Castles & Crusades - Specific monster stats

[Mythmere1]

If any of the C&C players out here are interested in how to generate specific monster ability scores, Serleran has generated an excellent house rule (I should also mention that he doesn't think that the application of this rule will ever be needed, but I think lots of CK's will want this as a tool in the tool box).

Serleran's exact wording is here: http://mythmere.tripod.com/ccoptrules.html

The rule is that for a monster's prime stats, the specific ability score will be 3xHD (only when the HD is 4+).

For non-primes, the specific ability score is 1.5 x HD.

Obviously, the stats don't change the to-hit bonuses, etc - they're already factored in. This is a way of isolating the stat when you want to use it for something other than normal combat (it could be used in certain shapeshifting applications, etc.)

 

[Treebore]

I was just using thier HD as the modifier for saves and any checks. Otherwise I was using the 3E MM's as guidelines to generate stats, since the numerical range between the systems is identical for stat generation. Part of C&C's compatibility that I like.

 

[Akrasia]

It is a nice rule. Since it only takes 1-2 paragraphs, I really hope it is included in the M&T book, or at least the CKG.

 

[Wasgo]

It is a nice rule. Since it only takes 1-2 paragraphs, I really hope it is included in the M&T book, or at least the CKG.

Considering the earlier comments about the possibility of including multiple methods for multiclassing, I wonder how much of the CKG will be filled with optional rules (or at least more optional, since all rules are always optional. ) Either way, I'll probably use this house rule if I'm ever in a spot where I need it, though I will probably attempt to avoid monster stats as much as possible.

 

[Mythmere1]

Oh, Lord, I avoid them too. But I've got a wizard among my players who loves polymorph.

 

[bolie]

To better model giants and ogres, you might also add a size modifier, like +4 per size above Medium and -2 per size below Medium to Strength and Constitution while doing -2 per size above Medium and +2 per size below Medium to Dexterity.

For Ray of Enfeebleemnt, using 1/2 or 1/3 of the Strength loss as a penalty to all Strength based rolls would probably work just as well.

Bolie IV

 

[Mythmere1]

Here are my thoughts on the overall concept of monster stats, which I also posted over on the TLG forum.

The thing is, that monster creation is viewed as holistic in C&C rather than a building process at all. You look at it, if you don't like it, you tweak something. The entire concept of "building" monsters is based on a game concept that's not necessarily desirable - the idea that anything behind the DM screen needs to be internally consistent.

Not worrying about consistency has enormous benefits (nobody needs to do the quote).

The reason for the attributes wouldn't be to reflect a particular rules-abiding structure behind the monsters, but to give guidelines for the particular circumstances in which stats are called for.

Example: I can say an ogre has a 24 strength even if his to hit roll only gains a +4. This means that a +5 str bonus somehow "fell" to only a +4 to hit. Why? The reality is that I want him to be resistant to ray of enfeeblement effects and to grapple like a fiend. Explanation of the rules contradiction? Don't need one. I can think of several, but what matters is the "front side" of the monster - what the players see. Not the justification.

Yes, internally consistent rules give the players better predictability, but - let's face it - most such things are so small that they don't even register on players. Why make the corresponding (large) sacrifice of DM flexibility?

 

[Bregh]

For Ray of Enfeebleemnt, using 1/2 or 1/3 of the Strength loss as a penalty to all Strength based rolls would probably work just as well.

Bolie IV

I do something similar, except that I subtract the results of the enfeeblement roll from damage inflicted, and apply it as a penalty to Strength attribute checks.

Incidently, Bolie, I know from reading the C&C thread in General Discussion that you've been wondering about monster stats in the game. A Treasure-related post on Dragonsfoot notes that potions of Giant Strength confer Strength scores of 19 and above (equal to the old Strength scores for AD&D) and that the Strength bonuses that accrue to higher Strength are at +1 per two points of Strength (ie. 20-21 = +4, 22--23 + 5, 24 = +6), so there may be some definate, forthcoming answers to your polymorph concerns (if not explicit, than at least open to extrapolation).

 

[Mythmere1]

I've also, on the TLG boards, put up another method, based on Serleran's. For 1+ HD monsters, add 15 to HD on prime stats, roll secondary stats on 3d6.

For less than 1HD, just roll the stats.

It means the numbers don't jump as much as HD increases, and they start a bit higher.

 

[Von Ether]

Here are my thoughts on the overall concept of monster stats, which I also posted over on the TLG forum.

The thing is, that monster creation is viewed as holistic in C&C rather than a building process at all. You look at it, if you don't like it, you tweak something. The entire concept of "building" monsters is based on a game concept that's not necessarily desirable - the idea that anything behind the DM screen needs to be internally consistent.

Not worrying about consistency has enormous benefits (nobody needs to do the quote).

The reason for the attributes wouldn't be to reflect a particular rules-abiding structure behind the monsters, but to give guidelines for the particular circumstances in which stats are called for.

Example: I can say an ogre has a 24 strength even if his to hit roll only gains a +4. This means that a +5 str bonus somehow "fell" to only a +4 to hit. Why? The reality is that I want him to be resistant to ray of enfeeblement effects and to grapple like a fiend. Explanation of the rules contradiction? Don't need one. I can think of several, but what matters is the "front side" of the monster - what the players see. Not the justification.

Yes, internally consistent rules give the players better predictability, but - let's face it - most such things are so small that they don't even register on players. Why make the corresponding (large) sacrifice of DM flexibility?

Savage Worlds does this and it has it beneifts. The biggest thing is to warn players that not every encounter is "balanced" to them. They may have to run sometimes. I'm doing this to some degree with 3.5 in that I use mission based XP. I can toss critters at them to keep the encounter interesting, but I don't have to do all the book keep on how much XP worked out to be.