C&C's class-and-a-half (and half the xp requirement for the second class) really is a good piece of game design. It's worth stealing for other games, and if I were to ever beat my against the wall of psionics again that's how I'd handle it. XP cost to add psionics to a base class, without either doubling xp or just layering it on for free.

Quote from: Dave 2 on January 01, 2024, 05:53:29 PM
C&C's class-and-a-half (and half the xp requirement for the second class) really is a good piece of game design. It's worth stealing for other games, and if I were to ever beat my against the wall of psionics again that's how I'd handle it. XP cost to add psionics to a base class, without either doubling xp or just layering it on for free.

Funny; I love how C&C does multi-classing, but I find the class and a half option completely pointless.  Guess I like all or nothing.  And in my campaign, only demi-humans can multi-class, but they're restricted to the "favored class" options in the PHB.  But again, this is another thing that makes C&C great.  Very easy to add, subtract, and house rule.

I like some of the "less-than-all" options because you can basically design your own class on the fly.  Like if you wanted a "racial-elf" class ala 2e, but you really wanted more fighter than mage, you can easily do it without having essentially 2 full classes.  Same with a halfling.

"Full" multiclassing is still there, but I like options:)

Quote from: paladinn on January 01, 2024, 10:26:16 PM
I like some of the "less-than-all" options because you can basically design your own class on the fly.  Like if you wanted a "racial-elf" class ala 2e, but you really wanted more fighter than mage, you can easily do it without having essentially 2 full classes.  Same with a halfling.

"Full" multiclassing is still there, but I like options:)

They also have those racial class options from Aihrde, which we do use.

Right.. and I like the effort, but I find the racial classes a little OP.  D12 HD, natural AC, DR, etc. for a dwarf?  Seems a bit much.  Likewise for the elf: full BtH, spell-life abilities and spontaneous casting for the same XP as a basic wizard?  Wow.

Needs to be tweaked.

Quote from: paladinn on January 02, 2024, 09:34:38 AM
Right.. and I like the effort, but I find the racial classes a little OP.  D12 HD, natural AC, DR, etc. for a dwarf?  Seems a bit much.  Likewise for the elf: full BtH, spell-life abilities and spontaneous casting for the same XP as a basic wizard?  Wow.

Needs to be tweaked.

Not at all, IMO.  Demi-humans should be inherently more powerful than humans.  After all, they live far longer and are older, more mystical races.  Just less numerous and more reclusive in general.  Which is why I restrict their class choice in AD&D fashion, but also let them multi-class whereas humans cannot.  Plus, in C&C they get docked a prime, which also balances power.

I also like how, while retaining the idea of limits (not hard, but suggested) on demi-human classes, C&C tweaks these.  So most races can be bards, halflings can be rangers, half-orcs can be monks, etc.  Just a minor, but very cool adjustment.  In particular, the Tolkienesque take on Half-elves wherein one's abilities vary if they favor the human or elven parent, is brilliant.

Quote from: Persimmon on January 02, 2024, 10:31:59 AM
I also like how, while retaining the idea of limits (not hard, but suggested) on demi-human classes, C&C tweaks these.  So most races can be bards, halflings can be rangers, half-orcs can be monks, etc.  Just a minor, but very cool adjustment.  In particular, the Tolkienesque take on Half-elves wherein one's abilities vary if they favor the human or elven parent, is brilliant.

Definitely agree.  Dwarf wizards are just wrong.

Quote from: Persimmon on January 02, 2024, 10:31:59 AM
Demi-humans should be inherently more powerful than humans.  After all, they live far longer and are older, more mystical races.  Just less numerous and more reclusive in general.  Which is why I restrict their class choice in AD&D fashion, but also let them multi-class whereas humans cannot.  Plus, in C&C they get docked a prime, which also balances power.

I mostly agree that demihumans should have advantages, especially since they are docked one prime.  I just think the dwarves especially are OP.  I can see the AC bonus and/or the DR; but D12 HD?

For elves, I'd up the XP requirements some.  I do like that they have spontaneous casting, which drives home their "mystical" nature.  And I might let them choose wizard or druid spells, or have a custom spell list ala the old Alfheim classic splatbook.

I think I would also give demihumans a free 1st level advantage (cough:feat:cough) from the Racial advantages list in the CKG.

As others have said C&C is basically AD&D for me. I was able to pick it up and DM pretty quick. But, if I'm just playing AD&D, I'll stick with AD&D....which I do.

There are things that didn't jell with me. For example, the base Ranger and Paladin classes don't have spells. I like the spell casting Ranger and Paladin, so I still play AD&D. At the end of the day I saw no reason to change rules. They've got some great books I've kept, like the Castle Keeper Guide, for example.

So in my opinion, I just stick with AD&D 2e.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on January 02, 2024, 04:26:27 PM
There are things that didn't jell with me. For example, the base Ranger and Paladin classes don't have spells. I like the spell casting Ranger and Paladin, so I still play AD&D. At the end of the day I saw no reason to change rules. They've got some great books I've kept, like the Castle Keeper Guide, for example.

There are rules in the CKG for adding spells to paladins, rangers and bards, with a nominal XP increase.  Very easily done.  And each has their own spell list and are much more in keeping with the theme of the class.

Especially in later editions, paladins became more junior clerics and rangers were more junior druids.  I prefer both to be true to their warrior roots.  The original OD&D paladin didn't have spells anyway.

I am pondering reworking the bard as a not-quite-so-warrior class, and may go ahead and give it spells with reduced HD and maybe cleric BtH.. not sure yet.

But this is what's so cool about C&C: it is by far the most hackable version of The Game I've ever played.

Edit: the spells for paladins, rangers and bards are in the Adventurer's Backpack splatbook.  Mea culpa

Quote from: paladinn on January 02, 2024, 04:35:39 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on January 02, 2024, 04:26:27 PM
There are things that didn't jell with me. For example, the base Ranger and Paladin classes don't have spells. I like the spell casting Ranger and Paladin, so I still play AD&D. At the end of the day I saw no reason to change rules. They've got some great books I've kept, like the Castle Keeper Guide, for example.

There are rules in the CKG for adding spells to paladins, rangers and bards, with a nominal XP increase.  Very easily done.  And each has their own spell list and are much more in keeping with the theme of the class.

Especially in later editions, paladins became more junior clerics and rangers were more junior druids.  I prefer both to be true to their warrior roots.  The original OD&D paladin didn't have spells anyway.

I am pondering reworking the bard as a not-quite-so-warrior class, and may go ahead and give it spells with reduced HD and maybe cleric BtH.. not sure yet.

But this is what's so cool about C&C: it is by far the most hackable version of The Game I've ever played.

Edit: the spells for paladins, rangers and bards are in the Adventurer's Backpack splatbook.  Mea culpa

Yes; I really like the bard, ranger, and paladin spellcasting options from ABP, particularly because they all have discrete lists culled from the other casters.  Moreover, you can simply not use them so you could have different kinds of each of these classes in C&C, which is preety cool.

One topic that has come up on another forum is the option of running Siege checks, especially saves, with no CR.  So for most checks, you roll, add your ability mods and level, and compare to either 12 or 18 (I use 15 with a flat +3 for prime, instead).  The thought is that it would make saves and such work much more like AD&D.  My concern is that it makes saves Too easy at high levels; but one of the criticisms of C&C is that saves are too difficult at high levels.

Any thoughts?  I'm on the fence.

Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 01:37:18 PM
One topic that has come up on another forum is the option of running Siege checks, especially saves, with no CR.  So for most checks, you roll, add your ability mods and level, and compare to either 12 or 18 (I use 15 with a flat +3 for prime, instead).  The thought is that it would make saves and such work much more like AD&D.  My concern is that it makes saves Too easy at high levels; but one of the criticisms of C&C is that saves are too difficult at high levels.

Any thoughts?  I'm on the fence.

  What do the success rates look like if you cut CRs in half?

Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 01:37:18 PM
Any thoughts?  I'm on the fence.

Use AD&D saves?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2024, 07:38:58 PM

Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 01:37:18 PM
Any thoughts?  I'm on the fence.

Use AD&D saves?

Why?  I know you hate C&C, but AD&D saves make no sense to me.  "Death Ray".. really?

The Fort/Will/Ref save model made more sense.  The 5e/C&C stat-based saves make even more to me. 

The point the post-er of the "no CR" idea was making was to make it more like AD&D while still using the Siege engine.  Does it work?  Or would using 1/2 the CR work?  I don't want to make it too easy.  I'm already using spell level instead of caster level.

Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 07:43:02 PM
Why...AD&D saves make no sense to me..."Death Ray".. really?

If you don't like them, that's reason enough.

QuoteThe point the post-er of the "no CR" idea was making was to make it more like AD&D while still using the Siege engine.  Does it work?  Or would using 1/2 the CR work?  I don't want to make it too easy.  I'm already using spell level instead of caster level.

I see. I was thinking about the first part (i.e. "make it more like AD&D") and ignoring the "still use the SIEGE engine" part. FWIW, I don't see any reason it wouldn't work. And it would be closer to the AD&D approach, in my opinion. I'd prefer it over the standard C&C approach to saving throws.