Is 5e like C&C?

[Tonden Ockay]

Hi there

I have read that 5e is like a mix of 3e and 2e.

I have also read that C&C (Castles & Crusades) is like a mix of 3e and old school D&D

So are they a lot a like then?

Is 5e only doing better then C&C because of the name D&D?

Plus didn't Gary Gygax have a hand in C&C?

Sorry I have never played 5e or C&C so just asking.

[Knaight]

They're fundamentally different games. 5e is its own game, designed in the feel of 2e and 3e. C&C is basically 2e D&D, and mostly just adapts the more unified dice mechanic of 3e. The brand name contributes majorly to the difference in popularity, but even without it there are substantial differences in quality of editing, organization, etc. I'd also say that 5e is significantly more approachable mechanically.

[Kurald Galain]

I have read that 5e is like a mix of 3e and 2e.

I have also read that C&C (Castles & Crusades) is like a mix of 3e and old school D&D

Yeah, pretty much. There are a lot of games on the market which are basically 3E with some changes (and by itself, 3E is 2E with some changes) and 5E is one of them. I haven't played C&C but as far as I've heard it's also an example of 3E with some changes.

Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that, it's simply building on literally decades of game design experience.

[randomodo]

C&C is a baseline of d20 mechanics without skills, feats, or ways to differentiate within members of any given class.

- Getting rid of formal skills does speed things up over 3/3.5 when it comes to character creation and leveling (you don't have that "I'm playing a spreadsheet" effect that you could sometimes get with 3.5). Characters have half of their abilities designated as "primary" and those any sort of thing that would be a skill check in 3.5 gets a significant bonus if it's tied to a primary ability.

- Lack of feats is good and bad, depending on your feelings for feats. Certainly it eliminates the min-maxing mini-game that 3.5 frequently turned into. The lack of feats plays into...

-...the fact that all members of any class are essentially the same, mechanically. All fighters are differentiated solely based on what their equipment is; all wizards are differentited based solely on what spells they cast. There are no 3.5 prestige classes, no 4e paragon paths, no 5e decisions about whether to become an eldritch knight vs a champion vs a battlemaster. Once you pick your race and your class, that's 95% of the meaningful mechanical choices you'll make - ever - in the game.

So, C&C can be somewhat polarizing. If your tastes run to OSR game, know that there's a fair amount of publishing support for it (and I hear that Troll Lord has gotten better at editing as time has gone by; the first edition PHB for C&C made for painful reading, especially if you're a grammar/spelling/word usage nazi).

In my limited C&C experience, I'd say C&C plays somewhat faster than 5e, and character creation is even simpler than 5e. The price for the speed and simplicity is a lack of options. It's not exactly my cup of tea, but you can do far worse in the OSR sub-genre.

[Caveat, the long-delayed Castle Keeper's Guide has been published, and I hear that does bring more mechanical options to the table, but I haven't played C&C since that was released, so I can't speak to how those rules might impact the game]

[obryn]

5e and C&C are very, very different. 5e hews a lot more closely to 3e, with bits & bobs for character development. (The whole structure of the game is very derivative from 3.x, actually.) C&C hews a lot more closely to OSR design sensibility, using the OGL as its license more for use of terms than for any kind of system compatibility.

I am personally not a fan of C&C - when I want oldschool, my Rules Cylopedia and AD&D books work just fine. :smallsmile:

[Typewriter]

I didn't enjoy C&C - it felt very limited and streamlined to a fault. You have very minimal control over your character. I didn't really feel like I made my character I C&C and the system seemed excessively punishing.

On the other hand 5E is 3.5 with some streamlining done, a restructuring of how feats/skills/magic work, as well as a few other changes. It actually feels as if effort was put into balancing things while still trying to maintain some level of uniqueness between classes. I like 5E quite a bit.