Castles & Crusades - Opinions on a SIEGE houserule

[Turanil]

Reading some threads on other forums, I came to think twice about the SIEGE engine.

That is, I wondered about a 1st level cleric (wisdom as prime) better at tracking than a 1st level ranger (without wisdom as prime). And also I wondered about a 1st level fighter with dexterity as prime, who would be at +6 to climb, hide, pick-pocket, etc., while the 1st level thief is only at +7 for those same things that are class abilities for him. So I thought of implementing the following system:

-- Character wants to attempt a task (track, climb, fast-talk, whatever):
1) roll a d20 vs a DC (using d20/3e DC that already exist)
2) add relevant ability score modifier
3) if the relevant ability score is prime, add +3 (instead of +6)
4) if task is covered by a class ability (tracking, climb, etc.) add level+3 (instead of just the level)

Possible problems genrated by this houserule:
-- More bookkeeping on character sheet, less simplicity.
-- Saving throws more uniform.

Any opinion? Suggestions for improvement? Unforeseen flaws?

Thanks

 

[der_kluge]

The whole SIEGE engine things seems a little backwards to me. I had a lot of trouble understanding it when it was first explained. The idea of having two saving throws for a given task seems a little odd. I would rather see a system where, if the ability is prime, then saves/ability checks get a bonus to them, versus the way it's currently done.

You could do it that way. If it's a class ability, and if it's prime, then they get a +3 and a +3. Then only give out one save. That would be *less* work than the current C&C rule.

 

[rogueattorney]

I have essentially the same problem with the Siege system that I do with the d20 system. It has to do with the "subjective" rather than "objective" position of power the pc's have in the campaign world. In both cases, character power is only ever relative to whatever the DC the referee assigns to the task at hand. Needless to say, 3e gives a whole lot more guidance with regard to assigning the DC than C&C does, but the concept remains the same. While a rogue's lock-picking skill, for example, might increase, it really doesn't matter if the referee continually increases the difficulty of the locks.

In the older editions of D&D player character abilities tended to only be controlled by the level of the pc. (Picking pockets is the big exception.) That gave a real sense of "growing up" from some challenges into other challenges. There was more of a discernable campaign arc.

It really is a trade off though. In older versions of D&D, continually setting challenges for higher level characters was a real bear. It required a lot of work to creatively come up with stuff. In 3e and C&C it's a lot easier, but by simply raising DC's and adding levels to monsters I miss that sense of accompishment when "graduating" from old challenges to new ones. (Note: I haven't seen the M&T, so I don't know if it has rules for upgrading monsters, so that criticism might only apply to 3e.)

R.A.

 

[Turanil]

In the older editions of D&D player character abilities tended to only be controlled by the level of the pc. <...> In 3e and C&C it's a lot easier, but by simply raising DC's and adding levels to monsters I miss that sense of accompishment when "graduating" from old challenges to new ones.

This is an excellent point. The real problem with the game is when DM just increase DCs and add hit-dice and class levels to foes, so basically your PCs don't seem to have grown in power. However, this is primarily a problem of the DM. The DM should strive to make a campaign where your character feels he really becomes a hero. There are several way to do this, and it should be done otherwise the game is less interesting. Just a quick example, from my AD&D 1e days. My 3rd level cavalier had to cross a dreaded forest to go to a land where he would have his next adventures. Our group really had a horrible time in this forest, and we barely escaped alive and didn't want to return there. However, much later my now 10th level cavalier with mighty magic at disposal, had to go back through that forest, this time alone. Well, the DM played it so well, that I felt the difference; the cavalier had become powerful and the forest denizens sensed it and were afraid. The one or two encounters with some of the same horrid monsters as the first time were now easy for my PC. It gave me a great sense of accomplishment I wouldn't have had if the DM had lazily thrown up a set of more powerful monsters as random encounters.

(Note: I haven't seen the M&T, so I don't know if it has rules for upgrading monsters, so that criticism might only apply to 3e.)

From the PDF and monster listing available on TLG website, I think C&C monsters have been done "old school", that is, without options of improving the creatures.

 

[rogueattorney]

However, this is primarily a problem of the DM.

Absolutley. Just like tendency of players to play "nose-down" (head in books and character sheets looking for the answers instead of being creative) when using rules heavy systems. That's a player problem, not a rules problem. However, certain rules sets promote some bad habits more than others. So, while I think it's true that good players and GM's can make any system work, a system more taylored to your preferred style of play makes things easier on everybody.

Like I said, there's a trade off in the between the "subjective" and "objective" systems. In the subjective system it's pretty easy to set up challenges to the particular pc's power level, but it's harder to come up with something different from the last thing they did. In the objective system it requires a lot more work to come up with the new challenges, possibly even rules tweaks (see S1 Tomb of Horros and WG6 Isle of the Ape), but whatever that challenge is, it will pretty much out of necessity be quite different from the previous challenges. (The programmed BECMI D&D campaign arc of dungeon > wilderness > dominion > plane walking > godhood is the ultimate example of this.) The GM should pick the system that goes to his strength.

(And without the "scale-able" monsters, C&C looks like it might be right in the mid-point between 3.x e and OOP (A)D&D, which seems to have been the Trolls goal in the first place.)

R.A.

 

[Turanil]

I agree, and now would like to see the thread back to the topic (i.e.: what people think of the houserule).

 

[radferth]

(And without the "scale-able" monsters, C&C looks like it might be right in the mid-point between 3.x e and OOP (A)D&D, which seems to have been the Trolls goal in the first place.)

R.A.

I agree that seems to have been the Troll's goal, and I like it. I must admit to being very indifferent as to whether the monsters are scaleble or not. It's not like it was so hard to figure out how to scale monsters in older editions (if one was inclined to do so).

 

[Turanil]

Could this thread go back to topic?

Thanks.

 

[JohnSnow]

Our first C&C houserule was that Primes added to ability checks, rather than changing the TN. This was partially because I complained to my CK that the shifting TN thing was THAC0ish, and while I'm not sure he ever agreed, we did decide that he just set TNs and Primes added +6 to the check.

As far as splitting them, that's a good idea, but you have to take into account "skills." One of our later houserules was ruling that certain abilities governed certain "skills." However, we stuck with class abilities adding level and Primes adding +6. We acknowledged as how this made Primes MORE relevant at low levels than skills, but less so at high levels. And while we had some issues with that, it also makes a certain degree of sense.

At low levels, your PC's intrinsic abilities matter more than his training. So the Dex-prime fighter is nearly as good at climbing as his Rogue buddy. By 6th level, the Rogue has a substantial advantage, and beyond that, the fighter just isn't close.

That makes a certain amount of sense, although it does mean that the fighter never gets better at climbing. On the other hand, he's a fighter, and this is a rules-light, skill-free system, so what do you expect?

Interesting change. However, IMO, it basically shifts to a lower level the point at which Primes cease to be relevant to what the character can do, relative to the challenges he faces. The Dex-prime fighter in question can't climb nearly as well as the rogue, even at 1st level. Some people like their games that way, others (myself included) aren't so sure...

Just my thoughts.

 

[rogueattorney]

I agree, and now would like to see the thread back to the topic (i.e.: what people think of the houserule).

Let's see, the general SIEGE rule is:

d20 + Ability bonus [+ class level where appropriate] >= 18 [12 if a prime attribute is involved] +/- relevant adjustments (level of opponent, etc.) to succeed

Your proposal is essentially:

d20 + Ability bonus [+ (level +3) when it's a class related ability] >= 18 [15 if a prime attribute is involved] +/- relevant adjustments

One issue is that class level can be added when it's not a class related ability. It's just not added when it's another class's ability. Hence a fighter with a prime in strength can get his level added to a roll to move a heavy object, even though that's not a specifically class related skill. The rules are kind of vague on the subject. You probably know that. I just thought I'd mention it.

That aside, what you've essentially done is put more emphasis on class level than on the prime. Thus a first level ranger tracking without WIS as a prime would have the same chance to track as a cleric of any level with WIS as a prime and an above average wisdom. Under the other system, the cleric would get essentially +7 (prime +6 and WIS bonus) and the ranger would only get a +1. Under your system, by 2nd level the ranger will always be a better tracker than the cleric and, while under the original, the ranger won't be a better tracker than the cleric until 8th level.

I'm sort of, of two minds regarding this. What I like is that it seems to promotes the archetypes of classes more. Clerics can still track, but the ranger will almost always be better than the cleric at tracking regardless of level. That's good. It emulates the old school better.

What gives me pause is that I'm wondering why the ranger doesn't have a prime in WIS to begin with. The class abilities should enourage players to put their primes (and probably their high ability scores) into those attributes that are related to their class abilities. It's like cross class skills in 3e. A fighter COULD concentrate on picking pockets in 3e, but he's probably better off concentrating on his class skills instead. So in C&C, a ranger COULD put one of his primes in DEX, for example, instead of WIS, but he'll be better at his class abilities if he puts one of his primes in WIS. Thus we're back to encouraging the archetypes. What you're proposing would actually benefit those players who put primes into non-class ability related attributes, but not benefit those that do put their primes in their "intended" places, or at least give them the option of spreading a bunch of +3's around rather than having 2 or 3 +6's.

Thus, I'm not sure if your "stick" (reducing bonus for prime/increasing bonus for class ability) outweighs the original rules' "carrot" (encouragment to pick primes related to class abilities). It probably will depend on what your players are like and to what extent they fight against the system's encouragement (making your system better) or go along with it (making the original system better).

R.A.