Looking for opinions for or against (the whys and wherefores are important!), actual play experiences, and other info.
I want the ability to use other d20/OGL materials (less conversion the better), hack in some house-rules (ACKS stuff, sanity rules from Silent Legions, etc.). Thus far I like what I've seen so far (lot's of stuff available, which makes for less prep time!). I actually like modifiers vs. 5e's advantage/disadvantage. Siege seems to focus hard on niche-protection and ease-of-play, which is something I am shooting towards now that I've scratched my GURPS 4e itch.
Interested in opinions on both games!
Thanks,
I'm a big fan of C&C. It is the only one of the modern batch of OSR style games that is like a complete, well produced and well supported version of 1E, easily compatible with all your old modules and other OSR stuff, but has a core rule set that is totally rational and easy to remember. A great game that deserves a bigger slice of the market than it has.
It's a decent system. The one thing I absolutely dislike about it seems to be the thing people like the most. The prime system. It seems redundant. If your stat is good, you'll be good at those skills. You don't need the stat to be good as well as an acknowledgment that you're also good at skills under that stat. It would have been better for some loosely-defined skill areas that one can "prime" in. So rather than priming Dex to be good at all Dex skills, if you could prime a few specific skill areas, like say Stealth (Dex), Tracking (Wis), and Disguise (Chr), it would add more nuance and customizability to the game without adding any complexity.
If this is any indication, the system is good enough for me to invest in a set of books, but not quite good enough to invest in a second players guide.
I'm a big fan of C&C. At its most basic level, one can buy the Player's Handbook and play without having to buy any additional C&C products since it works well with AD&D and 2E monster books and most of the OSR rules and adventures out there. At its most complex you can include the Castle Keeper's Guide, buy lots of supplements and adventures, and add in modern day rules from Amazing Adventures and everything works well together. (Amazing Adventures has some outstanding advice on how to run Howard-style adventures, too.) It's simple and I think very well written. It takes the best of AD&D and the 3E SRD without any of the uglies that I disliked about 3E.
I've got a list of beefs, they may or not matter to you.
First up the Siege Engine is set so a prime 3 is as good as a non-prime 18. In practice, at low levels, you get to be really useless at lots of stuff. They defend this as niche protection but in practice the Cleric is better at detecting traps than the Thief is. Adding character level directly also
Second, there's too many class abilities and some like the Ranger's favored enemy letting them add their level to damage are simply broken.
Third, the weapon damages are too class to their AD&D origin and there are still simply superior weapons. Like the heavy crossbow which can fire as fast as a long bow and does more damage.
Fourth, and I really hope this has changed in later editions, the format and organization is not great. The spell listings are particularly cramped and unlovely.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things to like about Castles and Crusades. But some things that are articles of faith over at Troll Lord are absolute deal breakers for me.
That being said, I could see running it over D&D 5e which is still a bit build centric for my liking when it comes to D&D.
Quote from: David Johansen;907124First up the Siege Engine is set so a prime 3 is as good as a non-prime 18. In practice, at low levels, you get to be really useless at lots of stuff. They defend this as niche protection but in practice the Cleric is better at detecting traps than the Thief is. Adding character level directly also
Yeah, I dislike the prime system as well. Though niche protection is a story for another day. The very concept of it represents a lapse in critical thinking.
QuoteSecond, there's too many class abilities and some like the Ranger's favored enemy letting them add their level to damage are simply broken.
I'm not sure what your basis is for proclaiming adding level to damage is broken. Do this. Open up a spread sheet. In one column, list character levels. 1 through 15 should do (obviously mileage can vary if you run uber high level campaigns, but this is more the range C&C is aimed at). In the next column, calculate the average damage a ranger does using, say, a long sword, against the "favored enemy." If you want, you can include an assumption about magic items, like every 3 levels or so, he's likely to have the next higher plus on the sword. In the next column, calculate thief backstab damage. Assume a short sword for weapon. Notice something about the numbers as you track down the chart?
Extra credit, include hit probabilities--the ranger using the fighter attack chance progressions, the thief using thief progressions but accounting for the hit bonus on a backstab and calculate "expected damage" by multiplying hit probability (you can assume a mid-level AC, like equivalent to chainmail, or again, assume some kind of progression to represent fighting tougher monsters at higher levels.
You're going to see the numbers really aren't too far off.
I know these numbers because I was thinking of designing a specialized Archer class and was looking at the different ways I could make their bonus with the bow something another class couldn't just replicate by being really high level. I was exploring my options and was surprised by just how similar the 1st Ed ranger bonus and the thief backstab multiplier are when you crunch the numbers.
QuoteThird, the weapon damages are too class to their AD&D origin and there are still simply superior weapons. Like the heavy crossbow which can fire as fast as a long bow and does more damage.
People used to complain that the crossbow was inferior. And the history buffs liked to cite how common they were and thus conclude the game didn't make any sense. So, either way, someone was going to gripe. I'd complain if all the weapons were identical. That would be boring. But I agree with what I think you're getting at; weapons ought to have multiple points of differentiation. It's hard to go wrong with damage, speed, reach, and accuracy. And then, don't forget, the cost of the weapon.
Quote from: David Johansen;907124I've got a list of beefs, they may or not matter to you.
First up the Siege Engine is set so a prime 3 is as good as a non-prime 18. In practice, at low levels, you get to be really useless at lots of stuff. They defend this as niche protection but in practice the Cleric is better at detecting traps than the Thief is. Adding character level directly also {what went here? :-p} ...
Can you clarify this? I'm not brushed up much on the system besides a quick start...
Quote from: trechriron;907180Quote from: David Johansen;907124I've got a list of beefs, they may or not matter to you.
First up the Siege Engine is set so a prime 3 is as good as a non-prime 18.
Can you clarify this? I'm not brushed up much on the system besides a quick start...
The prime system uses 18/12 as the target numbers (beat an 18 if it's non-prime, or beat a 12 if it is prime), or essentially if you have a prime stat due to class you get a +6 on those rolls. The poster is suggesting that a character with a stat of 3 in his prime stat gets such a large bonus that it outshines that of a character with an 18 in a non-prime stat.
Personally, I don't have problems with this. As a GM I encourage my players to do good role play, which also means that I encourage them to use common sense when building a character. Most players like to get high numbers in their prime stats so that they can be really good at stuff, plus it makes sense from a role-play perspective.
Anyway, I think that's his gripe.
I like C&C, but my actual play experience is limited, and ultimately I'm running ACKS at the moment. C&C's more of an AD&D feel with an OGL influence, as opposed to the B/X base of Labyrinth Lord, LotFP or ACKS. C&C would be especially compelling if you've got some AD&D or OSRIC modules you want to run (and of course Troll has their own line of adventures, but I don't know much about them).
Compatibility and convertibility is generally pretty good; in fact when C&C first came out that was one selling point, that the AD&D/d20 hybrid made it kind of a Rosetta stone for other edition's materials. What conversion info you need for different editions is usually easy to find online just by asking.
Primes have already been mentioned, and whether you'll like C&C probably turns on how Primes strike you. I don't mind them inherently, but I'm not committed to the 18/12 numbers either. There's a real whiff factor in non-Prime rolls I didn't enjoy. I'd consider 15/12 or 15/10 for a game that wasn't likely to reach high levels. I had the impression at one point from forums that Primes were commonly house-ruled, which is easy enough to do. You could even strip them out entirely if you wanted to port another skill system in, but that raises the question of why not run another system.
I suppose "I like it but I'm running something else" is damning it with faint praise, but it really is a solid system, it's just got a lot more competition than it did when it first came out. But if think you might like it and Primes don't scare you off, you should like it.
I'm running my first C&C game currently. Really enjoying it.
Regarding the Primes thing and the character with a 3 in a Prime attribute vs a character with an 18 in a Secondary attribute, keep in mind that you still apply your attribute modifier (-3 and +3 in those extremes). I think this represents that a character can train extensively to overcome a natural disability. Although most of my players set their Primes as their higher attributes anyway, it's still a system that allows for some interesting role play builds. Overall though I'm finding the SIEGE engine really quick and easy to run.
Monsters are also very easy to manage and to convert stuff in. I threw in a dungeon from a Swords & Wizardry module and am almost running it as is. Changing monster saving throws on the fly (C&C assigns saves as Physical or Mental Primes, using the same SIEGE system).
Also, my players, all new to C&C, have had no trouble adapting to it. It just feels natural to play.
Quote from: trechriron;907086I want the ability to use other d20/OGL materials (less conversion the better), hack in some house-rules (ACKS stuff, sanity rules from Silent Legions, etc.). Thus far I like what I've seen so far (lot's of stuff available, which makes for less prep time!). I actually like modifiers vs. 5e's advantage/disadvantage. Siege seems to focus hard on niche-protection and ease-of-play, which is something I am shooting towards now that I've scratched my GURPS 4e itch.
Thanks,
Your list here is similar to mine. I like having a skill/task resolution system for D&D that doesn't go so far as a full-blown skill/adds dis-adds system. C&C is a very solid game and does this quite well. I've run it off and on, absolutely nothing wrong with it (I don't have any experience with Amazing Adventures). However, I am now running Fantastic Heroes and Witchery which has a very loose optional skill system, and I like it slightly better. The somewhat ad hoc skills and background abilities in FHaW are more flexible and therefore able to accommodate some variation in character concepts a little better. Also, the target numbers aren't fixed like they are in Siege so it gives me, as the GM, a little more control over the situation without giving players foreknowledge about their chances of success or failure. It's also perfectly compatible with OGL/D20 and TSR era stuff. It may not be what you're looking for but I thought it worth suggesting.
Played a ton of CoC. Love it. Some great memories attached to this game.
Things I love about C&C: the enthusiastic writing, their implementation of the classes (Knight, Ranger and Bard in particular), the Peter Bradley art and the retro (but serviceable) layout.
My one gripe with C&C:
Quote from: The Butcher;390334A SIEGE check is roll 1d20 + attribute bonus + level (for class abilities and saving throws only), to match or exceed base difficulty (12 for Prime Attributes, 18 for others) + Challenge Level (CL for short).
For example, once you establish (as per Players Handbook) that finding traps is a Wisdom Check, this means that Eric the Cleric (1st level, 18 Wisdom, Prime) needs to roll a 9+CL to find a trap, against Keefe the Thief's (1st level, 11 Wisdom, non-Prime) 18+CL.
Since niche protection takes the form of a bonus equal to your class level when dealing with a class skill, the Thief will eventually surpass the Cleric, but (in the above example) only by 9th level.
My fix (which looks a bit like 5e but predates it. Honest):
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.
So, say you have a 3 in a non-prime attribute, now you're looking at a total target number of 21 and another guy has an 18 that's prime so he's got a total target number of 9, that's a 12 point spread on a d20 at first level. Anyhow, it's the kind of thing that drives me crazy.
We are currently playing C&C and having a great time with it. I like the prime system as it does allow you at least to differentiate between the "intelligent" fighter and the "tank" fighter. (Int vs Con as second primes). It still has the issue of some classes spread their abilities across too many stats where other focus on one or two. I like the idea of just using the main prime stat for all class abilities.
Then again, I also have considered doing away with the class main primes and letting players pick whatever primes they want no matter the class.
My biggest problem with C&C is saves. In AD&D, saves get objectively better as you go up in level. Low level fighters fail most of the time, but they face fewer threats where a save is needed. And while high level fighters have to make tons of saves against a wide variety of effects, they'll usually make their saves. It's very important for balance, and is one of the most important reasons why fighters don't suck.
C&C throws that out. While saves do improve as a character goes up in level, they're opposed by the caster's level. So instead of improving, your chance to save stays about the same, or even gets worse.
I don't get the complaints about the prime system. It is basically just a short-hand for the skill systems in other games but takes 1/10th as many rules to implement. Your choice of prime stats is a stand in for the categories of things you value and focus on. When those things come up, you get a substantial bonus to do them successfully, compared to someone who ignores them. Maybe the bonus could be some different (presumably smaller) number, and I'm sure you can think of narrow cases that are counter intuitive, but the general idea is solid and a great solution to a long standing problem of D&D: the rules are extensive and heavy but too narrowly focused on melee combat and a couple of other things. The prime system fills in all the rest in a way I find works well in play.
Quote from: Pat;907409My biggest problem with C&C is saves. In AD&D, saves get objectively better as you go up in level. Low level fighters fail most of the time, but they face fewer threats where a save is needed. And while high level fighters have to make tons of saves against a wide variety of effects, they'll usually make their saves. It's very important for balance, and is one of the most important reasons why fighters don't suck.
C&C throws that out. While saves do improve as a character goes up in level, they're opposed by the caster's level. So instead of improving, your chance to save stays about the same, or even gets worse.
The concept is that your save is more difficult when you are trying to save against more powerful opposition. If your high level character is resisting a spell from an equally high level caster, I think it makes sense that the odds are more or less the same as they were when both foes were lower level.
Quote from: Pat;907409C&C throws that out. While saves do improve as a character goes up in level, they're opposed by the caster's level. So instead of improving, your chance to save stays about the same, or even gets worse.
I have a strong dislike for "opposed" rolls in general. The first guy does something. Say, casts a spell. It affects the game world. The more powerful the first guy is, the more likely he is to affect the game world and/or the more drastic the effect is. Then guy B comes along, is inconvenienced by this change, and so he engages is save, skill, or ability against the change. Not against the caster. And that works perfectly fine. The greater challenge of saving vs a level 10 fireball compared to a level 5 fireball is that even if you save against the level 10 fireball, it's going to hurt as much as not saving against the level 5 fireball. Not because the probability of saving has changed. But because the conditions against which you are saving are more intense.
Quote from: Larsdangly;907438I don't get the complaints about the prime system. It is basically just a short-hand for the skill systems in other games but takes 1/10th as many rules to implement. Your choice of prime stats is a stand in for the categories of things you value and focus on. When those things come up, you get a substantial bonus to do them successfully, compared to someone who ignores them. Maybe the bonus could be some different (presumably smaller) number, and I'm sure you can think of narrow cases that are counter intuitive, but the general idea is solid and a great solution to a long standing problem of D&D: the rules are extensive and heavy but too narrowly focused on melee combat and a couple of other things. The prime system fills in all the rest in a way I find works well in play.
I'm perfectly fine with the magnitude of the bonus. It's just redundant with attributes. If my guy is strong, he already has an advantage when it comes to feats of strength over the weakling. The game system already provides a way to differentiate that. What it doesn't differentiate is one guy who is maybe a better swimmer. Maybe one guy has a higher Str than another, so is better at fighting currents. Maybe the other guy has higher Con, so is better and swimming underwater. Using the exact bonus the prime system uses, if a guy could be "primed" in Swimming, he'd be better than both the high Str and high Con guys at all aspects of swimming since he is, after all, a skilled swimmer. The system already calls for the GM to use judgment as far as which attribute an activity check would fall under. There's no reason he couldn't be called upon to make similar judgment calls around loose skill bundles.
Quote from: Larsdangly;907439The concept is that your save is more difficult when you are trying to save against more powerful opposition. If your high level character is resisting a spell from an equally high level caster, I think it makes sense that the odds are more or less the same as they were when both foes were lower level.
This is the way I see it, so it's never been a problem for my campaign.
Having said that, if Saving Throws are the one thing that disturb a group about an RPG then I'd suggest you just come up with your own system for Saving Throws. Heck, just steal the chart from AD&D or other edition of that era.
Quote from: Larsdangly;907439The concept is that your save is more difficult when you are trying to save against more powerful opposition. If your high level character is resisting a spell from an equally high level caster, I think it makes sense that the odds are more or less the same as they were when both foes were lower level.
It makes no sense.
First of all, it's a fantasy system. Arbitrarily deciding that ability in magic and one mechanical way characters resist magic have to increase in lock step is just that: Arbitrary.
Second, and
far more important, saves are like hit points. They're a game mechanic, designed to create a specific outcome. They don't, and can't, really make sense. Because they're not designed to support world building considerations, they're designed to support gameplay.
In AD&D, low level characters face few saves, and the magic-users have a lot less tricks in their arsenal. At high levels, magic-users have practically infinite spells, which can cause a bewildering variety of effects. If fighters have the same chance to save against a magic-user of the same level at 12th level, as they do when they're 1st level, what happens?
The 1st level fighter survives, because they had one save, got lucky, and made it. The 12th level fighter? Makes the first save, and then is turned to stone, disintegrated, paralyzed, poisoned, fingered to death, sheeped, catted, confused, and so on.
It's about frequency and severity. A high level character
needs better absolute saves just to keep up, because they're facing so much more crap.
Failing to recognize that is what made 3.X such a nightmare for anyone who didn't want to play wizards, clerics, or druids. And C&C adopted that from the d20 system, because of that "logic".
But yes, finarvyn is right. It's easy to correct: Just fix the challenge level, and don't allow it to vary based on the caster's level. But a lot of people fall prey to that superficial logic, so here's why it's a problem.
I appreciate all the responses!
I've decided to go ALL IN and give the Siege engine a solid shake. I'll be porting over a couple things from other games (ACKS wound system, Silent Legions sanity perhaps...). I like how the Prime system works. People seem to disregard the part where the CK sets a Challenge Level that adds or subtracts from the base. Your simply doing it behind the screen. Also, if a fighter has all day and a smithy full of tools he/she will likely "pick the lock" so it's hardly worth rolling for unless it's trapped. :-D
I like how saving throws work, that is exactly how I believe they should work.
More to follow as I dig in more...
If I had a group that really wanted to play AD&D, I would run C&C for them in an instant. It's AD&D 3e.
For me, OD&D is my preferred "raw" and "weird" fantasy and C&C represents more modern vanilla fantasy. Maybe its my sense of "Swords & Sorcery" vs. "High Fantasy". That said, I've played and run plenty of C&C and while I can agree with much of the complaints being discussed, I didn't find them meaningful at the table.
C&C is stupid easy to houserule. Don't want Clerics to find traps? Great, make trap finding exclusive to Thieves. Don't want STR 3 with STR prime to equal STR 18? Great, make primes only be chosen from Stats rated 9 and above.
I bought Amazing Adventures, but unfortunately haven't had a chance to run it yet. I want to run it as modern day pulp and use Silent Legions to horror it up.
Quote from: Spinachcat;907505.... I want to run it as modern day pulp and use Silent Legions to horror it up.
I seriously plan on stealing stuff from all the amazing OSR stuff I've picked up over the last couple years. There is some damn creative stuff, too much good stuff to ignore!
Im wondering how C&C holds up today againt 5e(as a system)? I own neither. I read some people claiming C&C became obsolete and there is no reason playing it over 5e since they are kind of in the same design space: " A modern AD&D 3e", and 5e did everything better and smooth ( dont kill the messenger). For several reasons Im not "feeling it" for 5e, but C&C sure looks very tempting for aesthetic reasons. More classic look and feel somehow. But I ve also heard a lot of negative about SIEGE. Wonky math, especially for saving throws and spells.
I ran C&C a few years ago, and am planning on using it again; for the easy to convert wealth of material, and the simplicity of the system. Less complicated than TSR/Hasbro DnD, but a little more complicated than Basic. It just hits a sweet spot for me.
My biggest complaint is the encumbrance system. As written it is ridiculously complicated and unnecessary. I used and will continue to use the encumbrance system from LotFP.
I have the 4th printing Players guide, Castlekeepers guide, and Monsters & treasure. So encumbrance might have been cleaned up in the later printings. I dunno.
In play, the biggest issue was the group had a bunch of guys that only play AD&D and couldn't understand Primes and saves. So next time, I'm thinking about having the players list various saves and write in the base value (12 or 18). Less confusion that way. Non-AD&D people had little to no issue with the SIEGE engine. Some people are just set in their ways.
That's just from my experience.
Quote from: Teodrik;907704Im wondering how C&C holds up today againt 5e(as a system)? I own neither. I read some people claiming C&C became obsolete and there is no reason playing it over 5e since they are kind of in the same design space: " A modern AD&D 3e", and 5e did everything better and smooth ( dont kill the messenger). For several reasons Im not "feeling it" for 5e, but C&C sure looks very tempting for aesthetic reasons. More classic look and feel somehow. But I ve also heard a lot of negative about SIEGE. Wonky math, especially for saving throws and spells.
I'd say 5e and C&C are in the same design space only in the broadest sense of possibly sharing similar design goals, especially around providing a mid-point between various previous editions. Their practical solutions to that are very different. C&C is basically conservative (and compatible) with old school games in terms of hit points and attack bonus numbers, and just the general range and power of class abilities. Whereas 5e to me feels very modern in it's implementation, with the larger hit point numbers that make bounded accuracy work, and a range of class powers informed by 3 and 4e. (I'm not saying based on, but clearly meant to appeal to the same player base.) Characters are more survivable and more powerful, for good and for ill (char-op is already a thing for 5e online, even without the worst imbalances of 3.x, for instance).
Quote from: trechriron;907086Looking for opinions for or against (the whys and wherefores are important!), actual play experiences, and other info.
I played both Castles and Crusades and Blood & Treasures. They along with D&D 5e I consider as retro rulesets that uses modern mechanics. When it comes to C&C versus B&T I like Blood & Treasures better. One B&T has better value in the books that you pay for. Two it "universal" mechanic plays better than the Siege Mechanic. Basically when it comes to skills and tests, you roll a 1d20 + attribute bonus + other bonus and see if you exceed your Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save. For example Stealth is Reflex.
It sounds odd but in play it works a lot smoother than the Siege mechanic and the design of the classes make this work sensibly. So I recommend checking out Blood & Treasure over C&C. The rest of B&T is a well made retro-clone with good graphics and layout. Like the other retro-clone it is easy to mix and match stuff from other retro-clones. Also out of all the retro-clone it is the easiest to bolt d20 stuff into. Again to stress it is more value for the buck than C&C.
Quote from: Teodrik;907704Im wondering how C&C holds up today againt 5e(as a system)? I own neither. I read some people claiming C&C became obsolete and there is no reason playing it over 5e since they are kind of in the same design space: " A modern AD&D 3e", and 5e did everything better and smooth ( dont kill the messenger). For several reasons Im not "feeling it" for 5e, but C&C sure looks very tempting for aesthetic reasons. More classic look and feel somehow. But I ve also heard a lot of negative about SIEGE. Wonky math, especially for saving throws and spells.
C&C is a hair more rules-lite than D&D 5e core rules. However I think D&D 5e is more playable than C&C and better designed. If you ignore feats and go with the single class options of the 5e SRD. I think D&D 5e is the winner.
Quote from: Dave R;907709I'd say 5e and C&C are in the same design space only in the broadest sense of possibly sharing similar design goals, especially around providing a mid-point between various previous editions. Their practical solutions to that are very different. C&C is basically conservative (and compatible) with old school games in terms of hit points and attack bonus numbers, and just the general range and power of class abilities. Whereas 5e to me feels very modern in it's implementation, with the larger hit point numbers that make bounded accuracy work, and a range of class powers informed by 3 and 4e. (I'm not saying based on, but clearly meant to appeal to the same player base.) Characters are more survivable and more powerful, for good and for ill (char-op is already a thing for 5e online, even without the worst imbalances of 3.x, for instance).
My experience is that C&C is substantially simpler when it comes to the palette of PC powers, and retains the lethality and relatively low power level of 1E, whereas 5E has some of the design goals of C&C but ended up being a more structurally complex game with higher level of PC power and lower overall PC mortality. C&C feels like a hybrid of 1E and BD&D in play; 5E feels more like a hybrid of the very first offerings for 3E and 4E.
Quote from: estar;907737I played both Castles and Crusades and Blood & Treasures. They along with D&D 5e I consider as retro rulesets that uses modern mechanics. When it comes to C&C versus B&T I like Blood & Treasures better. One B&T has better value in the books that you pay for. Two it "universal" mechanic plays better than the Siege Mechanic. Basically when it comes to skills and tests, you roll a 1d20 + attribute bonus + other bonus and see if you exceed your Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save. For example Stealth is Reflex.
It sounds odd but in play it works a lot smoother than the Siege mechanic and the design of the classes make this work sensibly. So I recommend checking out Blood & Treasure over C&C. The rest of B&T is a well made retro-clone with good graphics and layout. Like the other retro-clone it is easy to mix and match stuff from other retro-clones. Also out of all the retro-clone it is the easiest to bolt d20 stuff into. Again to stress it is more value for the buck than C&C.
I've always been interested in Blood and Treasure (Grit and Vigor, as well). But you may have sold me on it.
Quote from: Teodrik;907704Im wondering how C&C holds up today againt 5e(as a system)? I own neither. I read some people claiming C&C became obsolete and there is no reason playing it over 5e since they are kind of in the same design space: " A modern AD&D 3e", and 5e did everything better and smooth ( dont kill the messenger). For several reasons Im not "feeling it" for 5e, but C&C sure looks very tempting for aesthetic reasons. More classic look and feel somehow. But I ve also heard a lot of negative about SIEGE. Wonky math, especially for saving throws and spells.
I own both.
I think that C&C is a lot more like AD&D with modern-era mechanics built in. (Both MU and Cleric spell levels go 0-9, ascending AC, and so on.) Feels a lot like AD&D.
5E is more on the 2E/3E border. Remember when 2E had all those kits and choices, well 5E has lots of choices a lot like that. For example, if you want to be a wizard you have a half dozen varieties to pick from. Rogues have thief-types, assassin types, swashbuckler types, and so on. The rules are a lot more simplified than 3E and the bonuses have been scaled back to give an early-day power level feel, but it still comes with lots of options.
I won't say I like either one "better"; I play 5E most nowadays because that's what they play in the game store, but when I GM home games I'm just as likely to dust off C&C as I am to run 5E. Both are better written (in my opinion) than either 3E or 4E. I would say that 5E is easier to powergame, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending upon your preference. C&C is more straight-forward in its approach, and encourages characters to fit specific classes which are more defined.