Review of Castles and Crusades Player's Handbook
I’ve never purchased a Troll Lord Games product prior to buying the Castles and Crusades (C&C) Player’s Handbook, and it’s only in the past month or so that I’ve started frequenting RPG forums again, so I wasn’t aware that C&C even existed until recently.
The first thing I noticed was that C&C has a very enthusiastic online community already, and the members of that community aren’t shy about proselytizing the game. C&C was generally depicted to me as a throwback game to earlier editions of Dungeons and Dragons, by virtue of being “rules light” – as opposed to D&D 3.x, which is “rules heavy.”
I don’t know how accurate this view of previous editions of D&D really is. Certainly, the Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters, or Rules Cyclopedia, incarnations of D&D were more rules light than, say, the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (AD&D 1e), with its segment-based-but-abstract initiative, surprise rules that often pitted different die types against each other, weapon modifiers vs. armor types, and other rules that were often disregarded in practice, even by the game’s creators. All incarnations of D&D prior to D&D 3.x relied on combat matrices and lacked a unified mechanic. So, there’s “rules light” by D&D standards and “rules light” by modern standards.
In a nutshell, C&C’s supporters position it as the best of both worlds – the unified d20 mechanic with the “feel” of earlier editions.
This sounded like a good thing to me, so I bought the game.
My biases going in
I’m not an edition warrior. I have played and had fun with all versions of D&D for about 24 years, from my first “Erol Otus” Basic Set up through 3.0. I haven’t played 3.5 but I’m sure I will.
I don’t consider myself a grognard, partly because you don’t get to dub yourself a grognard, and partly because I think real grognards are probably still playing Tractics or whatever it is that real grognards play, not RPGs.
But I’ve played D&D for a long time, and I’ve also played an awful lot of non-D&D games.
I still like AD&D 1e, and I’m currently running a PBEM using that system. Given a choice between playing AD&D 1e or D&D 3.x, I’ll choose AD&D every time.
But, I feel that 3.x is an improvement in many respects. I particularly like the use of the unified mechanic – d20, include modifiers, roll high. I like the fact that things seem playtested.
I don’t particularly care for 3.x’s fetishization of game balance, or the built-in ubiquity and accessibility of magic items, but those are things that are easily fine-tuned by the DM. I don’t like the “dungeonpunk” aesthetic, or the proliferation of dippy prestige classes and templates, but again, easily fixable.
I mostly don’t like the fact that there are few good published adventures for 3.x. I thought Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury were workmanlike but solid, and the other WotC published adventures were not to my liking at all. Third-party adventures have been hit-or-miss.
On the other hand, I’ve already got all the published material I need to run AD&D 1e for years and years, including all of the “classic” modules. I enjoy AD&D 1e. I love the classics. I speak High Gygaxian. But it’s hard to teach to new players, and it’s hard to recruit new players. I’m going to be moving to a very small town in August, and I’d like to run a game, but I recognize that my best chance of doing so is by recruiting for a 3.x game.
I was sympathetic to the idea of a “throwback game,” but skeptical. It’d be nice if there were an updated, streamlined version of AD&D 1e, I reasoned, but I already had the old version without having to spend any money. If this were just repackaged AD&D, it’d be a redundant and useless product for me.
But it was only $20, so I took the plunge. Worst case scenario, I take a small bath on eBay. Best case scenario, I have a 3.x-friendly way to integrate my old materials into a campaign for players who may not have ever played that stuff before.
So, I just want to state up front that I’m a bit biased in favor of older editions, in that I prefer playing them myself but recognize that they’re idiosyncratic and a bit beardy.
The book
Castles and Crusades is produced under the OGL. It’s a relatively thin (128 page) hardback, with a glossy cover. It seems pretty sturdy to me. It doesn’t lay open well on its own, but that’s a minor quibble.
The cover art depicts a knightly type on horseback fighting off some little dragony things with a green-glowing sword. The backdrop is some sort of map, which may be TLG’s house setting Erde, I have no idea. The cover illo and all interiors are by Peter Bradley, giving the game a unified look. I happen to like Peter’s art quite a bit, although it seems like bare midriffs are this generation’s chainmail bikinis. It’s tasteful, though, and in terms of art, I think the book is very solid.
The back cover states “all essential information needed to play a game of Castles & Crusades is in this book.” I’ll address this at the end of the review.
There have been complaints about the layout and font choices. I haven’t had trouble parsing the text or finding things when I want to find them, so I don’t consider the layout a negative. There could be a little more white space, but it’s a very densely packed book, and I have no complaints about the layout.
The editing. Oh, God, the editing.
Okay, I know that many games, including this one, are put out by small companies. Even big companies let errors slip. It happens.
But even by small press gaming product standard, the editing is absolutely atrocious.
First, there’s the proofreading. Reading through the book, I learned to expect at least one spelling error per paragraph. That’s not an exaggeration. I’m not talking about things a spellchecker would miss, either. I’m talking about things like “ttributes” and “individully.” A few of those are OK. But the number of typos in the C&C PHB is comedic, and absolutely inexcusable in a commercial product.
Second, there’s the writing. It’s not bad, by gaming product standards. I think they were making a stab at High Gygaxian in some places – that tortured, purple but evocative style unique to E. Gary Gygax, as exemplified by the AD&D 1e Dungeon Master’s Guide. The writers’ enthusiasm shows, and that more than carries any stylistic deficiencies, in my book, because I don’t expect literature in my gaming books.
Unfortunately, the writing is also sometimes ambiguous, nonsensical, or contradictory. I’ll give some specific examples in the part-by-part review.
My overall impression of the book itself is that it’s a labor of love by very talented “ideas guys.” Love is great, and ideas are great. But professional editing is also great. I can understand the ambiguity and occasional contradiction in a first edition, but a high percentage of the spelling errors should have been caught by even the lowest level of due diligence.
The editing issues are not enough to turn me off of the game. But judging from others’ reaction, the issues are enough to turn some potential buyers off of the game. This level of quality control does not inspire confidence for future products.
The game itself
I’m going to go part-by-part through the book. If there’s something I think is cool, I’ll note it. If there’s something I see as a problem, I’ll try to be specific and suggest a fix.
My entire review assumes familiarity with some incarnation of D&D. I believe that’s a fair assumption.
Introduction
There’s a dedication to Gary Gygax, which I think is nice. I’m not a Gygax fanboy, but I’m not waxing hyperbolic at all when I say that D&D had a profound influence on my life, and I probably chose my education and profession based in large part on the love for reading and writing that D&D encouraged. I don’t know if I “owe” Gygax anything, but I sure as hell recognize his work’s effect on my life. And I love a lot of his work on its own merits. So I think the dedication is a cool move.
The playtesters are also thanked, and if you hang around any of a number of online forums, you’ll recognize many of the nicknames.
There’s a short foreword describing the design philosophy behind C&C. The emphasis is on playability and adaptability. “Start with a firm, square foundation and everything else follows.” What C&C aims for is laid out – a mechanically-solid game, easily be taught to newbies, and easily bashed to specifications.
There’s a “what is roleplaying” section to which I honestly didn’t pay much attention.
C&C uses the spectrum of “D&D” dice.
It’s stated that the “Castle Keeper’s Guide” and “Monsters and Treasures” books will be handy. As I’ll explain, this is a bit of an understatement – or... is it?
Aside – yeah, Castle Keeper. I know some of you out there have used the term “Hollyhock God” self-referentially, so stop snickering.
Attributes
The attributes are the traditional D&D attributes – Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.
The default character generation method for C&C is 3d6, arranged in the order the player chooses, for a range of 3-18. Each attribute can modify tasks positively or negatively. The modifiers are less drastic in either direction than in 3.x – they’re more like 1e, without the weird “exceptional strength” spike in the curve.
I approve heartily of the 3d6 method, as my feeling for most D&D campaigns is that most adventurers are special because of guts, “gameness,” whatever it is that gives them the conviction that a bloody, unmourned death in someone else’s crypt is better than an ignorant, uncelebrated life in someone else’s field. I like characters to be a little spotty. If your tastes differ, it’s easy enough to plug in 4d6-drop-low or something similar.
There’s no built-in advancement mechanism for attribute increase. Attributes can only be increased by extraordinary or magical means – the usual drawing from a deck of cards or putting a magic rock in your mouth.
Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are their usual selves. I have to point out that the whole “military press = STR x 10 lbs” and “deadlift = STR x 20 lbs” may be functional for game purposes, but it’s pretty arbitrary. I’ve deadlifted 360 pounds and I certainly don’t have the mighty thews associated with anything *near* an 18 Strength. On the other hand, adventurers presumably don’t weight train, and the loads they’re lifting in-game are presumably not as symmetrical as an Olympic bar, so it works. It just breaks down the closer you get to 18. Believe me, Conan could deadlift the shit out of 600 pounds, I don’t care if it’s 500 pounds of writhing Stygian gerbils with a 100 pound whore in the middle.
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are handled a bit differently.
Intelligence is supposed to represent education, cognitive ability, deductive logic, and the like.
Wisdom is supposed to represent experience – already a bit of an overlap with another game concept – intuition, and the like. It’s portrayed as sort of a perception stat, but there’s some overlap with Intelligence. Rogues find traps using their Intelligence. Rangers track people using their Wisdom. Most illusions and phantasms are resisted with Intelligence, rather than the more intuitive Wisdom. I don’t know how much of a problem this is in a game where plate mail makes you harder to hit but doesn’t reduce the damage you take when you do get hit, but it’s a bit inconsistent.
Charisma now not only represents personality and personability, but willpower and actual force of personality. I kind of like this, as it keeps Charisma from being the vestigial tail it became in many campaigns. There are some more inconsistencies here, too. For instance, whether clerics can turn undead based on their Wisdom – which is no longer associated with force of will – but the number they turn is based on Charisma. Again, not really a problem, just inconsistent.
Attributes are either Primary or Secondary, and this is where C&C starts looking like its own game, and I really like this mechanic. Essentially, each class has an attribute that’s considered Primary. It’s Strength for fighters, Intelligence for wizards, and so on. This is locked in by class. Human characters select two more Primary attributes, and demihumans select one more, which gives humans a mechanical hook in the absence of level limits.
The main mechanic for C&C is the Attribute Check. To succeed at a task that has a chance of failure, you roll against a base of 12 if the applicable attribute is Primary, and 18 if the applicable Attribute is Secondary. You add or subtract any attribute modifiers, and sometimes your character level, from your roll, and the DM will probably adjust the target number based on the difficulty of the task.
It’s very elegant, and it means that a fighter with average Strength – who has Strength as a Primary attribute by default – will always be better at tasks involving Strength than will be a wizard with very high Strength, who’s unlikely to have selected Strength as a Primary. The fighter is better at throwing around what Strength he’s got. I like this system, and it’s very simple.
The only gripe I have is that instead of Primary/Secondary status affecting the target number, I’d have rather seen it expressed as “+6 if the applicable attribute is Primary.”
Take, for instance, an opposed Strength check. Say your rogue is trying to arm wrestle an orc. Your rogue doesn’t have Strength as Primary, but the orc does. It’s easier to roll opposed Strength checks, with the orc getting his +6 for Primary, than it is to roll against 18 for your rogue and 12 for the orc and figure the difference.
This is easily fixed. Just give everyone a base target number of 18, and characters with a Primary in the applicable attribute get a +6 to their roll.
To check saving throws, class abilities, and basically any other task you attempt under the default system, you roll 1d20, +/- attribute modifiers, [+ level sometimes], against a target number of 12 or 18, +/- whatever modifiers the DM applies. That’s it. It’s very simple and intuitive, and very practical. I really like it, and it’s the centerpiece of the game.
Now, about adding in level to Attribute Checks.
The explanation in the text is maddening. To sum it up, it’s indicated that characters *don’t* add their level to Attribute Checks for “non-class abilities.” But it’s ambiguous whether “non-class ability” means A. “an ability that isn’t one of your class abilities,” or B. “an ability that is one of the class abilities of another class, but not your class.” Furthermore, the examples given show a fighter trying to use the class abilities of a thief, so they’re no clarification – the situations are both A. and B.
My impression is that level gets added in as follows:
1. To all saving throws, which are Attribute Checks.
2. To all checks for class abilities, which are Attribute Checks.
3. To anything else that the character, by DM judgment, should have some sort of facility in doing, due to experience, class, background, etc.
This is the way I’m playing it. I would NOT rule that “any check based on a class Primary” gets the level bonus, because then the Pope is a master tracker.
C&C requires a lot of judgment calls on the DM’s part, so I’m not at all uncomfortable adjudicating on the fly as to what the character should be good at. I am uncomfortable with the ambiguity in the text regarding entry 3 above. “Non-class ability” is an ambiguous construction with definite implications for the central mechanic of the game. Your ruling on this will have huge effects on how the game plays out.
I like the Attribute Check mechanic, and think its simplicity and easy applicability is a huge factor in C&C’s favor, but I would appreciate a clearer presentation in the text as to when level does and doesn’t get added, and perhaps a justification for the Primary adjustment being applied to the target number instead of the roll.
Classes
For the most part, I like the way classes are handled in C&C. If you’re playing some form of D&D, you’re probably already comfortable with a class- and level-based system. C&C is still a class- and level-based system, with all that entails. If you’re not into that sort of thing, spare yourself and everyone else some agony and don’t go near the book.
Levels max out at 12. To be honest, this is not a problem for me, as I favor low-powered campaigns, and it would be easy enough to extrapolate higher levels from the existing tables. Apparently provisions for higher level characters will be made in later books, so by the time I care, the information should be available.
The experience tables for level progression are idiosyncratic, as were the 1e tables. There is no unified table. This may drive you bonkers. Each class has its own progression. In most cases, it’s a “gain as much as you needed for all levels previously” to get to the next level. Sometimes it’s a bit more, and sometimes, as in the case of the assassin’s progression from level 5 to level 6, it’s a bit less. No real rhyme or reason, but whatever. It’s experience points, they don’t really make sense anyway.
There are no multiclassing rules, and without a unified experience progression, you’re not going to be able to use the 3.x system. I’d just use the 1e system for multiclassing and let humans do it, too, instead of the bizarre dual-classing, but you may hate it.
You’ll note as you read that the classes are organized in an odd order.
Fighters. They get weapon specialization, which gives enough of a bonus to be a legitimate class feature but isn’t quite as twinky as AD&D specialization. They get extra attacks against dinky monsters, and eventually extra attacks against everyone – fighters are the only characters other than monks that get additional attacks as their level progresses, and they can do it with any weapon, whereas the monk just gains extra unarmed attacks. The fighter’s BtH (bonus “to hit”) is always the best in the game. These features are unique to the fighter, and are actual mechanical reasons to play a fighter as opposed to a barbarian, monk, or ranger.
Rangers. C&C rangers are the typical lightly-armored fighter-trackers, good at foraging and stealth, etc. There’s no built-in two-weapon fighting or archery ability. Nothing particularly new here.
There are a couple of problems with the ranger.
First, the description of the bard class refers to a secret language of ranger trail signs. Apparently, bards can learn it but rangers can’t (get it? Rangers’ Cant?), because it’s not mentioned under the ranger description. My fix is to use “Glersee” from Hackmaster. This isn’t an option for people who don’t own Hackmaster, but it’s a small matter to handwave – “rangers can leave and read trail signs.” But it should have been in the ranger description.
Second, in the description of divine foci in the magic section, rangers are briefly mentioned as using divine foci to cast spells. The problem is that rangers can’t cast spells.
Rogues. Nothing startling here. Thief abilities are based on Attribute Checks rather than assigned percentages. Backstabbing is back, as opposed to flank- or surprise-based “sneak attacks,” and it uses multipliers instead of extra dice added to damage. The rogue does have a “sneak attack,” but it’s based on the rogue attacking someone in a situation where they don’t expect attack, like walking up to them on the street and shanking them. Kind of neat.
Assassins. Rogue-types, some rogue abilities, disguise, etc. A “death attack” ability that requires observation of the target and is somewhat ambiguous. In one part of the text, it’s stated that the target can’t be aware of the assassin. Another part of the text could imply that the target just can’t be aware of the assassin’s status as a hostile. The way I’d probably run it is that like the rogue’s sneak attack, the assassin can pull it off if the target is merely unaware of impending attack. There are enough extra criteria for the death attack ability to differentiate it from the sneak attack ability, which the assassin also has.
Assassins in C&C don’t have to be evil, just “not good.” Okey-doke.
Assassins have the ability to use poisons, but there are no poisons or rules for poison in the text. The entry under saving throws vs. poison indicates that C&C poison is likely to be much like 3e poison and do ability damage, which is the way I handle poison anyway. I never liked D&D’s tiny spiders full of superbotulism. I’d just assign each poison a challenge class to be added to the target number for the save, and assign it a level of ability damage. But it’s not in the PHB.
Barbarians. Kind of poopy. Good hit dice, Constitution as a class Primary. NO wilderness abilities, so I guess they’re supposed to be more like berserkers than savage warriors. They’re dead hard, especially at high levels, and having one in the party doesn’t mean you have to either ditch the wizard or pretend the barbarian is Lenny from Of Mice and Men.
The actual berserking part seems underpowered, though – a slight mechanical advantage that may or may not be an advantage, may cause you to attack your friends, and penalizes you afterwards for a significant time period. Hardly the kind of ability that causes players to shout “MY LOVE FOR YOU IS TICKING CLOCK, BERSERKER” or make their metal face. I haven’t really thought of a fix for it yet because no one’s asked to play a barbarian, but I’d probably make it more like the 3.x barbarian rage ability.
Clerics. No specialty priests. Straight-up Western armor-wearing mace-toting militant generic clerics. They can use a weapon used by their deity, but are otherwise limited to blunt weapons to “subdue” and “convert” foes, although it’s hard to imagine a mace to the gob being any more conducive to this sort of thing than say a sword in the gut. It’s not really a problem, though, just a quirk of D&D and its descendants that can be easily handwaved – I personally like 3.x’s rule that clerics can use “simple” weapons.
Clerics can turn/destroy undead, and evil clerics can turn/control undead and turn paladins, although one poorly constructed sentence on page 121 suggests that they can control paladins, which seems ludicrous.
Druids. The usual – spells, wild shape, some wilderness abilities. You don’t have to duel to get to high levels. You can’t use “impure” metal weapons like steel or bronze, but can use “pure” metal weapons like iron and copper. However, this isn’t indicated on the weapons list, and there’s no rules for the difference between using a copper weapon and a steel weapon. No one’s playing a druid, so I haven’t had to come up with a fix for this yet, but I’d probably assign a penalty to hit and to damage, and make the weapon less resistant to damage and so on.
You may remember that druids in 1e had quirky level progression – they could cast 3rd level spells at 3rd level, and only needed 90,000 xp to get to 9th level, by far the least of any class. That’s been fixed.
Wizards. The usual. No specialists.
Illusionists. A separate class, like 1e. They get some disguise and sensory powers, which are cool. They get their own spell list, which overlaps a bit with the wizard list.
Illusions are considered to be capable of doing subdual damage. A lot of the illusion entries in the spell section give a save of “Int (if disbelieved).”
I have a couple of problems here that may be unique to me. First of all, what if you illusionarily Fireball a group of people? Do they get an initial saving throw to disbelieve? Or do they just take the full damage? Or do they not get an initial disbelief saving throw, but then get a regular “Fireball” saving throw to take half damage? It’s not clear to me, at all, when potential “disbelief” sets in, other than Knights of the Dinner Table-style shrieks of “I DISBELIEVE!”
The way I do it: any illusion that has a potentially harmful interaction with a target allows an initial save to disbelieve, followed by whatever saving throw would be customary for that effect. Illusionary monsters still have to roll to hit, etc., using the illusionist’s BtH. Otherwise, illusionists can just get by with illusionary versions of wizard spells and “summoning the illusionary Orcus again.” I’d rather they were more subtle, not just fake Fireball platforms. Illusions are versatile, but they shouldn’t match “real spells” in raw power.
Illusions are a bone of contention in many games, though, so this is likely a personal gripe.
Knights. A less munchkin-ed out 1e cavalier. Primary attribute is Charisma, which I really like – C&C knights are leaders and exemplars. They get a riding horse (not a warhorse) on initial character generation, and have various abilities that inspire confidence in allies and demoralize enemies. I like the class.
One ambiguity is that the entry under the description of the knight’s riding horse says that the knight will have problems fighting from the riding horse, but later it’s said that the knight can fight from horseback with no penalty. I just take this to mean that the knight could fight from a trained warhorse with no penalty, but would have a penalty fighting from a riding horse. This may not even be ambiguous to anyone else.
There are no stats for horses in the PHB, and mounted combat is addressed only by penalties for fighting from horseback for non-knight characters.
A typical chivalric code is given, but DMs are encouraged to make up their own. The description of the knight makes him sound like he’s generally courteous, fair, brave, etc., but there are no alignment restrictions, so if you have a Chaotic Evil knight running around, you’ll want to come up with a suitable code. I don’t use alignment in anything but AD&D 1e games, so it hasn’t come up.
Paladins. The usual. Gets a warhorse eventually but not a “pocket warhorse” a la 3.5. Everything else checks off, cure disease, smite evil, laying on hands, etc., but they don’t cast spells.
Bards. I like these bards. They’re not the impossible-to-qualify-for 1e bards, nor are they the vaguely fruity-ass 2e/3e bards. They’re more like Aragorn in The Return of the King movie saying “This day, we fight!” than the guy in Buffy singing “They got the mustard ouuuuttt!” I always vaguely pictured D&D bards popping and locking at the enemy, showing how funky and strong is their fight. C&C bards are more like inspirational orators, and are also competent fighters. They do have some choreographed-musical-number abilities, but it’s not so bad. And they don’t cast spells.
Monks. They’re better than they were in 1e, even though the guy in the picture looks a bit like Mr. Mxyzptlk. Still thematically weird given the rest of the classes. Still a mix of Remo Williams and Grasshopper, complete with Quivering Palm. One thing I like, being a grappler myself, is that wrestling and boxing are actually mentioned as martial arts. Of course, the monk gets no bonus to actually grapple, but the gesture is nice. In my current C&C Greyhawk campaign, only the Scarlet Brotherhood has monks, so I haven’t really considered if the class needs any fixes.
Races
The races are elf, dwarf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, and human.
The racial attribute modifiers for each race are in increments of +/- 1, not 2.
Each race has typical classes. This is not to say “class restrictions,” as there are no built-in racial class restrictions.
I was surprised to see “knight” listed as a typical class for a half-orc. It makes no sense giving the description of the two.
The races seem nicely balanced. Each has a few cool abilities, and most have some modifier to assassin, ranger, or rogue abilities. Some races have something like, say, a +2 to Listen, regardless of their class, and then a +2 to Listen if they’re also a rogue. It’s not explicit that these bonuses stack, but I say they do.
Halflings are hobbits. Half-orcs have a keen sense of smell. Half-elves can take after their human or elven parent. Humans get an extra Primary attribute.
There are five different kinds of racial “infravision” – deepvision, darkvision, duskvision, and twilight vision. This seems a little goofy, but each is described adequately and I have no real problem with it.
It’s not clear if level is added to checks for racial abilities like Move Silently. I say it isn’t, because I don’t want a high-level halfling paladin being as good at sneaking as a master thief. I don’t really want a halfling paladin, anyway.
It’s also not stated that racial abilities like Move Silently are affected by armor, whereas it is explicitly stated for the classes that have Move Silently. I think it’s obvious that they should be affected.
Equipment and Encumbrance
I’m going to address my encumbrance gripes in the equipment section because that’s where they first arise.
Currency follows a “gold piece standard.” I prefer a “copper piece standard,” but that’s a matter of taste.
The equipment lists are reasonably complete, but there are NO descriptions of ANY of the equipment. There are a few pictures of polearms. Weapons are not listed as one- or two-handed in the PHB. Armor is not described.
There are no carrying capacities listed for backpacks, sacks, pouches, etc.
Shields are pretty useless. They give a +1 to AC against a certain number of opponents per round, that’s all. And, as I’ll explain in a moment, their encumbrance often offsets any usefulness, making you easier to hit.
Helms are included, which is cool, given the rule that your head is AC 10 otherwise. But no provision is made for when a shot actually is aimed at your head, and there are no called shot rules. My rule is that a called shot can be made at a +5 modifier, so a called shot to the head makes sense against an otherwise heavily armored opponent. Like the knight on the front cover.
The encumbrance system seems arbitrary and overly punitive
It’s arbitrary in the value assignment. A didgeridoo is apparently less of an encumbrance than a scroll case, while a backpack and a set of bagpipes are fungible.
It’s overly punitive in that it’s VERY easy to become encumbered. Becoming encumbered gives you penalties to ALL physical actions, and to armor class and movement. A typically armored fighter – I’m not talking about 11’ pole and 100 torches guy, I’m talking about a guy in chainmail, with a large steel shield, a longsword, a bow, and some arrows – gets penalties to basically anything he tries to do.
I can buy this, although it’s a little harsh to me. But an otherwise naked guy carrying 5 pieces of chalk in each hand is also encumbered. That’s loony.
To be fair, the rules suggest only using encumbrance in situations where it really matters. But as the text admits, those situations “inevitably arise,” and then you have a kludgy system in place to handle them. If you’re going to use encumbrance, I can virtually guarantee that you’ll house rule at least some part of this system.
Now, shields. Any decent shield has a good possibility of moving you up into a higher encumbrance category. It only gives you a +1 to AC against a limited number of opponents. So if you have two average and otherwise identical fighters, both on the high end of an encumbrance category, and give one a large shield, he doesn’t get ANY HARDER TO HIT against ANYONE than the fighter without the shield. And against opponents past a certain number, he gets easier to hit.
There are house rules to fix this, and the encumbrance issue, but they’re a bit lengthy to add in an already lengthy review. If you really want to know the system I’m using, I’ll be happy to discuss it in the forums.
Magic
The magic system is the usual Vancian D&D spell memorization system. Clerics and druids pray, wizards and illusionists study spellbooks.
If your concentration is disrupted while casting a spell, say by taking damage, you lose the spell. However, there’s no mechanic described for this. I’d require an Attribute Check, including level, with the target number increased by the amount of damage suffered.
There’s a spell resistance mechanic, where you roll a d20 to try to beat the spell resistance, but it’s not clear whether you add level to the roll. I’d say you should, as it seems like a 12th level wizards should have a better chance of penetrating spell resistance than a 1st level wizard.
The spell lists are fine and relatively complete, although some of the spells have been given new names like “Divination Provides,” ostensibly to separate the spell “Divination” from the spell type “divination,” although in a game where level refers to everything from spell power to depth of dungeon, I hardly see how this is a problem.
Some spells age the caster, a la AD&D. I like this.
The format is a bit cluttered – instead of the little layout at the head of each spell listing casting time, etc., there’s a single line at the end of the spell. Since this let them cram in an awful lot of spells for a 128 page book, I’m fine with it.
If you’re familiar with D&D spellcasting, nothing here will surprise you.
One thing that bugs me – divine spellcasters use divine foci. This is usual for D&D type games, and the focus is usually a holy symbol, or in the case of druids, mistletoe or some similar shrubbery. Same here. However, for some reason, they’ve put in the rule that each spell that requires a reusable divine focus requires a *different* divine focus. OK, so maybe your cleric has 12 different holy symbols, or little reliquaries or something. But druids use mistletoe. Do druids have little bandoliers with color-coded sprigs of mistletoe for each spell? Just weird. My rule is that you can use your holy symbol or mistletoe sprig for any spell requiring an unspecified divine focus. I’d have the mistletoe rot occasionally because harvesting greater mistletoe has always been fun.
Castle Keeper’s sections
Mood
There’s a bit here about striking the proper mood, and it seems like good advice to me. Basically, you should make decisions quickly enough to keep the game flowing, and look at the rules as tools, not straitjackets. It’s nice to see tinkering explicitly encouraged.
It’s also suggested that rolls only be made for things that have a significant chance of failure. Again, nice to see, no “I’m *roll* pleased to meet you.”
Combat
Combat is quite simple, and revolves around the Attribute Check. There are modifiers listed, but the system is very fast-paced and narrative-oriented. No 5’ steps, Attacks of Opportunity, etc. I never had a real problem with Attacks of Opportunity, but they seem to be the objects of some rancor, so if you hate them, well, they’re gone.
Surprise is essentially based on the highest Wisdom in the group. This one is on my “watch” list, but it seems all right. Maybe guys with high Wisdom *should* be very hard to surprise, and ostensibly they could warn their fellows. If you don’t like groups with clerics being impossible to surprise, just roll for each individual character. There’s no provision for reflexes, though.
As you might expect in a “rules light” system, there isn’t a rule for everything. The DM is expected to come up with a lot of answers on his own. I actually like this approach a lot.
Subdual damage is included, including striking with the flat of the blade, but there aren’t any penalties outlined for doing so. I don’t know if you’ve ever been whacked real hard with a stick, but I can tell you, if getting hit with a mace is worse, then that ain’t subdual damage.
It looks like the combat system will fly compared to 3.x, where combats involving opponents with a lot of skills, feats, and special abilities take a looong time.
Experience
Some suggestions for criteria by which to award experience are provided, but no firm calculus. I usually just award what I feel like awarding, and I’m sure a system will be provided in the DM book, so no big deal. It’s usual for a “three book system” not to have experience rules in the PHB.
Leveling = training for a number of weeks, although without the inflationary gold expenditure of 1e.
Miscellaneous stuff
It looks like, by the light source table, that magical swords and “daggars” are going to glow by default again.
There’s some stuff here about party balance, a la the cool “Successful Adventuring” essay on p. 107 of the 1e PHB.
Age tables are given, and some spells nominally penalize you by aging you, but no concrete effects of aging are provided.
There’s a list of upcoming releases, including a lot of modules and a 7-part “real” Castle Greyhawk, er, Zagyg, by Gygax himself. It’s a sign of my dorkiness that I’ve been waiting over half my life for the “real” Castle Greyhawk, even if I never get to run it. I just want the damned thing. But as a 7-parter by Gygax through a small press? That, unfortunately, sounds like a recipe for vaporware if I’ve ever heard one.
******
Okay, that’s my take on the product.
I’d like to make something very clear here, because I’m sure I came off as overly snarky about the game, and I don’t want there to be any mistaken impressions.
I *like* this game. I will probably plug the C&C PHB right into the slot my AD&D 1e PHB used to fill. I doubt, after my current 1e PBEM has run its course, that I will ever play straight-up AD&D again. I’ll play C&C when I can, and 3.x when it’s the only game in town.
The mechanics are excellent. The game is excellent. I consider myself to have received my $20 and more, and I will buy more C&C products. I would come to your house and physically whip your ass with a board if necessary for a copy of Castle Zagyg.
I also like the Troll Lords. They’re gamer’s gamers, and they’re pleasant and forthright.
But the quality control is simply bad, no way to say it nicely.
If you’re looking for a good gaming product, this is it. The ideas are great, the passion is there, the execution is lacking.
Now, as for it being a complete game – not by any stretch of the imagination. You will not play a complete game of C&C using just the PHB. If you’re playing anything like a traditional FRPG campaign, you will need additional information on monsters, magic items, poison, effects of aging, experience, and the like from *somewhere*.
I’m using mostly AD&D, as C&C really does convert to and from 1e on the fly with very little effort. I’m using 3.x for some things, like poison.
It’s tough for me to explain how nice it is to be able to use my beloved AD&D products, warts and all, with a more modern engine. For monsters, you essentially flip the armor class, make a couple of minor adjustments, and you’re done. The monster’s hit dice will generally be added to the target number to resist any of its abilities. For traps, you just decide what level the guy was who set the trap, and add that to the target number to detect or remove.
Assuming you share a common language, you can teach the basics of the game to a total newbie and have a character generated, ready to enter the Caves of Chaos, in about a half hour. That is no exaggeration.
The combination of “easy conversion” and “easy explanation” is a gift beyond price for me. I like AD&D 1e, but “high is good for hitting things but bad for armor class” is not intuitive for new players, and don’t get me started on initiative and spellcasting in by-the-book AD&D 1e. Similarly, character generation and combat in 3.x can be quite confusing for newbies, I don’t like the published adventures as well, and I dislike half-page stat blocks.
My bottom line on the product is that on balance, it’s my favorite product that I’ve purchased in some time (granted, I haven’t bought WFRP 2e yet). I am a loyal and diehard fan of the game as of the day I bought it. If you ask me, “is Castles and Crusades a great game?” my answer is a yes. But as of right now, you need more to play it than what you get. I’m personally using AD&D, but if you don’t have stacks of AD&D stuff, you may be bitter about the amount of work you have to do.
I’d rather people didn’t buy the game expecting something they’re not going to get. Someone who doesn’t buy your game is a zero, but someone who buys your game, is disappointed, and tells all his friends not to buy it is a negative.
It’s not a complete game, nor a polished game. But I consider it my best gaming purchase in a long time.
I’ve given the PHB a “5” for Substance, because I’m so pleased with the game I got. I’d give it a “1” for Style because of the horrible editing, but Peter Bradley’s art is beautiful and the book is a physically sturdy product, which elevates it to a “2”.
Hopefully someone will find this useful. I’ll be happy to address any questions or concerns about my opinions, as it’s possible I got something wrong.
Here are some URLs you may find useful:
Troll Lord Games C&C home page:
http://www.castlesandcrusades.com/candc.htm
C&C errata:
trolllord.com/files/errata.pdf
Dragonsfoot forums, devoted to OOP incarnations of D&D. There’s a C&C forum there.
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/
Troll Lord Games forums
http://p075.ezboard.com/btrolllordgames
The Keeper’s Den C&C forums
http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=d6fantasy
The first thing I noticed was that C&C has a very enthusiastic online community already, and the members of that community aren’t shy about proselytizing the game. C&C was generally depicted to me as a throwback game to earlier editions of Dungeons and Dragons, by virtue of being “rules light” – as opposed to D&D 3.x, which is “rules heavy.”
I don’t know how accurate this view of previous editions of D&D really is. Certainly, the Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters, or Rules Cyclopedia, incarnations of D&D were more rules light than, say, the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (AD&D 1e), with its segment-based-but-abstract initiative, surprise rules that often pitted different die types against each other, weapon modifiers vs. armor types, and other rules that were often disregarded in practice, even by the game’s creators. All incarnations of D&D prior to D&D 3.x relied on combat matrices and lacked a unified mechanic. So, there’s “rules light” by D&D standards and “rules light” by modern standards.
In a nutshell, C&C’s supporters position it as the best of both worlds – the unified d20 mechanic with the “feel” of earlier editions.
This sounded like a good thing to me, so I bought the game.
My biases going in
I’m not an edition warrior. I have played and had fun with all versions of D&D for about 24 years, from my first “Erol Otus” Basic Set up through 3.0. I haven’t played 3.5 but I’m sure I will.
I don’t consider myself a grognard, partly because you don’t get to dub yourself a grognard, and partly because I think real grognards are probably still playing Tractics or whatever it is that real grognards play, not RPGs.
But I’ve played D&D for a long time, and I’ve also played an awful lot of non-D&D games.
I still like AD&D 1e, and I’m currently running a PBEM using that system. Given a choice between playing AD&D 1e or D&D 3.x, I’ll choose AD&D every time.
But, I feel that 3.x is an improvement in many respects. I particularly like the use of the unified mechanic – d20, include modifiers, roll high. I like the fact that things seem playtested.
I don’t particularly care for 3.x’s fetishization of game balance, or the built-in ubiquity and accessibility of magic items, but those are things that are easily fine-tuned by the DM. I don’t like the “dungeonpunk” aesthetic, or the proliferation of dippy prestige classes and templates, but again, easily fixable.
I mostly don’t like the fact that there are few good published adventures for 3.x. I thought Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury were workmanlike but solid, and the other WotC published adventures were not to my liking at all. Third-party adventures have been hit-or-miss.
On the other hand, I’ve already got all the published material I need to run AD&D 1e for years and years, including all of the “classic” modules. I enjoy AD&D 1e. I love the classics. I speak High Gygaxian. But it’s hard to teach to new players, and it’s hard to recruit new players. I’m going to be moving to a very small town in August, and I’d like to run a game, but I recognize that my best chance of doing so is by recruiting for a 3.x game.
I was sympathetic to the idea of a “throwback game,” but skeptical. It’d be nice if there were an updated, streamlined version of AD&D 1e, I reasoned, but I already had the old version without having to spend any money. If this were just repackaged AD&D, it’d be a redundant and useless product for me.
But it was only $20, so I took the plunge. Worst case scenario, I take a small bath on eBay. Best case scenario, I have a 3.x-friendly way to integrate my old materials into a campaign for players who may not have ever played that stuff before.
So, I just want to state up front that I’m a bit biased in favor of older editions, in that I prefer playing them myself but recognize that they’re idiosyncratic and a bit beardy.
The book
Castles and Crusades is produced under the OGL. It’s a relatively thin (128 page) hardback, with a glossy cover. It seems pretty sturdy to me. It doesn’t lay open well on its own, but that’s a minor quibble.
The cover art depicts a knightly type on horseback fighting off some little dragony things with a green-glowing sword. The backdrop is some sort of map, which may be TLG’s house setting Erde, I have no idea. The cover illo and all interiors are by Peter Bradley, giving the game a unified look. I happen to like Peter’s art quite a bit, although it seems like bare midriffs are this generation’s chainmail bikinis. It’s tasteful, though, and in terms of art, I think the book is very solid.
The back cover states “all essential information needed to play a game of Castles & Crusades is in this book.” I’ll address this at the end of the review.
There have been complaints about the layout and font choices. I haven’t had trouble parsing the text or finding things when I want to find them, so I don’t consider the layout a negative. There could be a little more white space, but it’s a very densely packed book, and I have no complaints about the layout.
The editing. Oh, God, the editing.
Okay, I know that many games, including this one, are put out by small companies. Even big companies let errors slip. It happens.
But even by small press gaming product standard, the editing is absolutely atrocious.
First, there’s the proofreading. Reading through the book, I learned to expect at least one spelling error per paragraph. That’s not an exaggeration. I’m not talking about things a spellchecker would miss, either. I’m talking about things like “ttributes” and “individully.” A few of those are OK. But the number of typos in the C&C PHB is comedic, and absolutely inexcusable in a commercial product.
Second, there’s the writing. It’s not bad, by gaming product standards. I think they were making a stab at High Gygaxian in some places – that tortured, purple but evocative style unique to E. Gary Gygax, as exemplified by the AD&D 1e Dungeon Master’s Guide. The writers’ enthusiasm shows, and that more than carries any stylistic deficiencies, in my book, because I don’t expect literature in my gaming books.
Unfortunately, the writing is also sometimes ambiguous, nonsensical, or contradictory. I’ll give some specific examples in the part-by-part review.
My overall impression of the book itself is that it’s a labor of love by very talented “ideas guys.” Love is great, and ideas are great. But professional editing is also great. I can understand the ambiguity and occasional contradiction in a first edition, but a high percentage of the spelling errors should have been caught by even the lowest level of due diligence.
The editing issues are not enough to turn me off of the game. But judging from others’ reaction, the issues are enough to turn some potential buyers off of the game. This level of quality control does not inspire confidence for future products.
The game itself
I’m going to go part-by-part through the book. If there’s something I think is cool, I’ll note it. If there’s something I see as a problem, I’ll try to be specific and suggest a fix.
My entire review assumes familiarity with some incarnation of D&D. I believe that’s a fair assumption.
Introduction
There’s a dedication to Gary Gygax, which I think is nice. I’m not a Gygax fanboy, but I’m not waxing hyperbolic at all when I say that D&D had a profound influence on my life, and I probably chose my education and profession based in large part on the love for reading and writing that D&D encouraged. I don’t know if I “owe” Gygax anything, but I sure as hell recognize his work’s effect on my life. And I love a lot of his work on its own merits. So I think the dedication is a cool move.
The playtesters are also thanked, and if you hang around any of a number of online forums, you’ll recognize many of the nicknames.
There’s a short foreword describing the design philosophy behind C&C. The emphasis is on playability and adaptability. “Start with a firm, square foundation and everything else follows.” What C&C aims for is laid out – a mechanically-solid game, easily be taught to newbies, and easily bashed to specifications.
There’s a “what is roleplaying” section to which I honestly didn’t pay much attention.
C&C uses the spectrum of “D&D” dice.
It’s stated that the “Castle Keeper’s Guide” and “Monsters and Treasures” books will be handy. As I’ll explain, this is a bit of an understatement – or... is it?
Aside – yeah, Castle Keeper. I know some of you out there have used the term “Hollyhock God” self-referentially, so stop snickering.
Attributes
The attributes are the traditional D&D attributes – Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.
The default character generation method for C&C is 3d6, arranged in the order the player chooses, for a range of 3-18. Each attribute can modify tasks positively or negatively. The modifiers are less drastic in either direction than in 3.x – they’re more like 1e, without the weird “exceptional strength” spike in the curve.
I approve heartily of the 3d6 method, as my feeling for most D&D campaigns is that most adventurers are special because of guts, “gameness,” whatever it is that gives them the conviction that a bloody, unmourned death in someone else’s crypt is better than an ignorant, uncelebrated life in someone else’s field. I like characters to be a little spotty. If your tastes differ, it’s easy enough to plug in 4d6-drop-low or something similar.
There’s no built-in advancement mechanism for attribute increase. Attributes can only be increased by extraordinary or magical means – the usual drawing from a deck of cards or putting a magic rock in your mouth.
Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are their usual selves. I have to point out that the whole “military press = STR x 10 lbs” and “deadlift = STR x 20 lbs” may be functional for game purposes, but it’s pretty arbitrary. I’ve deadlifted 360 pounds and I certainly don’t have the mighty thews associated with anything *near* an 18 Strength. On the other hand, adventurers presumably don’t weight train, and the loads they’re lifting in-game are presumably not as symmetrical as an Olympic bar, so it works. It just breaks down the closer you get to 18. Believe me, Conan could deadlift the shit out of 600 pounds, I don’t care if it’s 500 pounds of writhing Stygian gerbils with a 100 pound whore in the middle.
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are handled a bit differently.
Intelligence is supposed to represent education, cognitive ability, deductive logic, and the like.
Wisdom is supposed to represent experience – already a bit of an overlap with another game concept – intuition, and the like. It’s portrayed as sort of a perception stat, but there’s some overlap with Intelligence. Rogues find traps using their Intelligence. Rangers track people using their Wisdom. Most illusions and phantasms are resisted with Intelligence, rather than the more intuitive Wisdom. I don’t know how much of a problem this is in a game where plate mail makes you harder to hit but doesn’t reduce the damage you take when you do get hit, but it’s a bit inconsistent.
Charisma now not only represents personality and personability, but willpower and actual force of personality. I kind of like this, as it keeps Charisma from being the vestigial tail it became in many campaigns. There are some more inconsistencies here, too. For instance, whether clerics can turn undead based on their Wisdom – which is no longer associated with force of will – but the number they turn is based on Charisma. Again, not really a problem, just inconsistent.
Attributes are either Primary or Secondary, and this is where C&C starts looking like its own game, and I really like this mechanic. Essentially, each class has an attribute that’s considered Primary. It’s Strength for fighters, Intelligence for wizards, and so on. This is locked in by class. Human characters select two more Primary attributes, and demihumans select one more, which gives humans a mechanical hook in the absence of level limits.
The main mechanic for C&C is the Attribute Check. To succeed at a task that has a chance of failure, you roll against a base of 12 if the applicable attribute is Primary, and 18 if the applicable Attribute is Secondary. You add or subtract any attribute modifiers, and sometimes your character level, from your roll, and the DM will probably adjust the target number based on the difficulty of the task.
It’s very elegant, and it means that a fighter with average Strength – who has Strength as a Primary attribute by default – will always be better at tasks involving Strength than will be a wizard with very high Strength, who’s unlikely to have selected Strength as a Primary. The fighter is better at throwing around what Strength he’s got. I like this system, and it’s very simple.
The only gripe I have is that instead of Primary/Secondary status affecting the target number, I’d have rather seen it expressed as “+6 if the applicable attribute is Primary.”
Take, for instance, an opposed Strength check. Say your rogue is trying to arm wrestle an orc. Your rogue doesn’t have Strength as Primary, but the orc does. It’s easier to roll opposed Strength checks, with the orc getting his +6 for Primary, than it is to roll against 18 for your rogue and 12 for the orc and figure the difference.
This is easily fixed. Just give everyone a base target number of 18, and characters with a Primary in the applicable attribute get a +6 to their roll.
To check saving throws, class abilities, and basically any other task you attempt under the default system, you roll 1d20, +/- attribute modifiers, [+ level sometimes], against a target number of 12 or 18, +/- whatever modifiers the DM applies. That’s it. It’s very simple and intuitive, and very practical. I really like it, and it’s the centerpiece of the game.
Now, about adding in level to Attribute Checks.
The explanation in the text is maddening. To sum it up, it’s indicated that characters *don’t* add their level to Attribute Checks for “non-class abilities.” But it’s ambiguous whether “non-class ability” means A. “an ability that isn’t one of your class abilities,” or B. “an ability that is one of the class abilities of another class, but not your class.” Furthermore, the examples given show a fighter trying to use the class abilities of a thief, so they’re no clarification – the situations are both A. and B.
My impression is that level gets added in as follows:
1. To all saving throws, which are Attribute Checks.
2. To all checks for class abilities, which are Attribute Checks.
3. To anything else that the character, by DM judgment, should have some sort of facility in doing, due to experience, class, background, etc.
This is the way I’m playing it. I would NOT rule that “any check based on a class Primary” gets the level bonus, because then the Pope is a master tracker.
C&C requires a lot of judgment calls on the DM’s part, so I’m not at all uncomfortable adjudicating on the fly as to what the character should be good at. I am uncomfortable with the ambiguity in the text regarding entry 3 above. “Non-class ability” is an ambiguous construction with definite implications for the central mechanic of the game. Your ruling on this will have huge effects on how the game plays out.
I like the Attribute Check mechanic, and think its simplicity and easy applicability is a huge factor in C&C’s favor, but I would appreciate a clearer presentation in the text as to when level does and doesn’t get added, and perhaps a justification for the Primary adjustment being applied to the target number instead of the roll.
Classes
For the most part, I like the way classes are handled in C&C. If you’re playing some form of D&D, you’re probably already comfortable with a class- and level-based system. C&C is still a class- and level-based system, with all that entails. If you’re not into that sort of thing, spare yourself and everyone else some agony and don’t go near the book.
Levels max out at 12. To be honest, this is not a problem for me, as I favor low-powered campaigns, and it would be easy enough to extrapolate higher levels from the existing tables. Apparently provisions for higher level characters will be made in later books, so by the time I care, the information should be available.
The experience tables for level progression are idiosyncratic, as were the 1e tables. There is no unified table. This may drive you bonkers. Each class has its own progression. In most cases, it’s a “gain as much as you needed for all levels previously” to get to the next level. Sometimes it’s a bit more, and sometimes, as in the case of the assassin’s progression from level 5 to level 6, it’s a bit less. No real rhyme or reason, but whatever. It’s experience points, they don’t really make sense anyway.
There are no multiclassing rules, and without a unified experience progression, you’re not going to be able to use the 3.x system. I’d just use the 1e system for multiclassing and let humans do it, too, instead of the bizarre dual-classing, but you may hate it.
You’ll note as you read that the classes are organized in an odd order.
Fighters. They get weapon specialization, which gives enough of a bonus to be a legitimate class feature but isn’t quite as twinky as AD&D specialization. They get extra attacks against dinky monsters, and eventually extra attacks against everyone – fighters are the only characters other than monks that get additional attacks as their level progresses, and they can do it with any weapon, whereas the monk just gains extra unarmed attacks. The fighter’s BtH (bonus “to hit”) is always the best in the game. These features are unique to the fighter, and are actual mechanical reasons to play a fighter as opposed to a barbarian, monk, or ranger.
Rangers. C&C rangers are the typical lightly-armored fighter-trackers, good at foraging and stealth, etc. There’s no built-in two-weapon fighting or archery ability. Nothing particularly new here.
There are a couple of problems with the ranger.
First, the description of the bard class refers to a secret language of ranger trail signs. Apparently, bards can learn it but rangers can’t (get it? Rangers’ Cant?), because it’s not mentioned under the ranger description. My fix is to use “Glersee” from Hackmaster. This isn’t an option for people who don’t own Hackmaster, but it’s a small matter to handwave – “rangers can leave and read trail signs.” But it should have been in the ranger description.
Second, in the description of divine foci in the magic section, rangers are briefly mentioned as using divine foci to cast spells. The problem is that rangers can’t cast spells.
Rogues. Nothing startling here. Thief abilities are based on Attribute Checks rather than assigned percentages. Backstabbing is back, as opposed to flank- or surprise-based “sneak attacks,” and it uses multipliers instead of extra dice added to damage. The rogue does have a “sneak attack,” but it’s based on the rogue attacking someone in a situation where they don’t expect attack, like walking up to them on the street and shanking them. Kind of neat.
Assassins. Rogue-types, some rogue abilities, disguise, etc. A “death attack” ability that requires observation of the target and is somewhat ambiguous. In one part of the text, it’s stated that the target can’t be aware of the assassin. Another part of the text could imply that the target just can’t be aware of the assassin’s status as a hostile. The way I’d probably run it is that like the rogue’s sneak attack, the assassin can pull it off if the target is merely unaware of impending attack. There are enough extra criteria for the death attack ability to differentiate it from the sneak attack ability, which the assassin also has.
Assassins in C&C don’t have to be evil, just “not good.” Okey-doke.
Assassins have the ability to use poisons, but there are no poisons or rules for poison in the text. The entry under saving throws vs. poison indicates that C&C poison is likely to be much like 3e poison and do ability damage, which is the way I handle poison anyway. I never liked D&D’s tiny spiders full of superbotulism. I’d just assign each poison a challenge class to be added to the target number for the save, and assign it a level of ability damage. But it’s not in the PHB.
Barbarians. Kind of poopy. Good hit dice, Constitution as a class Primary. NO wilderness abilities, so I guess they’re supposed to be more like berserkers than savage warriors. They’re dead hard, especially at high levels, and having one in the party doesn’t mean you have to either ditch the wizard or pretend the barbarian is Lenny from Of Mice and Men.
The actual berserking part seems underpowered, though – a slight mechanical advantage that may or may not be an advantage, may cause you to attack your friends, and penalizes you afterwards for a significant time period. Hardly the kind of ability that causes players to shout “MY LOVE FOR YOU IS TICKING CLOCK, BERSERKER” or make their metal face. I haven’t really thought of a fix for it yet because no one’s asked to play a barbarian, but I’d probably make it more like the 3.x barbarian rage ability.
Clerics. No specialty priests. Straight-up Western armor-wearing mace-toting militant generic clerics. They can use a weapon used by their deity, but are otherwise limited to blunt weapons to “subdue” and “convert” foes, although it’s hard to imagine a mace to the gob being any more conducive to this sort of thing than say a sword in the gut. It’s not really a problem, though, just a quirk of D&D and its descendants that can be easily handwaved – I personally like 3.x’s rule that clerics can use “simple” weapons.
Clerics can turn/destroy undead, and evil clerics can turn/control undead and turn paladins, although one poorly constructed sentence on page 121 suggests that they can control paladins, which seems ludicrous.
Druids. The usual – spells, wild shape, some wilderness abilities. You don’t have to duel to get to high levels. You can’t use “impure” metal weapons like steel or bronze, but can use “pure” metal weapons like iron and copper. However, this isn’t indicated on the weapons list, and there’s no rules for the difference between using a copper weapon and a steel weapon. No one’s playing a druid, so I haven’t had to come up with a fix for this yet, but I’d probably assign a penalty to hit and to damage, and make the weapon less resistant to damage and so on.
You may remember that druids in 1e had quirky level progression – they could cast 3rd level spells at 3rd level, and only needed 90,000 xp to get to 9th level, by far the least of any class. That’s been fixed.
Wizards. The usual. No specialists.
Illusionists. A separate class, like 1e. They get some disguise and sensory powers, which are cool. They get their own spell list, which overlaps a bit with the wizard list.
Illusions are considered to be capable of doing subdual damage. A lot of the illusion entries in the spell section give a save of “Int (if disbelieved).”
I have a couple of problems here that may be unique to me. First of all, what if you illusionarily Fireball a group of people? Do they get an initial saving throw to disbelieve? Or do they just take the full damage? Or do they not get an initial disbelief saving throw, but then get a regular “Fireball” saving throw to take half damage? It’s not clear to me, at all, when potential “disbelief” sets in, other than Knights of the Dinner Table-style shrieks of “I DISBELIEVE!”
The way I do it: any illusion that has a potentially harmful interaction with a target allows an initial save to disbelieve, followed by whatever saving throw would be customary for that effect. Illusionary monsters still have to roll to hit, etc., using the illusionist’s BtH. Otherwise, illusionists can just get by with illusionary versions of wizard spells and “summoning the illusionary Orcus again.” I’d rather they were more subtle, not just fake Fireball platforms. Illusions are versatile, but they shouldn’t match “real spells” in raw power.
Illusions are a bone of contention in many games, though, so this is likely a personal gripe.
Knights. A less munchkin-ed out 1e cavalier. Primary attribute is Charisma, which I really like – C&C knights are leaders and exemplars. They get a riding horse (not a warhorse) on initial character generation, and have various abilities that inspire confidence in allies and demoralize enemies. I like the class.
One ambiguity is that the entry under the description of the knight’s riding horse says that the knight will have problems fighting from the riding horse, but later it’s said that the knight can fight from horseback with no penalty. I just take this to mean that the knight could fight from a trained warhorse with no penalty, but would have a penalty fighting from a riding horse. This may not even be ambiguous to anyone else.
There are no stats for horses in the PHB, and mounted combat is addressed only by penalties for fighting from horseback for non-knight characters.
A typical chivalric code is given, but DMs are encouraged to make up their own. The description of the knight makes him sound like he’s generally courteous, fair, brave, etc., but there are no alignment restrictions, so if you have a Chaotic Evil knight running around, you’ll want to come up with a suitable code. I don’t use alignment in anything but AD&D 1e games, so it hasn’t come up.
Paladins. The usual. Gets a warhorse eventually but not a “pocket warhorse” a la 3.5. Everything else checks off, cure disease, smite evil, laying on hands, etc., but they don’t cast spells.
Bards. I like these bards. They’re not the impossible-to-qualify-for 1e bards, nor are they the vaguely fruity-ass 2e/3e bards. They’re more like Aragorn in The Return of the King movie saying “This day, we fight!” than the guy in Buffy singing “They got the mustard ouuuuttt!” I always vaguely pictured D&D bards popping and locking at the enemy, showing how funky and strong is their fight. C&C bards are more like inspirational orators, and are also competent fighters. They do have some choreographed-musical-number abilities, but it’s not so bad. And they don’t cast spells.
Monks. They’re better than they were in 1e, even though the guy in the picture looks a bit like Mr. Mxyzptlk. Still thematically weird given the rest of the classes. Still a mix of Remo Williams and Grasshopper, complete with Quivering Palm. One thing I like, being a grappler myself, is that wrestling and boxing are actually mentioned as martial arts. Of course, the monk gets no bonus to actually grapple, but the gesture is nice. In my current C&C Greyhawk campaign, only the Scarlet Brotherhood has monks, so I haven’t really considered if the class needs any fixes.
Races
The races are elf, dwarf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, and human.
The racial attribute modifiers for each race are in increments of +/- 1, not 2.
Each race has typical classes. This is not to say “class restrictions,” as there are no built-in racial class restrictions.
I was surprised to see “knight” listed as a typical class for a half-orc. It makes no sense giving the description of the two.
The races seem nicely balanced. Each has a few cool abilities, and most have some modifier to assassin, ranger, or rogue abilities. Some races have something like, say, a +2 to Listen, regardless of their class, and then a +2 to Listen if they’re also a rogue. It’s not explicit that these bonuses stack, but I say they do.
Halflings are hobbits. Half-orcs have a keen sense of smell. Half-elves can take after their human or elven parent. Humans get an extra Primary attribute.
There are five different kinds of racial “infravision” – deepvision, darkvision, duskvision, and twilight vision. This seems a little goofy, but each is described adequately and I have no real problem with it.
It’s not clear if level is added to checks for racial abilities like Move Silently. I say it isn’t, because I don’t want a high-level halfling paladin being as good at sneaking as a master thief. I don’t really want a halfling paladin, anyway.
It’s also not stated that racial abilities like Move Silently are affected by armor, whereas it is explicitly stated for the classes that have Move Silently. I think it’s obvious that they should be affected.
Equipment and Encumbrance
I’m going to address my encumbrance gripes in the equipment section because that’s where they first arise.
Currency follows a “gold piece standard.” I prefer a “copper piece standard,” but that’s a matter of taste.
The equipment lists are reasonably complete, but there are NO descriptions of ANY of the equipment. There are a few pictures of polearms. Weapons are not listed as one- or two-handed in the PHB. Armor is not described.
There are no carrying capacities listed for backpacks, sacks, pouches, etc.
Shields are pretty useless. They give a +1 to AC against a certain number of opponents per round, that’s all. And, as I’ll explain in a moment, their encumbrance often offsets any usefulness, making you easier to hit.
Helms are included, which is cool, given the rule that your head is AC 10 otherwise. But no provision is made for when a shot actually is aimed at your head, and there are no called shot rules. My rule is that a called shot can be made at a +5 modifier, so a called shot to the head makes sense against an otherwise heavily armored opponent. Like the knight on the front cover.
The encumbrance system seems arbitrary and overly punitive
It’s arbitrary in the value assignment. A didgeridoo is apparently less of an encumbrance than a scroll case, while a backpack and a set of bagpipes are fungible.
It’s overly punitive in that it’s VERY easy to become encumbered. Becoming encumbered gives you penalties to ALL physical actions, and to armor class and movement. A typically armored fighter – I’m not talking about 11’ pole and 100 torches guy, I’m talking about a guy in chainmail, with a large steel shield, a longsword, a bow, and some arrows – gets penalties to basically anything he tries to do.
I can buy this, although it’s a little harsh to me. But an otherwise naked guy carrying 5 pieces of chalk in each hand is also encumbered. That’s loony.
To be fair, the rules suggest only using encumbrance in situations where it really matters. But as the text admits, those situations “inevitably arise,” and then you have a kludgy system in place to handle them. If you’re going to use encumbrance, I can virtually guarantee that you’ll house rule at least some part of this system.
Now, shields. Any decent shield has a good possibility of moving you up into a higher encumbrance category. It only gives you a +1 to AC against a limited number of opponents. So if you have two average and otherwise identical fighters, both on the high end of an encumbrance category, and give one a large shield, he doesn’t get ANY HARDER TO HIT against ANYONE than the fighter without the shield. And against opponents past a certain number, he gets easier to hit.
There are house rules to fix this, and the encumbrance issue, but they’re a bit lengthy to add in an already lengthy review. If you really want to know the system I’m using, I’ll be happy to discuss it in the forums.
Magic
The magic system is the usual Vancian D&D spell memorization system. Clerics and druids pray, wizards and illusionists study spellbooks.
If your concentration is disrupted while casting a spell, say by taking damage, you lose the spell. However, there’s no mechanic described for this. I’d require an Attribute Check, including level, with the target number increased by the amount of damage suffered.
There’s a spell resistance mechanic, where you roll a d20 to try to beat the spell resistance, but it’s not clear whether you add level to the roll. I’d say you should, as it seems like a 12th level wizards should have a better chance of penetrating spell resistance than a 1st level wizard.
The spell lists are fine and relatively complete, although some of the spells have been given new names like “Divination Provides,” ostensibly to separate the spell “Divination” from the spell type “divination,” although in a game where level refers to everything from spell power to depth of dungeon, I hardly see how this is a problem.
Some spells age the caster, a la AD&D. I like this.
The format is a bit cluttered – instead of the little layout at the head of each spell listing casting time, etc., there’s a single line at the end of the spell. Since this let them cram in an awful lot of spells for a 128 page book, I’m fine with it.
If you’re familiar with D&D spellcasting, nothing here will surprise you.
One thing that bugs me – divine spellcasters use divine foci. This is usual for D&D type games, and the focus is usually a holy symbol, or in the case of druids, mistletoe or some similar shrubbery. Same here. However, for some reason, they’ve put in the rule that each spell that requires a reusable divine focus requires a *different* divine focus. OK, so maybe your cleric has 12 different holy symbols, or little reliquaries or something. But druids use mistletoe. Do druids have little bandoliers with color-coded sprigs of mistletoe for each spell? Just weird. My rule is that you can use your holy symbol or mistletoe sprig for any spell requiring an unspecified divine focus. I’d have the mistletoe rot occasionally because harvesting greater mistletoe has always been fun.
Castle Keeper’s sections
Mood
There’s a bit here about striking the proper mood, and it seems like good advice to me. Basically, you should make decisions quickly enough to keep the game flowing, and look at the rules as tools, not straitjackets. It’s nice to see tinkering explicitly encouraged.
It’s also suggested that rolls only be made for things that have a significant chance of failure. Again, nice to see, no “I’m *roll* pleased to meet you.”
Combat
Combat is quite simple, and revolves around the Attribute Check. There are modifiers listed, but the system is very fast-paced and narrative-oriented. No 5’ steps, Attacks of Opportunity, etc. I never had a real problem with Attacks of Opportunity, but they seem to be the objects of some rancor, so if you hate them, well, they’re gone.
Surprise is essentially based on the highest Wisdom in the group. This one is on my “watch” list, but it seems all right. Maybe guys with high Wisdom *should* be very hard to surprise, and ostensibly they could warn their fellows. If you don’t like groups with clerics being impossible to surprise, just roll for each individual character. There’s no provision for reflexes, though.
As you might expect in a “rules light” system, there isn’t a rule for everything. The DM is expected to come up with a lot of answers on his own. I actually like this approach a lot.
Subdual damage is included, including striking with the flat of the blade, but there aren’t any penalties outlined for doing so. I don’t know if you’ve ever been whacked real hard with a stick, but I can tell you, if getting hit with a mace is worse, then that ain’t subdual damage.
It looks like the combat system will fly compared to 3.x, where combats involving opponents with a lot of skills, feats, and special abilities take a looong time.
Experience
Some suggestions for criteria by which to award experience are provided, but no firm calculus. I usually just award what I feel like awarding, and I’m sure a system will be provided in the DM book, so no big deal. It’s usual for a “three book system” not to have experience rules in the PHB.
Leveling = training for a number of weeks, although without the inflationary gold expenditure of 1e.
Miscellaneous stuff
It looks like, by the light source table, that magical swords and “daggars” are going to glow by default again.
There’s some stuff here about party balance, a la the cool “Successful Adventuring” essay on p. 107 of the 1e PHB.
Age tables are given, and some spells nominally penalize you by aging you, but no concrete effects of aging are provided.
There’s a list of upcoming releases, including a lot of modules and a 7-part “real” Castle Greyhawk, er, Zagyg, by Gygax himself. It’s a sign of my dorkiness that I’ve been waiting over half my life for the “real” Castle Greyhawk, even if I never get to run it. I just want the damned thing. But as a 7-parter by Gygax through a small press? That, unfortunately, sounds like a recipe for vaporware if I’ve ever heard one.
******
Okay, that’s my take on the product.
I’d like to make something very clear here, because I’m sure I came off as overly snarky about the game, and I don’t want there to be any mistaken impressions.
I *like* this game. I will probably plug the C&C PHB right into the slot my AD&D 1e PHB used to fill. I doubt, after my current 1e PBEM has run its course, that I will ever play straight-up AD&D again. I’ll play C&C when I can, and 3.x when it’s the only game in town.
The mechanics are excellent. The game is excellent. I consider myself to have received my $20 and more, and I will buy more C&C products. I would come to your house and physically whip your ass with a board if necessary for a copy of Castle Zagyg.
I also like the Troll Lords. They’re gamer’s gamers, and they’re pleasant and forthright.
But the quality control is simply bad, no way to say it nicely.
If you’re looking for a good gaming product, this is it. The ideas are great, the passion is there, the execution is lacking.
Now, as for it being a complete game – not by any stretch of the imagination. You will not play a complete game of C&C using just the PHB. If you’re playing anything like a traditional FRPG campaign, you will need additional information on monsters, magic items, poison, effects of aging, experience, and the like from *somewhere*.
I’m using mostly AD&D, as C&C really does convert to and from 1e on the fly with very little effort. I’m using 3.x for some things, like poison.
It’s tough for me to explain how nice it is to be able to use my beloved AD&D products, warts and all, with a more modern engine. For monsters, you essentially flip the armor class, make a couple of minor adjustments, and you’re done. The monster’s hit dice will generally be added to the target number to resist any of its abilities. For traps, you just decide what level the guy was who set the trap, and add that to the target number to detect or remove.
Assuming you share a common language, you can teach the basics of the game to a total newbie and have a character generated, ready to enter the Caves of Chaos, in about a half hour. That is no exaggeration.
The combination of “easy conversion” and “easy explanation” is a gift beyond price for me. I like AD&D 1e, but “high is good for hitting things but bad for armor class” is not intuitive for new players, and don’t get me started on initiative and spellcasting in by-the-book AD&D 1e. Similarly, character generation and combat in 3.x can be quite confusing for newbies, I don’t like the published adventures as well, and I dislike half-page stat blocks.
My bottom line on the product is that on balance, it’s my favorite product that I’ve purchased in some time (granted, I haven’t bought WFRP 2e yet). I am a loyal and diehard fan of the game as of the day I bought it. If you ask me, “is Castles and Crusades a great game?” my answer is a yes. But as of right now, you need more to play it than what you get. I’m personally using AD&D, but if you don’t have stacks of AD&D stuff, you may be bitter about the amount of work you have to do.
I’d rather people didn’t buy the game expecting something they’re not going to get. Someone who doesn’t buy your game is a zero, but someone who buys your game, is disappointed, and tells all his friends not to buy it is a negative.
It’s not a complete game, nor a polished game. But I consider it my best gaming purchase in a long time.
I’ve given the PHB a “5” for Substance, because I’m so pleased with the game I got. I’d give it a “1” for Style because of the horrible editing, but Peter Bradley’s art is beautiful and the book is a physically sturdy product, which elevates it to a “2”.
Hopefully someone will find this useful. I’ll be happy to address any questions or concerns about my opinions, as it’s possible I got something wrong.
Here are some URLs you may find useful:
Troll Lord Games C&C home page:
http://www.castlesandcrusades.com/candc.htm
C&C errata:
trolllord.com/files/errata.pdf
Dragonsfoot forums, devoted to OOP incarnations of D&D. There’s a C&C forum there.
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/
Troll Lord Games forums
http://p075.ezboard.com/btrolllordgames
The Keeper’s Den C&C forums
http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=d6fantasy
Scott Driver
Driver on Dragonsfoot forums
SDriver on rpg.net forums
Revird Tox on TLG and Keeper's Den forums
