C&C "Lite"

[KeyIXTheHermit]

So, I love C&C... I've I said elsewhere, it's the best OGL variant out there. And, I haven't seen it yet, but I'd bet good money that I'd prefer C&C to 5e.

That said, for the taste of me and my personal group, there's still too much magic. We've tried to work around it, but it's hard: all the best spells are perfectly scattered around four types of casters, with a perfect mix of each type having "class-specific" spells. It's beautifully designed, especially for fans of magic (which, I have no doubt, most of you are).

In our world, the world we use when we're not playing C&C, Clerics and Druids are the same thing: Nature magic is magic, and the only Goddess is a pagan earth Goddess. Likewise, arcane magic is generally more subtle, less visible, and inherently "evil" (for want of a better word). You can try to control it and stay good, but it will corrupt you eventually.

In an effort to continue using all of the good of C&C (ascending armor class*, siege engine, unified mechanics) yet still simplify things down, I've been thinking about (and talking about) blending elements of Cyclopedia with it. It seems a natural fit to me. Instead of four types of magic, there'd be two: Cleric/Druid and Arcane. I'd use just the spell lists from Cyclopedia, so that there's a smaller spell selection, without having to debate which spells get the axe.

I'd also just use the 3-point alignment system, which works beautifully for our games (Arcane magic would simply be Chaotic, instead of Evil, representing the opposition of our Gods, which are embodiments of Earth vs. Void).

We could also trim the fat a few other places. My wife, who plays our Rogue, has said many times she "just needs leather armor," not four or five different types of leather armor. Our fighter, likewise, just wears chain (plate doesn't exist yet in our world). So we could cut down to the Cyclopedia armors, basically.

So, as long time gamers and long time fans of the system, how workable does this sound? I know Cyclopedia has less levels of Cleric magic, but when I brought that up to the Missus, she pointed out that this only means that Cyclopedia users get "the good spells quicker," so that resurrection spells would be obtained at 7th level, not 9th.

Just curious what other players think of such a thing. I'm sure it will be generally agreed that there's no reason to simplify the game more than it is, but for us, there's still more than we need, but we still like having certain things like increased class and race options, the unified game mechanic, etc. I'm curious how others would think it would work mechanically, before I spend any more time trying to put it together.

*FWIW: Ascending AC is less a thing to me than it is to the rest of my group. I still find subtracting smaller number values easier than adding larger number values, but arguably, non-gamers and new gamers find ascending AC easier to understand, so I'll go with the masses on this one.

[pawndream]

Sounds like a reasonable house rule to me, especially if it fits your table, campaign setting and playing style better than default C&C.

[Aramis]

Sounds fine but it will act as a substantial power up to spell casters. Clerics are already powerful, but clerics who can cast barkskin and have animal companions and entangle foes will be devastating.

[Relaxo]

Sounds fine to me, but consider the druid armor and weapon list for the cleric/druid. or a d6 HD. Everything else, poof! Done! Awesome sause.
It's really cool you have such a well defined and atypical setting.

[Buttmonkey]

It should all work fine, although there may be game balance issues such as Aramis suggested. I've incorporated some of what you are suggesting:

1. I went back to 1E armors rather than mess with all of the fiddly options C&C proposes. The C&C system of a gazillion different kinds of armor seems to be based on (a) making encumbrance significant and (b) allowing more verisimilitude where certain armor types (e.g., Greek ensemble) might only be available in certain areas based on culture and technology. I punted formal encumbrance rules ages ago and I don't granular with my technology levels, so I didn't see much point in having all of those effectively redundant armor options. My campaign is clearly better for the reduction.

2. A 3-point alignment system should work just fine. I got rid of alignment altogether for my game. You will need to give some thought to how spells like protection spells will work. That issue may be solved automatically if you switch to the Rules Cyclopedia spells that assume a 3-point alignment system already.

You may want to try going the other direction. Run RC D&D, but tack on the SIEGE engine and switch to ascending armor class. If you stick with RC, I'd suggest reversing the allocation of primes. Demihumans should get 3 primes while humans only get 2 to compensate for the demihumans having to eat level limits. I'm not familiar with how RC handles the level caps, so maybe this is unnecessary.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

You guys are awesome. Have I told you that you guys are awesome? I'm so surprised to find a board so full of open-minded, friendly members who are always so supportive! It really makes me proud to be a member of the C&C community, and does a lot to keep me interested in the game.

Sounds fine to me, but consider the druid armor and weapon list for the cleric/druid. or a d6 HD. Everything else, poof! Done! Awesome sause.
It's really cool you have such a well defined and atypical setting.

Thank you, Relaxo! I wish I had the opportunity to explain it more, honestly. That brief description does not really do it justice, but I was just trying to get an idea across.

And yes, the Priestesses in this world, being Priestesses of an earth religion, are typically more peaceful and less warring. Also, I fall back on the old "metal impedes magic, both by being heavy and limiting movement, and by its very nature" trope. So, yeah, typically they are limited to no armor and wooden weapons. Leather or fur is sometimes allowed, but first they have to get it, and they would not kill a creature for that purpose.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

It should all work fine, although there may be game balance issues such as Aramis suggested. I've incorporated some of what you are suggesting:

You may want to try going the other direction. Run RC D&D, but tack on the SIEGE engine and switch to ascending armor class. If you stick with RC, I'd suggest reversing the allocation of primes. Demihumans should get 3 primes while humans only get 2 to compensate for the demihumans having to eat level limits. I'm not familiar with how RC handles the level caps, so maybe this is unnecessary.

Game balance isn't a huge consideration, as my games are only with friends and family, so there's no sense of competition. I know in a Convention type environment, everyone wants to be sure that they are equal to everyone else. Not so with our group. In fact, one of the group is married to another member (we're two married couples), and she's mostly there because he is. She plays, she has fun, and she enjoys it, but I'm still not really sure she "gets" it. But she's always there and has a great attitude. She really wouldn't care about her power level compared to others, for example. She would probably expect to have a lower power level.

As far as going the other direction and adding C&C elements to RC, I like that idea, but there are a couple of reasons why I'm leaning more towards stripping C&C instead:

First, there's a LOT of great stuff in C&C I'd have to add! Having more character types is awesome. Having more character races is awesome. I like the higher hit dice for warriors (RC is only d8, but there are 36 advancement levels).

There's more monsters with C&C! And the newest advancements in gaming! I have two C&C monster books plus the book on Gods, so I have a lot of stuff to use. RC's monster list is fine, but small. And I could use the 2e monster manual, but then we're just adding on to add-ons.

I do like the older way of determining hits (subtraction), but newer players grasp the new way better, so I'll stick with that, which means one more thing to reconfigure (AC).

But mostly, because C&C is a current, active game that deserves to be supported. If I went with modifying RC instead, that would mean that I have all that I need to run the game, except maybe more RC stuff, which only supports people selling overpriced out-of-print games. Stripping C&C means I get to continue supporting a good company, buying and playing their stuff, and being a member of a large community of great fans. It's definitely the better way to go!

[Treebore]

My next campaign is a 1E AD&D game, where I use all the classes, spells, and magic items, but replace the mechanics with the SIEGE engine. It looks like its pretty easy to do, but I won't really know until I start to actually use it, which is still a couple of months off.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

My next campaign is a 1E AD&D game, where I use all the classes, spells, and magic items, but replace the mechanics with the SIEGE engine. It looks like its pretty easy to do, but I won't really know until I start to actually use it, which is still a couple of months off.

As closely related as 1e and C&C are, it does sound like a truly natural fit, even more-so than Cyclopedia. The main reason why I'd go backwards to earlier editions is for the descending armor class and the simpler math that results from it. Unfortunately, I'm pretty much outvoted 4 to 1 on that (although one of those is a child, and I think that he could learn it much easier than the adults).

One thing I do like about C&C's game mechanics is that it allows me to do something in C&C that I cannot do in any other OGL game or old D&D games:

Sometimes I like to have arrow traps shoot from walls. I think it's more exciting to have the player roll to dodge than have the "trap" roll to hit (which doesn't make much sense to me, as the trap is not sentient. It just releases the arrow, which goes to where the firing mechanism set it to go).

Anyway, this doesn't work in any other d20 game (and I've tried), but in C&C I can set the difficulty, then have the player roll d20 + level + Dex + Armor's Protection rating. This works because it accounts for luck (roll), skill (level), ability (Dex) and takes into account that the bolt might hit the armor and not pierce it (armor protection).

This is just doesn't work in any other version of the game. The backwards math stops you from being able to add the armor rating in the old games, and the new games have all these Dex penalties to movement in armor which effectively negate the bonus for your Dex. So in every other version, you have to have the trap roll to hit.

One more awesome thing about C&C!

[serleran]

There are many things I throw out of C&C. Alignment is one example. Some classes are others.

[Traveller]

My work on it is stalled due to my commitments to the Trolls, but I was doing a revision and expansion of the White Box rules into a single booklet. By revised, I mean using the current rules instead of the beta. By expanded, I mean not terribly so. Levels are upped to 12 and spells have enough information to actually use them, which was one of the shortcomings I saw in the White Box.

I'd really like to get back to that at some point, because the manuscript could serve as an excellent C&C Basic.