I'm close to pulling the trigger on the newest 3 core books for Castles & Crusades, and have been reading up allot about it (I've only been sitting on the C&C fence for 10 years lol). But I'd like to hear from the assembled sages her on the forums what the Like or Dislike about the game system.
As to me right now aside from a few small things, it looks like C&C is just D&D3E without the Feats and class/spell bloat. (which is a good thing). And if it is just that, why not go with "Basic Fantasy Role Playing" which is free.
To me the PRO's seem to be
The Skill Mechanic (SIEGE engine)
Stats as skills rolls
Prime Stats and Secondary stats and how they effect skill rolls
Niche protection for classes in regards to their skills/abilities
Higher is better for all rolls
Ascending AC
No Feats
To me the CON's so far are
The old style Saving Throws rather than Fort. Will, Reflex (though that is an easy house ruling to change)
Castles & Crusades originated as a project to make a ruleset that was compatible with AD&D. Compatible in that you can take any AD&D adventure or setting and run it as is by using the C&C stat blocks. In this they succeeded.
It has a lot of history and support behind it.
But since its creation the OSR expanded and grew and there is now dozens of variations on classic D&D including some like C&C meld newer mechanics into a framework that is compatible with classic D&D adventures and supplement.
One of them is Blood & Treasure. Which does uses the three save system along with Ascending AC and Nice Protection.
Unlike C&C the default skill system uses individual skills however they are based adding Reflex, Fort, or Will plus a attribute modifers. So while anybody can stealth by hadding their Fortitude bonus to their Dex bonus. Thieves are the best because they have higher reflex bonuses than other classes.
The author does have optional Feat and Skill point but they are true options. More on the order of how D&D 5e does it. Rather D&D 5e handles feat like how Blood & Treasures. You can use them but the game works fine without having feats. The same with skill points.
It worth checking at least as an alternative to C&C
http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.com/p/blood-treasure.html
And having played both, I think Blood & Treasure the better of the two. It feel like you get your money's worth with the books something I never felt with Castles & Crusades.
Then there are the various retro-clones, Basic Fantasy, Swords & Wizardry, etc. If you want to pick something to knock together your own take on classic D&D without reinventing the whole thing, I would start with the Swords & Wizardry house rule document. Add in things like the three saves and other elements and run it.
Quote from: Gwarh;852265The old style Saving Throws rather than Fort. Will, Reflex (though that is an easy house ruling to change)
This isn't entirely true; it's sort of a combination of both, and neither. You save against whatever attribute is appropriate, Primes being a base of 12, non-Primes a base of 18. The Challenge Class is added to the base, resulting in a target number. Roll a d20, add in the attribute mod and your level, compare to target number.
I think C&C is a pretty good game, but I greatly dislike the saving throw system and starting using AD&D's instead, mostly because I didn't like 20th level paladins failing their saves as often as 1st level paladins. Some people do prefer the way the saves work, however.
C&C's biggest strength is that combat takes about two brain cells to run. That in itself is a huge benefit. Plus, you can add in pretty much anything from AD&D/Basic/D&D3.X without even flinching.
I'll point out that if you jump in to C&C now, the latest full color printings of the books are gorgeous....nicest looking of all the OSR options out there. Peter Bradley's art is great (well, I like it anyway). I don't know what it is...these books just really appeal to me in terms of layout and design. It wasn't always like that, of course....make sure you don't get anything but the latest printings (or at least nothing earlier than the 4th Crusade prints).
C&C's consistency in mechanical design, derived from 3E, makes it very easy to teach to new players, too.
I'm one of those people who kinda likes the attribute-based save system, but I noticed in play it tends to mean each character has a few things he's really going to do well in saves against, and a few things that are his achille's heel. If you've ever made it to high level AD&D games and noticed that all characters might as well just assume "and he saved vs. X" all the time then having higher level characters who aren't universally invulnerable may appeal to you.
And like Brad said, combat is very easy to adjudicate in C&C. It's interesting for me because it tries really hard to emulate the flow/feel of 1E/2E combat, effects and results without rigorously following the old rules. The result is something that plays a bit like a very, very quick and intuitive redux of 3E combat, that paces like 2E and has familiar effects and spells dialed back to 2E era levels.
EDIT: A quick knote on Blood & Treasure....it is also an intriguing game, but (and this may sound shocking) it's really aimed at getting modern aesthetics and adventure themes into a sort of spiritually-OSR set of rules. I like it a lot, but it doesn't really feel as "D&D" to me as C&C does. I think YMMV heavily on this, and I'll just state that going with B&T would not be a bad choice either, I love everything J.M. Stater does. Maybe if he got Bradley to design his book layout and art I'd be hooked (sigh I'd LOL but I suspect I seriously do love the Bradley vibe in C&C. Maybe its just all the half-nekkid bikini-mail women still allowed to run around in the art or something).
Quote from: Brad;852277I think C&C is a pretty good game, but I greatly dislike the saving throw system and starting using AD&D's instead, mostly because I didn't like 20th level paladins failing their saves as often as 1st level paladins. Some people do prefer the way the saves work, however.
Yup. If you like it that high level warriors fail saves vs high level casters, it's a good game. Personally I prefer pre-3e approach.
I think whether you stick with C&C depends on what you're looking for.
When I first started playing C&C, it was because I had grown disillusioned with 3E, and sought a return to the rules and feel of TSR D&D. At first, C&C seemed like exactly what I was looking for, but I kept running into more and more things about it that didn't work like I wanted. Even things I first saw as improvements often turned out to not be what I really wanted, after all. The way the rules work introduce some subtle, but significant differences between it and TSR D&D. The saving throw thing is one. The SIEGE engine, in general, is another (e.g., how it impacts the probabilities to surprise enemies, and who is good at detecting enemies, etc). There were other "proud nails" that surprised me and that I caught my toe on, too.
What happened, with me, is that I found myself house-ruling C&C. That's not a problem, and not a surprise -- most people house-rule, and C&C encourages tweaking and rules options. However, I realized that all of my house rules were trying to make C&C more like TSR D&D. I was just making more work for myself, running C&C. Since I wanted the rules and feel of TSR D&D, it made a hell of lot more sense for me to just run TSR D&D. Seems obvious, right? (Don't know why I didn't realize that from the beginning.)
You may not be looking for what I was. Still, I think if I were looking for a C&C-ish kind of system (general compatibility with TSR D&D adventures and stats, but slightly more consistent or modern approach to the rules), I'd favor Basic Fantasy over C&C. It has that consistent, modern spin to the rules while keeping more true to the probabilities and game play of the original games, IMO.
Thanks for all the great feedback.
I actually own the Blood & Treasure core book (players book?) but have only skimmed through it. But what I did read impressed me enough to order the DM's and Monster Manual books off of Lulu.
Since I am a system collector anyway I guess I may as well grab the newest core trio of C&C books and give them a read through.
Also I've never sat down and read through cover to cover the Basic FRP book so I should do that also.
Hmmm so in the end I'm no closer to choosing an Old School Attitude, New school mechanics system. Lol.
Does anyone know if there are B&W versions of the newest releases of the 3 core C&C books?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that they offered Black and White versions of the newest books as a printer friendly option.
I personally prefer Swords & Wizardry: White Box, but if I had a group that wanted to play AD&D, I would run C&C. I've had fun every time I've played or run C&C. My preference for S&W:WB is more about the raw Sword & Sorcery feel.
I personally enjoy the SIEGE engine. It's fast and versatile and in actual play, that matters most to me over the occasional oddness the engine concept creates. The big issue is Spot Traps...it's a WIS save so Clerics spot traps (as good or better) than Thieves. But hey, Find Traps is a 2nd level Cleric spell so maybe the gods hate traps and the undead. For me, its a minor quibble to a good solid RPG.
BTW, as a player, I almost prefer C&C to other clones. The Prime system has allowed me to make some interesting PCs super-fast and C&C has my favorite version of the Bard and the Knight. Beardo, my Human Bard, has been incredibly fun to play.
Since we are discussing a new edition of C&C here this seems an appropriate spot for a related question. What am I missing out on by not upgrading to the newer printing? I have the C&C core books with the green covers, Castle Keepers guide included.
Quote from: Gwarh;852265To me the CON's so far are
The old style Saving Throws rather than Fort. Will, Reflex (though that is an easy house ruling to change)
C&C saving throws are not old style, they are SIEGE engine.
1) Old style: There is five categories of saves: vs poison, vs breath weapons, etc. Character has target number for each of them, that decrease with level. So, make a save vs poison at 3rd level in rolling a 15-20 on d20, but rolling a 13-20 on d20 at 7th level.
2) 3e style: Fort, Ref, Will: you get a bonus for each dependent on class and level, and you roll 1d20 + bonus + ability score modifier vs a target number that varies according to specific rules or GM fiat.
3) C&C style: GM tells you which ability score is relevant for saving throw. If it's a prime attribute you must roll 12-20 on d20, otherwise you roll 18-20. You add your level, but GM also add monster's level, or adventure level.
So what do we have?: old style categories are ludicrous as far as my preferences go. But they have one good thing: you know that increasing in level you become better at succeeding saves, because they are flat rolls. In this regard, C&C saves are the worlst, because if the GM is lazy he/she will tell that since you are a 15th level paladin, the adventure is 15th level, so the save for that trap is also 15th level, so basically you don't save any better than a 1st level paladin. However, if GM thinks seriously about it, he/she will create a table of challenges modifiers for easy/normal/difficult/impossible/etc. In this case, the saves become okay, and make more sense because they are based on ability scores, not ludicrous categories.
Nonetheless, C&C superficially resembles older D&D, but is different in many places, so you cannot use all those OSR modules made for 1e/Osric, etc., without adaptations (i.e. without work).
Lastly: my own game (see below) is a merging of Basic/1e/2e/3e, and works very well with OSR modules!
As an aside, there is an easier way to use the Siege engine.
Instead of separate numbers just add +3 to primes and -3 to non primes and treat everything like in 3.5 with a base difficulty of 15 or whatever the DC would be.
Its mathematically identical and simpler
Also if you want to check the system out, there are two free variants from Beyond Belief Games, Tombs and Terrors and Medieval Murder Mysteries. You get get them at DriveThru (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/522/Beyond-Belief-Games)free
C&C has two advantages that might not have been noted,
1st its got a lot of interesting support , Celtic and Nordic books, Rune Magic, 3 game worlds (Erde, Haunted Highlands and err tainted Lands) adventures, monsters and a ton of stuff including a huge free companion volume sort of like Unearthed Arcana Also Freeport and Bluffside conversions too
2nd Its by default bounded, that is it stops at Level 12. There is official support past that but the game is built around 12 being the end game. I rather like this
On the whole I'd say it reminds me of 5th edition and the two mesh well in places. 5e is far more "high powered fantasy" than C&C but the later is more to my taste.
The worst downsides
Well #1 is the editing. Its often very bad.
#2 Release schedules suffer abit too but TLG is a small shop so that's understood. However in general if you want cool new stuff, you'll almost have to kickstart it. Basically TLG is a kickstarter company and while they have a solid track record, if you prefer a more conventional approach , you'll either wait quite a while for some things (ahem Elemental Spells) or if a KS fails be SOL
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852290Still, I think if I were looking for a C&C-ish kind of system (general compatibility with TSR D&D adventures and stats, but slightly more consistent or modern approach to the rules), I'd favor Basic Fantasy over C&C. It has that consistent, modern spin to the rules while keeping more true to the probabilities and game play of the original games, IMO.
I just use Mentzer Classic with Ascending AC, but yes I'd agree BFRPG is a good choice and I think better designed than C&C. You can add in the classes from Labyrinth Lord: Advanced Edition Characters to BFRPG for a more AD&D-ish experience; AEC redesigns them so they are balanced to a BX or BFRPG type power level.
Aside from the wacky mechanics, some downsides include:
- The editing (or really lack thereof). Everything from spelling errors to inconsistent terminology to just plain bad, bad writing. Despite several editions, it never improves and often gets worse. Considering the high quality of many of the free OSR games produced with little to no budget at all, there's just no excuse for that other than to say TLG just doesn't give a single fuck.
- The artwork. I'll admit this is largely a matter of personal taste, but weirdly proportioned asses and elbows are a running theme.
- Conversion. Unless you're planning on writing your scenarios from scratch or using only those things released by TLG it's not going to be very straightforward.
Quote from: Kellri;852368- The editing (or really lack thereof). Everything from spelling errors to inconsistent terminology to just plain bad, bad writing. Despite several editions, it never improves and often gets worse. Considering the high quality of many of the free OSR games produced with little to no budget at all, there's just no excuse for that other than to say TLG just doesn't give a single fuck.
This right here is what stops me from getting it. I have the old C&C books and although its an OK game, the lack of professional editing is a huge downside. Your book can be the the most beautifully put together tome in all creation, but if it is riddled with errors then what's the point?
People complaining about the editing in C&C? Surely you jest!
No doubt, it is bad...I had every single version of the PHB (got rid of my 1st edition because the layout was terrible), and it was pretty much exactly the same except for layout. The new color versions look great, but the same fucking grammatical errors from over 10 years ago? Annoying.
Since he mentioned it, Turanil's Fantastic Heroes and Witchery is a great game, but quite a bit different in feel and scope than C&C. I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for original D&D feel. My guess is most people who like to play C&C really just want to play AD&D but with ascending AC so they don't have to have combat tables anywhere. That is pretty much the exact reason I started using it, but like I said, I eventually added AD&D saves, and now my C&C game is essentially Labyrinth Lord with AD&D classes and ascending AC (sounds almost exactly like Philotomy Jurament).
Actually the more I think about it, the less I think it matters what rules-system you're using. All these systems are close enough that you can just pick one as a base and import whatever you want from other places. As I stated somewhere else, my players don't even know the rules and they have fun, so obviously rules don't mean anything.
Quote from: Gwarh;852301Does anyone know if there are B&W versions of the newest releases of the 3 core C&C books?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that they offered Black and White versions of the newest books as a printer friendly option.
You'd want to look at the 4th printing- should be the books with the sea sick green covers. The color books were tough for me to read, writing aside. They used a tan page with dark brown lettering- difficult for my mark I eyeball to read.
Quote from: Kellri;852368- The editing (or really lack thereof). Everything from spelling errors to inconsistent terminology to just plain bad, bad writing. Despite several editions, it never improves and often gets worse. Considering the high quality of many of the free OSR games produced with little to no budget at all, there's just no excuse for that other than to say TLG just doesn't give a single fuck.
Yeah, the editing is terrible, and always has been, from what I can tell. In some cases, it wasn't just misspelling and poor writing, but also entire sections left out, or bad cut-and-paste errors, or system conversion errors that cut across the entire work. In Gygax's Yggsburgh book, all the monetary conversions were screwed up. Also, I kept looking for a certain order of battle that was mentioned in the text, and that I couldn't find among the orders of battle. Asked Gary about it, and he said, "it's in there," but it wasn't. His response was something like "well, it SHOULD be in there...Trolls!!!" He seemed as frustrated as I was.
Quote- The artwork. I'll admit this is largely a matter of personal taste, but weirdly proportioned asses and elbows are a running theme.
Ah, that's Peter Bradley. Yeah, his art isn't to my taste, either.
I like for game lines to use a wide variety of artists. When they stick with one for the majority of their prominent stuff, it can be a real bummer if you don't like that artist's style, or if you just get "fatigue" from seeing that style all the time.
Quote from: Brad;852277I think C&C is a pretty good game, but I greatly dislike the saving throw system and starting using AD&D's instead, mostly because I didn't like 20th level paladins failing their saves as often as 1st level paladins.
That's the main beef that occurs to me. I think the spell lists are also a bit out of whack, but I have only the first edition Handbook.
That's compact, and has nice character type write-ups. In sum, though, I find it hard to call out C&C as especially special when there's such a field of rivals.
Perhaps it's notable for a flavor that appeals more to folks steeped in 3E D&D idioms than do many retro-clones?
As mentioned, using TN 15 with +5 for primes is the way to go. I *think* that's the default in their pulp game Amazing Adventures.
The editing, while rough in spots, hasn't detracted from my ability to grok the game at all. Though I do enjoy playing over running. Though when running, it's really very easy to convert to C&C on the fly. Eyeballing is enough to do the trick. Maybe that's the best thing about it.
I'm currently playing in a C&C campaign where the GM is very new to the art and they're running the DCC adventure "Tower of the Black Pearl" for us, pretty much on the fly and it's awesome.
I've long believed that had Castles and Crusades been better the OSR would have been a much smaller movement.
The changes I see as essential to a Castles and Crusades with a broader appeal include:
Ditching the horrible "Siege Engine" it's a lousy mechanic all around. Not only is a six point spread too broad but it makes absurdities like clerics being better at detecting traps than thieves (until sixth level anyhow) very common. Plus one per level is also a bit of a problem. Not the end of the world but it does cause problems at high levels.
Cleaning up the weapon stats and imposing some degree of differentiation or scrapping things like polearms and swords into a single class (the basic D&D option). Personally I'd have loved it if they'd linked weapon damage to size as they did with hit dice type.
The classes have some weird balance issues. For all that I love that Fighters are hands down the best fighters in the game at first level, with a +4 to hit with a 16 Strength, the other fighting classes are often lucky to have a +1 as they need other stats to be higher.
The encumbrance system has been softened since first edition but I still don't like it.
The tone of Castles and Crusades is very much Paladins and Princesses and while that's not necessarily the worst thing it's a bit off putting for the fans of earlier editions.
I only have the first printing, so take what I say with a huge grain of salt.
C&C is ok, in that I can run my campaign with it.....but it is not particularly memorable or exciting. It's poorly edited, and that never ceases to irritate me.
I don't really feel like I can run my D&D campaign with 5e, but I definitely can run my campaign with C&C.....so if I were forced to choose between C&C or 5e, I would choose C&C.
However, I would still choose either AD&D or D&D 3.x over either of those games.
Quote from: S'mon;852286Yup. If you like it that high level warriors fail saves vs high level casters, it's a good game. Personally I prefer pre-3e approach.
Really? Cuz that's the exact problem I had when running 3e. Especially when magic using critters targeted anything other than Fort. In fact, a lot of spells and spell effects, especially some of the better ones go for Will.
Personally, the only good thing about C&C for my was the SIEGE mechanic, and even then I found semi-OK in play.
Quote from: Eisenmann;852463As mentioned, using TN 15 with +5 for primes is the way to go. I *think* that's the default in their pulp game Amazing Adventures.
I've used this variant. It's worked fine.
Quote from: Eisenmann;852463The editing, while rough in spots, hasn't detracted from my ability to grok the game at all. Though I do enjoy playing over running. Though when running, it's really very easy to convert to C&C on the fly. Eyeballing is enough to do the trick. Maybe that's the best thing about it.
Agreed. I've run Planescape with C&C and I'd love to run it again. The SIEGE engine, while imperfect, allows players and GMs to use an easily understood mechanic to engage in lots of freeform actions. And for some, not all, players, having a game mechanic in place is key to their ability to "go off the rails" - especially if they come from a 3e background.
Quote from: David Johansen;852465I've long believed that had Castles and Crusades been better the OSR would have been a much smaller movement.
I'd say that's almost certain. The original "word on the street" about C&C was that it was going to be an AD&D "clone." As more details emerged during its development, some people saw C&C straying from that path, and started discussing the development of an alternative that really was a "true 1e clone." Dissatisfaction with the direction C&C was developing led directly to the creation of OSRIC under the OGL, and it was largely the success of OSRIC (including the fact that it wasn't legally smacked down by WotC) that opened the flood-gates for the whole "retro-clone" concept.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852635I'd say that's almost certain. The original "word on the street" about C&C was that it was going to be an AD&D "clone." As more details emerged during its development, some people saw C&C straying from that path, and started discussing the development of an alternative that really was a "true 1e clone." Dissatisfaction with the direction C&C was developing led directly to the creation of OSRIC under the OGL, and it was largely the success of OSRIC (including the fact that it wasn't legally smacked down by WotC) that opened the flood-gates for the whole "retro-clone" concept.
Yeah, pretty much.
The old C&C vs OSRIC flame wars were pretty epic though. They had enough fire in those arguments to power a city. :)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;852611Really? Cuz that's the exact problem I had when running 3e. Especially when magic using critters targeted anything other than Fort. In fact, a lot of spells and spell effects, especially some of the better ones go for Will.
Personally, the only good thing about C&C for my was the SIEGE mechanic, and even then I found semi-OK in play.
I like pre-3e where high level characters make their saves. I don't like 3e and C&C where high level characters fail saves. In my Pathfinder Crimson Throne game I houseruled a half-level/hit die bonus to all saves, which is working well, the 13th level PCs make all saves at +6 and a lot of the DCs are ca 25 so there is still some risk.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852431I like for game lines to use a wide variety of artists. When they stick with one for the majority of their prominent stuff, it can be a real bummer if you don't like that artist's style, or if you just get "fatigue" from seeing that style all the time.
Me too. I kind of like the 1st edition DMG approach - everything from highly detailed Darlene illustrations to Tom Wham comic strips. In that sense I find the C&C art design to be humorless and boring. I want 2 things from a D&D book - be inspiring on every page and writing at least equal to a band 7 on the IELTS exam.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852431QuoteThe editing (or really lack thereof). Everything from spelling errors to inconsistent terminology to just plain bad, bad writing. Despite several editions, it never improves and often gets worse. Considering the high quality of many of the free OSR games produced with little to no budget at all, there's just no excuse for that other than to say TLG just doesn't give a single fuck.
Yeah, the editing is terrible, and always has been, from what I can tell. In some cases, it wasn't just misspelling and poor writing, but also entire sections left out, or bad cut-and-paste errors, or system conversion errors that cut across the entire work. In Gygax's Yggsburgh book, all the monetary conversions were screwed up. Also, I kept looking for a certain order of battle that was mentioned in the text, and that I couldn't find among the orders of battle. Asked Gary about it, and he said, "it's in there," but it wasn't. His response was something like "well, it SHOULD be in there...Trolls!!!" He seemed as frustrated as I was.
Sadly, it's always been like this. I used to think it was the editing software they used (they were using WordPerfect in an age where most people use Microsoft Word), but my own experience seeing Gary's original manuscripts and the final products tend to have too many mistakes.
I remember working on edits to Gary's Hall of Many Panes--I was doing several things, making sure the stats for the d20 system were 100% OGL (removing PI stuff some authors make), and correcting some spelling errors and typos, then later upgrading all the stats to the 3.5 edition (a pain since it re-balanced some monsters, etc.).
At one point, I submitted my revisions, then Gary and I got a draft back, which appeared to have none of my changes. I wrote a slightly exasperated letter back to the person handling it, mostly upset that all the work I was doing to try to improve the quality of the product (in terms of removing typos and preventing issues with the d20 license), etc. I got a response that was pretty angry in tone, and Gary actually apologized to me about the response I got.
The guys at TLG are pretty nice and they have a strong following, and Gary definitely liked and trusted them--but I can't see how you can be a publisher and not even make an effort to improve the quality of basic proofreading, editing, etc.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852635I'd say that's almost certain. The original "word on the street" about C&C was that it was going to be an AD&D "clone." As more details emerged during its development, some people saw C&C straying from that path, and started discussing the development of an alternative that really was a "true 1e clone." Dissatisfaction with the direction C&C was developing led directly to the creation of OSRIC under the OGL, and it was largely the success of OSRIC (including the fact that it wasn't legally smacked down by WotC) that opened the flood-gates for the whole "retro-clone" concept.
I don't know it would have been certain that the OSR would have been smaller. If C&C turned out to be a true 1e clone wouldn't it have opened the floodgates in a manner similar to OSRIC?
We still had Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy coming down the pike regardless of how C&C turned out. And while much of OSRIC is OGL a chunk of it is not and under a more restrictive license. A 1e C&C would probably been not 100% OGL either. Given how ornery open content advocates can be somebody would have enough motivation to make a 100% open content clone. From there it would branch out.
But given how open content Runequest turned out a smaller OSR a result of 1e C&C is a very plausible result. While the important parts of Runequest was open content, the community was centered around Mongoose who was producing reasonably good content on a regular basis.
C&C needed to decide whether it was a modernized D&D or an AD&D clone.
I think the Siege Engine needed to be a skill system much like 5e uses. If you're skilled you get a +3. Attribute bonus appropriate to task applies as does +1 / 2 levels.
C&C positioned itself as AD&D 3e. As for the OSR, there were always going to be those who would reject deviation from whatever pre-3e edition they prefer most.
Quote from: David Johansen;852721C&C needed to decide whether it was a modernized D&D or an AD&D clone.
That's the beauty of game design: it doesn't. :) It's a streamlined "modern" design with a few old school sensibilities and AD&D 1e trade dress. A niche product within a niche hobby? Maybe. But I like it well enough.
Quote from: David Johansen;852721I think the Siege Engine needed to be a skill system much like 5e uses. If you're skilled you get a +3. Attribute bonus appropriate to task applies as does +1 / 2 levels.
That sounds rather a lot like my old, untested fix.
Quote from: The Butcher;503852- Drop Primes.
- Drop suggested DCs. Use the DC table from D&D3.0e or 3.5e. Seriously.
- Add level to ALL saves and skill checks (not just class-relevant ones).
- Add +4 or maybe +5 to class-relevant skill checks.
Which, of course, is a lot like 5e's proficiency bonus mechanic turned out.
Quote from: S'mon;852286Yup. If you like it that high level warriors fail saves vs high level casters, it's a good game. Personally I prefer pre-3e approach.
It's the easiest fix of all, really, just change the CLs. For spells in my own campaign, I tend to do spell level (rather than Caster Level) for CLs, but it'd be pretty easy to tune any way you wanted, pretty much.
It's no different from any of the other retro-clones.
You see, these games are all a bit like the vagina of a post-op woman. On cursory inspection, it might seem like the real thing, but as you go deeper, you'll find it's not as gripping.