Fizz wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 12:00 am
It depends on how different this hypothetical 2nd ed would be. Minor tweaks or significant changes?
For minor tweaks, i'd do the following:
- rename the rogue to its proper name of thief. Rogue is a persona, Thief is a profession.
- remove the notion of illusionist healing. Alternatively, if illusionists are "benders of reality", then rename the class.
- tweak the fighter, maybe 5/2 attacks at 5th level and a few other simple additions that could add a lot of flavour to it.
- give monsters primes based on individual attributes; not just "physical" or "mental", but trength, wisdom, etc.
More significant changes would include:
- the addition of a secondary skills system (like ad&d 2nd edition proficiencies)
- schools of magic
- customizable priest classes (with domains or spheres or something in between)
- modification to the saves system, not sure what yet, but something involving character class
-Fizz
----Response to Fizz-----
Minor
1. The rogue vs. thief name is definitely minor. I do agree with you that rogue is a persona. Rogue as a profession make about as much sense as having ruffian or scoundrel as a profession. To be fair though, rogue sufficiently communicates the idea and it is a well established class for this genre. So, I tend to think discussions on this to be unnecessary and engaging in the trivial.
2. YES, the illusionist class has contradictory wording and it makes no sense. Whoever wrote that entry is trying to describe something that exists in their mind but not in a coherent world. This is one of the examples where as a writer you have to be willing to put your own cherished ideas to pasture, no matter how intriguing and creative you may think they are. I finally realized what this illusionist class actually is. It is the mage concept from Mage: The Awakening from WoD. It is exactly that in concept and substance. In fact, Mage: The Awakening describes it far more coherently and competently. For anyone having difficult trying to figure out what the Illusionist class actually is, I highly suggest reading that book.
3. I would rather give the fighter more interesting combat options than directly tweak their combat power.
4. I think they did this to reduce the cognitive load of the DM having to run the monster. It is an intentional decision stemming from C&C's design philosophy.
Significant
1. I totally agree here. I think using 2e AD&D skills or something like from Adventures Dark and Deep or ADD(modern 2e revision) would work well. For an alternative approach, I also like this one from Omote.
https://sites.google.com/site/advancedc ... he-cc-game
2. The magic system is one of the things I think makes new players not want to play C&C.
3. I don't know enough to intelligently comment.
4. Yep, this stems from the Prime/Secondary system. I know they want to streamline and reuse game mechanics but the implications of this mechanic when used for saves is very problematic. I actually use ADD saves for this.
----My own suggestions----
1. Switch the skills system to a Fantasy Age or Worlds Without Number using 3d6 or 2d6+1d8(a better distribution in some cases because it has approx 10% increments in the middle of the distribution, thus is more amenable with a D20 5% increment). I won't go into a long diatribe, but it more accurately models a character who is skilled at what they do and create a statistical floor against failures and in-competent results only a beginner would have.
2. I think the skills themselves should be a hybrid of C&C and 2e. I would still not create too many specific skills because then that makes the players think, I can only stealth and pickpocket as a thief, but other roguish/thief actions I can't do because they aren't on my character sheet.
3. Make combat more mechanically interesting, but don't do Pathfinder 2e or 5e which in reality create the illusion of mechanical options. 3e did a better job of giving interesting combat, but it was too cumbersome unless you were well practiced and a veteran with the mechanics, so most players never experienced it. Of course, in 3e, the DM also had to prevent players from creating characters that were one trick ponies or completely broke the game.
Things that would help C&C sell to the 5e crowd.
1. Add something similar to Prestige Classes or class kits. I realize this will create a portal to hell, but people want to be able to play a Shadowdancer rogue, a Dwarven Defender fighter, a Shifter druid, a Frenzied Berserker barbarian or an Arcane Archer. I realize you can't do this without killing the archetypes, although I would argue the Barbarian in C&C doesn't fit a Conan barbarian as well is the OSE or ADD class does. I don't know how to do this without opening a portal to hell though.
2. Add more flavor abilities to each class to distinguish them even more from the other classes and make them more interesting to play. This can be done without opening a portal to hell.
Realistically the best way to sell to the 5e crowd is to just write old school adventures for them using 5e or modified 5e rules. You want low investment and high accessibility. You can only sell a new rule system when the existing rule systems have become pain point, people are looking for something new, and they have grown tired of playing the existing edition. So if you want your rule system to succeed, you are almost counting on WoTC creating another 4e and you being Paizo to create the system people the popular market actually wanted to play. Market timing is everything here and you still risk everyone ignoring you. What World Without Number was able to achieve here is quite extraordinary, although they were able to capitalize on a well-known and well established brand that people already liked.
General changes that would sell better in a general market.
1. Change the skill system in one of the ways mentioned earlier.
2. Change the magic system to be comparable to other magic system in other TTRPG systems. This really requires a separate topic and its own full analysis.