C&C Trial at my game table

[Snoring Rock]

Well, a few weeks ago I told my group that I just could not go on with the two-page NPC stat boxes any longer. I love the 3.x/Pathfinder options and cool stuff, but its just too many rules. And more and more, as you advance in level, its just another feat that bends the rules. Anyway....

We ran a test of C&C, several encounters at differing levels. What was remarkable, was the ease at which we had leveling up characters. Balancing combat, was a snap. As DM, I was not so challenged over rulings. Not a single rule looked up all night to argue this or that detail. We played the game instead of spending the entire night on one combat.

My players however, just cant get over feats and skills. They cant live without them. I explained that everything was possible still, we just dont have it all codifed for us. Hard sell. They want everyone to level at the same time. They want steady new feats and class features. Imagination just is not going to work. There was the complaint about clerics being pigeon-holed as healers and rogues not having proper combat skills, and wizards not having more than just a few spells at 1st level. They dont get it. Woe is me.

[KaiserKris]

Well, a few weeks ago I told my group that I just could not go on with the two-page NPC stat boxes any longer. I love the 3.x/Pathfinder options and cool stuff, but its just too many rules. And more and more, as you advance in level, its just another feat that bends the rules. Anyway....

We ran a test of C&C, several encounters at differing levels. What was remarkable, was the ease at which we had leveling up characters. Balancing combat, was a snap. As DM, I was not so challenged over rulings. Not a single rule looked up all night to argue this or that detail. We played the game instead of spending the entire night on one combat.

My players however, just cant get over feats and skills. They cant live without them. I explained that everything was possible still, we just dont have it all codifed for us. Hard sell. They want everyone to level at the same time. They want steady new feats and class features. Imagination just is not going to work. There was the complaint about clerics being pigeon-holed as healers and rogues not having proper combat skills, and wizards not having more than just a few spells at 1st level. They dont get it. Woe is me.

It is fun to have all those special powers and abilities given to you, but I would've thought they'd be impressed at how smoothly and quickly the gameplay flowed. I sure was when I went over from 4th edition DnD to CnC. What I'd be curious to know, though, is if any of these players have DMed in the past. For me, it was DMing Pathfinder that really drove home how much smoother and better CnC was.

[Breakdaddy]

Hey man, no worries. I've seen this happen before. Even some of the cats here on the boards had to row past this at first. I think the best advice I can give you right now is to not try to completely remove feats and skills from the game (at least for a while). Use a copy of the SRD or pathfinder to add in a list of feats to add to your game and, since the characters in C&C are already balanced against themselves, just allow everyone to have the same number of feats. A good start would be one feat at level 1 and one additional at every level divisible by 3. Add skills in if you need to. This will require a bit of tweaking but I think Treebore here on the boards has houserules for this. Or maybe Omote. SOMEONE here does

[Breakdaddy]

Oh, forgot to add: The CKG has rules for giving characters new class powers as well, so there's that option now. The important thing is to stress the flexibility of the SIEGE engine. The first time you let a PC do something not on his "feat list" I guarantee their thought processes will shift at least a little. I can't promise you that C&C will win them over, but if you open up the game options past the strict list of things they can do (feats, skills) by letting them try new and creative things with SIEGE, you will have a few light bulbs going off Im sure. Let NPCs or MOnsters do some fun stuff and then when a player complains (it's GONNA happen) about that not being on the feats list or whatever, then tell them they should try it sometime, the SIEGE engine doesn't say "no", it says "hey, give it a try"!

EDIT: The CKG has options to give the casters more available castings as well.

[KaiserKris]

http://sites.google.com/site/advancedca ... expansions

Omote's got some houserules for adding simpler feats. Another idea is to allow them to actually earn some of those feats by making successful SIEGE checks. As for Rogues in combat, the 4th printing has rules for class-and-a-half or multiclass characters that might help there.

[Breakdaddy]

http://sites.google.com/site/advancedca ... expansions

Omote's got some houserules for adding simpler feats. Another idea is to allow them to actually earn some of those feats by making successful SIEGE checks. As for Rogues in combat, the 4th printing has rules for class-and-a-half or multiclass characters that might help there.

Ah yes, the Rogues. You could give the rogue a better attack table and remove some of his other powers if he wants to be a front-liner. Give him the cleric's to hit chart and remove his decipher script for example. We have done this sort of thing with C&C before. It doesn't hurt the game in the least.

[jaguar451]

http://sites.google.com/site/advancedca ... expansions

Omote's got some houserules for adding simpler feats. Another idea is to allow them to actually earn some of those feats by making successful SIEGE checks. As for Rogues in combat, the 4th printing has rules for class-and-a-half or multiclass characters that might help there.

Some good Talents (feats) in the above, and I'd check out Treebore's houserules for idea on how one could use SIEGE for feat-like actions (http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames)

[TheMetal1]

There was the complaint about clerics being pigeon-holed as healers and rogues not having proper combat skills, and wizards not having more than just a few spells at 1st level. They dont get it. Woe is me.

I'm a bit suprised by this. I shouldn't be when it comes to clerics, but I am. I know I'm preaching to choir, but figured I'd give you an example. I just played a game of C&C the other day with several old school players who usually only play 1/2nd edition AD&D ( with periodic house rules thrown in). None of them ever played C&C before and only one of them has really played any 3.X and that is mostly online in the form Dungeons & Dragons Online: Eberron Unlimited. He was the one that played the cleric and that cleric ended up being quite the heavy hitter using Sound Burst, Cause Light Wounds and still being able to get into the mix in a melee. They simply went with forgoing the healing spells and went all combat. If things got bad they new the best option was to run. Perhaps that can be chalked up to experience, but I add it in here for you give as an example for your players to break the mold.

Second, with the addition giving Healing spells to Illusionists in 4th Edition, this really adds a different spin on the traditional roles seen in fantasy RPGs. Anyway, food for thought. God Bless and Happy New Year.

[Just Jeff]

What I'd be curious to know, though, is if any of these players have DMed in the past.

I'm thinking if some of the suggestions being made don't help, it's time for, "If you guys want to stick with Pathfinder, okay, but I'm tired of running it. Someone else needs to GM."

[finarvyn]

What I'd be curious to know, though, is if any of these players have DMed in the past.

I'm thinking if some of the suggestions being made don't help, it's time for, "If you guys want to stick with Pathfinder, okay, but I'm tired of running it. Someone else needs to GM."

My experience is that most games are relatively easy to play becasue the player only has a single character to keep track of, whereas complex games are tricky to GM because of the lengthy monster/NPC stat blocks and such.

It might be worth letting a couple of the guys run a short one-shot adventure some afternoon, just so they can see what you have to put up with. In general I find that there are quite a few more players than GMs, so they will probably follow your lead.

However, a "blend" of 3E or 4E with C&C would be a decent compromise. I like the idea of adding some feats, etc to C&C, if I can find just the right list I like. Omote's "talents" look pretty good at first glance...

[Rigon]

What I'd be curious to know, though, is if any of these players have DMed in the past.

I'm thinking if some of the suggestions being made don't help, it's time for, "If you guys want to stick with Pathfinder, okay, but I'm tired of running it. Someone else needs to GM."

That's the way I'd go. And drfinitately check out Tree's House Rules and Omotes "Feat" list.

R-

[JediOre]

It might be worth letting a couple of the guys run a short one-shot adventure some afternoon, just so they can see what you have to put up with. In general I find that there are quite a few more players than GMs, so they will probably follow your lead.

Finarvyn, that's what I did with my one die-hard 3rd edition player. We had him run part of The Vault of Larin Karr and several of the fights about blew his mind trying to keep track of all the NPCs and monsters. It gave him an appreciation of just how little fun I was having on the other side of the DM screens.

[Omote]

With Pathfinder (and 3E), much of the rules let the players beleive the power is in their hands. People who play Pathfinder and 3E don't like giving up this perceived notion that the power of the game lies with them. That is why it is hard for players to come from those games and play C&C. As mentioned, the big sell should be the fact that with C&C you actually get to play the game as opposed to Pathfinder/3E where combats take several hours each and many actions are dictated by players proving rules exist.

I was in the exact same boat Snoring Rock as you. It took me years to convince some of the players to try C&C and when they did, it was still a hard sell. But persistance pays off with C&C IMO. Don;t preach so much as show other players the strengths of C&C. Run a couple of one-nighters, and some con games with your players. Slowly immerse them in C&C and some of them will understand the strength of C&C, sooner or later.

What you don't want to do is get into a straight up war with them over which is a better game. Explain that with C&C ther aren't so many rules to slow down game play and combats take 1/2 the time or less. More adventuring for everybody!

Perhaps try some of the things mentioned in this link. I added Talents (feats) into the C&C game in order to get players to play. The talents I used are essentially dumbed down feats. Click on the link in my sig for lots of "advanced" options for your C&C game that some players may like.

Other way to do it as some C&Cers have learned is the method called "Feat-Like Actions." This is the method Treebore uses and is more freeflow and less codified. This works for many C&Cers in the situation you are in. Click on that link and check that out. Maybe it'll work for you and your players.

Good luck Snoring Rock. Don't give up hope yet!

~O

[Snoring Rock]

All sound like very good advice. I will check out Omote's and Treebore's ideas on feats. Maybe weening them off the feats slowly is the answer.

It befuddles me that they think the cleric is pigeon-holed. There are just as many spells that are not healing. They also get armor use and can use any weapon as long as it is that of their chosen deity. Originally, that was what a cleric was; a holy warrior. I guess I could give them the abilty to choose any spell and then allow them to change it to a healng spell, should they need it. That is allowed in Pathfinder.

Rogues in combat. That's the one that bothers me most. If you want to be in combat...be a fighter or a paladin, or a knight. Why choose a rogue for battle? The argument is that there is nothing for them to do during combat. Not so. Lets turn the tables.....while the rogue picks locks and searches for traps, what is the poor fighter supposed to do? Maybe the fighter should get rogue skills.

Thats the greatness in C&C. The characters regain their original rolls in the party. With 3.x/Pathfinder, the rolls are blurred, and the more splat books that come out, the more blurred they become.

Not bashing it, just frustated that my players dont see it. Well, what I have done, is I have handed over the DM reigns to another player. They are picking up the campaign where I left off. I will participate as a player now. This should not take too long for the player to see what it does indeed look like on the other side of the screen. This party is at 10th level and he will have a player who cant understand why he cant make this magic item or another. It should get tiresome quickly.

Mean-time, I am working on details to an awesome campaign to be played using C&C.

[mgtremaine]

It befuddles me that they think the cleric is pigeon-holed. There are just as many spells that are not healing. They also get armor use and can use any weapon as long as it is that of their chosen deity.

I agree with this! If I ever get a chance to run as a player again* I would take a Cleric in a heartbeat. With the right deity selection there is a huge amount of flexibility, you get weapons, armors, and spells, and are half-way decent in combat. What's not to love?

-Mike

*I managed to get my group playing again after a 10+ year gap in the fall of 2008 but I seem to THE GM , I can live with that.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

One of the compromises I've made in my game, especially so the cleric doesn't feel pigeon-holed, is to allow them to burn a prepared slot in favor of a healing spell. That's been a very happy medium. I hope to avoid the cleric having to do this, though, as I've been (overly) generous doling out healing potions.

I've done things as a player in C&C that I couldn't have dreamed of doing playing any other system. When you've got a knight checking for traps, that pretty much says it all. So you can't add your level to the roll. Boo-hoo. At least you can do it and, conceivably, have a shot at succeeding at it. It comes in especially handy when you don't have a rogue in the party and the most heavily armored guy becomes the default traps checker.

I just keep in mind what skills worked with which ability scores and scale my checks that way. If the skill is something that's in line with the character's class, I'll allow them to add their level to the roll. I refuse to add feats. They amount to nothing more than making the GM's life difficult. I think they destroyed the whole D&D game better than anything else (including progressively increasing price points).

[Just Jeff]

Rogues in combat. That's the one that bothers me most. If you want to be in combat...be a fighter or a paladin, or a knight. Why choose a rogue for battle? The argument is that there is nothing for them to do during combat. Not so.

I ran a thief in an AD&D campaign that loved combat and was always pulling crazy stunts to level the playing field, so to speak. The GM handled it well, but it would have been even easier in C&C.

Mean-time, I am working on details to an awesome campaign to be played using C&C.

Sounds like an excellent use of your time.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The rogues should be doing everything they can to hide in the shadows and make their way around for a back attack, if they're not holed up behind cover with a good missile weapon.

[KaiserKris]

It befuddles me that they think the cleric is pigeon-holed. There are just as many spells that are not healing. They also get armor use and can use any weapon as long as it is that of their chosen deity. Originally, that was what a cleric was; a holy warrior. I guess I could give them the abilty to choose any spell and then allow them to change it to a healng spell, should they need it. That is allowed in Pathfinder.

Rogues in combat. That's the one that bothers me most. If you want to be in combat...be a fighter or a paladin, or a knight. Why choose a rogue for battle? The argument is that there is nothing for them to do during combat. Not so. Lets turn the tables.....while the rogue picks locks and searches for traps, what is the poor fighter supposed to do? Maybe the fighter should get rogue skills.

I usually allow clerics to spontaneously convert prepared spells to healing spells of the same equivalent level. It's a small (and I think a fairly good) step to prevent clerics from becoming healbots. There's lots of other useful spells, though. The other thing you can do is create or convert some favorite 3.5/Pathfinder spells that aren't in C&C to give them more diversity.

Rogues are actually great in combat- just not in the frontlines. I'd say that it would be reasonable to allow Rogues to sneak attack while flanking an enemy, which would give them a nice little tactical trick up their sleeve. I tend to waffle a wee bit about their BtH, whether it should be higher, like the cleric, or not.

The other thing that is so great about CnC is that it is extremely moddable. You can change quite a lot around and keep the game working smoothly.

[Treebore]

Yeah, I would like to know where this idea that rogues/thieves are fighters came from. They are not a fighter, not even close.

[GameOgre]

Coming to C&C from Path can be a hard sell. My advice to you is this.

Use C&C feats,skills,and throw in pathfinder abilities!

Clerics in Pathfinder can area of effect heal the entire group at once with Turn undead so many times per day. ADD it!!

Druids get pets that gain HD with them,wizards get basic spell like abilities that they can use per round...add them!!

Make C&C a slightly toned down version of pathfinder!

Sure its extra work and adds some crunch. Still a lot better than Pathfinder and your goal here is to bring the players into the fold. Make them happy enough to play C&C for a bit before trying too hard to show them that the extra stuff there characters get is offset by extra stuff the monsters get ect..

[GameOgre]

With that advice I would also give the bad guys the same things. Also give damage bonus's equal to HD just like to hit...well up to a point anyway.

A 4HD monster with +4 damage as well as the normal +4 to hit, helps level the playing field with the pc's getting so many extras.

Also nothing says KILL THE CASTER like a goblin shammy standing in the back casting group heals on the goblin warriors ect just like a pc cleric.

[Frost]

Yeah, I would like to know where this idea that rogues/thieves are fighters came from. They are not a fighter, not even close.

Look no further than 3e for that. When "back stab" was replaced with "sneak attack" (i.e., when flanking), rogues became more of swashbucklers than sneaky, stab you in the back types.

Anyhow, Snoring Rock, sounds like you have the right plan on how to proceed. You are hitting a common issue for C&C fans. Most folks who come to C&C are DMs looking for a change, more than players. Players can manage running an uber-complicated PC, but forget the DM is basically running a whole army of the same behind the screen.

Anyhow, I still run a D&D 3.x campaign, although C&C is my game of choice. I did manage to house-rule the AoOs to be basically the same as the C&C free attack rules and that has helped.