5th Edition

[Omote]

I want a revised C&C Book of Familiars, done by Jason Vey, that essentially the 5E players are getting. Bring that $#!4 back to C&C! Why should the 5E crowd get an excellent revision of the Book of Familiars material, and the C&C fans nada. No me gusta.

~O

[Treebore]

I want a revised C&C Book of Familiars, done by Jason Vey, that essentially the 5E players are getting. Bring that $#!4 back to C&C! Why should the 5E crowd get an excellent revision of the Book of Familiars material, and the C&C fans nada. No me gusta.

~O

What is so horrible about the current C&C version of it?

[Omote]

It's a good book, but it's just not written for the C&C game. This book was originally written for the 3.5 game, and was converted over to C&C by someone who doesn't fully understand the difference between each game. The Book of Familiars is way too powerful for characters in the C&C game to simply spend an Advantage on, or spend X amount of XP to attain. BOF really ups the power-level if added to C&C. Clearly a character with a familiar from the BOF, leveled up in that way is just flat out better than C&C characters without those familiars.

So, the benefits and the ways in which a character attains and builds the abilities is not in line with C&C because it was originally for 3E. This is evident throughout the book as there are numerous abilities and references to the 3E version of the game. On top of that, there are probably more than a hundred grammatical and copy-n-paste errors throughout.

Again, I like the book a great deal, but it is beyond clear that there was little to no conversion of the material over to C&C beyond changing some terminology.

Besides that, I like how Jason Vey thinks about the differences in the games, and understands the differences between the two. I also like how he is expanding on the material to give the 5E version of this book, something a little different - perhaps a little unexpected. When he came on board for the 5E conversion, I was ecstatic that we would see a properly converted book. But as he has explained up in the 5E Kickstarter section, there is no plans for a revised version of this book for C&C at this time.

~O

[pawndream]

I don't have a whole lot of interest in 5e conversions of C&C material, to include the Book of Familiars, but can definitely understand why TLG are testing the waters in this area. They have a large catalog of material that could easily be converted (especially adventures) and a new pool of potential customers to buy that product.

Releasing some of the TLG catalog in a 5e format could draw new customers into checking out the flagship game, but even if it doesn't, TLG can still make sales of existing intellectual property without having to develop it from scratch.

FWIW, I actually like 5e. C&C just happens to be easier to play, so repurchasing TLG content, reskinned with 5e stat blocks, is not really in the cards for me. It would be very easy to use C&C content in a 5e game, without having to buy an official conversion product. I don't think active C&C players are the intended audience for these 5e conversions.

Hopefully 5e players gobble this stuff up

[T1Hound]

Perhaps the answer to boost the 5E Kickstarter is to re-do the C&C version of it as well. Pledge $1 and then an add in version of C&C Familiars.

[Snoring Rock]

Hey gang, I have given 5e a try and I like it. They got rid of all of the 3.5 bloat. They have a great place for people to share adventures and house rules with other players. Go to Dungeon Masters Guild, search for The Tower of Bondage, and you will find the adventure that I originally wrote for C&C and then converted to 5e. Its low on crunch so its easily used with C&C. Only $2 and I would love any feedback! I plan on adding 6 more levels if the support is there.
Dungeon Masters Guild is the same as Drive Thru RPG. It is a cooperation between DTRPG and WotC. Go check it out!!

[Zardnaar]

We switched over to 5E. Its the best D&D WoTC has produced to date IMHO and I bought Assault on Blacktooth Ridge for it. We did take a several month break from 5E and played Star Wars Saga Edition for a bit.

I'm in New Zealand though and finding players for something that is not Pathfinder or 3E is hard. 5E has been a mini renaissance of sorts locally. My players liked C&C over 4E and as a change from Pathfinder but most of them cut their teeth on 3.x over AD&D/BECMI.

They have been pawing through my 2E collection at times though and they like some of the old adventures a few I have run with 5E and I am getting a C&C/AD&D itch again. Wonder if I should offer to use the optional talents/ neo feats in the Castlekeepers guide. Almost got an online game game of C&C sorted as well but le sigh.

[Julian Grimm]

I really like 5e and ran it until my current group's schedule got blown to hell. We're getting ready to do C&C again but will be adding in some 5e ideas. My only problem with the system revolves around encounter creation and monster creation being near impossible. Over all I do like the system and one of my players jokingly calls it Advanced C&C.

[Omote]

I want a revised C&C Book of Familiars, done by Jason Vey, that essentially the 5E players are getting. Bring that $#!4 back to C&C! Why should the 5E crowd get an excellent revision of the Book of Familiars material, and the C&C fans nada. No me gusta.

~O

Guess what TLG appears to be doing?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/67 ... ero_thanks

There is now a C&C pledge level for the Revised Book of Familiars.

We've created a Castles & Crusades pledge level for our 5th Edition Kickstarter for Familiars and Companions. You can pledge for the digital copy of an updated, full color version of the C&C Book of Familiars and C&C versions of all the stretch goals. Head over and check that sucker out.

~O

[Treebore]

I want a revised C&C Book of Familiars, done by Jason Vey, that essentially the 5E players are getting. Bring that $#!4 back to C&C! Why should the 5E crowd get an excellent revision of the Book of Familiars material, and the C&C fans nada. No me gusta.

~O

Guess what TLG appears to be doing?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/67 ... ero_thanks

There is now a C&C pledge level for the Revised Book of Familiars.

We've created a Castles & Crusades pledge level for our 5th Edition Kickstarter for Familiars and Companions. You can pledge for the digital copy of an updated, full color version of the C&C Book of Familiars and C&C versions of all the stretch goals. Head over and check that sucker out.

~O

Let me know if they start to offer a hard copy. I don't do PDF only books.

[Omote]

Maybe the Trolls can produce a POD version of the book. I think that would be cool too.

I've done POD books at OBS for some Necromancer Games and old FFG Warhammer books, and they came out spectacular! But, since I oft use .pdfs or single-page print outs for my games, the NEW revised edition of the Book of Familiars is really some great news. Thanks TLG!

~O

[Treebore]

Maybe the Trolls can produce a POD version of the book. I think that would be cool too.

I've done POD books at OBS for some Necromancer Games and old FFG Warhammer books, and they came out spectacular! But, since I oft use .pdfs or single-page print outs for my games, the NEW revised edition of the Book of Familiars is really some great news. Thanks TLG!

~O

Yeah, I floated the POD option to Tim, so we will see.

[gabriellyon]

Curious as to how much change there will be between the existing book of familiars and the updated one for c&c. I like the info but would hate to feel like I had to get the new one just to keep from breaking the game balance.

[Treebore]

Curious as to how much change there will be between the existing book of familiars and the updated one for c&c. I like the info but would hate to feel like I had to get the new one just to keep from breaking the game balance.

The only reasons I can think of to get the new one, aside from being a fan of cull color, which I am not, is a cleaner conversion to C&C, plus Jason is a better organizer and layout guy than Casey is. So things should be even more in line with C&C rules, and the content will be better organized and more clearly written.

So if you have been fine with using the current one, you really don't have a need to get the new one. I've got even less of a reason to get a new one. None of my players have wanted to use the current one.

[Litzen Tallister]

Let me know if they start to offer a hard copy. I don't do PDF only books.

Ditto. For gaming, I prefer having a dead tree edition in front of me. Print on Demand, as already mentioned, counts in my book too.

[Revturkey]

Hello all, my thoughts on D&D 5th..I've run it and played it a little bit.

All the classes having more or less the same 'to hit' bonuses feels off. Multiple attacks and extra hit points plus a few other quirks are there to give classes like the humble Fighter an edge in combat..but this still seems odd to me.

All the classes can in some way be magic users. Eldritch Knights and such...bit over the top for me.

The advantage/disadvantage mechanism. Sounds terrific on paper but I don't like it. It dilutes the thrill of d20 rolling and also feels oppresive if you are on the wrong end of disadvantages all the time due to circumstance. I think it is a bit heavy handed...and as a player got on my nerves.

The artwork in the Players Handbook is awful. Well, not all of it but quite a bit. Also the print quality feels cheap for such an expensive book to me. I think they could afford a touch better for such a massive company with economies of scale and the like.

Feats. I wish they had had the courage to leave them completely out. Players expect to use them and they mess up the character class distinctions and can be unbalancing for my taste.

Those are my main gripes (there are others). What do I like?

It's super easy to run and prepare. The encounter guidelines are great and balanced.

It took a leaf or half a tree from Castles & Crusades with the attribute check system. A good thing.

It plays fast and free. Has more of an old-school vibe about it.

They seem to be keeping it fairly bloat free and power creep free as well.

It is very complete with just the three core books. The Monster Manual is well stocked with classics.

5th Edition almost made it as my system of choice but didn't quite give me the feel of AD&D that I grew up with and wanted. The overabundance of magic being a particular problem. I know you can house rule that out of it but whenever I take options away from players they moan and lose interest in a system. They shouldn't but they do

[Lord Dynel]

NIGHT OF THE LIVING THREADS!!! Muwhahahahaha!

Hello all, my thoughts on D&D 5th..I've run it and played it a little bit.

All the classes having more or less the same 'to hit' bonuses feels off. Multiple attacks and extra hit points plus a few other quirks are there to give classes like the humble Fighter an edge in combat..but this still seems odd to me.

All the classes can in some way be magic users. Eldritch Knights and such...bit over the top for me.

The advantage/disadvantage mechanism. Sounds terrific on paper but I don't like it. It dilutes the thrill of d20 rolling and also feels oppresive if you are on the wrong end of disadvantages all the time due to circumstance. I think it is a bit heavy handed...and as a player got on my nerves.

The artwork in the Players Handbook is awful. Well, not all of it but quite a bit. Also the print quality feels cheap for such an expensive book to me. I think they could afford a touch better for such a massive company with economies of scale and the like.

Feats. I wish they had had the courage to leave them completely out. Players expect to use them and they mess up the character class distinctions and can be unbalancing for my taste.

Those are my main gripes (there are others). What do I like?

It's super easy to run and prepare. The encounter guidelines are great and balanced.

It took a leaf or half a tree from Castles & Crusades with the attribute check system. A good thing.

It plays fast and free. Has more of an old-school vibe about it.

They seem to be keeping it fairly bloat free and power creep free as well.

It is very complete with just the three core books. The Monster Manual is well stocked with classics.

5th Edition almost made it as my system of choice but didn't quite give me the feel of AD&D that I grew up with and wanted. The overabundance of magic being a particular problem. I know you can house rule that out of it but whenever I take options away from players they moan and lose interest in a system. They shouldn't but they do

You've hit some of my "issues" with 5e, Rev. The "one bonus to rule them all" that applies to skill checks, saves, attack rolls, etc. kind of homogenizes things a little. I DM 5e, because that's currently what the players have wanted (though we've been on break since Gen Con, so who knows if we'll be sticking with it!), so I don't feel it as much as I would as a player. Players at the table list this as their #1 gripe. I think it mainly stems from the idea that not only does it apply to almost all the checks that are made, but it's also the same for everyone (indicating a lack or indivuality).

The ubiquity of magic for, basically, all the classes is a bit over-the-top, in my opinion. I guess WotC figured the best way to address the "overpoweredness" of magic was to give it to everyone! Granted, the fringe magic-using classes (fighter, rogue) are easy enough to limit (just nix those subclasses) but in the end the availability of magic (or magical-like abilities) to every class is a bit wacky. I really like Adventures in Middle-Earth's approach to classes with regards to magic - there aren't any!

I actually like advantage/disadvantage. I thought it was a good way to adjudicate favorable and unfavorable situations. My only complaint with it is that it's a blanket penalty (or bonus) for the circumstance. Meaning, a PC is at the same "disadvantage" if they're poisoned, blinded, attacking an invisible foe, or restrained. Likewise, a PC has a static "advantage" if they are invisible or if they attacking from higher ground. Like the proficiency bonus, advantage/disadvantage are really just blanket bonuses or penalties. However, they used whole-cloth across the board for every advantageous or penalizing circumstance a character faces. It's not unlike saying, "whenever you are are in a penalizing circumstance, you will suffer a -4 to your check," or something like that. I like it because it's simple and keeps the game flowing. Sometimes, though, I don't mind a little addition or subtraction if it means a more discerning experience.

[Treebore]

While I like 5E better than 3E, Pathfinder and 4E, I still don't like it better than C&C. Thats the bottom line for me, the reasons really don't matter to anyone but me, so I will leave it at that.

[Lord Dynel]

While I like 5E better than 3E, Pathfinder and 4E, I still don't like it better than C&C. Thats the bottom line for me, the reasons really don't matter to anyone but me, so I will leave it at that.

Eh, all in the name of some good conversation, hoss. I get what you're saying, though. It doesn't really matter why we prefer one game over another, because we do for our own reasons. But it's interesting to talk about. Maybe not to some, I suppose.

I probably like "core" 3.5e better than 5e, but it's close. The others - PF and 4e...well, they are what they are. I really wanted to like PF, but it just never caught on with me. Even considering how close it is to 3.5 - it was that closeness that was actually a turn-off for me. While it made some good changes (Combat Maneuver mechanics, cleric burst healing), I never thought it made enough changes to warrant its use. I do like Golarion, though. As for 4e, I never got past the three core books I preordered from Amazon.

[Trinket]

My two coppers worth:
I have played and ran campaigns in all editions of D&D (except for 4th ick!) I have loved them all! 5e being no exception. I am currently running a 5e game running with several brand new players and some long time players (9 of us including me). Everyone seems to be enjoying it a lot! It is very role play friendly. Now if I could just get a C&C game going that I can compare it to. Here's my gaming space
https://imgur.com/a/WVXaQ

[Fizz]

I played some 5E during the playtesting phase, before the real release. I remember playing a druidic avenger, or was it a paladin, that could shape change into a dinosaur, and was stomping bad guys at will. I didn't find it particularly appealing- like a homemade fantasy movie that was trying too hard.

I've always had the sense that anything goes in 5E, all under the auspice of player choice. But that i find can wreck a setting- no cohesion.

I agree with some others that say there is too much magic. And i have mixed feelings about the Advantage mechanic. It's not something i've adopted for C&C, so maybe that says something.


-Fizz

[Captain_K]

OK, Lets flip this on its Ear.. now that we have conversion notes from CnC to 5e... anyone got conversion notes from 5e to CnC?

[Treebore]

OK, Lets flip this on its Ear.. now that we have conversion notes from CnC to 5e... anyone got conversion notes from 5e to CnC?

I do it the same way I've done 3E and 4E material, cut off whatever I don't want to keep, and just turn any feats, skills and similar into "abilities". When it comes to classes, pretty much the same thing, the base line will be the most similar C&C class, then I keep whatever I like about a given class as a strange extra ability that makes that NPC unique. If its too out there for C&C, I simply don't use it.

[Lord Dynel]

OK, Lets flip this on its Ear.. now that we have conversion notes from CnC to 5e... anyone got conversion notes from 5e to CnC?

I do it the same way I've done 3E and 4E material, cut off whatever I don't want to keep, and just turn any feats, skills and similar into "abilities". When it comes to classes, pretty much the same thing, the base line will be the most similar C&C class, then I keep whatever I like about a given class as a strange extra ability that makes that NPC unique. If its too out there for C&C, I simply don't use it.

Grab a couple of the 5e A series modules and do a side-by-side with the C&C version and it gives you a pretty good idea. I haven't done any hard conversions, but I think it's easiest for adventures to simply substitute the analogous creatures/encounters. I'd run a couple sample encounters first to double-check, but at low levels it should almost be a straight conversion (3 goblins = 3 goblins). For higher level encounters it might be a bit more difficult because of bonded accuracy. I'm not entirely sure how that will affect encounter conversion.

[Fizz]

One thing i do like that 5E (well, from 3E onwards) has given full ability stats for monsters. I wish C&C did that. I don't think C&C needs the full giant skill list that 3E provided for every monster, but the P/M prime split seems a bit too simple.

Otherwise, i miss having magic schools defined. But i always liked specialty wizards from 2nd Ed AD&D, so that's probably why.

-Fizz

[Buttmonkey]

One thing i do like that 5E (well, from 3E onwards) has given full ability stats for monsters. I wish C&C did that. I don't think C&C needs the full giant skill list that 3E provided for every monster, but the P/M prime split seems a bit too simple.

Personally, that would be a deal-breaker for me. I have no interest in running a game where monsters have ability scores matching the PC attributes. Nothing wrong with those who do, of course!

[Fizz]

Personally, that would be a deal-breaker for me. I have no interest in running a game where monsters have ability scores matching the PC attributes. Nothing wrong with those who do, of course!

Really? Why do you dislike monster attribute scores so much? Not being critical, i am genuinely interested in your perspective on that.

-Fizz

[Buttmonkey]

Personally, that would be a deal-breaker for me. I have no interest in running a game where monsters have ability scores matching the PC attributes. Nothing wrong with those who do, of course!

Really? Why do you dislike monster attribute scores so much? Not being critical, i am genuinely interested in your perspective on that.

-Fizz

Too much bloody crunch. That much granularity would just get in my way as a GM.

[Treebore]

Monsters have whatever attributes I want them to have. I don't need any rules set to tell me what they are. Same goes for Prime Versus Mental. Rules are just a suggestion. Following them, making up my own, or ignoring them completely, is my choice.

[Fizz]

Monsters have whatever attributes I want them to have. I don't need any rules set to tell me what they are. Same goes for Prime Versus Mental. Rules are just a suggestion. Following them, making up my own, or ignoring them completely, is my choice.

True, and i agree with the sentiment. But sometimes it's nice to have certain things predefined. I guess at least defining primes for each attribute instead of just physical/mental was one i would have liked.

-Fizz