C&C 2.0

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Hola all,

Ok, we all know that the Trolls aren't about to have a real 2nd edition of C&C. Certainly the game as-is has been serving more than its purpose. But IF there ever were an actual 2nd edition, what would you want in it?

I'll be throwing out ideas on here; please feel free to do the same.

First suggestion: Rework the fighter class so fighters get a few more features over the course of their careers. BTB, "plain" fighters really don't get much until after L12. Higher levels get crazy amounts of "stuff." Maybe spread some things out a bit?

Side note, for any C&C: would someone (from TLG) please definitively say under which conditions do we Not add a character's level to whatever rolls?

Gracias!

User avatar
maximus
Lore Drake
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:23 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by maximus »

Would like to see better editing... :) Seriously though, this is a great topic. I'll come up with something.

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

I think something along the lines of the Skills & Powers Race and Character stuff would be cool. Buy abilities/skills with a point pool which would allow for racial variants and customized classes. And yes, it would work with classes...just swap things out at the level jumps. It would also take care of Pal's issues with vanilla fighter skills. I always thought that particular mechanic was the best thing about the S&P books.

Also...an actual elemental spell system rather than the drivel that was haphazardly stuffed into the misnamed book of said spells.

And yeah...what Max said.... e.d.i.t.i.n.g.! lol
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

I'd like to see a good implementation of the spell point variant system. So for each level, a caster would have X spell points, and be capable of casting up to Y-level spells. Could even use the existing matrices, but convert spells/day to spell points.

Also, as per 5e, limit the effects of a spell based on the spell level, Not the caster level, unless more spell points are used.

Spell points would also work for metamagic if the CK agrees. Also grant bonus spell points based on the casting stat bonus.

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

There IS a mana point system in C&C (CKG) that works great already which covers your first point...5e=HERESY!!! :P (sends in the Ultra Marines)...and I've been mentally tinkering with an [Input MP into Spell=effect] type thing for a while now to follow more of an anime type feel. Just not taken time to write anything down and iron out the mechanics in full with all the other projects I have going (two wargames, many 3d models, painting of said models, writing a fantasy novel, etc.). lol
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

It depends on how different this hypothetical 2nd ed would be. Minor tweaks or significant changes?


For minor tweaks, i'd do the following:
  • rename the rogue to its proper name of thief. Rogue is a persona, Thief is a profession.
  • remove the notion of illusionist healing. Alternatively, if illusionists are "benders of reality", then rename the class.
  • tweak the fighter, maybe 5/2 attacks at 5th level and a few other simple additions that could add a lot of flavour to it.
  • give monsters primes based on individual attributes; not just "physical" or "mental", but trength, wisdom, etc.

More significant changes would include:
  • the addition of a secondary skills system (like ad&d 2nd edition proficiencies)
  • schools of magic
  • customizable priest classes (with domains or spheres or something in between)
  • modification to the saves system, not sure what yet, but something involving character class
-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 12:00 am
It depends on how different this hypothetical 2nd ed would be. Minor tweaks or significant changes?


For minor tweaks, i'd do the following:
  • rename the rogue to its proper name of thief. Rogue is a persona, Thief is a profession.
  • remove the notion of illusionist healing. Alternatively, if illusionists are "benders of reality", then rename the class.
  • tweak the fighter, maybe 5/2 attacks at 5th level and a few other simple additions that could add a lot of flavour to it.
  • give monsters primes based on individual attributes; not just "physical" or "mental", but trength, wisdom, etc.

More significant changes would include:
  • the addition of a secondary skills system (like ad&d 2nd edition proficiencies)
  • schools of magic
  • customizable priest classes (with domains or spheres or something in between)
  • modification to the saves system, not sure what yet, but something involving character class
-Fizz
I think both tweaks And significant changes should be considered.

For example, when AD&D2e came out, it had both tweaks to the fighter (including weapon specialization - already in C&C) and introduced schools of magic and speciality priests. It was all pretty cool, IMO.

I think it would be great to see an "official" treatment of all that within the C&C framework. Not sure skills and feats would be the way to go; the absence of those is part of what makes C&C what it is. But hey, at this point it's all theorycraft.

User avatar
maximus
Lore Drake
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:23 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by maximus »

I wasn't a 2E fan, but I actually did like the specialty priests and schools of magic. I'm moving toward spell points or mana in my campaign soon. I like the idea of "channeling" better than the Vancian style of fire and forget.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Oh I forgot.. Thieves need some means of specialization. Currently 2 thieves/rogues of the same level and ability are going to be virtually identical. 2e introduced distributed thief skills, but that's really not an option in C&C.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

maximus wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:19 am
I wasn't a 2E fan, but I actually did like the specialty priests and schools of magic. I'm moving toward spell points or mana in my campaign soon. I like the idea of "channeling" better than the Vancian style of fire and forget.
Indeed, i liked that too. Or rather, i liked the intention, but the implementation of it was not well done. Dragon Magazine #205 recast the spheres and was a much better version of the 2nd Ed spheres.

Regarding magic, i am not a fan of Vancian either. I prefer two methods. Wizards require a spell check to cast (it is a skill, after all), while priest types use a simple spell point system (because the deity determines how much power they have).

But would such an inclusion be too big of a shift for C&C 2nd Ed? Or better left in the CKG as an alternative?

-Fizz

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:29 am
Oh I forgot.. Thieves need some means of specialization. Currently 2 thieves/rogues of the same level and ability are going to be virtually identical. 2e introduced distributed thief skills, but that's really not an option in C&C.
Ah, but easily correctable by allowing the thief to add points as they want. We discussed that in another thread.

But this reminds me of another needed change. Many thief skills (and those from other skills-heavy classes like ranger) need to be recast as special. Anyone can hide behind a curtain, but not everyone can hide in shadows. Climb is another example: anyone can climb a tree, but climbing a sheer surface is only for skilled thieves and the like. This would help restore those skills to their former pre-3E glory.


-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:49 am
paladinn wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:29 am
Oh I forgot.. Thieves need some means of specialization. Currently 2 thieves/rogues of the same level and ability are going to be virtually identical. 2e introduced distributed thief skills, but that's really not an option in C&C.
Ah, but easily correctable by allowing the thief to add points as they want. We discussed that in another thread.

But this reminds me of another needed change. Skills like Hide and Move Silently need to be recast as special. Anyone can "hide" behind a curtain, but not everyone can "hide in shadows". Climb is another example: anyone can climb a tree, but climbing a sheer surface is only for skilled thieves and the like. This would help restore those skills to their former pre-3E glory.


-Fizz
When we're talking about thieves "adding points as they want", I just don't think we want to lose the "C&C-ness" of not having a skill system. Sure, one can be bolted-on; but in looking at a 2.0, we want to keep the core solid. Just trying to find the balance.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:55 am
When we're talking about thieves "adding points as they want", I just don't think we want to lose the "C&C-ness" of not having a skill system. Sure, one can be bolted-on; but in looking at a 2.0, we want to keep the core solid. Just trying to find the balance.
It doesn't require a new skill system, it's simply saying that instead of having +1 to every skill at each level, that you can choose to sacrifice a bonus in one skill to gain an extra in another skill. If you want to give thieves the option of specializing in certain skills, i think this is the easiest way to do it without introducing bloat.

And i would argue it's a much smaller change than introducing an entirely new magic system. ;)

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:02 am
paladinn wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:55 am
When we're talking about thieves "adding points as they want", I just don't think we want to lose the "C&C-ness" of not having a skill system. Sure, one can be bolted-on; but in looking at a 2.0, we want to keep the core solid. Just trying to find the balance.
It doesn't require a new skill system, it's simply saying that instead of having +1 to every skill at each level, that you can choose to sacrifice a bonus in one skill to gain an extra in another skill. If you want to give thieves the option of specializing in certain skills, i think this is the easiest way to do it without introducing bloat.

And i would argue it's a much smaller change than introducing an entirely new magic system. ;)

-Fizz
Granted. I do think maybe adding a few skills like escape, evasion, disguise, etc. might be good too. And weapon finesse.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:08 am
Granted. I do think maybe adding a few skills like escape, evasion, disguise, etc. might be good too. And weapon finesse.
Regarding weapon finesse, i've always thought it should be weapon-based. not a new skill or class-based. It feels right to me that dexterity is the combat bonus for light weapons, like daggers, rapiers, etc. regardless of class or training.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

That's how 5e works, at least for the attack roll. Maybe let thieves use Dex bonus for damage as well?

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:34 am
That's how 5e works, at least for the attack roll. Maybe let thieves use Dex bonus for damage as well?
Nah, if thieves need to do heavy damage, that's what backstab is for. :)

-Fizz

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

Again...with the Thieves, the S&P approach would allow for a LOT of variation from the core class trope. You get 35 points in the pool for abilities (thief skills); So you buy Pick Pockets for 5, Find/Disarm Traps for 10, Open Locks for 5, Hide for 5, Move Silent for 5, and Climb Walls for 5...meanwhile J-bob's thief goes the Back Attack (10), Open Locks (5), Hide (5), Move Silent (5) Listen (5), and Balance (5) route (examples...) So...one is a cut purse/cat burglar...the other a scout type...

And yeah...totally on board with Fizz about Illusionist healing. Hate how the Illusionist has been perverted from its original intent just to make it more popular and cater to the less inventive minded. *sigh*
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Fizz »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:58 am
Again...with the Thieves, the S&P approach would allow for a LOT of variation from the core class trope. You get 35 points in the pool for abilities (thief skills); So you buy Pick Pockets for 5, Find/Disarm Traps for 10, Open Locks for 5, Hide for 5, Move Silent for 5, and Climb Walls for 5...meanwhile J-bob's thief goes the Back Attack (10), Open Locks (5), Hide (5), Move Silent (5) Listen (5), and Balance (5) route (examples...) So...one is a cut purse/cat burglar...the other a scout type...
I personally am ok with this. Not only does it enable specialist thieves, it further establishes that these are unique skills not available to everyone.

However, using percentages is not part of the SIEGE engine. Again, i'd be ok with that, as different types of tasks require different types of resolution mechanisms. But it's not strictly SIEGE, so might not be plausible in our hypothetical 2nd Ed.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 3:11 am
Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:58 am
Again...with the Thieves, the S&P approach would allow for a LOT of variation from the core class trope. You get 35 points in the pool for abilities (thief skills); So you buy Pick Pockets for 5, Find/Disarm Traps for 10, Open Locks for 5, Hide for 5, Move Silent for 5, and Climb Walls for 5...meanwhile J-bob's thief goes the Back Attack (10), Open Locks (5), Hide (5), Move Silent (5) Listen (5), and Balance (5) route (examples...) So...one is a cut purse/cat burglar...the other a scout type...
I personally am ok with this. Not only does it enable specialist thieves, it further establishes that these are unique skills not available to everyone.

However, using percentages is not part of the SIEGE engine. Again, i'd be ok with that, as different types of tasks require different types of resolution mechanisms. But it's not strictly SIEGE, so might not be plausible in our hypothetical 2nd Ed.

-Fizz
I never really cared for the percentages even in AD&D or Classic. I used to mess around with converting them to D20 rolls. But I honestly prefer the C&C class ability model.

So however many thief skills you have, you get that many "points" each level, to distribute as you wish. If you want to be Spider-Man, you can, if you don't care about picking locks or whatever.

The other possibility is the "expertise" feature from 5e. A couple times in a career, thieves can pick 2 skills and double their "proficiency bonus". Thieves in C&C add their level, so we don't want to double that! But maybe some other sort of bonus, like doubling the stat bonus, or just giving a +X to the ability check?

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

In C&C a +1 modifier is pretty powerful; +2 becomes significantly so; +3 is gearing towards hugely so... Simply due to the mechanics of the SIEGE Engine. In 2008 when we Serleran was still hosting the Society Chat and the Trolls were frequent guests...Steve kinda expounded upon just how effective the bonuses were when talking about setting Challenge Levels and Target Numbers. The new folks here kinda lack some of that history...heck...I lack some of the really ancient history that's come up and been mentioned from even before that...but it's worth keeping in mind as a reference.

Personally I'd rather keep anything and everything 5e mechanics related as far away as galaxy HD1...since it is nothing more than a power-munchkin's game anymore. Rules mechanic-wise...C&C is pretty close to perfect and unbreakable...close...not completely yet. The fact you can customize it across genres at the drop of a hat without any need for change in the mechanics of the rules is fairly unique among the dozens of rule sets I've read through and played over the last 40 years. I'd say the closest to being similar would be GURPS. After a fashion, C&C is what Amazing Engine was attempting to achieve before it imploded.

Improving it while staying within the existing framework of the mechanics is the only way to not end up with something like 4e turned into; design by committee and an absolute albatross. When you start tossing in points to boost stuff, extra modifiers, expertise bonuses...you're back at 3.5e power creep territory. I hate to say it, but while I have no problems improving C&C...and speaking as a game designer myself...trying to patchwork things from other games into such an integrated and interconnected mechanic like the SIEGE Engine can only muddle things up due to needing to create situational rules to cover the changes to the core mechanics, which really isn't an improvement at the end of the day. Granted opinions may differ...but I've seen that particular train wreck repeat itself more times than I have fingers over the years. Anytime improvements are desired or home rules get added, the closer you stay to the core mechanics, the more positive effects you'll get out of them.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Maybe some SR for those completely non magic classes like Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger & Rogue when they reach a certain level and increasing as level increases.

Regarding when to add a level to roll, it is clear in the new PHB at least. Add for your saves, Class abilities (if a roll is required) and for attribute checks (swimming, running, swinging on that vine, etc.) unless it is a class ability of another class in which case the CK should probably disallow sucess.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Grandpa wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:06 pm
Maybe some SR for those completely non magic classes like Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger & Rogue when they reach a certain level and increasing as level increases.

Regarding when to add a level to roll, it is clear in the new PHB at least. Add for your saves, Class abilities (if a roll is required) and for attribute checks (swimming, running, swinging on that vine, etc.) unless it is a class ability of another class in which case the CK should probably disallow sucess.
But if you read the PHB And the CKG, it does get a bit confusing. And there's a difference between rolling without adding a level and not being allowed to roll at all. I've been under the impression that anyone can "try" anything; but people with a class ability are going to be better than anyone else.

I just wish one of the Trolls would just make a pronouncement "from on high." Something this "core" shouldn't really be something to houserule. IMO.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 4:58 am
Personally I'd rather keep anything and everything 5e mechanics related as far away as galaxy HD1...since it is nothing more than a power-munchkin's game anymore. Rules mechanic-wise...C&C is pretty close to perfect and unbreakable...close...not completely yet. The fact you can customize it across genres at the drop of a hat without any need for change in the mechanics of the rules is fairly unique among the dozens of rule sets I've read through and played over the last 40 years. I'd say the closest to being similar would be GURPS. After a fashion, C&C is what Amazing Engine was attempting to achieve before it imploded.
Thanks for weighing in. While I agree with a lot of your sentiments, the fact it that 5e and C&C share some mechanics that are pretty close (I know C&C had them first!) Is 5e "nothing more than a power-munchkin's game"? I think that depends on the DM. But then Any game can become a power game. I tend to think that good ideas can be found most anywhere. If they work on the chassis of the game one is playing, adapt away. If not, dump them. I happen to Much prefer the 5e spellcasting model, but am now working on adapting the C&C/5E spell point system.

"C&C is pretty close to perfect and unbreakable...close...not completely yet." So what in your mind would make it "completely perfect"? That's kind of what this thread is about. FYI, not everyone agrees.. a lot of people would like C&C but can't stand the Siege engine. I used to be one. Then I learned how to hack said engine and all is well!

And I do love how you can play multiple genres. I like mixing and matching C&C and Amazing Adventures. And AA Supers!

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

paladinn wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:41 pm
Grandpa wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 1:06 pm
Maybe some SR for those completely non magic classes like Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger & Rogue when they reach a certain level and increasing as level increases.

Regarding when to add a level to roll, it is clear in the new PHB at least. Add for your saves, Class abilities (if a roll is required) and for attribute checks (swimming, running, swinging on that vine, etc.) unless it is a class ability of another class in which case the CK should probably disallow sucess.
But if you read the PHB And the CKG, it does get a bit confusing.
In the latest printing of PHB it has been clarified. Pg. 211, section titled: "Adding Character Levels to Checks"

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

No game system will ever be perfect...and while the SIEGE Engine has its quirks, mainly due to simplifying as opposed to dialing in the granularity of the modifiers etc., the concept of tying the abilities and such back into the attributes is what makes it all work despite the genre and all that vs tying it to skill levels. Working within the mechanic to be able to customize the races and classes to some extent...rather than relying on straight up stereo-type pigeon-holed classes, which you seldom see in fiction, having that flexibility to rely less on a pure class role and more of a character role is more desirable to me. A fighter that has a spell or two they can use as an Ace or a Mage that can use a short sword somewhat sort of thing like in fiction is a bit more 'real' to me than an arbitrary rule prohibiting someone from learning something they set out to just because of a profession. More unlikely and less skilled by far yes, prohibited totally...no.

And several 5e mechanics were yoinked from C&C because they realized what D&D was doing wasn't working...and a power munchkin game is any rules set that prioritizes easy rapid advancement play over earned advancement via adversity and ingenuity play. C&C would seem a power set or rules vs OD&D...when a single kobold was a significant threat 1:1. This rest and recover everything 5e uses is a laughable joke in comparison.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Grandpa »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:54 pm
This rest and recover everything 5e uses is a laughable joke in comparison.
I'll add to that the 5e rules on PC death through HP damage rules.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

Go0gleplex wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 2:54 pm
No game system will ever be perfect...and while the SIEGE Engine has its quirks, mainly due to simplifying as opposed to dialing in the granularity of the modifiers etc., the concept of tying the abilities and such back into the attributes is what makes it all work despite the genre and all that vs tying it to skill levels. Working within the mechanic to be able to customize the races and classes to some extent...rather than relying on straight up stereo-type pigeon-holed classes, which you seldom see in fiction, having that flexibility to rely less on a pure class role and more of a character role is more desirable to me. A fighter that has a spell or two they can use as an Ace or a Mage that can use a short sword somewhat sort of thing like in fiction is a bit more 'real' to me than an arbitrary rule prohibiting someone from learning something they set out to just because of a profession. More unlikely and less skilled by far yes, prohibited totally...no.

And several 5e mechanics were yoinked from C&C because they realized what D&D was doing wasn't working...and a power munchkin game is any rules set that prioritizes easy rapid advancement play over earned advancement via adversity and ingenuity play. C&C would seem a power set or rules vs OD&D...when a single kobold was a significant threat 1:1. This rest and recover everything 5e uses is a laughable joke in comparison.
I mostly agree. Although WotC wouldn't have gone the way they did if people weren't wanting it. They didn't talk to many grognards, I'm sure. But 5e is probably a step up from 3e and Way better than 4e.

But death and healing are almost a non-factor in 5e now.

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by Go0gleplex »

WotC went the way they did with 4e trying to jump on the Warcraft crazy train...and not only missed the rails...but the continent the rails were built on. lol 5e was a way to try to recover their market share that systems like C&C, Pathfinder, and such were taking over. So they built a rules set for people that don't like to think, just kick butt for goodness, and relegated a lot of things that make gaming gaming to the side bin because, correctly assumed, the newer generation of kids and young adults can't find the open end of a wet sack even after holding their hands and pointing it out to them. Basically, like school, music, sports, etc...it's a "cater to the lowest denominator" thing to keep their attention.

But all that is beside the point of the original intent of the thread which is how to improve C&C within its existing framework. 4e is a good example of why not staying within the established framework of a game system is a BAD idea. *chuckles* And death and healing being a non-factor...that just justifies everything I've said about 5e being a power gamer's wet dream and system for people not able to handle adversity. Humans only grow and advance thru facing challenges and adversity...take that away and put those same 5e players in a system that actually challenges them...and they won't last long. Lots of anecdotal testimony of that fact all over the place.

I like the mana point system C&C has...though we ran into one we tried adapting into our 2e game back in the 90's that was based more on Attributes than just a set flat base and advancement...which was probably done just to keep things simple since it wasn't intended to be a mainstream part of the C&C rules. I just can't remember the rules set that inspired us at the time right now...though it might have been GURPS. I know it wasn't Palladium or Warhammer...too many years...too many rules sets... ugh. lol
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: C&C 2.0

Post by paladinn »

I know I've mentioned this in other threads; but the high/er-level class options in C&C really need work. I know the PHB was designed to handle L1-12, and those seem pretty well thought-through (although the fighter still needs something). Mages and clerics are fine for higher levels; they just keep getting spells. The martial classes really seem they weren't developed well. It's like someone decided, "Oh, we're going to support higher levels" and just chucked whatever abilities came to mind. This probably hasn't generated a lot of complaints, because (I've heard) not many campaigns go that long.

For fighters specifically, abilities like battlespace and shield blow seem just tossed-in, and the extensions of combat dominance and weapon specialization need to be distributed differently. Getting 2-3 features on a level is a bit much.

Post Reply