[D20/5E] Is 5E like Castles & Crusades?

[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.

[Gold]

No, not really, but yes if you want to look at it that way.

5E is its own edition. It's simply not really "like" any other games, in actuality, across the board. Some of those comparisons, people are just getting the flavor of the comparative editions. Or you can see a few similar rules from this, and from that. 5E just has so many of it's own specific rules that aren't copied from any other place, much less all from 1 or 2 other editions or games. Sure you could say it's a mix of 2E & 3E (in parts, in a way, in the flavor) but 5E would still have lots of specifics that are unique, different, and not-found in 2E or 3E. So it's an oversimplification to compare it.

I do think it's fair to see C&C as a response to 3E at least, if not a derivative or variation. And it certainly nicely achieves an old school feel.

Now C&C, and 5E... hmm.. they're both presented nicely, clean modern presentations, that's a nice similarity I guess. Both try to be streamlined and yet able to cover all situations. Both are great for classic fantasy, varying levels of magic and weirdness.

When it comes down to nuts & bolts, they're just different, they aren't trying to be the same. C&C came out way long before 5E, so I guess you could say that 5E has a lot of "new rules" of its own that are either not-found in previous games, or else variations of features from a lot of games namely all previous D&D editions, in one form or another. It scales differently. Numbers, spells, classes, combat, rolling, just about everything is different in-details (if comparable in principle).

On the other hand, a creative competent and loose-flying DM could probably interchange 5E and C&C (and any other variation of D&D). They're the same in that sense, it's D&D, fantasy RPG with a DM running the game. The rules are just some mud along the roadway.

When it comes down to sales, they're surely miles apart (I have no knowledge or record of either game's actual sales though). C&C has been a remarkable success from what I've seen, from a small publisher that would be considered an 'independent': Troll Lord Games. They're successful at fulfilling crowdfunding campaigns on Kickstarter and continually expanding their product line, reprinting old sold-out products now coming out in color. Cheers on them. While D&D 5E is published by Wizards Of The Coast, now a division of Hasbro, one of the largest toy companies in the world. 5E's distribution is bigger (and that's really probably a factor). Brand name is much bigger, D&D is a household name even. Resources are bigger. The marketing is more.

[Turanil]

5e and C&C are very different, even though they derive from the same original game.

5e probably reminds of 3e, but not of earlier editions, even if it can appear as a simplified 3e. For example, there are low level spells at will for magic-users, there is no ThAC0 nor BAB/BtH, but a small bonus that is the same for all classes and is added to attack rolls, saving throws and skill checks all the same. There is more hit-points (PCs and monsters alike), and hit-points are easy to get back.

C&C reminds more of basic D&D intermixed with 1e (for the variety of classes), with ascending AC and attack rolls, but uses spells from 3e, and its own task and save resolution system.

[serleran]

Some say the resolution system bears a resemblance but I don't know, nor care, because I don't look at 5e.

[Turanil]

Some say the resolution system bears a resemblance

A vague resemblance.

[serleran]

but I don't know, nor care

People still say it.

[Ancalagon]

C&C is my favorite in-print RPG. I heartily recommend you give it a try! I have no desire to send $$$ to WotC for a decade and a half of asshattery.

[BigErn314]

No. It uses the abilities as saves but it lacks the SIEGE system, which I'm am very glad to see. Didn't like that at all. Otherwise its a D20 based system so it has a similar core mechanic in that regard.

[Falconer]

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

No.

[Gold]

The small publisher house that produces C&C, Troll Lord Games, worked with Gary Gygax at the end of EGG's career and published the last RPG he made (Lejendary Adventures if I spell it how it's supposed to be). So it seems EGG was on LA with TLG more-so than on C&C.

[rabindranath72]

No. It uses the abilities as saves but it lacks the SIEGE system, which I'm am very glad to see. Didn't like that at all. Otherwise its a D20 based system so it has a similar core mechanic in that regard.

The biggest offender in C&C in this regard is the saving throw system. It doesn't scale well, it's too harsh, one can lose high level characters easily to a single failed save. Whereas in AD&D high level spells with high output damage (or monsters with powerful effects like breath weapons) were mitigated by good saving throws on the receiving side, in C&C the save depends on the level/hit dice of the adversary, which scales like the receiving end, with the result that a 10th level fighters vs. a 10th level wizard saves like a 1st level fighter. Not bad per se, but it doesn't feel like D&D at all.
A poorly thought out sytem IMO, and even more so seeing that C&C is sold as the "rosetta stone" of RPGs; if you convert a mid to high level d20 D&D or AD&D module, you end up almost certainly with a TPK (it happened to me so many times, that in the end I ditched the game and moved back to AD&D and 3e.)

[rastus_burne]

Some say the resolution system bears a resemblance but I don't know, nor care, because I don't look at 5e.

Then what's the point of responding?

To OP: I would say C&C is a simpler game. The base game of C&C has far less class option than the base of 5e does. 5e has some core mechanics that do not appear in other RPGs, but I would say it's more similar to 3e than 2e.

[Saladman]

It's likely the two games had a similar design goal: find a happy mid point between multiple editions. If so, they came up with very different approaches to the same goal. The games look different to me both in feel (race and class options) and in math (numbers for hit points and damage, abilities gained with level).

A saving throw for every ability score is one similarity. I would speculate the 5e developers did look at C&C.

[pawndream]

I run C&C and have played 5e and in my mind their main similarity is in the use of attributes to figure out saving throws.

Other than that they are two different games which share the basics of D&D: class, race, level, signature spells, etc. Very different games though.

[serleran]

Some say the resolution system bears a resemblance but I don't know, nor care, because I don't look at 5e.

Then what's the point of responding?

To OP: I would say C&C is a simpler game. The base game of C&C has far less class option than the base of 5e does. 5e has some core mechanics that do not appear in other RPGs, but I would say it's more similar to 3e than 2e.

Because I do know others say what they say. Whether I care or how true it may be, is not a concern. Just reporting what some report. Or.... parroting discussion from other places. Like eavesdropping without any leafs.

[Kersus]

The small publisher house that produces C&C, Troll Lord Games, worked with Gary Gygax at the end of EGG's career and published the last RPG he made (Lejendary Adventures if I spell it how it's supposed to be). So it seems EGG was on LA with TLG more-so than on C&C.

Gary wrote some C&C materials as well and was certainly helping to promote the system. I recall some talk that they got advice from him back when it started, but I don't know how much. I found TLG because of LA and only tried C&C because Gary convinced me to do so.

C&C seems to me like 3e with some 1e style.
5e takes 3e and possibly some parts of 4e and streamlines them a bit while adding some grit. I think it's feel is fairly close to C&C but they do have different origins and skill mechanics. I can see where they've tried to add some old-school feel into the system. The starter set was nice. I realized that if I stripped away everything I didn't like, and added what I did like, I ended up with Holmes + some HackMaster 4e bits.

[Tonden Ockay]

Gary wrote some C&C materials as well and was certainly helping to promote the system. I recall some talk that they got advice from him back when it started, but I don't know how much. I found TLG because of LA and only tried C&C because Gary convinced me to do so.

I was going to say that I did ready some where that Gary did help out with C&C. It did not say how much.

[Kersus]

Gary wrote some C&C materials as well and was certainly helping to promote the system. I recall some talk that they got advice from him back when it started, but I don't know how much. I found TLG because of LA and only tried C&C because Gary convinced me to do so.

I was going to say that I did ready some where that Gary did help out with C&C. It did not say how much.

I vaguely recall a conversation with him where he told me that while he was asked for advice on making 3e, they didn't take any of it, and TLG took it for C&C or something to that effect.

[serleran]

I can say this, as I know it to be fact, being firsthand involved directly with the conversations:

Gary had at least input on how the monsters in C&C would be presented. We kept changing and dropping things, re-ordering and the like until he was given a statblock that he liked. He would not do CZ until he had something palatable. Whether there was any more input.... I don't say, but that much is a given, and is irrefutable.

[Gundoggy]

If one doesn't like the saving throw progression in C&C an easy house rule is to use only 1/2 or 2/3 of the attacking party's hit dice, while allowing the saving defender to use their full hit dice. (I personally use values between 2/3 to 3/4...depending on rounding up or down... I adjust it if it seems the PC's are having a too easy or too hard time with saves.) For big bad dragons, consider reducing the save modifier to 1/2 if you want to give PC's a fighting chance.

[GreyLord]

Gary wrote some C&C materials as well and was certainly helping to promote the system. I recall some talk that they got advice from him back when it started, but I don't know how much. I found TLG because of LA and only tried C&C because Gary convinced me to do so.

I was going to say that I did ready some where that Gary did help out with C&C. It did not say how much.

I vaguely recall a conversation with him where he told me that while he was asked for advice on making 3e, they didn't take any of it, and TLG took it for C&C or something to that effect.

I'd like to point out the following IS MY OPINION...

Yes, Gygax seemed to have a LOT of say in regards to C&C. In fact, much of C&C was made expressely for Gygax's Castle Zygag. When Zygag initially came out, it also appeared that Gygax also had a specific view of what he wanted for Multi-classing, but somehow that was ignored/not taken into account/misprinted?/not integrated into the C&C rules correctly. It was there where you can see Gygax's influence not just on C&C, but on the basic rules themselves.

Eventually, Gygax's rules became more of an accepted norm and were written alongside the other Multi-classing rules that others may have wanted more, and now can be found in C&C proper without an extra supplement pushed by Gygax.

There are many aspects from Gygax that I think were probably pushed by him (the stat/ability score bonuses and system, certain class features, etc) and some which I think may not have been (though I could easily be mistaken) in regards to other items (for example, I think the siege system itself was probably not by Gygax).

Talking of the Siege system...

If one doesn't like the saving throw progression in C&C an easy house rule is to use only 1/2 or 2/3 of the attacking party's hit dice, while allowing the saving defender to use their full hit dice. (I personally use values between 2/3 to 3/4...depending on rounding up or down... I adjust it if it seems the PC's are having a too easy or too hard time with saves.) For big bad dragons, consider reducing the save modifier to 1/2 if you want to give PC's a fighting chance.

There were some items I didn't like about the Siege System in regards to saves in many ways. One of the changes I have made is to have Spell saves made with the actual Spell level added instead of character level to determine the difficulty, but the one making the save adds their character level...basically replicating the idea of 1e saves to a degree.

Truthfully, if you want to see a system that partially took ideas from C&C, you probably would look to the core system (so drop the powers/daily/encounter/at-will items) of 4e and it's skill system. That is where you'd probably see it initially and that's where the influence on the 5e way of doing things probably originated from (but obviously evolved greatly since) in the similarities people may see between C&C and 5e. Even with that said, 4e still differed from C&C in many ways, and that holds true for 5e also.

[Turanil]

One of the changes I have made is to have Spell saves made with the actual Spell level added instead of character level to determine the difficulty, but the one making the save adds their character level...

Excellent houserule, and easy to implement!

If I were to expand on it, I would also create a table of CL ranging from +0 to +9, that would be a way of rating "easy" to "very difficult", and that would be used both for other saving throws and skill checks.

[Gundoggy]

Best part of C&C adjust as you wish to get the feel you want!!!

[Urieal]

Best part of C&C adjust as you wish to get the feel you want!!!

That's the best part of any RPG.

[rastus_burne]

Best part of C&C adjust as you wish to get the feel you want!!!

That's the best part of any RPG.

[rabindranath72]

Best part of C&C adjust as you wish to get the feel you want!!!

That's the best part of any RPG.

Indeed.
But having to scrap the fundamental mechanic of the game to make it work...not so fun.

[Omote]

I love the Siege system. So elgant, and easy to make up saving throws and checks on the fly. As the GM, that's the kind of simple brilliance I look for in a fantasy RPG. As most of you know, I am a strong supporter of C&C, but it is true, C&C's saving throw system doesn't scale like AD&D or 2e. I personally appreciate the fact that saving throws in C&C are harder than in their early D&D counterparts. If you like C&C, and want this type of saving throw system, it's uber-simple to house rule:

+1 to all saving throws for every X levels of experience. If you like easier saving throws, perhaps change X to a 2 or a 3. For example: if your character is 3rd level, he adds and additional +1 to all of his saving throw chances; at 6th level and additional +2, and so on. This bonus is in addition to all of the normal bonuses allotted by the C&C rules (attribute bonus, level bonus, etc.)

I followed D&D5s development through the point where it diverged from C&C. I was excited when 5E was going to be more like C&C. But alas, 5E went it's own route and is now only a passing resemblance to C&C. As mentioned above, I think it's clear that the 5E designers seriosuly took a look at the C&C Siege Engine.

~O

[paladinm]

There's an awful lot of things to like about C&C, but the Siege engine isn't one of them. Personally I prefer 5e's attribute-based saves to anything that's gone before. I'm a OSR grognard, but I'd love to fold that (and possibly the spell-slot system) into an OSR game like LL.

Curious.. why do they call it the "Siege engine"?

[rastus_burne]

Curious.. why do they call it the "Siege engine"?

Commodification presumably; to put their ownership on it.

[Bochi]

It's like C&C in that both use attribute checks as a universal skill resolution system and both of them are deliberately streamlined for speed of play (although how far that really works is debatable: there seem to be a variety of views).

But they do it differently and, at root, C&C is a rejection of 3/3.5e mechanics, while 5th Edition tries to bring parts of all previous editions together in order to appeal to a wide range of players with different enthusiasms and gaming histories.