Yr Wyddfa CLs?

[alcyone]

What is with the CLs in Crimson Pact, Goblins of Mount Shadow, and Giants Wrath? They are out of hand, 15, 17, they look like d20 DCs, not CLs?

It looks like this is translated D20/Pathfinder material, without changing the DCs to CL numbers.

[Celticgamer]

There is no Pathfinder element here by any means! The CLs are as judged best for whatever they refer to, so there is no pattern or logic except that it needs to require the players to make the roll depending on what difficult situation is at hand, but as always the CK can alter them best to suit their game as they go. They are only guide-lines to go by!

Diolch.

[redwullf]

I think what Aergraith meant to say is that a CL should be, you know, "5" or "8" or something roughly equivalent to an opponent's HD (or similar). The CL, in other words, should be added to the CB to come up with the CC. So if you assume a CB of 12 or 18, then a CL of 15 or 17 would be a CC range of 27 to 35, which is awfully high...

[Rigon]

I would just make the CLs into CCs. Seems like it should work.

R-

[Relaxo]

CC vs. CL is an easy Typo to make. I'm not saying that's what happened (I can't know that) but springboarding off Rigon's comment, that might be what happened.

[alcyone]

There is no Pathfinder element here by any means!

It was impolite and circumspect of me; I should have said what was suggested above. I believe you have confused Challenge Levels with Challenge Classes.

I think what Aergraith meant to say is that a CL should be, you know, "5" or "8" or something roughly equivalent to an opponent's HD (or similar).

Yes, that is what I meant. I am less concerned with the actual parity with HD, and more with the correct application of terms. Otherwise I don't know if CL=15 means they just wanted it to be impossible, or if it was a mistake.

I would just make the CLs into CCs. Seems like it should work.

If you do the +0/+6 thing it would work. If you do 12/18 as I do, then there would be no way to factor in the "primeness" of the check.

CC vs. CL is an easy Typo to make. I'm not saying that's what happened (I can't know that) but springboarding off Rigon's comment, that might be what happened.

I may as well be plain about my concerns. This made it through at least one playtest group and an editor. C&C is often accused of having poor editing, sometimes fairly. My personal goodwill goes a long way towards tolerating this sort of thing, but it bothered me to think that the module writer might be unconcerned with the rule system. It's true that C&C CKs are a flexible bunch, and many use the books as a mere reference but really just run their own internalized (A/O)D&D. However, if a module is to receive the C&C stamp, and I am to pay money for it, I'd like it to follow the same system as all of the other [correctly edited] modules.

I hate writing this because I hate reading posts like this, but as a huge fan of C&C I hate to see the system become diluted, and I hate it when people on other boards have actual fuel for hating on it. And at the same time, I am not even sure my accusation is fair, because I have not looked at every CL across all of the "Yr Wyddfa" modules, and maybe they really are CLs (and I hope the author will say if this is so.)

I am a fan of the Welsh-inspired material and have no problems so far with it or its general presentation.

I think from now on, though, when I find mistakes in materials I buy from TLG, I am going to be loud about them; when I become silent it's because I moved onto something else, like the excellent Astonishing Sorcerers and Swordsmen of Hyperborea, which came out the gate with very professional editing, inspiring artwork, and the attentive support of Jeffrey Talanian.

My apologies for the rant.