I think that's the biggest issue when dealing with us gamers. We are either left feeling we want more from the "one book" system the publisher intended or feeling overwhelmed with the incomplete rulebook that can only be serviced by a plethora of books.

If a game needs its supplements to be functional, explicitely so, then something's wrong with the design.

I found nothing remarkable about the Siege Engine Mechanic. I bought and read the books twice before selling them off. I don't see the appeal or agree with the rave reviews I've read online. YMMV

Quote from: GoOrange;390868... I especially like the takes on the various classes and their abilities - by far my favorite versions from any D&D game...

I do like the C&C versions of the assassin, bard, paladin, ranger, and knight.

I like the fact that there are no 'semi-spellusers' in C&C.  Only 'full' spellcasters have access to magic (wizards, illusionists, clerics, and druids).

Quote from: Zachary The First;390651DB4 and DB5, the Dro Mandras modules, were pretty good.  Those were by Christopherson.

The 'DB' series by Christopherson is the pretty good (if you can ignore the awful editing).  It has a nice mix of wilderness, urban, and dungeon adventures.

The Crater of Umsheti is a decent enough 'mega-dungeon', and could easily be expanded by CKs.

I like the 'divided city' concept used for Dro Mandros.  Lots of interesting possibilities with that.

If I were to ever run a 'true' C&C campaign again, I would use the Dro Mandras setting, and fit the ruins of Castle Zagyg somewhere in the northern marches.  (Actually, that doesn't sound too bad...)

The C&C Assassin is pretty cool, I'll agree to that.

The Fighter, however, makes no sense in C&C's context, to me. His iterative attacks against less than 1HD creatures, for instance, are an artefact from Chainmail and correspondances of Heroes and Superheroes into Men in the Original D&D of 1974, just like in AD&D's case. Problem is, if you don't have all the bells and whistles of AD&D combat and plug yourself to the Chainmail tactical mind frame where anything mundane is basically a level 0 something, or a less-than-1HD Goblin or somesuch, this ability doesn't make any sense.

And that's a biggy, to me. If the Fighter makes no sense, and I'm looking at a D&D remake, I'm like... "what's the point?"

Furthermore. The different XP tracks are kept, but the minimum ability scores to be able to select different classes are gone. When you generate characters with 3d6 ability scores, you'll find yourself with a slew of Clerics, Fighters, MUs and Thieves in AD&D, simply because their ability scores requirements are a 9 in something and that's it. Try shooting for a Paladin or Ranger and you'll need some lucky dice rolls. That's on purpose. That's why Paladin and Ranger are basically upgraded fighters. If you don't have minimum requirements, then you can be a Paladin or Ranger instead of a pure Fighter any time you want. Nobody in their right mind would choose a Fighter instead of those two. Sure, you can go for "role playing is what matters most, and I create a fighter on purpose", but really, though rules balance shouldn't be a pain in the ass or an obsession of the game design to me, there's still an issue there that I find rather glaring.

Quote from: Benoist;390930Furthermore. The different XP tracks are kept, but the minimum ability scores to be able to select different classes are gone. When you generate characters with 3d6 ability scores, you'll find yourself with a slew of Clerics, Fighters, MUs and Thieves in AD&D, simply because their ability scores requirements are a 9 in something and that's it. Try shooting for a Paladin or Ranger and you'll need some lucky dice rolls. That's on purpose. That's why Paladin and Ranger are basically upgraded fighters. If you don't have minimum requirements, then you can be a Paladin or Ranger instead of a pure Fighter any time you want. Nobody in their right mind would choose a Fighter instead of those two. Sure, you can go for "role playing is what matters most, and I create a fighter on purpose", but really, though rules balance shouldn't be a pain in the ass or an obsession of the game design to me, there's still an issue there that I find rather glaring.

I'm too lazy to look, but does the Ranger have any restrictions?  I'm assuming the Paladin does.  That would be the reason, IMHO, for not picking a Paladin: "I don't WANNA be a Lawful Good Holy Roller!"  If Rangers have similar restrictions, then I do see why someone would be a Fighter over them.  That said, I'm not saying I agree with the lack of minimums...just saying I could see why one would choose the "lesser" option when given the choice.

(After all, in AD&D 2e I saw at least a fighter or two who could have arranged their scores to meet a Paladin or Ranger but couldn't stand the idea of playing either).

Well, I don't mean to say that the game sucks, far from it. You can see my first post on the thread for that. I can understand how people might not find C&C fulfills their needs, however, considering my own issues with the game.

And you're right about the Paladin. The Ranger isn't nearly as restricted though. Even if you end up in an urban adventure, it still pays off IMO to play a ranger instead of the lame fighter. YMMV.

Quote from: Benoist;390935Well, I don't mean to say that the game sucks, far from it. You can see my first post on the thread for that. I can understand how people might not find C&C fulfills their needs, however, considering my own issues with the game.

And you're right about the Paladin. The Ranger isn't nearly as restricted though. Even if you end up in an urban adventure, it still pays off IMO to play a ranger instead of the lame fighter. YMMV.

Yeah, I bought the Player's Handbook and wasn't very wowed, so I have no idea if there's any reason as written to not be a Paladin or Ranger because I put it away about a day after I bought it (it was right before the new printing, so they were on sale at a convention)...didn't really impress me at the time.

Out of curiosity, though, for those who have played it...is it flexible enough to use AD&D2e Monster Manuals with minimal effort?  I may give it a second look if so...

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;390938Out of curiosity, though, for those who have played it...is it flexible enough to use AD&D2e Monster Manuals with minimal effort?  I may give it a second look if so...

I've played C&C recently, but haven't tried using any older AD&D stuff with it.

For 2E AD&D, I guess one easy way I can think of offhand for comparison purposes is to convert some of the stats and see how they match to the C&C equivalents.

AC_ascending = 20 - AC_descending

(base attack bonus)  BAB = 21 - THAC0

Quote from: Akrasia;390922I do like the C&C versions of the assassin, bard, paladin, ranger, and knight.

I like the fact that there are no 'semi-spellusers' in C&C.  Only 'full' spellcasters have access to magic (wizards, illusionists, clerics, and druids).

Agrred. These are my favorite thing about C&C, their take on the classes is great.

So great in fact that I've often considered converting it to RC/LL/whatever I'm playing at the time.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;390938Out of curiosity, though, for those who have played it...is it flexible enough to use AD&D2e Monster Manuals with minimal effort?  I may give it a second look if so...

Yes. It is flexible enough.

Quote from: ggroy;390940I've played C&C recently, but haven't tried using any older AD&D stuff with it.

For 2E AD&D, I guess one easy way I can think of offhand for comparison purposes is to convert some of the stats and see how they match to the C&C equivalents.

AC_ascending = 20 - AC_descending

(base attack bonus)  BAB = 21 - THAC0

Thanks for the guidelines!

Btw, this thread inspired me to pull out the Player's Handbook and compare Fighters and Rangers.

Wow.

Yeah, unless you just GOTSTA have the heaviest armor possible, there is no reason whatsoever to play a Fighter.

Quote from: The Butcher;390946Agrred. These are my favorite thing about C&C, their take on the classes is great.

So great in fact that I've often considered converting it to RC/LL/whatever I'm playing at the time.

Hmmm.  I find the classes the LEAST thing I like - well, besides the idiotic Siege mechanic.  I replaced the classes pretty much verbatim from the 1e phb, tossed the siege engine, which ended up being 1e in all but name, so I tossed C&C as well.  I love the principal behind C&C, I just think it was implemented poorly.