Does anyone not love C&C?

[Tank]

Hi there. I'm new to these boards and new to C&C -- in fact I only just ordered the PHB and M&T books last night. As a long-time D&D player, I did a lot of research before moving outside of my comfort zone to a new game, and I have to admit: I'm a little scared of saying good-bye to multiclassing, feats, and monsters with class levels. (I am, however, very happy to be rid of cumbersome skills and annoying prestige classes/kits.) As a DM -- and a future CK, I suppose -- I am also concerned about a fraction of my players rioting if we decide to convert our campaign to C&C.

Rambling introductions aside, I have never read a review or a post by someone who doesn't like C&C. Do these people exist? Do they write things on the internet? Are you one of these people? I guess I'd just like to read from people of this opinion before I dive headlong into a new game.

Thanks in advance for your help and advice.

-Tank

[Nelzie]

There's a few people posting a dislike of C&C on the rpg.net forums.

Some of what they dislike is just a misunderstanding of the uses one can get out of the SIEGE Engine.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[gideon_thorne]

*grins*

Yes, there are a few.

They come in a few flavors.

Folks who are perfectly happy with some other game of choice. They simply say 'not interested' and move on.

Others who seem to get their jollies over trashing anything that comes out. Best just to leave them alone.

And the third variety, the die hards of any system who not only will proclaim long and loudly their dislike for the C&C game, but spend their time villifying anyone who gets involved with it. Up to and including, the writers, the art, the rules and any number of irrational hysterics.

Granted, C&C isnt for everyone. And I'll be the first to tell you to find what your happy with and go with that. It is a game after all, not a life altering event. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Nifelhein]

Heh, multiclassing? Get either Castle Zagyg's pdfs on the trolls site or Crusader n4. Feats? Follow the advice on using the SIEGE engine. Monsters with class levels? Just grant them the abilities and use HD instead of levels, change prime for class, or don't.

There are many people who do not like C&C, on RPG.net you will find tons of them, just drop by RPG.net new D20/OGL (D20) forum (sigh) and check a few C&C threads, all of them tend to go downhill to C&C is great vs it is not.

And welcome to the crusade! My way of changing systems is this: I will GM this system, don't like it? Then GM whatever you want for me instead.

[Julian Grimm]

gideon_thorne wrote:
And the third variety, the die hards of any system who not only will proclaim long and loudly their dislike for the C&C game, but spend their time villifying anyone who gets involved with it. Up to and including, the writers, the art, the rules and any number of irrational hysterics.

Organized Skeptics Rallying an Inflammitory Crusade?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[serleran]

There are always those who do not like a particular something. However, you came to the source, and asked that question... obviously, there will be very few, if any, here. If you're here, you must, at least, be interested... and all we can do is convince you, or not, regardless if others hate the system. Listen to both sides, and give it a trial go. You don't have to spend much for that; there is a condensed rules pdf that gives you more than enough to see if you like the game. Personally, that's what I'd do... and ignore both what the positive side says, and what the negative side says: My money. My decision.

[Omote]

I can understand if the older version of the D&D game are not your thing... this might be one reason not to like C&C. Personally, if your mind is clear and free to form it's own opinion, I can;t see a reason NOT to like C&C. The game is basic with it's roots set firmly in the older editions of the game. It uses some of the better, modern rules elements from d20.

So what's not to like?

The game is good.

.............................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Breakdaddy]

As the CK, keep this in mind and your players will likely love C&C: The SIEGE engine allows them to do ANYTHING that their character could practically do, even with difficulty. If they want to charge a minotaur, slash him, and roll out still moving, let him roll a dex check for that. If he wants to make a CLEAVE-like second attack when he just cut down that pesky goblinoid, let him make a SIEGE check for that as well. Just remember that the SIEGE engine is their to ENABLE characters, not limit them. IMO, if you have the mentality (as the CK) that you will likely say YES instead of NO when the characters want to do something, then fun will be had by all.

[Tank]

I think the SIEGE engine for feats sounds really good - that puts aside quite a few of my worries. I like the dual class system from the free Castle Zagyg pdf, but I do have one question...

(...one question that will reveal the degree to which d20 D&D has brainwashed me...)

...how will including multi-classed and dual-class characters affect the balance of power levels in the party?

In 2nd edition AD&D, it seemed that any multiclass characters were going to get the short end of the stick when it came to hit points. Nowadays, (in D&D) however, it seems like mixing and matching makes one character stronger than everyone else. And there's little to prevent a player from becoming Paladin 4/Monk 2/Dragon Disciple X+7/Abjurant this and that 5.

Thank you again for all your help. And please forgive my brainwashing, as I run off to read a little on rpg dot net.

[serleran]

Characters in C&C aren't balanced against each other, because they're not supposed to be. A class, and its XP chart is dependent on what abilities the class gets, from armor/weapon proficiencies to HD and BtH to everything else, all of which use the fighter as the absolute baseline. So, if you wanna play a Barbarian/Druid and your bud is playing a single class rogue, don't whine when he's at 10th level and you're only making 5th. Because saves and class abilities are tied directly to level, having the "level advantage" is extraordinarily significant.

[Breakdaddy]

NP, chief, we are here to help. Zagyg's multi class system addresses the hit point situation nicely by allowing the character to earn the appropriate hit points for the class in which he is currently levelling. So a level 5/4 Rogue/Fighter advances to level 5 in Fighter, he will gain the D10 for the class. When he advances to 6 in rogue, he will then immediately gain the D6 that the rogue class confers. He won't really get shorted, because the SIEGE engine will continue to support the actions he wishes to perform. The only thing he need worry about is that the level-dependent benefits of each class will take a bit longer to obtain. This tradeoff seems acceptable to me and fairly balanced.

[Breakdaddy]

The other thing I would like to briefly address is classed monsters. It isn't difficult at all to do this. Just calculate the monsters current hit points and then add the appropriate hit points/hit dice for the class and level you wish to add to them. Slap on the abilities of the class and you're done. This is exceedingly easy with warrior type creatures. Let's say you want a 10 HD minotaur. You add 3 HD to the base minotaur and youre done. The +3 to hit and commensurate hit points automatically come with the boost. C&C is beautiful, don't feel limited at all, you are no longer tied to the stringent rules of a much heavier rules system. Bear in mind that I know what you're going through with this conversion, as I was a 3.x devotee for a few years before I came to C&C.

[serleran]

You'll find a rather massive split in those who support the CZ stuff, and those who do not. I, for example, don't like the CZ multiclass rules, as I find they give PCs too many HP compared to those who don't use the rules, but they sacrifice levels (in general) for it, which can be good, since they'll need the HP to not die... but, its a HP creep I find I'd rather not have. I'd prefer something more like the stuff sieg wrote in The Crusader #4 and 5, but in reality, I would rather use my own deconstruction method and allow the player to create whatever it was he wanted, without the need for multi or dual-class at all.

[Zudrak]

serleran wrote:
You'll find a rather massive split in those who support the CZ stuff, and those who do not. I, for example, don't like the CZ multiclass rules, as I find they give PCs too many HP compared to those who don't use the rules, but they sacrifice levels (in general) for it, which can be good, since they'll need the HP to not die... but, its a HP creep I find I'd rather not have. I'd prefer something more like the stuff sieg wrote in The Crusader #4 and 5, but in reality, I would rather use my own deconstruction method and allow the player to create whatever it was he wanted, without the need for multi or dual-class at all.

It is that decon method, serleran, that I would use to create a ME campaign -- as discussed on the other thread -- to create classes that fit Tolkien's world better than the traditional classes do. Rangers getting limited healing power through the use of herbs, for example, in the absence of druids and clerics in the world.

For me, in a Greyhawk campaign I will use the CZ rules, but would be open to Jackal's DF Board rules and Sieg's Crusader rules also.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

[Tadhg]

Tank wrote:
Hi there. I'm new to these boards and new to C&C -- in fact I only just ordered the PHB and M&T books last night.

Thanks in advance for your help and advice.

-Tank

Hello and welcome, Tank.

Enjoy the books!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Breakdaddy]

serleran wrote:
You'll find a rather massive split in those who support the CZ stuff, and those who do not. I, for example, don't like the CZ multiclass rules, as I find they give PCs too many HP compared to those who don't use the rules, but they sacrifice levels (in general) for it, which can be good, since they'll need the HP to not die... but, its a HP creep I find I'd rather not have. I'd prefer something more like the stuff sieg wrote in The Crusader #4 and 5, but in reality, I would rather use my own deconstruction method and allow the player to create whatever it was he wanted, without the need for multi or dual-class at all.

There is always a tradeoff, yes? Sieg's articles are excellent, and if the OP has access to the referenced issues of Crusader, they are worth a look!

[Julian Grimm]

Breakdaddy wrote:
The other thing I would like to briefly address is classed monsters. It isn't difficult at all to do this. Just calculate the monsters current hit points and then add the appropriate hit points/hit dice for the class and level you wish to add to them. Slap on the abilities of the class and you're done. This is exceedingly easy with warrior type creatures. Let's say you want a 10 HD minotaur. You add 3 HD to the base minotaur and youre done. The +3 to hit and commensurate hit points automatically come with the boost. C&C is beautiful, don't feel limited at all, you are no longer tied to the stringent rules of a much heavier rules system. Bear in mind that I know what you're going through with this conversion, as I was a 3.x devotee for a few years before I came to C&C.

I go a bit simpler. I add the abilities and maybe up creature HD then up XP to compensate. I have taken to the theory of monsters with class abilities being statted like monsters and not like PC's.

With multi-classing I'm so burnt on it from 3.X that I am not using it at all. When I feel I'm ready to start using the idea again I will feel out my options there.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Breakdaddy]

Julian Grimm wrote:
I go a bit simpler. I add the abilities and maybe up creature HD then up XP to compensate...

Also a good way to do it. This only helps illustrate the flexibility of the system to Tank. Their is no wrong way to play C&C as long as fun is had by all (and the game is adjudicated fairly by the CK)!

[Julian Grimm]

Quote:
Their is no wrong way to play C&C

That is the best thing about this system.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Ghul]

serleran wrote:
You'll find a rather massive split in those who support the CZ stuff, and those who do not. I, for example, don't like the CZ multiclass rules, as I find they give PCs too many HP compared to those who don't use the rules, but they sacrifice levels (in general) for it, which can be good, since they'll need the HP to not die... but, its a HP creep I find I'd rather not have. I'd prefer something more like the stuff sieg wrote in The Crusader #4 and 5, but in reality, I would rather use my own deconstruction method and allow the player to create whatever it was he wanted, without the need for multi or dual-class at all.

Serl, what you note is actually errata as the HP progression for multi-class characters is supposed to be divided by the number of classes similar to OAD&D. This is supported in proof by those NPCs detailed in CZY, if you take a look at their respective HPs. So, if you have a fighter/thief, and you gain a level in thief, you roll a d6 Hit Die, divide it by two, and round up any fractions of .5 or greater.

Also, total character level, for purposes of saving throws equals the highest level plus .5 of each remaining level. So, a 6/5 fighter/cleric saves as a level 8 character. 4/2 thief/wizard saves as a 5th level character, etc.

Hope that helps.

--Ghul

[Breakdaddy]

Julian Grimm wrote:
That is the best thing about this system.

Agreed. Trust in the CK is essential as well, so to Tank: establish a CK-Player trust relationship ASAP when you begin your campaign and the rest almost takes care of itself.

[Treebore]

Tank,

give me your e-mail and I will send you my house rules.

The main thing I think you'll want to see is how I use "feats" in my game, which is really just saying in 3E terms the SIEGE engine allows you to do the same.

Plus you may like how I did skills, or at least use it as a baseline for house ruling your own version.

Who knows? Maybe my other house rules might appeal to you.

If you do not want to publicly give your e-mail my PM works.

Plus cncplayer.net has a lot of good stuff for you to read over linked to it.

[Breakdaddy]

You could almost make this thread sticky so that new Players and CKs can get quick advice when they make their foray into C&C gaming.

[serleran]

Ghul wrote:
Serl, what you note is actually errata as the HP progression for multi-class characters is supposed to be divided by the number of classes similar to OAD&D. This is supported in proof by those NPCs detailed in CZY, if you take a look at their respective HPs. So, if you have a fighter/thief, and you gain a level in thief, you roll a d6 Hit Die, divide it by two, and round up any fractions of .5 or greater.

Also, total character level, for purposes of saving throws equals the highest level plus .5 of each remaining level. So, a 6/5 fighter/cleric saves as a level 8 character. 4/2 thief/wizard saves as a 5th level character, etc.

That makes it more in tune with OAD&D, and is much more playable, I think, in comparison to gaining X level, get Y HD, and rinse and repeat. Still a bit more bookkeeping than I like, but that's me. Wouldn't bee too hard to do something along the line of Jackal's method with it, but... I just have this hankering to go classless.

[DangerDwarf]

Julian Grimm wrote:
With multi-classing I'm so burnt on it from 3.X that I am not using it at all. When I feel I'm ready to start using the idea again I will feel out my options there.

I'm of the same boat. I never had much multi-classing even in previous editions so its not a real big thing to me. My players aren't interested as of yet either.

[Ghul]

serleran wrote:
but... I just have this hankering to go classless.

Serl, I knew it the first time I met you. I said, " Here is a guy with no class."

--Ghul

[serleran]

I try. I don't write for Castes and Cults, now do I?

[Julian Grimm]

My one suggestion would be for Tank to get a binder, notebook and a hole punch. I have constructed my own 'Blue Book' to keep my useable ideas together. In it I have my own houserules, a combat cheat sheet, a CL chart that someone made, My own monsters, a copy of The Keeper (shameless plug), and various other things to keep things consistant. Consistancy and organization is a key factor to a sucessful campaign.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Tank]

Thanks again for all the advice. And I agree: this thread would be very useful for anyone with a primarily Dungeons and Dragons background who is interested in C&C.

Mr. Treebore, I would be very interested in seeing your houserules!

I read through some very long threads at rpg dot net, and what sticks with me most is one guy who thinks that since C&C doesn't include feats by default, it does not allow for ample creation of a character "concept." At one point, he argues that since there's no way to use the SIEGE engine to ignite your sword on fire or break someone's bones (as is apparently possible with ToB feats), C&C players are missing out. The fact is, lighting your sword on fire doesn't sound like much of a concept to me. Thinking back over my history of AD&D and 3.x characters, it's interesting to see how selecting different primes -- and simply opting to use different moves in combat -- would allow me to recreate those characters in a way that would be true to my original concept.

I think I'll make a few phone calls to my local gaming stores and see if they carry The Crusader. What do you think my chances are?

Keep in mind that I have not received my PHB and M&T books yet, so while I have several rules-oriented questions, most can probably be answered by doing some homework once those books arrive.

[gideon_thorne]

Ah.. what? Why does one need a feat or skill or seige engine to light a sword on fire? Some oil and a match (tinder/flint) works much better.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley