Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rogueattorney" data-source="post: 2368782" data-attributes="member: 17551">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 succeedYour proposal is essentially:d20 + Ability bonus [+ (level +3) when it's a class related ability] >= 18 [15 if a prime attribute is involved] +/- relevant adjustmentsOne 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.</blockquote>

Verification