Quote from: jdrakehFor example, you can have a rogue like Vance's Cugel who is mechanically proficient in social parley and deceit, but rather unspectacular with a sword or you can have a rogue who is a mechanical wonder with a blade, but who lacks all social grace (like Gord).

That's not even an option in C&C, mechanically speaking.

Yep.  I'm going to pre-empt a counterargument (assuming I didn't take too long typing this) to say that the player's choice of prime could steer a character in one direction or another.  However - and this was a key issue for me - the character will never get better at a prime non-class ability than they were at 1st level.

Your 'sneaky fighter' with Dex as his prime will be just as sneaky at 10th level as he was at 1st level, barring gloves of dexterity or whatnot.

For those who are looking for oldschool gaming (where classes are intended to be archetypal), or simplicity at all costs (because skill points really do add complexity), that's not a big issue.  I just don't find it satisfying anymore.

-O

I also have a potentially dumb question, which bothered me mechanically a bit.

It may just be a matter of my thoughts not working in normal directions, but I'm wondering why prime vs. non-prime checks were framed as modifying the difficulty rating of a check, rather than as a bonus to the roll.

I find ...

d20 + attribute (+6 if prime) vs a difficulty of 18 + modifiers

to be mechanically easier than

d20 + attribute vs a difficulty of 18 (12 if prime) + modifiers.

It also seems like it'd make adventures easier to write.  Rather than giving split difficulties, a writer could just write down a single difficulty.

It's a quibble, but it bugged me a little.  Maybe 3e has warped my brain by making me used to front-loaded calculations.

-O

Quote from: obrynThat's very different from my experiences.  In addition to the wide (some may say overwhelming) variety of base classes, 3e's multiclassing rules are extremely flexible.  I also find a wide variety in skills, weapon use, and feats.  I can't even comprehend an argument that there's as much mechanical variety in C&C.

Well, I'm referring to the base classes in the PHB - nothing else - since we are discussing C&C only in reference to its base classes.  In this case, the variety is pretty much the same.

The whole "open multi-classing" thing is one of my top reasons for hating D&D 3.X.  I think it defeats the whole point of a class system and is nothing but powergaming wankery (hell, even Rifts doesn't let you multi-class).

There's what - 10 skills that anyone ever actually uses.  I mean, sure, some guy might have +10 in Rope Use or whatever, but most everyone else is just going to have ranks in stuff like Listen and Move Silently - stuff they'll actually use.  And is a guy with +3 in Hide and +3 in Spot really all that different from a guy with +4 in Hide and +2 in Spot?

Same thing with feats.  How many feats out of the base book are actually all that useful?  How often do most of them really come up?  Is a fighter with Improved Disarm really that different than a fighter with Mobility?  How about Sunder?

I'm not saying they aren't a little different - but that the differences are small enough to be negligable in actual play.

Quote from: jdrakehYou're minimizing, I think. The fact is, in D&D 3.5, you can choose to specialize in certain areas of skill and or ability, which can lead to very mechanically diverse characters.

For example, you can have a rogue like Vance's Cugel who is mechanically proficient in social parley and deceit, but rather unspectacular with a sword or you can have a rogue who is a mechanical wonder with a blade, but who lacks all social grace (like Gord).

That's not even an option in C&C, mechanically speaking.

I'm confused - last time I check the BAB was completely dependent on class/level in D&D 3.X.  How can that be differentiated between two rogues?

As for making a social thief - that's easy in C&C, just make Cha a prime.

Quote from: jrientsMcrow, jgants, how much D&D have you played and using how many supplements?  Maybe my experience is atypical, but I have not seen a lot of cookie cutter characters.  Cohorts tend to be a bit stereotyped, but the PCs I've seen over the years have all been precious little snowflakes of twinkery.

I've played a ton of D&D, including a couple of years of 3.X (which was more than enough for my tastes).  

The group had two barbarians at one point.  They both killed stuff with their big weapon of choice and went berserk once in a while.  They probably had a couple of different feats, but were basically similar and were pretty much mechanically equal during play.

The group also had two rangers at one point.  They were both sneaky.  They were both good with a bow.  Again, I'm sure there were some minor differences, but they rarely ever made any difference during play.

The biggest diversity I saw from D&D 3.X was the eight million extra races/classes that the supplements had.

Don't get me wrong - I can see why people like D&D over C&C, they like the aspects that I hate in it.  But in the end - my experience was that even though the characters were somewhat different, they ended up being far more similar than they were different.  So I don't think the differences in D&D are all they are cracked up to be.

In earlier editions I really had very little problem with the being one of three mechanically identical fighters in the party, so maybe my tolerance for this stuff is much higher.

Quote from: jrientsIn earlier editions I really had very little problem with the being one of three mechanically identical fighters in the party, so maybe my tolerance for this stuff is much higher.

In some respects, C&C is more flexible than 1e - specifically in the choice of prime.

In others, it's less flexible.  The lack of multi/dual classing is the sticking point here.

-O

Quote from: jrientsMcrow, jgants, how much D&D have you played and using how many supplements?  Maybe my experience is atypical, but I have not seen a lot of cookie cutter characters.  Cohorts tend to be a bit stereotyped, but the PCs I've seen over the years have all been precious little snowflakes of twinkery.

I have played a fair amount of D&D 3.5. We mostly us the core books and whatever supplements people care to bring with.

I'm comparing C&C PHB VS D&D 3.5 PHB. Not adding on a mountain of supplements.

Fighter VS Fighter sort of thing.

IMO, D&D gives the impression of ultimate customization, but its not. Sure if you buy enough supplements you will have a large selection of PrC's, Classes, feats..ect.

Quote from: joewolzI find that people who just pick the game up having never played it don't like it, as opposed to people who play it and then pick it up.

Except many of us buy games that we don't ever end up using or never really intended to use in the first place. Also, there's a direct correlation between how cool and accessible a game looks and whether or not it gets forwaded as a potential game to be played. So how well a game plays is only part of the story...

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsI'm confused - last time I check the BAB was completely dependent on class/level in D&D 3.X.  How can that be differentiated between two rogues?

You're being deliberately obtuse, of course. Note that combat ability in D&D 3x is not dependent upon base BAB alone. Specifically, there are a myriad of feats (even in the core rule books) that alolow one to specialize in certain combat syles, modes of defense, weapons, etc.

QuoteAs for making a social thief - that's easy in C&C, just make Cha a prime.

Not the same thing, friend. In D&D 3.5 you can mechanically specialize in specific aspects of social parley (and many other broad categories of interaction). In D&D 3x you can have a thief who is an accomplished liar, but a horribly inept diplomat. Again, this isn't even an option in C&C.

The point is that D&D (and all other systems with actual skills) allow for a degree of mechanical  customization that C&C (and all other systems that eschew specific skills) don't. Mechanical abstraction is the exact opposite of provinding mechanical options (such abstractions does, however, accommodate thematic options better, IME).

That said, given your previous hyperbole about all D&D 3x games being about optimum builds and powergaming wankery, I suspect that you're incapable of discussing these things through a lense of reason.

I mean, 'cmon -- that remark about BAB was a horribly transparent strawman. I never mentioned BAB originally (for the reasons I point out in this post). Puh-lease :rolleyes:

Quote from: McrowIMO, D&D gives the impression of ultimate customization, but its not. Sure if you buy enough supplements you will have a large selection of PrC's, Classes, feats..ect.

In just the core books you already have a few dozen more skills, feats, and PrCs than the entrie C&C product line contains. That is, in the D&D core books, you already haven a few dozen more opportunities for mechanical customization than you do in all of C&C. Which, I think, was the original poster's point. It's certainly my point.

Quote from: jgantsAnd in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy so they end up more or less the same...

While certainly more true than not, this isn't a function of the game. It's a function of the player.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiAlso, there's a direct correlation between how cool and accessible a game looks and whether or not it gets forwaded as a potential game to be played.

Yeah, if you're like 12, or a raccoon and easily distracted by shiny objects.

Quote from: SeanchaiSo how well a game plays is only part of the story.

no, i respectfully 100% disagree...that's the entirety of the story right there.  It's a game, that's its sole purpose.

I never liked multiclassing...it always seemed too complex for me.  I really like Rules-light systems.

C&C is not for everyone, but I like it.

I find that system really doesn't matter all that much with my group.  The secret to a good game is a good group, hands down.  The game will always go well if you have a good group, or you'll pick a different game.

Quote from: jdrakehIn just the core books you already have a few dozen more skills, feats, and PrCs than the entrie C&C product line contains. That is, in the D&D core books, you already haven a few dozen more opportunities for mechanical customization than you do in all of C&C. Which, I think, was the original poster's point. It's certainly my point.

I can see your point, but the seige engine actually gives players much more flexability. The intended use of the siege engine is often dismissed.

Quote from: J ArcaneHonestly I just couldn't get past the fact that the presentation was some of the most slap-dash I've seen since BESM1.

It looked like someone's cheesy free homebrew, not something I'd pay actual money for.

Sheesh, J Arcane, must you bash C&C at every opportunity?!?
:haw:

Quote from: joewolz... C&C is not for everyone, but I like it...

:ditto:

Also, for anyone who is curious to know more about C&C (including how it compares to earlier editions of D&D and 3e), check out this brilliant review at TBP:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11008.phtml