I’ve performed a ton of C&C, and think about it my go-to system. We have switched our marketing campaign to a number of completely different video games through the years, however all the time come again to C&C because it appears to have the correct quantity of element and adaptability for our group.
I do not consider most actions must be declared earlier than initiative, simply declaring a spell or disengagement or evading (which do not roll initiative in any respect).
Thanks for this!
I believe a part of the problem is that the format is so horrible (at the least for the free PHB) that it is arduous for me to actually grok the foundations. I am positive with a number of readthroughs, and as soon as I commit some issues to reminiscence, it can begin to make extra sense, however with only a first move it did not learn properly.
Spell casting is NOT mechanically disrupted by injury. The CC might permit a focus examine to efficiently solid the spell if the caster has taken injury, failed a save, or been in any other case assaulted.
Certain… however the Fortress Keeper additionally might NOT permit a Focus examine. 
The best way the rule is written although is that injury (or different issues) spoil a spell, until the CK says in any other case. It is a default place that Focus checks are an exception. A minimum of that is the way it reads.
I really just like the encumbrance system, particularly the flexibility to find out the Encumbrance Worth of just about any merchandise that is not included on any gear listings. I do not all the time use encumbrance myself, however solely in conditions the place it could make sense to make use of it.
I’ve no concern with the tactic, solely that it is fairly punishing. Until you have received an honest STR rating, or set STR or CON as a Main, you may faucet out fairly rapidly.
Simply because there’s a lengthy checklist of weapons doesn’t suggest it’s a must to use them. Simply decide the weapons acceptable to your marketing campaign and ignore the remaining.
Certain, however that wasn’t my criticism. I used to be criticizing the truth that with so many weapons, the designer appeared to wrestle with making each distinctive, and that resulted in some clearly being inferior to others. I imply, there’s one thing like 8 or 9 completely different polearms. Why? Simply provide two with their very own stats and say “polearm 1 covers ABC and polearm 2 covers DEF.”
I do know, that is such a petty factor to gripe about, however there is a sidebar within the fight part going into element about how fight is meant to be summary and that verisimitude wasn’t the objective, however then they supply a laundry checklist of weapons. All I am saying is observe the identical guideline: make weapons summary and nebulous (i.e., present solely stats and primary descriptions) and simply let the participant outline what it seems to be like. It will minimize down on “evaluation paralysis.”
The lessons are typically balanced properly sufficient, and if one thing does appear out of whack in your playstyle then it is tremendous simple to tweak them to your liking. I might say it is pretty near AD&D1e/2e on this respect.
I suspected this was the case. It is why I solely listed it as a minor concern. It is simply that a number of lessons are very front-loaded, which implies they most likely play a bit higher at decrease ranges, however then “even out” round LVL 4-6.
