Well, after some thought, and running everything by my players, I've determined I will probably never end up using this game.  Oh well.

Is anyone interested in a 2nd printing Player's Handbook and Monsters & Treasure?  I'm willing to trade for 3.5, WFRP2, or cold hard cash.

-O

Quote from: jgantsI'm pretty sure its the opposite - that you add levels for everything unless its somebody else's class ability.

I don't have the book in front of me to double check, though.

Well knock me down and call me Sally, it looks like I've been reading it wrong all this time.  When it says not to add your level to a non-class ability, that seems to be specifically referring to class abilities, not general actions.  I guess that makes more sense, too.

Quote from: TechnomancerWell knock me down and call me Sally, it looks like I've been reading it wrong all this time.  When it says not to add your level to a non-class ability, that seems to be specifically referring to class abilities, not general actions.  I guess that makes more sense, too.

I'm as surprised that my usually-faulty memory was correct as you are.  

Between skills, feats, races, and gear, PCs in bog-standard 3.5 have quite a bit of customization potential.  An elven rogue who specializes in archery, taking the Point-Blank Shot/Precise Shot etc. tree is going to work very differently in play than a half-orc rogue with Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Orc Double-Axe and Combat Expertise.  That's entirely leaving out the issue of skill distribution.

Some classes come with even further options, such as the Monk and Ranger getting to choose fighting styles, the Ranger getting a favored enemy selection, and high-level Rogues getting their variety of Class ability options.

So, I got no clue what ya'll are on about, really.

The characters in my D&D games rarely look like classes that are cut from the same cloth. I've had maybe one or two 'standard build' characters in any of the games I've played since it came out, so I don't know what to say.

I think the argument about optimal builds featuring in actual games is only generally valid, because it assumes that players are specifically trying for an optimal build (as opposed to trying to make their concept as optimal as possible), and that that optimal set up is actually optimal for the game, which will often use different assumptions than just 'hit the hardest is best'.

As far as multiclassing being powergaming twinkery, well, besides just trying to come off as a holier-than-thou hardass, jgants, you're also wrong. ^_~ Okay, you acknowledge that it's not always the case that it devolves into that, but I'd argue that it really depends on your players and what you're going for. If you're all geared up for a hack-fest, then it's kind of silly to try to reign in the players for optimizing for combat. If you're looking at the characters more as concepts/3-d characters and you're having trouble with it, it's because your players have a fundimentally different game outlook then you. Single classing isn't going to suddenly stop them from looking at their 'toons' as builds, it's just going to limit the mechanical bits they play with.

Bottom line for me is that C&C works and it's flexible.  If you want stuff from previous D&D editions, they can be ported in with little to no tweaking.  If you want stuff from the 3rd Editions it might take a bit more work, but it's quite doable.  It plays fast, I've never seen it bog down and most importantly to me, it's fun.  What more can I say?

Quote from: MegamanfanBottom line for me is that C&C works and it's flexible.  If you want stuff from previous D&D editions, they can be ported in with little to no tweaking.  If you want stuff from the 3rd Editions it might take a bit more work, but it's quite doable.  It plays fast, I've never seen it bog down and most importantly to me, it's fun.  What more can I say?

amen.

i think the thing that struck a chord with me wrt C&C is the fact that it reminds me of the game I started playing...no feats, flaws, gifts, munchkiny build conundrums, etc.  Just make your Fighter and go...

and that to me is fun.

Yeah, I can see that others would find it appealing.

I have discovered, sadly, that I'm not in that group...

Not much to be done for it really.  Thanks everyone for chatting about it with me.

-O

I like it. Its easy to run and easy to convert old and new material to. I'm running a Dark Sun C&C game in a couple weeks that took me a few minutes to make six mid level pregens for by hand (something like five minutes per character, except for the Psionist which required me to read the Grey Elf's psionics supplement. Either way its actually faster than a 3.5 character even when I'm using a character generator. There maybe a lack of differentiality but I can't really tell, since its Dark Sun and well they all seem vastly very different to me.

Plus its super easy to modify classes, or create new classes with a handy and free guide which is another plus something that is far more difficult for me to do with D&D 3.5. Also less complexity is another plus, I don't have to worry about remembering Feats or Skills, and I have a ton of cool Dark Sun weapons to choose from to arm the PCs with.

I also made some Planescape Vikings of Ysgard awhile back for another game that I ended up not running, and it was super easy to make Planescape characters with just a borrowed 2nd ed Planescape box set and the C&C book. Even the two Barbarian Pregens are fairly different perhaps due to the fact that they are in different Factions, have different races, different roleplay tips, and different equipment but they are by no means cookie cutter.

Quote from: obrynYeah, I can see that others would find it appealing.

I have discovered, sadly, that I'm not in that group...

Not much to be done for it really.  Thanks everyone for chatting about it with me.

-O

yeah, i think it's certainly a case of 'different strokes' where any of the OGL/d20-flavored products are concerned.  i think D&D, more than any other gaming system/mechanics, polarizes people over what they consider "the right  version".  (probably because any of us who've played it through the various iterations have all house-ruled or added to the 'canon' body of rules at one time or another...)

C&C is one of those games that I wouldn't really suggest to the group, or anything, but I'd play if someone else was really passionate about it. It's not really my favorite design for a game, but it's not badly done, and that counts for a lot.

Quote from: Thanatos02C&C is one of those games that I wouldn't really suggest to the group, or anything, but I'd play if someone else was really passionate about it. It's not really my favorite design for a game, but it's not badly done, and that counts for a lot.

Wes, next time you're in town, I'll run it for you.