Why doesn't Castles and Crusades get any love?

[Devil Swine]

I like C&C. Just not as much as I like Classic D&D. Nuff said.

[fjw70]

I hadn't really looked at C&C in years, but this conversation encouraged me to pull out my PH and have a look. I have since decided to add the Siege Engine to my AD&D houserules that I have been working on.

Thanks for starting this thread. My AD&D game now has from/inspired by 3e, 4e, 5e playtest, and C&C.

[rmckee78]

My City State of the Invincible Overlord game used C&C. I first encountered C&C at TrollCon East when Steve and Tim came to my FLGS for a few days of gaming. They were very supportive and even gave me a free extra copy of the PHB to use in running an ongoing game at the store. Steve is very friendly and willing to stop and talk gaming for a while at cons. He also has a fantastic off-the-cuff DMing style.

While BECMI is my favorite version of D&D, I would use C&C if I had a table of people that were either new to gaming or new to old school D&D. It is great for conventions because there is very little for new players to learn, and the game moves fast. I have run Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC and C&C at cons, and C&C just works better with a group of new people. That said, by the time my FLGS campaign had been going about 8 months, I was starting to notice some serious balance issues as the levels got higher. I don't think the players were really noticing yet. But it was great for an in-store game where people drop in and out, you have pretty strict time constraints, and you need the game to move quickly. My party traveled around with a host of NPCs and combat never bogged down.

Also, you can play the game with just the PHB and monster book. Actually, I was converting monsters from the 3e City State of the Invincible Overlord book, and the AD&D 2e monster books at the table on the fly with no problem. So you may not even need the monster book.

The Castle Keeper's Guide is a cool book, with a lot of neat ideas, but you are going to just want to pick through it. It is not needed for play.

I don't really know about any of the TLG/OSRIC drama, but it is unlikely to impact how I play the game anyway.

[Chrispy]

C&C missed the opportunity to really clean up AD&D. For example, it kept the different number of attacks for less than one hit die monsters and 1 or greater hit die monsters. That dividing line to too arbitrary for me. A 9th level fighter get 9 attacks vs goblins but only one attack vs. orcs. Also fighter damage scales very poorly as they level (even worse than AD&D).

I wanted to point out a really good article that analyses the subject of "fantastic combat in D&D" and breaks it down with a a pretty good explanation to consider. http://www.philotomy.com/#multiple_attacks

I generally agree with what you said about AC vs. AAC (and to that extent to-hit matrices vs. base to-hit bonuses): It's the same data just represented differently. I find AAC and base to-hit bonus to be faster, but that is what I learned with. I also find it to be more intuitive when teaching new people. That being said: if you learned using the matrices and descending AC scale, by all means use it, but neither one is objectively better. They can't be. They're the same thing.

[fjw70]

C&C missed the opportunity to really clean up AD&D. For example, it kept the different number of attacks for less than one hit die monsters and 1 or greater hit die monsters. That dividing line to too arbitrary for me. A 9th level fighter get 9 attacks vs goblins but only one attack vs. orcs. Also fighter damage scales very poorly as they level (even worse than AD&D).

I wanted to point out a really good article that analyses the subject of "fantastic combat in D&D" and breaks it down with a a pretty good explanation to consider. http://www.philotomy.com/#multiple_attacks

I generally agree with what's you said about AC vs. AAC (and to that extent to-hit matrices vs. base to-hit bonuses): It's the same data just represented differently. I find AAC and base to-hit bonus to be faster, but that is what I learned with. I also find it to be more intuitive when teaching new people. That being said: if you learned using the matrices and descending AC scale, by all means use it, but neither one is objectively better. They can't be. They're the same thing.

Here's the relevant quote fom AD&D.

This excludes melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels (See COMBAT).

The criterion is less than one HD, not 1 HD or less. I will check out that link. Thanks.

I think AAC is slightly easier but the difference is very small. I learned the DAC way and used it for years but the AAC way just makes a lot more sense to me. However, I don't judge anyone that disgrees.


EDIT: After reding the link I see your confusion. Apparently in OD&D 1 HD monsters qualified for the extra attacks. as the article notes this was changed in AD&D.

[Chrispy]

Nah, brah, there's no confusion on this end. If you read the article clearly it also states a possible reason for why it was changed for AD&D. The article, and the point of me bringing it up, was it is explaining the rationale behind that mechanic overall.

[fjw70]

Nah, brah, there's no confusion on this end. If you read the article clearly it also states a possible reason for why it was changed for AD&D. The article, and the point of me bringing it up, was it is explaining the rationale behind that mechanic overall.

Did you edit your post right before I quoted it? I could have sworn you said that orcs qualified for the additional attacks in AD&D since they were one HD creatures.

The rationale isn't anything new. Weaker/less skilled monsters can be attacked easier. I just don't like the abrupt change from 1-1 to 1 HD.

[Chrispy]

I did. I double checked my research and corrected myself before you replied.

But I corrected myself sooner than 20 minutes. Chock it up to article reading?

[AncientGamer]

(or outright hostility due to the TLG/Knights and Knaves Clownhouse rift).

LOL The good old days... ;D

[fjw70]

I did. I double checked my research and corrected myself before you replied.

But I corrected myself sooner than 20 minutes. Chock it up to article reading?

I guess I was slow to respond.