This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?  (Read 3268 times)

Effete

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2022, 10:51:06 PM »
I've never had an issue with it.  Not sure what anyone's problem with the weapon's list is.  Honestly it's the smoothest system I've ever played.  Sure we use house rules, but I have with every other system too.  It just adds some flavor and preferences.

My only issue with the weapons is that there are too damn many and a lot are far too similar to make any real difference. I have a couple players that will sit there for ten minutes unsure of whether to take a glaive or a fauchard, when functionally they're the same thing. The real world differences just aren't interesting enough to warrant a distinction in game mechanics.

The Spaniard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2022, 11:06:15 PM »
I've never had an issue with it.  Not sure what anyone's problem with the weapon's list is.  Honestly it's the smoothest system I've ever played.  Sure we use house rules, but I have with every other system too.  It just adds some flavor and preferences.

My only issue with the weapons is that there are too damn many and a lot are far too similar to make any real difference. I have a couple players that will sit there for ten minutes unsure of whether to take a glaive or a fauchard, when functionally they're the same thing. The real world differences just aren't interesting enough to warrant a distinction in game mechanics.

Understood.  My players are ususally interested in the basics, so we never get that granular.

Effete

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2022, 12:46:17 AM »
Understood.  My players are ususally interested in the basics, so we never get that granular.

I'm the same way. I much prefer generic weapons that the players can describe however they want. A "one-handed sword" can be anything from a gladius to a scimitar to a khopesh. "Two-handed axe" would cover a bardiche, dane's axe, and perhaps a poleaxe.

pawsplay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • p
  • Posts: 472
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2022, 04:42:26 AM »
I've never had an issue with it.  Not sure what anyone's problem with the weapon's list is.  Honestly it's the smoothest system I've ever played.  Sure we use house rules, but I have with every other system too.  It just adds some flavor and preferences.

My only issue with the weapons is that there are too damn many and a lot are far too similar to make any real difference. I have a couple players that will sit there for ten minutes unsure of whether to take a glaive or a fauchard, when functionally they're the same thing. The real world differences just aren't interesting enough to warrant a distinction in game mechanics.

I got kind of burned when I bought some of the supplements, and the damage values for weapons diverged strongly from the main book, both in scale and diversity.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12356
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2022, 05:26:34 AM »
Re fixing the Primes system - it's pretty obvious that 5e had some C&C influence with the Proficiency Bonus, and I'd use that instead of the C&C Primes bonus/TN reduction: +2 at 1-4, +3 at 5-8, +4 at 9-12, +5 at 13-16 and +6 at 17-20. With a base TN of 15 rather than 12/18.

This reduces the value of Human PCs getting 3 Primes. I'd suggest give them +1 STR +1 CON as well, or even two floating +1s, assign as desired.

Brooding Paladin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2022, 04:14:25 PM »
Apologies if it’s a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I’m in a similar position to Effete.  First, I’m wondering if you tried it and how it went.  And if others have thoughts on the subject I’d love to hear them.  For my next campaign I’m really down between running AD&D or C&C. I’m reading the C&C books now, hoping that’ll feed the need.

The Spaniard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2022, 04:38:02 PM »
Apologies if it’s a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I’m in a similar position to Effete.  First, I’m wondering if you tried it and how it went.  And if others have thoughts on the subject I’d love to hear them.  For my next campaign I’m really down between running AD&D or C&C. I’m reading the C&C books now, hoping that’ll feed the need.

No res needed for a thread only a month old here!  FWIW, I started out playing AD&D in '81, played 2E for a bit but found I didn't like it.  Then took a hiatus until 2015 when my son showed an interest.  I had kept up on what was out in the market a bit, so I tried a few things.  3E and Pathfinder were too rules heavy, and there were a few mechanical things I didn't like from AD&D so when I found C&C I was intrigued.  It feels like AD&D, but the Siege Engine mechanic seems smoother to me.  Some folks complain about power balance at high levels, but since most campaigns rarely reach high level anyway, and I've never had a character go over 11th level ever, that is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.  If I didn't play C&C, AD&D would be my next choice.  I generally use old 1E modules or similar OSR material and just convert it on the fly.  It's fairly easy to do.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2022, 04:39:48 PM by The Spaniard »

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1586
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2022, 05:01:38 PM »
Much like The Spaniard, I have found that I can run OSR modules with little conversion. When I playtested C&C I used some AD&D modules (the Giants series) as well as some 3E stuff I had laying around. Overall I found that C&C worked well with pretty much anything.

And I also agree about the SIEGE engine. It gets a bad rep, but mostly for levels that I don't run games. I started with OD&D and back then most of our campaigns ended somewhere around level 8 to level 10. I think that most games that use d20 rolls start to "break" somewhere after that, and C&C is no exception. I dislike 5E after level 10 or so. Not a fan of AD&D after level 10 or so. There just aren't many d20-based games that work when levels creep up there, so I don't really understand why C&C gets so much bad press over it.
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

ForgottenF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2022, 05:05:16 PM »
Apologies if it’s a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I’m in a similar position to Effete.  First, I’m wondering if you tried it and how it went.  And if others have thoughts on the subject I’d love to hear them.  For my next campaign I’m really down between running AD&D or C&C. I’m reading the C&C books now, hoping that’ll feed the need.

I suppose it's just a question of what you like. Like a lot of people, I have my reservations about the SIEGE engine, particularly the way it resolves attribute checks. This thread is relevant to the issue, if you haven't checked it out, and lists a number of similar games with different check resolution systems.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/3-x-style-osr-games/

Of the games that came up there, Blood and Treasure would be my pick for a very similar game that has a task resolution system I would prefer.

Brooding Paladin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2022, 10:55:23 AM »
Thanks, ForgottenF.  I'm definitely watching that thread as well.  We have tried a few systems and just haven't found that silver bullet yet.  Chances are it's not out there but I'm just trying to get close and then we'll house rule the rest.

Arkansan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1280
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2022, 05:29:46 PM »
I have the C&C core books, but I must have bought them a decade ago. How out of date is my stuff? Would it be considered essential to get the newer printings?

The Spaniard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2022, 06:01:10 PM »
I have the C&C core books, but I must have bought them a decade ago. How out of date is my stuff? Would it be considered essential to get the newer printings?

You can still easily use older core versions.  There have been a few changes, but mostly cosmetic.

Palleon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • P
  • Posts: 139
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2022, 06:10:19 PM »
I have the C&C core books, but I must have bought them a decade ago. How out of date is my stuff? Would it be considered essential to get the newer printings?

C&C just fixes errata between printings.  I doubt anything too significant has changed.

Effete

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2022, 07:04:39 PM »
Apologies if it’s a major faux pas to threadres from over a month ago, but I’m in a similar position to Effete.  First, I’m wondering if you tried it and how it went.  And if others have thoughts on the subject I’d love to hear them.  For my next campaign I’m really down between running AD&D or C&C. I’m reading the C&C books now, hoping that’ll feed the need.

Hi. Personally, I don't care about necroing a thread as long as the post adds something to the conversation. It's probably better than starting a new thread and just having everyone repeat what's already been said before. Anyway...

Yeah, I joined a Castles & Crusades game since posting this thread and it's going well. The GM homebrewed some minor changes to the SIEGE engine, but overall it's not bad. If I had a choice, I wouldn't use it, but it plays fine.

Ocule

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: Castles & Crusades - Is it actually good?
« Reply #44 on: September 12, 2022, 07:06:09 PM »
I’m a pretty big fan of castles and crusades. To address some concerns,

Spell casting is actually stronger than in dnd, especially as you level. Because your saving throws are your ability checks, which have a base of 12 and 18 depending on if it’s a prime or not. Then the caster level of the spell caster plus modifiers adds to this. If you target a non prime they’re very unlikely to save against you.

Primes and secondaries take a bit of getting used to, a common strategy is to only use base 18 dc and all prime rolls get to add +6, this keeps the maththe same but keeps you from needing to ask whether it’s a primary or secondary attribute.


The game is exceptionally easy to run and create content for. It really does feel like adnd. I use it as a middle ground between 5e and osr because I refuse to run 5e anymore. Cnc is also very well supported.
Read my Consumer's Guide to TTRPGs
here. This is a living document.

Forever GM

Now Running: Deadlands (SWADE)