Abstract versus concrete in games (or, why rules-light systems suck)

[der_kluge]

You're really not trying here. The D&D skill 'escape artist' does precisely what you list, and it's dex based.

There are no skills in C&C.

 

[der_kluge]

1) Any fighter can have strength and dex together as Primes. Any human fighter can have strength and Dex and one other stat as primes.

2) Looks like your character would fit a different archtype. I suggest rogue, or assassin. they both have dex as a prime. Then you have lightly armored dude, doing extra damage in certain situations.

Yea, but I don't want Str at all. My character isn't about strength. She has an 11 strength. I wanted dex, int, and cha. My GM refused.

But she's not a rogue, or an assassin. She's a girl from a noble family. She has high standards for herself, comes from a wealthy background, and doesn't know the first thing about picking a pocket, hiding in a shadow, or climbing a wall.

 

[der_kluge]

Ah, I think here's the root of the problem.

Why do you think this?

Because the dex fighter should be able to avoid half the blows of the str fighter, but inflict only half as much damage against him. Whereas the strength fighter will hit only half as often, his strikes will hurt twice as much.

Of course, this assumes all other things equal. Obviously this becomes more complicated when you add platemail armor, or a high con. It's logical to assume that the high str fighter might wear heavy armor, and then have a high con to boot, and those are going to stack the odds heavily in his favor.

 

[Particle_Man]

Yea, but I don't want Str at all. My character isn't about strength. She has an 11 strength. I wanted dex, int, and cha. My GM refused.

But she's not a rogue, or an assassin. She's a girl from a noble family. She has high standards for herself, comes from a wealthy background, and doesn't know the first thing about picking a pocket, hiding in a shadow, or climbing a wall.

If you like Cha, then there is Knight and Paladin as options.

Also, C&C is all about archtypes. That, essentially, is the point. It is not meant to be uber-flexible, like GURPS. All fighters know how to use their strength in C&C. If your character doesn't fit one of those archtypes (even with the relative flexibility of primes), you should play a different character, or find a different game, or perhaps (as suggested) find non-mechanical ways to explain what your speedy fighter is doing in terms of a mechanical str prime. Forcing the gamemaster to change the game he is comfortable running isn't going to work.

 

[Particle_Man]

Because the dex fighter should be able to avoid half the blows of the str fighter, but inflict only half as much damage against him. Whereas the strength fighter will hit only half as often, his strikes will hurt twice as much.

This has never been true in any incarnation of D&D. Why would you expect it to be true in C&C? In both games, in all incarnations, strong fighters beat the snot out of fast fighters, every single time, without exception. "Weapon Finesse" is there to make the imbalance a little less egregious, but the weighting is still heavily in favour of strength. If anything, C&C has a slightly closer balance because the ability modifiers are lower.

 

[mmadsen]

I don't think the issue is abstract versus concrete; I think you don't like the model being used. If we made the game even more abstract, by removing Str and Dex, you could be a high-level fighter whose fighting prowess comes from speed and skill or from brawn and aggression, and everything would work just fine.

 

[jmucchiello]

No, what I need is a swashbuckler class. Armor restrictions, d8 hit dice, perhaps a sneak attack, perhaps an inate bonus to AC, dex as a primary attribute. C&C doesn't have that. I should write it up, and offer it to my GM.

This seems like your best bet. I'd get rid of sneak attack though and just say the swashbuckler substitutes Dex for Str in melee combat. Thus high Dex makes it easier to hit and it cause additional damage. Sneak attack should be more rare.

Why isn't bard viable?

 

[der_kluge]

This seems like your best bet. I'd get rid of sneak attack though and just say the swashbuckler substitutes Dex for Str in melee combat. Thus high Dex makes it easier to hit and it cause additional damage. Sneak attack should be more rare.

Why isn't bard viable?

Well, the party already has one, so it seemed redundant, and she lacks any musical training, or worldly knowledge. She's basically a runaway noble; naive about the rest of the world.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah, but being speed and quickness based, you could say that she quickly worms her way out of the grasp rather than pushes out of them by pure force.

I think this is worth repeating.

Mechanically, you put it in Strength.

Descriptively, it's speed, agility, coordination, etc.

The stats only mean what you make them mean. I haven't seen any reason why Str can't represent quickness, agility, accuracy, etc. with the right description...?

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'd design my own class for this character. That's easy enough in C&C. Weird, that your DM refuses. I would think an artsy guy would reward such behaviour - not stop it.

It need not even be a class. It could be unique.

(I make make classes out of prestige classes. Duelist works fine as a stand alone class in C&C given a few tweaks.)