Castles & Crusades

[Yora]

I was just once again looking around for OSR games because Pathfinder is way too complicated and 5th Edition seems just terribly chaotic and confusing. And I just noticed that C&C does have standardized ability modifiers for all ability score, races are races and not classes, and there is even "bonus to hit" instead of all the insanities that came before. Sweet, that pretty much adresses all the big complaints I have with most OSR games I've looked at so far. (Myth & Magic does it at well, but it also has way too many class features and what are essentially feats.)

This really might be very close to the game I've always been looking for.
What else can you tell me about the pros and cons of C&C? I'd like to learn a bit more about what I would get into before making any purchases.

[LibraryOgre]

For me, the main con to C&C is multiclassing is not handled as well as I would like.

There are options in the books, don't get me wrong. Their preferred one ("class and a half") designates one class as secondary, and so you're always about X in your main class and X/2 in your secondary class. Going this route involves calculating out a new XP table just for your PC, depending on your particular preference.

However, I find it to be a wonderful game overall, and pretty flexible if you want to mod it (I've allowed people to play sorcerers by letting them freecast as a wizard, but with only as many spells known as they have spells per day; I also apply the full casting attribute modifier as bonus cantrips). I like that Bards are a full fighting class (perhaps the lowest end of the fighting classes, because they don't have many combat related abilities), as are monks (who I let do their monk damage, even when using weapons, while enjoying the benefit of those weapons). If you don't want to mod it, you can pretty much hand someone a sheet with their class, another with their race, and a page for personal stuff (HP, attributes, equipment) and play... there's not really any "builds" you can do.

Plus? You can run 1e adventures out of the box easily... just subtract AC from 20, and decide if the monster has Physical, Mental, or Both saves. Their HD is their bonus to hit and saves, and everything is compatible.

[Yora]

Are there any real differences between the editions of the Player Book, or are thy just different print runs with updated layouts?

[LibraryOgre]

Are there any real differences between the editions of the Player Book, or are thy just different print runs with updated layouts?

There were a few, especially with regards to the Barbarian, IIRC. I don't recall all of them, though. I do know that there weren't any of note between 4th and 5th printing (asked about it a GenCon).

[turkishproverb]

For me, the main con to C&C is multiclassing is not handled as well as I would like.

Some might be put off by the giving of monsters a different set of rules/different stat block to work by than PC's as well.

[Yora]

But that's what all OSR games do, I am quite sure.

[LibraryOgre]

Some might be put off by the giving of monsters a different set of rules/different stat block to work by than PC's as well.

Perhaps, but it isn't the least bit a con for me. The stat blocks for C&C monsters are simple and fast, and the rules for them can be stored easily in your head.

[Yora]

Sometimes I'm not too happy with the format, though.

If I didn't know what the iconic abilities of the aboleth are I probably would find it quite troublesome running one out of the book. Filtering the actual mechanic out of the paragraph of fluff description on the spot isn't that easy.

[Another_Poet]

This really might be very close to the game I've always been looking for.
What else can you tell me about the pros and cons of C&C? I'd like to learn a bit more about what I would get into before making any purchases.

I've played it extensively and even run a couple adventures with it. It's truly a great system.

There are lots of pros and not many cons, IMO. The pros include: fast PC generation, fast combat pace, easy to resolve any cool tactics or special maneuvers (Grapple? Targeted shot to the eye? Swing on a chandelier?)--just choose the appropriate stat and have the player roll. I could go on.

The main cons are, I think, more a matter of taste in play style. Using the rules as written, PCs advance painfully slowly and are generally quite fragile. There is a fair amount of randomness and a narrow margin of survivability, so even at high levels things can be unexpectedly deadly or easy. But these are also features for people who like a more old school type game.

C&C is now my go-to instead of Pathfinder. I typically give PCs more hit points, a couple special powers and a faster XP progression to bring it more in line with my preferred power level. But the ruleset is a dream. I love it.

[Yora]

I already decited to increase hp at first level by the maximum result of the HD in addition to the normal 1HD + Con-mod. That should make things a lot safer, giving the hp of a character of 2.5th level.

I also think I will give the fighters a reasonable judgement on the danger posed by mundane enemies, and to spellcasters for magical ones. No "Suprise, it's a 15 HD rat with poison and magic immunity".

Calculating monster XP also seemed a bit odd to me. The largest XP rewards I've seen so far just made it over 1,000 XP, while AD&D often goes up to 20,000 and more. I guess I check out XP in 1st Ed.

[Rhynn]

Calculating monster XP also seemed a bit odd to me. The largest XP rewards I've seen so far just made it over 1,000 XP, while AD&D often goes up to 20,000 and more. I guess I check out XP in 1st Ed.

Does Castles & Crusades have XP-for-gp as an assumption?

Basically, individual monster XP rewards go up steadily from B/X to AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E, but not enough that 2E making XP-for-gp an optional rule that most people apparently missed doesn't completely retard leveling up into a slow, agonizing process...

For comparison, ACKS uses default B/X assumptions, and after 3 sessions in a dungeon, my players have probably killed 3,000 XP worth of monsters, and have found about 30,000 XP worth of treasure. (In B4, a classic module, unaltered.)

[Another_Poet]

Calculating monster XP also seemed a bit odd to me. The largest XP rewards I've seen so far just made it over 1,000 XP, while AD&D often goes up to 20,000 and more. I guess I check out XP in 1st Ed.

Bear in mind you also give XP every time a new magic item is activated for the first time (to the PC who activated it). However, this still results in slow advancement IMO.


Does Castles & Crusades have XP-for-gp as an assumption?

IIRC, you do not get XP for acquiring or spending gp.

[Rhynn]

IIRC, you do not get XP for acquiring or spending gp.

Sounds like a good reason to implement one or the other, then! Either returning treasure to civilization gets you XP, or else spending treasure on orgies, feasting, alcohol, etc. gets you XP. :smallbiggrin:

(Also "magical research" to no other benefit, temple donations, etc., for the nerdier PCs.)

[Yora]

One oddity I noticed is that classes all level up at different XP values, but assuming everyone has the same amount of XP, all characters will have level that is either N or N+1. Except for rogues, bards, and assassins, who advance a lot faster than other classes, it almost never happens that any character would be at level N+2 compared to the lowest level character in the group.
Which I think makes the whole idea of having different XP charts redundant.

The only effect is that some characters will reach 7th level a bit earlier while other PCs are still 6th level, but they still have to wait until everyone is 7th leven before they make it to 8th level. (excluding rogues)

Why have different XP charts to begin with?

Also, I think I'll be using 2nd Edition XP award calculation. It's so much easier and most of the time gets very close to the same XP value anyway.

[Anathemata]

The whole idea behind different XP charts is actually a kind of 'game balance' issue. It reflects that it takes a bit longer to become a great wizard than a great fighter, and thus a wizard will always develop slower. It's actually one of the easiest ways to ensure that the PCs don't outmatch each other too much. I like Castles and Crusades a bunch. It's easy to customize classes, for instance. Pretty much every conceivable situation is covered by a straightforward mechanic. But I have a few problems with the system. The main problem is bonus inflation. I think that while adding your level to a skill is clean and simple, it eventually makes untrained skill checks far inferior to trained skills. I would probably bring the numbers down a bit, perhaps add 1/2 your level to skills? Anyways, my biggest problem with the system isn't mechanical--I hate the art, and I hate the prose. That's it. For a simple system, this game is unnecessarily verbose. But otherwise, highly configurable and flexible. Recommended.

[Rhynn]

Different XP progressions are a big deal early on, when every level gained increases your survivability enormously. The faster a PC can climb the levels up to 5th, the more likely they are to survive that far.

Later on, they really even out a lot. It's not as big of a deal whether you're 10th or 12th level as whether you're 1st or 3rd (unless you're a spellcaster, and in some D&D versions even that doesn't matter as much unless you were blessed with a high Intelligence score). That, incidentally, is why multiclassing is awesome (and e.g. fighter/mages have increased survivability and utility at low levels compared to straight mages).

[Yora]

Something odd I just noticed:
Compared to 3rd edition, a round in C&C is almost twice as long (10 seconds), but characters can move only half their speed in one round and still make an attack.
Even with your guard up, 15 feet in 10 seconds seems awfully slow.

One standard action during combat is to simply move. Either at normal speed, jogging at double speed, or running at four times normal speed. But I don't see any reason why a character should ever move at less than four times normal speed if he's unable to take any other actions anyway.

[LibraryOgre]

IIRC, running provides some other penalties, but I don't have my book handy.

[Yora]

I have the pdf and used search, and none of the paragraphs including "movement rate" or "jogging" mentions anything about penalties.

[LibraryOgre]

Looking through it, while I don't see a specific penalty for running, I do see that Charging considers you to be jogging or running, and thereby imposes a 4 point AC penalty. Disengaging lets you move your running movement rate away, but gives you a 2 point AC penalty.

Personally, I'd go with a 4 point penalty for running, and a 2 point penalty for jogging, with the idea being that Disengage is a special circumstance that lets you include a bit of dodge.

[Yora]

Seems sensible.

Another thing that puzzles me is the casting time of spells. Thankfully, initiative is much easier than in AD&D, but I am still a bit unsure about how it works.
A spell with a casting time of CT1 comes into effect at the characters initiative turn. There is a suggestion that spellcasters should all start casting at the start of the round, so they have to announce their spell before it is actually their turn.
But otherwise, there wouldn't be really any delay and also no chance for enemies to interrupt the spellcasting, right?

Another thing is creatures with greater reach. When a character is moving towards a creature with greater reach to attack, the creature can immediately take its attack for that round against that approaching character. However, it also says "in the first round only", but the example mentions a situation in a later round of combat. Should I interprete this as meaning "in the first round in which the character approached the creature with larger reach"? Meaning, a creature with larger reach can no longer make this early attack when they both start the round standing next to each other?

[LibraryOgre]

I'd have to take a good look at the CT rules.

However, I'd treat reach similar to Hackmaster's reach rules... it applies when you first engage a monster, but not later.

[Yora]

So that's where the idea probably comes from.

I really like it. It's the first system I've seen in which reach weapons matter without tracking squares.

[Rhynn]

I really like it. It's the first system I've seen in which reach weapons matter without tracking squares.

Kind of a side-note, but both RuneQuest 6 and Mongoose RuneQuest 2 have rules for reach weapons and no squares/specific position tracking in combat, and both pretty much got the system from The Riddle of Steel, which has a lot of movement-related rules but doesn't use squares or other accurate position-tracking.

[Thrudd]

So that's where the idea probably comes from.

I really like it. It's the first system I've seen in which reach weapons matter without tracking squares.

Castles & Crusades seems like a blend of AD&D and 3e, though overall closer to 3e. In AD&D, the only way to move and attack on the same round would be to charge, and this was the situation where a weapon with reach is able to attack first regardless of initiative. In C&C, since you can move half your movement and still attack, reach weapons may have even more impact.

It looks to me like initiative and casting works basically as 3e, so a CT1 could not be interrupted if you did not require the spellcaster to announce his spell before initiative is rolled.

[MeeposFire]

Castles & Crusades seems like a blend of AD&D and 3e, though overall closer to 3e. In AD&D, the only way to move and attack on the same round would be to charge, and this was the situation where a weapon with reach is able to attack first regardless of initiative. In C&C, since you can move half your movement and still attack, reach weapons may have even more impact.

It looks to me like initiative and casting works basically as 3e, so a CT1 could not be interrupted if you did not require the spellcaster to announce his spell before initiative is rolled.

You are thinking of D&D not AD&D. In 2e AD&D you can move half your movement rate and still make your attacks. As on page 128 of the black version of the PHB for 2e...

""When closing for combat, a character can move up to half his allowed distance and still make a melee attack".

In missile combat he can make half his rate of fire at that time (unless you have prof that say otherwise as those exist).

2eAD&D supported mobile combat better than 3e did for the most part. What you are seeing in C&C is closer to 2e than 3e in this regard.

[Thrudd]

You are thinking of D&D not AD&D. In 2e AD&D you can move half your movement rate and still make your attacks. As on page 128 of the black version of the PHB for 2e...

""When closing for combat, a character can move up to half his allowed distance and still make a melee attack".

In missile combat he can make half his rate of fire at that time (unless you have prof that say otherwise as those exist).

2eAD&D supported mobile combat better than 3e did for the most part. What you are seeing in C&C is closer to 2e than 3e in this regard.

Actually it was also 1e AD&D where you couldn't both move and attack (besides a charge). I personally never really went fully to 2e. So the C&C combat movement is like 2e, the initiative and combat rounds are like 3e. It has ability checks and DC's like 3e, classes and class based experience charts like AD&D. AC and TO hit bonuses are like 3e. Spellcasting is more like 3e, with most spells having only 1 round casting time and due to the 3e style initiative.