Time for another roleplaying game (RPG) review. Castles and Crusades (C&C) is another Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) inspired RPG. At the time of this writing, Troll Lord Games is running a Kickstarter for a new edition of C&C. Like many other companies leery of the motivations of D&D publisher Wizards of the Coast (WoTC), Troll Lord is removing any connection to the D&D System Reference Document (SRD) from their RPG. I have the current (2021) edition of C&C but have never played it. I thought I would review it before deciding whether to back the new version.
Unlike other D&D inspired RPGs, C&C does not seem to be derived from D&D 3.5 (Pathfinder), D&D 4th Ed. (MCDM RPG), or D&D 5E (Tales of the Valiant, CORE20). It seems to be derived from Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (AD&D). However, C&C also claims to be a rules-light RPG that tries to make roll playing more flexible by minimizing the ruleset. This is something WoTC did not try until D&D 5E. Did C&C succeed? Does it look fun to play?
As with my other reviews of D&D-inspired RPGs, I will focus on the differences between this RPG and D&D, differences that I think are either important or interesting. I have not played AD&D for over 30 years, so I will focus on differences with 5E. After all, in the 2020s, the decision is between playing C&C and 5E, not C&C and AD&D.
The most obvious difference between the systems is the lack of skills in C&C. Rolling skill checks is the fundamental mechanism for the exploration and social interaction pillars of 5E. C&C replaces skill checks with attribute checks. C&C has the same attributes as 5E - strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. In 5E, a skill check is based on one of the character’s attributes, modified by whether that character has proficiency in that skill. In C&C, any attempted action that has a chance of failure is checked by rolling just against the attribute. There are no proficiency bonuses.
This approach does simplify the game, at least during character creation. No longer does a player who wants a charisma-based character have to choose between proficiencies in persuasion, deception, and intimidation. It should not increase game complexity during actual gameplay. DMs rarely find it difficult to decide whether a check should be against a wisdom-based skill or an intelligence-based one, for example. An argument could be made that checking just against an attribute reduced roll-playing flavor. The whole premise of C&C, though, is that players will create their own flavor if rules get out of the way. Removing skill checks is certainly a good test of that premise.
Another difference with 5E is how C&C calculates the target number for an attribute check. The concept of primary and secondary attributes is key to its approach. Each class has a primary attribute - strength for fighters, intelligence for wizards, dexterity for rogues, and so forth. Each 5E class has an attribute on which it relies the most. In C&C, each character also gets more primary attributes. A human gets two more. All other races only get one. These extra primary attributes matter, because they are C&C’s way of implementing proficiency.
A target number for an attribute check is the sum of a challenge base and a challenge level. The challenge base for a primary attribute is 12. The challenge base for a secondary attribute is 16. Particularly at low levels, it is much easier for a character to make an attribute check against a primary attribute than against a secondary one.
The challenge level represents the difficulty of the action. A very easy task has a challenge level of zero. A very hard task has one of twelve. A very hard task using a primary attribute would have a target of 22. One using a secondary would have a target of 26.
Sounds difficult to succeed on a very hard task when rolling a d20. Let’s see if that is true. The attribute roll is a d20 + the character level + the attribute modifier + any racial bonus. An attribute modifier for a primary attribute is almost certainly at least a +2 and possibly a +3. With a +2, a first level character has at least a chance (10% for a roll of a 19 or 20) to succeed on a very hard task. At tenth level, less than halfway up C&C’s ladder to twenty-fourth level, the character would have an even chance of succeeding on a very hard task. That character would have a 20% chance of succeeding against a check on a secondary attribute, assuming a +0 on that attribute.
This approach is similar to one of my major issues with Pathfinder. The character’s level quickly comes to dominate these checks. A +2 attribute modifier is useful at low levels. By fourth level, the level bonus is twice the attribute modifier. The difference between an attribute of 17 and that of 10 quickly becomes irrelevant. The bonus for a primary attribute over a secondary is effectively +4. That number remains relevant for a little longer, but not much so. The problem is that the target number is capped. Due to the bonuses available at higher levels, the value that can be rolled is a much higher number and the floor of the minimum that can be rolled approaches the target number cap.
Is the primary/secondary attribute mechanism a simpler version of proficiencies? Yes. Is it better? No. The “numbers-go-up” approach of adding the character’s raw level to a check is very unbalanced. If you never play above tenth level, it is workable. Not above that.
C&C has a couple of more classes than 5E, at least at first glance. (No warlock, sorcerer, or artificer, though. Pretty much the AD&D classes with a couple of additions.) The knight, illusionist, and assassin would be subclasses in 5E. 5E subclasses are usually different enough from each other that they offer distinct flavors of their own. Looked at this way, C&C offers many fewer choices than 5E. Is this another case of reducing the ruleset to improve gameplay? Does not seem like it. Can a player homebrew their favorite 5E subclass in 5E? Probably. I have not tried it, but the base classes are at least in the same neighborhood as the base 5E classes. Modifying them for most subclasses should be doable. It would be much more difficult to add the missing classes.
For races, C&C keeps to the AD&D set - dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, halfling, half-orc, and human. Seven compared with the sixty of 5E. But how many of that sixty are played by more than a couple of percent of 5E players. I would prefer it C&C got rid of the “halfs” and added in true orcs, goblins, and kobolds. I would also strongly prefer that they got rid of the fixed attribute pluses and minuses for races. If they did those two things, I would be satisfied with the C&C races. It does not look like they are going to, since the Kickstarter says that there are still only seven races.
Spells - There are plenty of spells, most or all standard D&D spells. Probably fewer spells overall than in 5E. Still more than most people can wrap their heads around.
The combat rules do not appear until page 214 in a 240 page book. If that does not show that Troll Lord Games is committed to a roll-playing focus, nothing will. The combat rules are simpler than 5E’s. In a combat round, a character can only take an action. No bonus actions. Movement is an action. OK, a character can do a “free” action in addition to an action. And they can move up to half their speed in addition to an action. And if they move they can jog (2x speed) and run (4x speed). And they can combine movement and an attack in a single charge action. And there are a bunch of combat maneuvers. Maybe not that much simpler than 5E, after all.
At least, C&C does not use the AD&D THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0) mechanism. It uses a simple attack roll (d20 + class and level based modifier + strength or dexterity modifier) against the defender’s armor class. Plus or minus situational modifiers like the defender being prone, invisible, or so forth - very similar to 5E. Combat is not that much different than 5E.
Damage and death are much different. 5E wants its heroes to get up and be ready to fight every morning. In C&C, it takes a long time to recover from damage. A character heals one hit point per day of rest for the first week of recovery. After seven days, the hp healed includes the character’s constitution bonus. After fourteen days, the healing rate doubles. Without magical healing, even a single wound can put a character out of action for a week or more.
In C&C, characters fall unconscious at 0 hp. They remain unconscious from -1 to -6 hp. Magical healing can only return the character to 0 hp, not bring them back into the battle. At -7 to -9 hp, the character is bleeding out, losing 1 hp every round. At -10 hp, they die. This system takes out the luck factor in the 5E death saving throw rules. It is also more forgiving than the AD&D rules, under which a character dies immediately when they hit 0 hp. I think this system meets the C&C goal of simplifying rules.
Would I play C&C? Am I going to back the Kickstarter for the new edition? For the first question, probably not. For the second question, no. I have two significant issues with C&C - the way they implement races and the “numbers-go-up” approach to attribute checks. Neither issue would prevent me from playing C&C. They do make me prefer 5E. If I were new to RPGs, maybe the rules-light approach would be tempting. I am used to the 5E rules, so that is less of an incentive. There is just nothing unusual enough about C&C to differentiate it from other D&D descendants and make it interesting.
Den of the Red Wolf 