Quote from: Persimmon on January 17, 2023, 08:39:52 PM
My only real criticisms are that their product editing is sub-standard and the quality of their published adventures is inconsistent.  Some are good; a few are awful, and most are just okay.  The editing issues remain there and I don't like their house style, mainly because they don't include full monster stat blocks.  But I have a ton of old D&D material and write my own stuff so it doesn't matter much. 

This was my experience as well. I ordered their box set a couple of years ago and didn't make it 10 pages without multiple editing mistakes including the main combat mechanic. Hard to trust the rest of the material after that.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 18, 2023, 09:23:59 AM
This was my experience as well. I ordered their box set a couple of years ago and didn't make it 10 pages without multiple editing mistakes including the main combat mechanic. Hard to trust the rest of the material after that.

You either embrace the blatant editing errors or just accept them. There are multiple professionals who have edited the books FOR FREE as fan service and their comments and suggestions are generally ignored. It's like TLG just wants to have that crap in the game or something...I've owned every printing of the PHB since the initial release, and some of the errors are carried over for literally years.

That said, the game itself is basically AD&D but you can run it really drunk. That's the biggest selling point to me: very little brain power devoted to the mechanics and you can focus on the game itself.

Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2023, 10:39:54 AM
That said, the game itself is basically AD&D but you can run it really drunk. That's the biggest selling point to me: very little brain power devoted to the mechanics and you can focus on the game itself.

Probably the most apt description I've seen of it. 

Of note:

https://trolllord.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Converting_5th_Ed_to_CC.pdf

4th printing of the CKG is available as of today, the 'new' cover is now the only cover.

Yeah I picked up a copy of the PDF. I love 1e/2e D&D... casual looking over of the PDF, gives me the warm fuzzies!

Still reading it, but it looks very cool. The hard part is trying to sell it to my group who have become enamored of "another system" (my fault). I'm going to withold my final judgement until I finish it - but it *does* look very cool. I've long considered doing my fantasy-heartbreaker 2e system, so at minimum I'll likely find some use out of it.

But I dig the layout, the art, the general feel of it. But I'll need to give it a deep dive.

So quick question.  Downloaded the free PHB and I love what I see.   How is play compared to 5e?  Looking at this it could become my replacement for 5e which I am planning to ditch as well as anything WOTC I have now that they went "Full Retard"

Quote from: GhostNinja on January 18, 2023, 01:08:49 PM
So quick question.  Downloaded the free PHB and I love what I see.   How is play compared to 5e?  Looking at this it could become my replacement for 5e which I am planning to ditch as well as anything WOTC I have now that they went "Full Retard"

I don't know how 5e plays, so I can't answer that, but how C&C plays depends on how you run it.

RAW, the way saves work are messed as you get to higher level challenges. It's appropriate for Ravenloft. If you want a different feel, you need to change the way saves work.

RAW, the way basic checks work means if you regularly roll dice, the characters are pretty incompetent. Either you need to significantly reduce rolling dice and generally allow success based on how the players describe the solution (old school style), and only call for rolls when you think the description is dubious and the method proposed by the players shouldn't work. Or you need to change the probabilities, to 12/15 or 8/12, depending on the feel you're going for.

The good news is you can change this stuff if you don't like it. If you want to change how two weapon fighting works, adjust the penalty from -3/-6 to -2/-4, and then you can have high dex Elves dual wielding without penalty, whereas RAW you can forget about it.

While the mechanics are much more d20 than TSR-D&D, "rulings, not rules" and your own house rules is very much a characteristic of C&C.

I really want to like C&C. But just seems like a game I would just endlessly try to tinker with and never be satisfied. The base math is a well known problem. Has anyone actually adressed and fixed the perceptive cleric problem? And no "just trust the procedure in th rules man" doesn't cut it. It's just too bonkers. Add a Perception stat? Clashes with the whole structure of the system. Everytime I find myself tinkering with the SIEGE to fix something, I realize I am really just building a new game.

So I put it down, stop shaking my fist at the clouds, pick upp BECMI+ adding in the AD&D classes and call it a day.

Quote from: GhostNinja on January 18, 2023, 01:08:49 PM
So quick question.  Downloaded the free PHB and I love what I see.   How is play compared to 5e?  Looking at this it could become my replacement for 5e which I am planning to ditch as well as anything WOTC I have now that they went "Full Retard"

Much faster, especially combat. No feats/skills/powers bogging shit down, orcs don't have 46,000 hit points.

I've only ran it once since learning the rules, but it was for my kids over the weekend and they grokked it just fine. Tomorrow night's the first "real" session with one of my groups, so I'll know more after that, but from the little play I've had with it, it played great.

Quote from: migo on January 18, 2023, 02:03:12 PMRAW, the way saves work are messed as you get to higher level challenges. It's appropriate for Ravenloft. If you want a different feel, you need to change the way saves work.

Saves basically scale with the characters. Which means a 10th level paladin has as about as much chance as saving vs. a 10th level spell caster as a 1st level one does against a 1st level spell caster. Some people who like AD&D (like myself) find this a bit irritating and I just used the AD&D save chart in most situations, but then I decided oh well, and just ran with it. Much closer to 3.X that way. I DO like the fact that it gets rid of dump stats because every stat is used against a different type of save. You could also simply give a flat bonus to saves and not add in any sort of scaling (save against a 1st level spell ALWAYS is 1st, not against the caster level), which makes it more AD&D-like. So, yeah, this is a point of contention, but remedied with some house rules.

Quote from: migoRAW, the way basic checks work means if you regularly roll dice, the characters are pretty incompetent. Either you need to significantly reduce rolling dice and generally allow success based on how the players describe the solution (old school style), and only call for rolls when you think the description is dubious and the method proposed by the players shouldn't work. Or you need to change the probabilities, to 12/15 or 8/12, depending on the feel you're going for.

Well, on average they have a 50/50 shot of accomplishing something that is the same challenge level as their character level IF you bother to roll for it, i.e., it is a significantly important roll. For example, trying to open a 1st level lock as a 1st level character is a 50/50 roll without stat bonuses if you have a prime in the skill. Obviously a much harder lock is 5% harder per level, which means it's nearly impossible for a 1st level rogue to pick a 10th level lock. Which makes sense in a 3.X way, but not necessarily in an AD&D way where locks are just static and characters get better every level. Again, it's a difference of approach. That said, rolling for everything is stupid, anyway. If the PCs encounter a rusty old chest and they knock the lid off the hinges with a sledgehammer, this shouldn't require a roll in the first place; that's a "modern" sort of sensibility.

I'll also point out that I make every skill listed for a character counts as prime, even if the stat technically isn't prime. This eliminates some of the 3.X-isms and makes it much more AD&D-like...characters are competent at whatever their classes are competent at. Primes still come into play with cross-class stuff, and saves, but the impact is much less impactful. You could just dump primes if you wanted and use the stat for skills simply for bonus purposes, but then humans get fucked to some degree. But again, easily adjusted as needed. Anyway, as you said, you can just adjudicate this in a way that makes sense for your game.

Combat is ascending AC with HD of creature added to roll which is insanely brain-dead easy. And it adds HD to saves as well. Can't get any easier than that!

Quote from: Teodrik on January 18, 2023, 03:05:24 PM
I really want to like C&C. But just seems like a game I would just endlessly try to tinker with and never be satisfied. The base math is a well known problem. Has anyone actually adressed and fixed the perceptive cleric problem and fixed it? And no "just trust the procedure in th rules man" doesn't cut it. It's just too bonkers. Add a Perception stat? Clashes with the whole structure of the system.

I usually just give up, stop shaking my fist at the clouds, pick upp BECMI+ adding in the AD&D classes and call it a day.

Go old school. Instead of rolling for a perception check, ask the players to describe how their characters are searching.

Alternatively (or in addition), depending on what is to be noticed, give different classes their level bonus while making the check. Notice an ambush? Ranger, Rogue, Assassin and Barbarian all get to add their level to the perception check. Notice something to do with magic? Mages and Illusionists add their level to their perception check. See if someone is lying to you? Rogues, Assassins, Bards and Illusionists add level to their perception check. As for Clerics and Druids having a general advantage in perception? That's a little bit of divine inspiration. They have a guardian angel/fairy as it were.

Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2023, 03:14:01 PM
Saves basically scale with the characters. Which means a 10th level paladin has as about as much chance as saving vs. a 10th level spell caster as a 1st level one does against a 1st level spell caster. Some people who like AD&D (like myself) find this a bit irritating and I just used the AD&D save chart in most situations, but then I decided oh well, and just ran with it. Much closer to 3.X that way. I DO like the fact that it gets rid of dump stats because every stat is used against a different type of save. You could also simply give a flat bonus to saves and not add in any sort of scaling (save against a 1st level spell ALWAYS is 1st, not against the caster level), which makes it more AD&D-like. So, yeah, this is a point of contention, but remedied with some house rules.

Yeah, it depends on what you want. Given TLG advertised it as the 'Rosetta Stone' of D&D, it's a pretty serious problem as RAW it just doesn't handle high level AD&D play at all. But it's easy enough to fix to have it feel the way you want, which is pretty nice.

Quote from: migo

Well, on average they have a 50/50 shot of accomplishing something that is the same challenge level as their character level IF you bother to roll for it, i.e., it is a significantly important roll.

Only if it's your prime. Non-prime means you have a 10-15% chance of success on average. Which means you might as well forget about doing it. This really depends on how the players like to play and how the GMs like to run the game. If everyone likes rolling lots of dice, it's downright terrible. To be fair, somewhere later in the book it does say you should generally not call for a dice roll, and let the characters succeed at what the players described. But this is an example of poor layout, organisation and editing that has plagued C&C since the beginning.

QuoteI'll also point out that I make every skill listed for a character counts as prime, even if the stat technically isn't prime. This eliminates some of the 3.X-isms and makes it much more AD&D-like...characters are competent at whatever their classes are competent at. Primes still come into play with cross-class stuff, and saves, but the impact is much less impactful.

This solves the competence issue, but kind of ruins the Rogue class, and in particular for Humans. If you're a demihuman, your prime choices determine what you're good at as a Rogue, and there's one aspect you're not great at. A Human can be good at the entire scope of abilities. If you do it that way, every Rogue is the same, which gets a bit boring. I guess it depends on why you liked the AD&D 2e Thief (assuming you did). If it's simply a matter of at least being competent at something at first level, it works fine. But if it's also about being able to differentiate one Thief from another, with very different specialties, then it wipes that out.

Quote from: Teodrik on January 18, 2023, 03:05:24 PM
I really want to like C&C. But just seems like a game I would just endlessly try to tinker with and never be satisfied. The base math is a well known problem. Has anyone actually adressed and fixed the perceptive cleric problem? And no "just trust the procedure in th rules man" doesn't cut it. It's just too bonkers. Add a Perception stat? Clashes with the whole structure of the system. Everytime I find myself tinkering with the SIEGE to fix something, I realize I am really just building a new game.

So I put it down, stop shaking my fist at the clouds, pick upp BECMI+ adding in the AD&D classes and call it a day.

Not really sure what you're referring to here. Can you give an example?

Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2023, 03:14:01 PM
Saves basically scale with the characters. Which means a 10th level paladin has as about as much chance as saving vs. a 10th level spell caster as a 1st level one does against a 1st level spell caster. Some people who like AD&D (like myself) find this a bit irritating and I just used the AD&D save chart in most situations, but then I decided oh well, and just ran with it. Much closer to 3.X that way. I DO like the fact that it gets rid of dump stats because every stat is used against a different type of save. You could also simply give a flat bonus to saves and not add in any sort of scaling (save against a 1st level spell ALWAYS is 1st, not against the caster level), which makes it more AD&D-like. So, yeah, this is a point of contention, but remedied with some house rules.

  Another possibility would be to set the CL modifier to half the CL/HD instead of the full value.