Hey Dan,

Here's a link to an article I wrote about my liking of C&C a couple years ago. The same points still apply for me.

Bottom line, it's a great meeting place between d20 and classic D&D.

I have never played an edition of D&D that was published before 3rd edition.  I have only played 3rd edition D&D twice, as in two sessions.  

I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have thacko or negative AC nonsense.

That said, I LOVE C&C!  It's one of my favorite games, I love the simplicity, and the ability to use old D&D books (I particularly like the fluff from 2nd edition stuff) and 3rd-3.5 edition books without having to convert anything (except those damn ACs in the old games ) makes the game very approachable to me.  My friends and I have played C&C quite a bit.  I really have nothing but praise for the game.  However, I never approached it with any kind of nostalgia, so my conclusions are based entirely on C&C being my one and only "old school" experience.

Quote from: joewolz;452393I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have thacko or negative AC nonsense.

Awesome!

Somebody defibrilate Benoist and Dungeon Delver.

C&C is a solid d20 'old school' ersatz AD&D.  I'd gladly play in a C&C campaign.

Six years ago I was pretty damn enthusiastic about C&C -- as this review will attest.

These days, though, I prefer Swords & Wizardry (+ my house rules) for D&D-ish games.  I came to dislike the SIEGE mechanic in practice after a short C&C campaign.

I hear a lot of criticism of the siege engine, but when I play C&C, it almost never comes into play.  Very, very rarely.  I mean, how often do you roll for anything that's not combat?

Quote from: joewolz;452430I hear a lot of criticism of the siege engine, but when I play C&C, it almost never comes into play.  Very, very rarely.  I mean, how often do you roll for anything that's not combat?

When I play games that have non-combat skills and such, I roll them quite a bit behind the screen.  For instance, I roll lots of perception checks in RoleMaster (or, years back, my heavily-houseruled AD&D games) to guide me in how detailed or accurate my descriptions should be.  I roll reaction checks to give me an idea how well NPCs react to what the PCs are saying.  Etc.

The thing is, I don't have the players make those rolls; I do them behind the screen while describing a scene, so it's essentially invisible to my players.

Quote from: Spinachcat;452404Awesome!

Somebody defibrilate Benoist and Dungeon Delver.

Eh, leave 'em there.

Quote from: joewolz;452393I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have THAC0 or negative AC nonsense.

Older editions of D&D do not use unified mechanics and instead have lots of quirky subsystems all over the place, for resolving different tasks.

I have nothing against unified resolution mechanics. I just think SIEGE, however sound on paper, is not a very good one in actual play.

But the game's still good. It's just not my go-to "classic fantasy game" experience anymore.

Quote from: The Butcher;452440I have nothing against unified resolution mechanics. I just think SIEGE, however sound on paper, is not a very good one in actual play.

I can get that, but it so rarely comes up in actual play that I don't see how it's a hindrance.

What the hell is Thaco anyway?

Quote from: joewolz;452444I can get that, but it so rarely comes up in actual play that I don't see how it's a hindrance.

What the hell is Thaco anyway?

T.H.A.C.0: To-Hit Armor Class 0 (zero).

There is a handy section in the Dungeon Masters Guide for AD&D* that has stats-only for the monsters outlined in the Monster Manual as well as their XP values.

One of the columns lists "To-Hit Armor Class 0".  In AD&D this number is a baseline from which you can work backwards: if you need a 15 to hit armor class 0, then you need a 14 to hit A.C. 1, a 13 to hit A.C. 2, etc.

However, AD&D has "repeating 20s" for some to-hits.  That is, if your T.H.A.C.0 is a 20, your T.H.A.C. -1 is also a 20 - but requires a natural 20 with no bonuses; that is if you have a +1 longsword, and you roll a 19, the attack is still ineffectual.  It represents the dexterity, tough hide, luck, etc. of the target versus your otherwise stunning weapons-play

So T.H.A.C.0 isn't, and was never intended to be, a tool for calculating to-hit values for characters.  It's a minor reference point for monsters.  It's handy when you have creatures of a given hit-dice (say, stirges, who have 2+2HD) but attack as higher hit-dice creatures (stirges attack as 4HD monsters due to their agility and so on).

I don't know why - and I don't care, because I don't play the game - it got switched over into being the base mechanic of 2e AD&D.

...

*=in all cases unless otherwise specified I'm referring to 1e AD&D

Quote from: The Butcher;452360I'm fairly sure we've had a similar thread a few months back.

What do you know, here it is!

After further review, I stand by my comments in that other thread.

If I want an experience similar to Basic D&D or AD&D, I'll go with Labyrinth Lord and the Advanced Companion book.

Quote from: joewolz;452393I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have thacko or negative AC nonsense.

The answer is part of your question!

THAC0 to me is a strict DM reference. It's not for player use. As for ascending v. descending AC, I just like descending AC better in AD&D's context. I tend to look at it more like armor types in a wargame than raw numbers. Just my mileage with it, I guess.

But yeah. Seriously, if you love C&C, it's great. Awesome for you, mate. Now, knowing most people don't want to read the same posts all over again about why d20 isn't AD&D and all, I'll just let you do a google search and read the zillion of threads on the topic on the intarwebz. If you don't get it now, you'll probably never get it. I'm fine with that.

Quote from: joewolz;452444What the hell is Thaco anyway?

It's an embarrassment. How nobody figured out ascending AC in the 80s is laughably shameful. Palladium Fantasy came the closest. It's not like there weren't shelves of other fantasy RPGs. Hell, even the Wizardry video games used whackass descending AC. AAC is the one thing I am truly grateful for from D20.

Quote from: Spinachcat;452515It's an embarrassment. How nobody figured out ascending AC in the 80s is laughably shameful. Palladium Fantasy came the closest. It's not like there weren't shelves of other fantasy RPGs. Hell, even the Wizardry video games used whackass descending AC. AAC is the one thing I am truly grateful for from D20.

Yep, that sure is the best way to do things.

By the way, that was a 9th or 10th class post of yours up there, S-cat.

Actually Thieves Guild had ascending AC in the eighties.

The funny thing is they had AC 0 as unarmored and you had a THACO to which you added the target's AC