TheRPGSite

...and sorry to say, I'm not really very impressed.

I've been gaming for over 20 years.  I started with the three-hole-punched Basic set, moved on to an unholy mix between OD&D and AD&D, and have many fond memories of those days.

I thought - especially with my ever-unfolding appreciation of the Wilderlands and Dungeon Crawl Classics series - that C&C would strike some kind of chord with me - but unfortunately it seems I was wrong.

I guess my tastes in gaming have moved on more than I thought they had.  Things like the random senselessness of the weapon table, homogeneity of same-classed characters, and crazy XP advancement really threw me off.

I'm still letting my read-through percolate for a bit before I sell/trade my copies of the Player's Handbook and Monsters & Treasure, but I don't think right now that it's a style of gaming I'd particularly enjoy.

-O

Honestly 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.

The first printing of the the player's book was very rough.  It looked rushed out the door.  Many pages had too much greyscale crap hiding the text.  There were some omissions.  At least one spell was just plain missing.  And initially Troll Lords made some wild claims that the player's book would be all that you needed to play the game, despite the lack of monsters or magic items.  All of which I discovered after trying to get my hands on the book and failing a couple times.  Very disappointing.

That all being said, I really like how they merged some of the idiosyncratic old school flavor with the sleek d20 "prime attribute" system.  If I owned the superior 2nd printing player's book I might be running C&C right now instead of 3.5.

Well, I have the 2nd printing.  I have few problems with the layout, appearance, binding, etc.

About my biggest layout gripe is that it's difficult to tell where one class description ends and the next begins.  The pictures in this section interrupt the flow and organization.

-O

I can see your gripes, but I love the game nonetheless.

I 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.

It's hella fun for those of us who find d20 too complex.

It's possible it may not just be for you. That being said:

You can customize classes somewhat by primes selection and there are several rudimentary skill systems & multi-classing rules out there, most free. There are at least two books of net classes so far (Beyond Belief Games' (http://www.geocities.com/legendsoftheland/netbookofclasses.pdf) & Colin Sez (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/php/archive.php3?sectioninit=CC&fileid=169)).

I'd try one of the sample adventures here (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/downloads/index.html) if you've not already done so.

Also take a look at some of the free stuff in places like
http://www.geocities.com/cnctraveller/cnc1.html
http://www.cncplayer.net/
http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/cc/
http://www.geocities.com/legendsoftheland/crusades.html

It's fairly easy to add in material from other versions of D&D/d20 to C&C, treat the C&C books as baselines to be expanded upon. XP can be flattened ala D&D3E & the weapon categories etc. folded in. Still it's worth trying C&C without any houserules first IMO and you may not feel it worth adding anything to C&C (as in, why use C&C then?).

TLG have a pretty good forum for the game I understand and Dragonsfoot does as well.

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.

It's hella fun for those of us who find d20 to me too complex.

I joined a C&C chat game playing a thief (sorry, rogue) specifically to see how the rules worked and if I'd like it. Very fast playing and fairly easy with the game system helping me to just try stuff instead of looking at my character sheet to see what I could do.

Quotehomogeneity of same-classed character

That was my single biggest complaint about C&C. I guess that I've been spoiled by systems like D&D 3.5 and Rolemaster, where two characters of the same class and level can be as mechanically different as night and day. I ran a C&C campaign over the Summer and had fun, but that lack of mechanical diffferentiation between characters of the same class and level (past prime attribute selection) really bothered me more than I initially thought it would.

Yeah, I'd like to point out that I don't think the game is a bad one.  I have no doubt there are folks it will appeal to, and I'd recommend it without hesitation to those who are looking for an old-school feel in a rules-light format.  It's just not compelling to me - I have little desire to sit down with a group and run/play it.  And yes, I do find that surprising. :)  I thought I'd be a good target for it, and that it would ring a chord.  I'm surprised it didn't.

While the system is a lot cleaner than 1e/2e, and I respect the basic concepts of the SIEGE engine, it kept some features of 1e that I didn't like (infinite polearms, narrow classes, weird XP) while not natively supporting some features I thought important (multiclassing, class progressions kept interesting to upper levels) and changing some things I didn't much care for (the knight class, weird attack progression, monks w/ d12 hit dice, etc.)

I think it's just not my flavor of oldschool. :)

-O

i love it.  if i'm in the mood for generic fantasy, it's great. it's no me being 10 again and playing D&D for the first time, but it'll work in a pinch.

Quote from: jdrakehI guess that I've been spoiled by systems like D&D 3.5 and Rolemaster, where two characters of the same class and level can be as mechanically different as night and day.

Maybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

But I don't really see that being all that mechanically different.  And in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy so they end up more or less the same, anyways (the same, I find, is true of point-based char gen games like GURPS or Hero - hundreds of options, but most PCs end up alike anyways).

Quote from: jgantsMaybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

But I don't really see that being all that mechanically different.  And in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy so they end up more or less the same, anyways (the same, I find, is true of point-based char gen games like GURPS or Hero - hundreds of options, but most PCs end up alike anyways).

exactly my thoughts. The thing is that in 3.5 if you want to build a character of particular class, there is a certain feat/skill path you need to follow to make them the most effective. OTOH, C&C just lays it out for you. You can customize 3.5 characters a little more and choose what order some of abilities start working.

Quote from: jgantsMaybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

But I don't really see that being all that mechanically different.  And in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy so they end up more or less the same, anyways (the same, I find, is true of point-based char gen games like GURPS or Hero - hundreds of options, but most PCs end up alike anyways).

That'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.

-O

Quote from: jgantsMaybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

You'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.

QuoteAnd in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy

While this can be true, it isn't always. That's a bit of hyperbole. The people I usually play with, for example, typically consider character concept first and mechanical efficiency second (if at all).

Mcrow, 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.

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

I remember when that review first came out.  Good stuff, great intro.

Quote from: kregmosierno, i respectfully 100% disagree...that's the entirety of the story right there.  It's a game, that's its sole purpose.

For me, it's not...  I don't have enough hours or energy to play every single game or game product I purchase.  I don't just buy RPG products as games; I also enjoy reading them when they're well-presented and thought-provoking.

I find game mechanics interesting, and love it when a game sparks my imagination.  I want to read through a game book and say, "Hey, this sounds like fun!  I'd love to try out this option or that option!"

Say what you will about them, WotC has done a very good job with a number of their newer products.  Other standouts for me are WFRP2, Arcana Evolved, and even (on the lighter end of the scale) FATE.  Actually, 1e AD&D products  are on this end of the spectrum, too.

On the other end of the spectrum (for me anyways) are Mongoose RuneQuest and other stripped-down products which read more like instruction manuals for boardgames or technical documents.

C&C was somewhere in the middle for me.  While it's well-presented, I didn't get much of a sense of wonder from it, or a real anxiousness to try out the game.  That's part of what I was referring to in my first post.

-O

Quote from: jgantsAs for making a social thief - that's easy in C&C, just make Cha a prime.

That helps some.  But as I mentioned in my earlier post, that social thief is exactly as good at his social capabilities at 10th level as he was at 1st.  Mechanically, he doesn't improve at all.

For some, that's not really a sticking point.  For me, it's very critical.  There's no mechanical way for that character to advance his non-thiefy capabilities.

-O

Quote from: kregmosierYeah, if you're like 12, or a raccoon and easily distracted by shiny objects.

Or, if you know, you live in reality.

Quote from: kregmosierno, i respectfully 100% disagree...that's the entirety of the story right there.  It's a game, that's its sole purpose.

You don't respectfully disagree. You started your disagreement with a smart ass remark.

What you buy—in this case, the C&C rulebook—is not the game. It's a set of instructions for the game.

Thus the raison d'etre for said product is to pass information to the user. If something gets in the way of that, whether it gets in the way during play or while the rules are being processed initially, that's a problem.

The reason you have art, fancy covers, cover copy, trade dress, etc. with RPG products is because the products are supposed to market themselves to a certain degree. So if there's something about the product that's unappealing or disconnected, that's a problem.

Seanchai

Quote from: jrientsI remember when that review first came out.  Good stuff, great intro.

Thanks, jrients! :D   I would like to write more reviews, but I just don't seem to have the time & energy these days ...

Quote from: Seanchai... The reason you have art, fancy covers, cover copy, trade dress, etc. with RPG products is because the products are supposed to market themselves to a certain degree. So if there's something about the product that's unappealing or disconnected, that's a problem.

Seanchai

While the first printing of the C&C PHB had sub-par editing and formatting, the second printing is rather fine IMO.  The cover is attractive, as is the interior art, and the layout if decent.  While I don't care for some of the 'fluff' writing, that's no big deal.  It certainly isn't as dry as most WotC products (IMO!).  Personally, I prefer black and white pages over glossy colour stuff, as it's easier to read and the pages have better texture.

In any case, the second printing of the C&C PHB is a decent product, aesthetically speaking.  It's certainly 'above average' with respect to non-WotC/BI/WW books in the RPG market.

Quote from: jdrakehYou'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 allow one to specialize in certain combat styles, modes of defense, weapons, etc.

In the end, the BAB is by far the most important aspect of combat ability.  Something like Cleave or Whirlwind Attack or whatever might be handy once in a while, but not all that often.  There's a couple that are more useful - like Two Weapon Fighting or Weapon Focus - but even those won't exactly make your Rogue a badass swordsman on their own.

Quote from: jdrakehNot 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 providing mechanical options (such abstractions does, however, accommodate thematic options better, IME).

I agree that skills increase mechanical customization.  What I disagree with is the degree to which a character can actually customize in D&D.  I really don't think there's enough of a potential difference there to be worth bothering with, particularly for a fantasy game.

Quote from: jdrakehThat 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 lens of reason.  

Quit stuffing the scarecrow.  ;)   What I was saying is that because there are optimum builds (some abilities are far more useful than others), characters tend to look almost as alike in D&D 3.X (and point build games - every combat-ready character in GURPS ends up with combat reflexes, for example) that the "options" become somewhat meaningless.

As for "powergaming wankery", that was solely in reference to open multi-classing where players end up with characters that have 4 or more classes just because they wanted a bunch of different abilities; even though its a rare character concept that it would actually fit for.

Quote from: jdrakehI 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:

I didn't say you mentioned BAB.  You talked about creating a Rogue who is an expert swordsman.  My point is that two Rogues at level X are basically equal swordsmen because BAB is so much more imporant than feats.

Quote from: obrynThat helps some.  But as I mentioned in my earlier post, that social thief is exactly as good at his social capabilities at 10th level as he was at 1st.  Mechanically, he doesn't improve at all.

For some, that's not really a sticking point.  For me, it's very critical.  There's no mechanical way for that character to advance his non-thiefy capabilities.

Actually, it automatically advances every level.  Because the SEIGE system adds your level in as a bonus when you roll (unless you are trying to mimic something that falls under another class' special ability).

Quote from: AkrasiaWhile the first printing of the C&C PHB had sub-par editing and formatting, the second printing is rather fine IMO.  The cover is attractive, as is the interior art, and the layout if decent.  While I don't care for some of the 'fluff' writing, that's no big deal.  It certainly isn't as dry as most WotC products (IMO!).  Personally, I prefer black and white pages over glossy colour stuff, as it's easier to read and the pages have better texture.

In any case, the second printing of the C&C PHB is a decent product, aesthetically speaking.  It's certainly 'above average' with respect to non-WotC/BI/WW books in the RPG market.

You should be telling this to the OP. C&C isn't something I'm interested in.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsActually, it automatically advances every level.  Because the SEIGE system adds your level in as a bonus when you roll (unless you are trying to mimic something that falls under another class' special ability).

IIRC, you only add your level to class abilities.  I don't believe there are any social class abilities for Rogues, so a social Rogue would not get better as he levels up.

Quote from: jgantsActually, it automatically advances every level.  Because the SEIGE system adds your level in as a bonus when you roll (unless you are trying to mimic something that falls under another class' special ability).

My reading of it was that your class level only adds when it's something that explicitly falls under your class's abilities.  I may have misread. :)  If it's the way the rules state it, I mostly withdraw that specific objection.  I'd still like to see an ability to specialize, but that necessarily comes at a cost in complexity.

[...and Technomancer said basically the same thing.  I'm too slow at teh intarweb.]

-O

Quote from: TechnomancerIIRC, you only add your level to class abilities.  I don't believe there are any social class abilities for Rogues, so a social Rogue would not get better as he levels up.

I'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.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou should be telling this to the OP. C&C isn't something I'm interested in.

Seanchai

The OP (me) already has the 2nd printing.

I'll agree that, aesthetically, it's fine and quite decent for an OGL product, apart from some quibbles I noted way up in the post somewhere regarding the Classes section.

-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.

I'll take a look-see when I get home to make sure.

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.

You are correct sir.  Though it's entirely at the GMs discretion to even let you TRY to use other classes abilities at all.  Personally, I'd say if the attribute is prime, add your level to those checks, other class ability or not.  But that's just how I roll.  :)

Quote from: MegamanfanYou are correct sir.  Though it's entirely at the GMs discretion to even let you TRY to use other classes abilities at all.  Personally, I'd say if the attribute is prime, add your level to those checks, other class ability or not.  But that's just how I roll.  :)

I roll the same way.

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.