Class abilities as prime checks?

[Kayolan]

Anyone here allow class abilities to be a prime check even if the character isn't prime in that attribute? Say an elven ranger for example, who must have a prime in Str and must therefore choose between being not as proficient at Delay/Neutralize Poison, Traps, Survival, Track (all Wis-based) or be worse for wear in Move Silently, Conceal, and Scale (all Dex-based)? Seems to me that humans make the best rangers, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't feel like C&C to me. Maybe it's assumed a character is prime in these abilities and I just haven't read it in the rules.

[Treebore]

You know I do, you've been playing in my games for nearly 10 years. See? Its such a seemless rule you forgot you've been playing with it for close to a decade.

[Kayolan]

You know I do, you've been playing in my games for nearly 10 years. See? Its such a seemless rule you forgot you've been playing with it for close to a decade.

Didn't notice it, most likely by accident, as I play characters that never had this come up before, namely fighters and wizards.

Seamless is a good word for it, I think it just goes without saying, maybe it's not even a house rule, perhaps the Trolls just didn't mention this in the text?

[alcyone]

http://www.trolllord.com/forums/viewtop ... =8&t=13775

A refresher on the topic; I need to reread it but I think Stephen claims in there somewhere that it was always the intention that you use your primary attribute to roll any of these. I can't imagine how that could be when one of the class abilities have an ability in parentheses though: to me only Tree's way makes sense.

I am a jerk and I leave it as written, because it strengthens the choice between human and other classes. But I keep thinking of changing over.

[alcyone]

Rereading that thread I wish we hadn't all been so damn ornery about it. If the books stopped listing an ability in parentheses assuming the class prime, I wouldn't have a problem with it and that is what Stephen was suggesting. Too bad 7th printing is on its way already.

Another way to sell it is just make a derived stat called Primalicious or Essence or something that is exactly the same as your class prime's score. Now it's not called Strength or Wisdom or whatever, it just gets used for class abilities, and there's no problem.

Then the question is, does it work for racial abilities (such as Elf -- move silently).

[Captain_K]

I like having things not all be prime...pick and choose... if every class gets primes for class abilities then Human gets less benefit also picking and choosing primes within class makes each class sort of have sub classes....

[Treebore]

I like having things not all be prime...pick and choose... if every class gets primes for class abilities then Human gets less benefit also picking and choosing primes within class makes each class sort of have sub classes....

Agreed, but I also think that if your a thief, your a thief, and good at everything that a thief is known for doing. Same goes for every skill heavy class. Which obviously isn't all of them.

[Captain_K]

But I can see a thief with great INT and DEX would be a different thief than one with GREAT STR and DEX.. we had two brothers "STASH and BASH" and that was how they differed. One was thin, weak, but smart and quick of hand, while his HUGE numbskull of a brother was also quick of hand but slow of wit.. both very different thieves. So I see you point, but don't mind the difference and what it forces in players and their more unique characters..

Same but different..

[Kayolan]

But I can see a thief with great INT and DEX would be a different thief than one with GREAT STR and DEX.. we had two brothers "STASH and BASH" and that was how they differed. One was thin, weak, but smart and quick of hand, while his HUGE numbskull of a brother was also quick of hand but slow of wit.. both very different thieves. So I see you point, but don't mind the difference and what it forces in players and their more unique characters..

Same but different..

I see what you're saying, but can't you have the same differences in primes without it affecting your basic thief abilities?

STASH and BASH could both be proficient thieves and still have their primes go into different attributes, their saves and non-thief checks would be different, but as thieves they would both have roughly the same ability depending on level and attribute bonuses.

[Fizz]

Agreed, but I also think that if your a thief, your a thief, and good at everything that a thief is known for doing. Same goes for every skill heavy class. Which obviously isn't all of them.

But isn't that like saying a wizard should be good (know) every spell? They can't- they have to pick and choose what kind to be. So why should a thief be good at everything? I kind of like the idea of specialists- one rogue is a master safecracker, another is a smooth talking con man, and another is your sneaking catburgler. Same class, different characters. The power of primes!

Of course, i made these points in that other thread, so clearly i have not changed.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

I see what you're saying, but can't you have the same differences in primes without it affecting your basic thief abilities?

STASH and BASH could both be proficient thieves and still have their primes go into different attributes, their saves and non-thief checks would be different, but as thieves they would both have roughly the same ability depending on level and attribute bonuses.

It can, and does. But i guess i have found that those non-thief checks are relatively rare. So checks are usually prime checks. You spend more time doing prime checks than non-prime.

Levels reflect training, primes a special knack. So I guess i prefer primes to be genuinely special.

-Fizz

[Giant2005]

Why not compromise?
Class abilities have a base check of 15 rather than 12 or 18. That way they are still moderately good at what they should be good at and you still have the potential of specialists being better.

[Treebore]

Agreed, but I also think that if your a thief, your a thief, and good at everything that a thief is known for doing. Same goes for every skill heavy class. Which obviously isn't all of them.

But isn't that like saying a wizard should be good (know) every spell? They can't- they have to pick and choose what kind to be. So why should a thief be good at everything? I kind of like the idea of specialists- one rogue is a master safecracker, another is a smooth talking con man, and another is your sneaking catburgler. Same class, different characters. The power of primes!

Of course, i made these points in that other thread, so clearly i have not changed.

-Fizz

No, because learning spells is akin to learning high level Physics, while skills are much more simple and obvious.

[Giant2005]

To put it in perspective, a Dex/Str Ranger isn't as good at Survival as your average Cleric until he reaches levels 6-9.
That is a fact that is really hard to justify.

[alcyone]

I don't understand why everyone thinks Clerics shouldn't be better at everything.

[Fizz]

But isn't that like saying a wizard should be good (know) every spell? They can't- they have to pick and choose what kind to be. So why should a thief be good at everything? I kind of like the idea of specialists- one rogue is a master safecracker, another is a smooth talking con man, and another is your sneaking catburgler. Same class, different characters. The power of primes!

Of course, i made these points in that other thread, so clearly i have not changed.

-Fizz

No, because learning spells is akin to learning high level Physics, while skills are much more simple and obvious.

I would disagree, because 1st level spells are plenty common, all available at 1st level. I don't think a 1st level wizard is the equivalent of a PhD in physics. (Physics is WAY harder... heh.) And comparitively, some skills (say Tracking, Survival) are certainly highly specialized.

-Fizz

[Giant2005]

I don't understand why everyone thinks Clerics shouldn't be better at everything.

Fair point.
I'm just more annoyed that no-one brought this up before - we should have had Egar doing the Ranger stuff instead of watching Mahrtiir fail a it. Mahrtiir won't be as good as Egar until he reaches level 8.

[alcyone]

I don't understand why everyone thinks Clerics shouldn't be better at everything.

Fair point.
I'm just more annoyed that no-one brought this up before - we should have had Egar doing the Ranger stuff instead of watching Mahrtiir fail a it. Mahrtiir won't be as good as Egar until he reaches level 8.

Yeah, Egar is an underachiever.

[Fizz]

To put it in perspective, a Dex/Str Ranger isn't as good at Survival as your average Cleric until he reaches levels 6-9.
That is a fact that is really hard to justify.

Think of it this way. At 1st level, you are just starting out- you're a trainee. You have little skill in your profession, and you're relying on natural talent. 6th level is the point where your training starts matches your natural ability, and then dominates at higher levels.

-Fizz

[Rigon]

Agreed, but I also think that if your a thief, your a thief, and good at everything that a thief is known for doing. Same goes for every skill heavy class. Which obviously isn't all of them.

But isn't that like saying a wizard should be good (know) every spell? They can't- they have to pick and choose what kind to be. So why should a thief be good at everything? I kind of like the idea of specialists- one rogue is a master safecracker, another is a smooth talking con man, and another is your sneaking catburgler. Same class, different characters. The power of primes!

Of course, i made these points in that other thread, so clearly i have not changed.

-Fizz

I just loosened the Prime requirement for all classes. If you want to have a charismatic, dexterous, and intelligent fighter, take Dex, Int, and Cha. If you want the heavy hitter front line tank, take Str, Dex, and Con. But as I said in the other thread, Prime choice helps to differentiate characters. I could play nothing but fighters and have a different character each time just by changing which Attributes are Prime.

R-

[Giant2005]

To put it in perspective, a Dex/Str Ranger isn't as good at Survival as your average Cleric until he reaches levels 6-9.
That is a fact that is really hard to justify.

Think of it this way. At 1st level, you are just starting out- you're a trainee. You have little skill in your profession, and you're relying on natural talent. 6th level is the point where your training starts matches your natural ability, and then dominates at higher levels.

-Fizz

That would be fair if it was level 3 where they balanced out (which is part of the reason why I suggested 15 rather than 18 for class abilities), but levels 6-9 stretch from mid to high levels.
According to the Land & Title section of Monsters and Treasure, a level 6 Ranger is supposed to be competent enough that he is trusted to be Warden over a large area of land. The level 9 Ranger is supposed to be competent enough to be considered Warden of the entire realm. Characters of those levels aren't amateurs - they are hardened, experienced people that are leagues ahead of the common folk. At that stage of their career, they shouldn't be just coming into being as competent as a trainee Cleric.

[Treebore]

But isn't that like saying a wizard should be good (know) every spell? They can't- they have to pick and choose what kind to be. So why should a thief be good at everything? I kind of like the idea of specialists- one rogue is a master safecracker, another is a smooth talking con man, and another is your sneaking catburgler. Same class, different characters. The power of primes!

Of course, i made these points in that other thread, so clearly i have not changed.

-Fizz

No, because learning spells is akin to learning high level Physics, while skills are much more simple and obvious.

I would disagree, because 1st level spells are plenty common, all available at 1st level. I don't think a 1st level wizard is the equivalent of a PhD in physics. (Physics is WAY harder... heh.) And comparitively, some skills (say Tracking, Survival) are certainly highly specialized.

-Fizz

No, 1st level spells are, in vanilla base line games, ONLY the wizards can learn such spells. The higher the intelligence, the better, and the more spells you can learn and understand to cast (INT Bonus spells). No one else is even capable of learning Arcane spells (Aside from the other Arcane class, the Illusionist). Divine casters are spoon fed their spells. So I think the Physcis analogy is a very good one. Plus I never said First level spells were a PhD in Physics, but 9th level spells certainly are. You can start learning Physics in High School, but no one but a specially taught Wizard can learn to cast a Wizard spell.

[Fizz]

Think of it this way. At 1st level, you are just starting out- you're a trainee. You have little skill in your profession, and you're relying on natural talent. 6th level is the point where your training starts matches your natural ability, and then dominates at higher levels.

-Fizz

That would be fair if it was level 3 where they balanced out (which is part of the reason why I suggested 15 rather than 18 for class abilities), but levels 6-9 stretch from mid to high levels.
According to the Land & Title section of Monsters and Treasure, a level 6 Ranger is supposed to be competent enough that he is trusted to be Warden over a large area of land. The level 9 Ranger is supposed to be competent enough to be considered Warden of the entire realm. Characters of those levels aren't amateurs - they are hardened, experienced people that are leagues ahead of the common folk. At that stage of their career, they shouldn't be just coming into being as competent as a trainee Cleric.

Perhaps we differ in how we define "low", "middle" and "high" level. Ostensibly, there are 20 levels in the base game (since we have spellcasting tables going that high). So i tend to split it evenly- 1-6 is low level, 7-13 is mid level, and 14+ is high level. One must be high level to access high level magic, after all.

So in my level layout, i think my explanation works. But if you say that 10th is high level, and that anything above say 12th is epic, then yes i see your point.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

No, 1st level spells are, in vanilla base line games, ONLY the wizards can learn such spells. The higher the intelligence, the better, and the more spells you can learn and understand to cast (INT Bonus spells). No one else is even capable of learning Arcane spells (Aside from the other Arcane class, the Illusionist). Divine casters are spoon fed their spells. So I think the Physcis analogy is a very good one. Plus I never said First level spells were a PhD in Physics, but 9th level spells certainly are. You can start learning Physics in High School, but no one but a specially taught Wizard can learn to cast a Wizard spell.

I see- you are saying that because wizards (and illusionists) are the only ones who can cast arcane magic, that it presumes a specialized training up front. A wizard could try to track something, but a ranger could not try to cast magic missle. That's a perfectly valid way of looking at it. I'm currently about a third of the way through my PhD... wonder what i can cast so far... 3rd level then? Heh.

That said, i'm not sure it changes my original point: not all wizards are equally good at everything. You can have many different kinds of wizards: death-defying necromancers, fireball-slinging evokers, or beguiling enchanters. Same class, all with a very different feel. So i think all i was trying to say was that you can get many subclasses or sub-archetypes of the wizard buried within a single class. In the case of the wizard, it is done through spells (since they are not skill dependent). In the case of rogues or rangers, it can be done via Primes. Personally i like that flexibility in character types.

I like how Rigon does it- no required primes for any class. I have a few house rules that assist in that as well.


-Fizz

[Giant2005]

Think of it this way. At 1st level, you are just starting out- you're a trainee. You have little skill in your profession, and you're relying on natural talent. 6th level is the point where your training starts matches your natural ability, and then dominates at higher levels.

-Fizz

That would be fair if it was level 3 where they balanced out (which is part of the reason why I suggested 15 rather than 18 for class abilities), but levels 6-9 stretch from mid to high levels.
According to the Land & Title section of Monsters and Treasure, a level 6 Ranger is supposed to be competent enough that he is trusted to be Warden over a large area of land. The level 9 Ranger is supposed to be competent enough to be considered Warden of the entire realm. Characters of those levels aren't amateurs - they are hardened, experienced people that are leagues ahead of the common folk. At that stage of their career, they shouldn't be just coming into being as competent as a trainee Cleric.

Perhaps we differ in how we define "low", "middle" and "high" level. Ostensibly, there are 20 levels in the base game (since we have spellcasting tables going that high). So i tend to split it evenly- 1-6 is low level, 7-13 is mid level, and 14+ is high level. One must be high level to access high level magic, after all.

So in my level layout, i think my explanation works. But if you say that 10th is high level, and that anything above say 12th is epic, then yes i see your point.

-Fizz

I was just taking that from the book. It cites low level as 1-4, mid level as 5-8, and high level as 9-12.
It doesn't bother considering anything higher than that.

[Rigon]

In talking to Steve at various Cons and hearing the panel at the last TrollCon, which had Mac, Davis, and Steve on the it, I know that C&C is made up of multiples of 6. That's why the classes go up to level 24 in the CKG. So for me, low level is in the 1-6 range, mid is in the 7-12 range, high is in the 13-18 range, and epic level is 19 and above.

R-

[Fizz]

I was just taking that from the book. It cites low level as 1-4, mid level as 5-8, and high level as 9-12.
It doesn't bother considering anything higher than that.

Really? I don't recall it specifically saying that. Where is that found?

Let's see, at 4th level, you get a +4 bonus compared to the effective +6 from Prime. So natural talent dominates there and lower levels. From 5th to 8th, it's +5 to +8 compared to +6 Prime, and right in the middle of that range is where level matches and starts to overcome natural talent. Then 9th and above, you've got +9 bonus compared to +6 Prime, a distinct advantage, so now training is the dominant factor.

So one could define low levels as where primes dominant over level bonus (natural talent over training). Then mid levels are where the level bonus is simlar to the prime (training roughly matches natural talent). Finally, at high levels, level are definitely stronger than the prime benefit (training dominates over natural talent).

Using your definitions, it matches the description i had given earlier. (Though maybe i should rethink my own labels... heh.)


-Fizz

[Giant2005]

I was just taking that from the book. It cites low level as 1-4, mid level as 5-8, and high level as 9-12.
It doesn't bother considering anything higher than that.

Really? I don't recall it specifically saying that. Where is that found?

Let's see, at 4th level, you get a +4 bonus compared to the effective +6 from Prime. So natural talent dominates there and lower levels. From 5th to 8th, it's +5 to +8 compared to +6 Prime, and right in the middle of that range is where level matches and starts to overcome natural talent. Then 9th and above, you've got +9 bonus compared to +6 Prime, a distinct advantage, so now training is the dominant factor.

So one could define low levels as where primes dominant over level bonus (natural talent over training). Then mid levels are where the level bonus is simlar to the prime (training roughly matches natural talent). Finally, at high levels, level are definitely stronger than the prime benefit (training dominates over natural talent).

Using your definitions, it matches the description i had given earlier. (Though maybe i should rethink my own labels... heh.)


-Fizz

From the 4th printing of M&T page 129: " low-level characters to be 1 st -4 th level, mid-level characters to be 5 th -8 th level and high-level to be 9 th -12 th level."

Anyway, when I said Rangers would have to 6-9th level to be as competent at Survival as a 1st level Cleric, I was accounting for the likely difference in Wisdom scores.
It would require a 6th level Ranger if their Wisdom scores are the same, ranging up to 9th level of the Cleric had a 3 point Wisdom advantage (which isn't all that unlikely - I'd expect at least a 2 point difference).

[capmarvel]

Can someone translate this all to someone who isn't yet a C&C guru (and may never be)?

Are we saying that every class ability is rolled as if it were a prime even though you're "only supposed" to have 2 or 3 primes? Then...if half your stats can end up "prime", why have primes at all?

But I think I'm reading here that some like it as written and some like the characters succeeding more often. I think.

[Rigon]

Can someone translate this all to someone who isn't yet a C&C guru (and may never be)?

Are we saying that every class ability is rolled as if it were a prime even though you're "only supposed" to have 2 or 3 primes? Then...if half your stats can end up "prime", why have primes at all?

But I think I'm reading here that some like it as written and some like the characters succeeding more often. I think.

You still only have 2 or 3 Primes depending on race for normal checks and saves, but for your class abilities, your roll is considered Prime.

R-