Let me know what you all think! ^_^

http://brunos-geek-reviews.tumblr.com/p ... er-effects

It will/could have far-reaching (possibly) unintended consequences...

Well, some common sense should be applied for sure and it shouldn't be used with all monster effects. In the case of C&C, I'd say the difference should be of 1 and not 2 per monster on the TN.

I actually like it. It dovetails with Aid Another nicely and gives a nod to the popular advantage/disadvantage concept (see 4th Ed and D&D Next). Good idea!

The problem with any of these types of systems is when the numbers are low enough being faced but high enough to matter... for example:

4, 8 HD creatures. Under proposal 1 -- Difficulty = 8 + (4 [number appearing] x 2 [bonus per creature]) = 16 (significantly harder than rolling 4 saves against an 8 as it may not even be possible for some characters to make the 16 save...) Proposal 2 -- 8 + (4 x 1) = 12 (harder, and maybe manageable). Proposal 3 (using an average system) -- 8 + (average of 8 / 2 = 4) = 12 (same as the proposal 2).

But, if we add in different HD... like 4 at 8 HD and 3 at 6 HD, we get...

Prop1: 8 + (7 x 2) = 22 difficulty

Prop 2: 8 + (4 + 3) = 15

Prop 3: 8 + (average of 8 + 6 = 7, divide by 2... = 3) = 11.

Using a +1 per creature seems to yield the most evenhanded difficulty and is less complex.

Well, the mechanical example in the article itself is for 3.5, not for C&C. In C&C's case, I already said as much in an earlier reply in this thread. :p

I guess all I'd have to say is; "Agreed"? xD

Yeah.. I was breaking things down to see what way I liked best, considering the d20 method, a +1 per additional, or some other funky complex.


Otherwise, agreed, yeah. I guess.

Gotcha. The thing is, with C&C one has to consider that a monster's HD pretty much cancels out someone's saving throw progression AND non-primes are near impossible to pull off in that case! I would probably split up a group of monsters for their Cooperative Effects even more than with 3.5 in some cases.

I like it. As another poster said, in C&C, I would add just 1 to the save though. I would probably also give the player the option to make one hard roll or multiple easier ones.

Also, with regard to the Allip, IIRC if you save vs. their babble once, they can't effect you again for another 24 hours. So if you had to roll against the same Allips every round, you were rolling way more dice than you actually needed to.

D'oh! And it's actually the opposite of what I wrote, where once it affected you it can't do it again... Not sure if that's how we played it or if I remembered it incorrectly. I'll edit it later anyway! Thanks. :p

You know, I keep hearing/seeing this said, and in the 7 years I have been running and/or playing C&C, weekly, 2 or more games per week for years now, I have yet to find this to be true. I guess it would be if the CK made the monster several HD above the party. But when they are of even HD, or better yet, a couple of HD lower, I see non Prime saves made plenty of times. Made them a lot myself.

It also depends on magic items and attributes as well as whether or not they have Protection From Evil, Shield of Faith, Circle of Protection, Prayer and the like in effect. If nothing else it makes such spells being used that much more worth while to use. It also makes players appreciate the Knight and Bards abilities to increase saves as well.

Maybe other groups just aren't as good as mine about using such spells or playing such classes and using those abilities?

So I agree making non Prime saving throws is significantly harder, I don't agree with describing those saves as being nigh impossible. Especially when players use their resources to make such saves as easy as possible. So I see such spells cast frequently. Heck, the fighter cleric I play casts Protection From Evil and Shield of Faith on himself as soon as he can. With that additional +4 to my saves I've rarely failed them, even when non Prime, and our CK usually throws monsters at us equal to our HD, or only 1 or two below. For some reason he likes throwing monstrous spiders at us that were 1 or 2 HD above us, and I made all but one Poison save despite not having Con as a Prime. Having one or both of those spells up as soon as I could certainly helped.

While non Prime saves are harder to make, and are certainly an "Achilles Heel", they aren't "impossible" to make. Unless of course the CK is mean enough to throw a opponent against the party that is so far above the parties level that they simply cannot make the roll, no matter what spell, attribute, or magic item bonus they may have in place. In that case, the CK is just being a dick. Or the CK can be someone who likes to ambush parties with spell casters or creatures with poisons, breath weapons etc.. Make it so they have to make saves before they can get any spells up, or are asleep and cannot add their Dex bonus, whatever.

Bottom line is, if a CK is careful, and thinks ahead, they can give the players a round or two to get such spells in place to keep the party from being devastated by things that go against their non Prime saves. If the players aren't quick enough to take such precautions, then they better roll extra well.

I believe that was well stated!

Agreed. But, it shouldn't exclude never coming across a much more powerful monster. It is just that a lot of post 2000 DM's have developed the me against them philosophy of DMing. I've always been of the philosophy of being neutral and sometimes (rarely) for the characters, with the emphasis on fun. So, if I throw a monster that is very difficult to beat there is always some kind of out or at the very least try to run away. But, there is always some kind of meaning to the encounter.