C&C: Why Different Challenge Bases?

[Obryn]

I don't think the math is particularly difficult, but I think it's a needlessly counter-intuitive system.

The basic d20 principle is that the DC is modified by factors external to the character, and bonuses are modified by factors internal to the character. Changing the DC based on the character's abilities just feels a bit backwards.

Mathematically, of course, it doesn't matter. Changing the DC modifies the odds in the same way that changing modifiers does. I agree with Delta, though, that it's counter-intuitive, and it doesn't have to be. I think that a simple +6 bonus is easier to work with than giving different DCs to different characters.

It's like the difference between THAC0 and 3esque combat bonuses.

-O

 

[scruffygrognard]

???
OK, if you find that more difficult than the tons of math in 3E, yeah, you better avoid it.

To be honest, I LOVE C&C and, at this point, prefer it to any other version of D&D but, at first, had some trepidations about it. The game begs to be houseruled and cleaned up in lots o' places.

As for you, Delta, I'd say give it a shot with the D&D 3.5 DCs in place of CBs and try to get used to the free flow goodness of the game (as opposed to 3.5 where there is a rule for EVERYTHING).

 

[scruffygrognard]

Hey Obryn,

As I wrote before, set the CB at 15 and have primes give a +5 bonus. It makes the game run so much better.

If you want to stick with the C&C CB, start at 18 and have primes give a +6 bonus... though I think that sets the bar a bit too high against the players.

 

[Delta]

As I wrote before, set the CB at 15 and have primes give a +5 bonus. It makes the game run so much better.

That's the same thing that I jotted down for notes within the first 5 minutes of my reading C&C. Would have much preferred that. (Although that doesn't address the greater issue of documenting fixed final DCs, instead of CLs looking for more operations to be done later.)

 

[scruffygrognard]

That's the same thing that I jotted down for notes within the first 5 minutes of my reading C&C. Would have much preferred that. (Although that doesn't address the greater issue of documenting fixed final DCs, instead of CLs looking for more operations to be done later.)

If you're used to DCs, then use those. The only issue with adding or subtracting from 15 comes with saving throws... and that one is REALLY easy to do on the fly.

15 + the level of caster (for spells) or effecting creature (for poisons, breath weapons, petrification, etc).

Example:
If a fighter went up against a 7HD basilisk the saving throw vs petrification would be 22 (15+7).
The fighter would roll a d20 and add his level... hoping to get a result of 22 or more.

Since petrification saves are wisdom checks, he'd add his wisdom modifier to the roll and would get an extra +5 to the roll if wisdom was one of his primes.

PS: On the topic of C&C and houserules, feel free to check out my C&C houserules at http://homepages.nyu.edu/~dp58/AD&D3.pdf

You might find them to your liking... or might hate them!

 

[arscott]

Maybe it's just me, but I always got the impression that C&C's conflict resolution system, while mathematically simple, was intentionally presented in a confusing manner to evoke the feel of the complicated systems used by 1e d&d and it's peers.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Maybe it's just me, but I always got the impression that C&C's conflict resolution system, while mathematically simple, was intentionally presented in a confusing manner to evoke the feel of the complicated systems used by 1e d&d and it's peers.

Really?!?!?

I hope not. I guess that I've gotten used to playing C&C over the last few years. Actually, I think my group picked up on how to do things right away and found the game to be much less complicated and more flexible than 3.5.

If we have a nitpick with how the game works, it's that the DM has more say in adjucating challenge ratings. In that regard C&C feels more like AD&D that 3.5... and it's only a problem if the DM is tough on the players.

 

[LotusBlossom]

I think the real reason they have a base 12 for primary attributes and 18 for non-primary attributes instead of a more simple +5 to primary attributes is because you do not get that +5 attribute bonus on all rolls.

If the combat roll and all other NON-skill rolls were AttributeModifier (including the prime attribute modifier) + stuff then one could easily say that primary attributes just receive a +5 modifier in addition to the 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2, etc stat modifiers and add these modifiers to all rolls. However, receiving the prime modifier of +5 to combat (and possibly other non-skill rolls) brings in very unbalancing effects.

So, instead of having skill rolls be Level + attMod + (prime modifier), it's "maybe/possibly" a little "cleaner/more elegant" to have two skill bases: 12 for prime and 18 for non-prime stats. Of course, I'm not really convinced it's any cleaner or more elegant, but maybe that's what the designers thought.

I do like the C&C method and tried really hard to homebrew a RPG design based upon the C&C method, and was really working to get all the rolls to be LEVEL + AttMod with the attMod including the prime stat +5 bonus. This would have made things very simple. But I could never balance all the types of rolls (combat, skills, saves, etc) with the AttMod having the +5. So I'm guessing that's why they have the two challange bases.

 

[Treebore]

The OP's suggestion is exactly the same as saying TN 12/18, just differently.

Meaning if you go with TN 18 and say Prime gives a +6, you may as well say TN is 12.

As for CL, its not hard. You choose a CL based on HD/lvl of the opponent or based on how difficult the CK thinks it should be. A rule of thumb guideline is in paragraph 3 on page 110.

So you decide on the CL and add it to TN 18, or 12 if its a Prime attribute, or you can just add a +6 in to the modifiers for the check/save, whichever, they both work.


Even in 3E a DC 15 is not simply a DC 15 check, modifiers probably come into play, which changes the final DC. You also have DC 10 plus spell level, and other base DC's you can use in 3E, just most often you start at 10 or 15. Hmmmm... 10 and 15 equals 12 and 18?

Why 12 and 18? Because it is the chosen range for the mathematically significant difference on a d20. Its actually 5.somethingsomething, but it rounds off to 6. They then chose 12 and 18 as the base line. You can use 10 and 16 if you wish, as long as you want a mathematical significance and use the number 6. Others use 5, but it does not meet the mathematical definition of "significant difference", however 5 is only off of the definition by something like .6, so does 5 really make a difference from 6? Apparently people do, since they want to change it to 5 from 6. Some obviously do feel 6 is truly significant, since they feel its too much and 5 is good enough.

So the CK decides to use either the HD/level of the opponent (same as using spell level in 3E) or determines if its in the easy range (1 to 5), difficult (6 to 10), or worse, and adds it to the TN of 18 (DC 15?) for the final TN/DC.

So not difficult, once you understand it anyways.

 

[Delta]

LOL, I wrote a big detailed response, then remembered I'd been told I'd better avoid it!