds of games and debate their strengths and weaknesses vigorously.

Sorry if I appeared annoyed. I do get jumpy when I perceive a narrative of some timeline in which anything made before today was inferior, and we made some great leap in RPG technology since then. Just last night I was looking at old "Giant in the Playground" thread about "modern rpgs" contrasted with AD&D and grumbling a lot. So that's the mindset that might have imbued my post with some kind of subtle venom. Didn't really have a lot to do with saving throw scaling.

Aergraith wrote: Sorry if I appeared annoyed. I do get jumpy when I perceive a narrative of some timeline in which anything made before today was inferior, and we made some great leap in RPG technology since then. Just last night I was looking at old "Giant in the Playground" thread about "modern rpgs" contrasted with AD&D and grumbling a lot. So that's the mindset that might have imbued my post with some kind of subtle venom. Didn't really have a lot to do with saving throw scaling.

Well, I'm turning 50 this year, Bro, so don't worry that I have any idea that modern day rpgs are inherently better than the old ones. I grew up with the old games and they are my first love. That said, two modern games -- Castles & Crusades and Savage Worlds -- are two of my favorite games ever. So, there have been some great new additions to the genre, at least in my opinion, but that doesn't mean that I think all of the old stuff sucks and the new stuff is great.

I've actually been bouncing around running my kid through a (kid-friendly) Cyberpunk 2020 game. Or FGU's Psi-World. I love a lot of the old stuff and still want to play it. The new stuff that I love, I love because it's good... not because it's new.

So, shake hands and bury the hatchet? Preferably not in my skull?