Castles & Crusades collection thread. What has been liberated and what has not.
>>46326299
I'm not entirely sure what the most up to date pdfs that are floating around are. Most of what I've seen is at least one print out of date. 5th print Player's Handbook, 1st print Castle Keeper's Guide... and maybe 2nd print Monsters & Treasure? And then a smattering of other books. I don't currently have access to my drive that has all my C&C stuff on it, so I can't check. I don't think it has everything I've seen floating around at one time or another, but you could start by following the treasure trove link in the opening post of the /osr/ thread, if you haven't been there already.
well there does not seem to be a complete collection online
>>46326299
What this game ever finished?
Is this like a 3.5/pathfinder or D20 light system?
>>46327934
It's basically AD&D that's been cleaned up and given some of the quality of life upgrades from 3.x like ascending AC, while remaining much more old school.
>>46326299
I have the starter set, but not the Castle Keeper's guide which I'm not even sure exists in a physical format.
Adventures
A0 The Rising Knight
A1 Assault on Blacktooth Ridge
A2 The Slag Heap
A3 The Wicked Cauldron
A4 Usurpers of the Fell Axe
A5 The Shattered Horn
A6 Of Banishment & Blight
A7 The Despairing Stone
A8 Forsaken Mountain
A9 Before the Helm of Night
A10 The Last Respite
A11 The Wasting Way
A12 The Paladin's Lament
C1 The Mortality of Green
C2 Shades of Mist
C3 Upon the Powder River
F1 Goblins of Mt. Shadow
F2 Crimson Pact
F3 Giant's Wrath
F4 To Kill A King
S1 The Lure of Delusion
S2 Dwarven Glory>
S3 The Malady of Kings
S4 Lion in the Ropes
U1 Shadows of the Halfling
U2 Verdant Rage
U3 Fingers of the Forsaken Hand
U4 Curse of the Khan
>>46330469
I know the letter# thing from older D&D usually had a meaning (B for basic or level 1-3 games, X for expert levels of 4 through 14, etc). Do they mean anything for C&C?
>>46331016
Bump on this question
We need to get someone to find everything there is
>>46327685
>What this game ever finished?
The Player's Handbook is on its 6th printing, Monsters & Treasure is on its 4th, I believe, and The Castle Keeper's Guide, which isn't really even necessary, is on its 2nd. So in the sense of having the core books necessary to play the game, it's been finished for about a decade now. If you're asking whether they're through ever putting out material for it again, the answer is no (at least not unless there's something you know that I don't).
>>46331016
>I know the letter# thing from older D&D usually had a meaning (B for basic or level 1-3 games, X for expert levels of 4 through 14, etc). Do they mean anything for C&C?
The fact that they didn't just go alphabetically leads me to believe there's at least some convention, but I've honestly never looked into the adventures and don't know what it would be.
>>46327934
>>46327957
C&C is an interesting combination. It clearly has an old school basis, with classes and spells most reminiscent of AD&D. But it uses the unified d20 mechanic of contemporary D&D, along with ascending AC and attribute-based saves. It also streamlines the old school content, cutting out a lot of the junk. It tweaks things (rangers, paladins and bards no longer cast literal spells, for instance) and even adds in some new stuff. This is honestly what I like most about it. It doesn't have a slavish devotion to the original source material and feels free to change things around when it feels like it can improve things.
C&C is built around attribute checks that are often level-based. It's what it uses in place of a strict skill system. I like that, but not everybody does, and underlying it is the controversial SIEGE mechanic. Basically, you have certain attributes that are primary while the rest are secondary. (Humans have 3 primary attributes, while other races have 2--one of these is determined by your class and you get to pick where the rest go.) When making an attribute check, your target number for primary attributes is much lower than for secondary attributes (12 as opposed to 18, though both numbers can obviously be modified by a number of factors).
That seems like a neat idea to me, but where I think it gets a bit weird is in that, for instance, having an 18 strength (and therefore a +3 damage modifier) gives you only half the bonus to your strength checks as choosing strength as a primary attribute. And it seems to me that the two things should be linked. Surely choosing strength as your primary stat should give you *some* bonus to damage. Basically, it seems to me like they're superimposing two different systems when they should be resolved into just one.
>>46335375
I should mention that the various printings of the C&C books aren't true editions. As far as I'm aware, the changes between printings is relatively small (with the possible exception of the early Player's Handbooks--like 1st or 2nd edition--which I think saw some significant changes), and so they're broadly compatible. The fact that the core books aren't even on the same printings should tell you something.
For folks too lazy to head over to the OSR thread, here are the copies of the core books that have been floating around. None of them are the most recent printings, but as per >>46335443 it shouldn't really matter.
Quick Start -- http://www.trolllord.com/downloads/pdfs/cnc_qs.pdf
Player's Handbook -- http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1361806385
Monsters & Treasure -- http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1361808378
Castle Keeper's Guide (optional) -- http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1361806529
>>46335375
I've been toying around with a way to link attribute generation with your designation of primary and secondary attributes. That way, primary attributes are more likely than secondary attributes to have positive modifiers, which just makes sense. So choosing Strength as a primary attribute makes it more likely that you'll also get a bonus to melee damage.
You could also ask questions in the OSR thread, though I don't see Castles and Crusades discussed much these days: >>46288424
