Primes and Class Abilities

[paladinn]

I've been reading through some old (2013) posts about primes and class abilities. I guess there was a discussion back then about treating all class abilities as primes. This would certainly address the "cleric tracks better than a ranger and listens better than a rogue" issue. it did make me wonder if it's common practice to always treat class abilities as prime. It makes sense, but is it problematic somehow? Does anyone do things differently?

For me, it's not a big deal. I use a flat 15 CB and primes grant a flat +3, so another +3 for class ability checks isn't hard.

Forgive me if I've missed something in the PHB, but I guess this is a house rule. I also haven't followed all the threads through.

Thanks!

[Grandpa]

This would certainly address the "cleric tracks better than a ranger and listens better than a rogue" issue.

Clerics can't track under C&C RAW regardless of wisdom being prime. They also lack the Listen class ability thus there is no such issue in C&C to be solved. I believe you are thinking of some other game system you have played.

[paladinn]

This would certainly address the "cleric tracks better than a ranger

Clerics can't track under C&C RAW regardless of wisdom being prime.

That was something that came up on the old threads. It all revolved around perception and the effect of class abilities like Listen on checks and such.

So do You automatically make class abilities prime? It's an honest question and not deserving of snark

[Fizz]

So do You automatically make class abilities prime?

I definitely do not. Class abilities add level, and primes give an effective +6. The two are independent. The reasons for my sticking with the core rule are as follows:

1: It creates a greater variety of characters. For example, cat-burgler acrobats vs box-man safecrackers both based on the thief class. Or a survivalist vs stealthy hunter based on the ranger. After all, wizards can't master every spell, so they can feel very different (ie, enchanter vs necromancer). So why should every thief or ranger be exactly the same?

2: If every character of a given class is equally as good in everything as another, then characters are only distinguished by things that are not related to their class abilities. And those kinds of checks don't come up nearly as often, so the whole point of having primes is largely lost. In other words, what's the point of having the prime system if virtually every check a character does is prime? For primes to mean something, both primes and non-prime checks need to be frequent.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

So do You automatically make class abilities prime?

I definitely do not. Class abilities add level, and primes give an effective +6. The two are independent. The reasons for my sticking with the core rule are as follows:

1: It creates a greater variety of characters. For example, cat-burgler acrobats vs box-man safecrackers both based on the thief class. Or a survivalist vs stealthy hunter based on the ranger. After all, wizards can't master every spell, so they can feel very different (ie, enchanter vs necromancer). So why should every thief or ranger be exactly the same?

2: If every character of a given class is equally as good in everything as another, then characters are only distinguished by things that are not related to their class abilities. And those kinds of checks don't come up nearly as often, so the whole point of having primes is largely lost. In other words, what's the point of having the prime system if virtually every check a character does is prime? For primes to mean something, both primes and non-prime checks need to be frequent.

-Fizz

Thanks for the reply. So what if anything do you do about perception? Btb, clerics rule when it comes to detecting things due to their Wis prime, where because of their class abilities rangers and rogues should likely be better. Or do you just let clerics rule?

[Fizz]

Thanks for the reply. So what if anything do you do about perception? Btb, clerics rule when it comes to detecting things due to their Wis prime, where because of their class abilities rangers and rogues should likely be better. Or do you just let clerics rule?

Wel, btb, there is no perception ability. So it really depends on what one means by "perception". It's important to avoid thinking about "perception" in the 3e+ context, which dumps everything together as a single skill. It's not and shouldn't be that uniform.

People notice things depending on their experience and level of expertise. Whether something is noticable is entirely situational. Obvious things don't require a check, and the non-obvious things are better determined by expertise. Example: a ranger can sense when the party is being hunted (gets some sort of check), but a cleric can't (no check allowed).


-Fizz

[Grandpa]

Thanks for the reply. So what if anything do you do about perception? Btb, clerics rule when it comes to detecting things due to their Wis prime, where because of their class abilities rangers and rogues should likely be better. Or do you just let clerics rule?

Wel, btb, there is no perception ability. So it really depends on what one means by "perception". It's important to avoid thinking about "perception" in the 3e+ context, which dumps everything together as a single skill. It's not and shouldn't be that uniform.

-Fizz

Correct. In C&C Clerics rule nothing to do with "preception". Rogues have a Listen class ability which clerics do NOT have. Rogues also have find traps and concealed/secret doors. None of which can be used by a cleric. Rangers have Track, which clerics don't and detect traps, which clerics don't. Clerics don't have any class skill of Perception.

[Fizz]

Correct. In C&C Clerics rule nothing to do with "preception". Rogues have a Listen class ability which clerics do NOT have. Rogues also have find traps and concealed/secret doors. None of which can be used by a cleric. Rangers have Track, which clerics don't and detect traps, which clerics don't. Clerics don't have any class skill of Perception.

And it works both ways too. While only the ranger might get a check to sense an ambush in the woods, the cleric might be the only one with a chance to notice something weird or inconsistent about the altar in an ancient temple, etc, which i'd adjudicate on an ad-hoc basis, as there is no specific class ability for that sort of thing.

-Fizz

[Grandpa]

Correct. In C&C Clerics rule nothing to do with "preception". Rogues have a Listen class ability which clerics do NOT have. Rogues also have find traps and concealed/secret doors. None of which can be used by a cleric. Rangers have Track, which clerics don't and detect traps, which clerics don't. Clerics don't have any class skill of Perception.

And it works both ways too. While only the ranger might get a check to sense an ambush in the woods, the cleric might be the only one with a chance to notice something weird or inconsistent about the altar in an ancient temple, etc, which i'd adjudicate on an ad-hoc basis.

-Fizz

Right. Specific knowledge that others simply don't have. Same with a person that speaks a language others don't. They can hear errors in someones speech in that language that others who don't speak the language would be clueless about.

[Lurker]

I have my game set up where if you make a WIS check you notice things your class would be keyed in on - a fighter notices things about arms armor tactics used and weaknesses of opponents, thieves points of easy attack *for that surprise back attack" where their hidden money bag is, etc.

That way it pays for ANY class to think about making WIS a prime.

[Grandpa]

I have my game set up where if you make a WIS check you notice things your class would be keyed in on - a fighter notices things about arms armor tactics used and weaknesses of opponents, thieves points of easy attack *for that surprise back attack" where their hidden money bag is, etc.

That way it pays for ANY class to think about making WIS a prime.

That could work for Int also

[jdizzy001]

There once was a thread where the troll lords themselves answered this question. I searched for it high and low but have yet to find it. The short answer is yes, class abilities can be treated as prime. That being said, you are free to play how you wish at your table.

[jdizzy001]

It took me a minute, but here is the thread I was referring to.

https://www.trolllord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13775

[paladinn]

It took me a minute, but here is the thread I was referring to.

https://www.trolllord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13775

Thank you!

[Fizz]

There once was a thread where the troll lords themselves answered this question. I searched for it high and low but have yet to find it. The short answer is yes, the intent of the rules are that all class abilities should be treated as prime. That being said, you are free to play how you wish at your table.

No, that is a mischaracterization of the thread. I remember that thread- i was in it. If you read it through, you'll see that what Steve was proposing was not that all class abilities were meant to be treated as prime. Rather, it was a proposal to change a rule for the 6th printing of the PH. The proposal was (quoting Steve from that thread):

The proposed change is to make all abilities requiring an attribute check, be that classes PRIME ATTRIBUTE. So the ranger's survival skill will be a strength roll, the knights horsemen ship will be a charisma roll and so on.

Steve and I (and others) had a really good and long back & forth on the intended nature of primes, and the pros and cons of this proposal. I was against the idea. I disliked (and still do) the notion that every ranger ability would be strength-based, every assassin ability dexterity-bases, etc etc.

The idea never made it into the PH 6th printing. So i guess i and other dissenters "won"? Lol. Regardless, by-the-book, class abilities are still not treated as prime, and the examples in the PH specifically confirm this.


-Fizz

[paladinn]

There once was a thread where the troll lords themselves answered this question. I searched for it high and low but have yet to find it. The short answer is yes, the intent of the rules are that all class abilities should be treated as prime. That being said, you are free to play how you wish at your table.

No, that is a mischaracterization of the thread. I remember that thread- i was in it. If you read it through, you'll see that what Steve was proposing was not that all class abilities were meant to be treated as prime. Rather, it was a proposal to change a rule for the 6th printing of the PH. The proposal was (quoting Steve from that thread):

The proposed change is to make all abilities requiring an attribute check, be that classes PRIME ATTRIBUTE. So the ranger's survival skill will be a strength roll, the knights horsemen ship will be a charisma roll and so on.

Steve and I (and others) had a really good and long back & forth on the intended nature of primes, and the pros and cons of this proposal. I was against the idea. I disliked (and still do) the notion that every ranger ability would be strength-based, every assassin ability dexterity-bases, etc etc.

The idea never made it into the PH 6th printing. So i guess i and other dissenters "won"? Lol. Regardless, by-the-book, class abilities are still not treated as prime, and the examples in the PH specifically confirm this.


-Fizz

I don't think the point is that class abilities should be treated as <attribute>-based. Rather, for class abilities, a character has sufficient aptitude to warrant "adding the prime bonus."

Given your previous opinions on keeping class abilities "just for that class", I'd think you might approve of this.

[Grandpa]

I don't think the point is that class abilities should be treated as <attribute>-based. Rather, for class abilities, a character has sufficient aptitude to warrant "adding the prime bonus."

Given your previous opinions on keeping class abilities "just for that class", I'd think you might approve of this.

Who's point? Not the Trolls and thus reflected in the Rules

[paladinn]

I don't think the point is that class abilities should be treated as <attribute>-based. Rather, for class abilities, a character has sufficient aptitude to warrant "adding the prime bonus."

Given your previous opinions on keeping class abilities "just for that class", I'd think you might approve of this.

Who's point? Not the Trolls and thus reflected in the Rules

The point that jdizzy001 was making. Just a few posts ago. You might want to read the thread. Even Fizz was familiar with the thread that was quoted.

And yes, some of the Trolls Were in favor of it, at least at the time.

I'm not saying it Should be that way; but someone at TLG liked the idea.

[Grandpa]

You might want to read the thread. Even Fizz was familiar with the thread that was quoted.

I did read the thread AND I am familiar with the thread quoted AND that the Trolls kicked the idea to the curb long ago.

HENCE my question. Syllogistic logic is your friend. Or at least my friend.

[Fizz]

I don't think the point is that class abilities should be treated as <attribute>-based. Rather, for class abilities, a character has sufficient aptitude to warrant "adding the prime bonus."
Given your previous opinions on keeping class abilities "just for that class", I'd think you might approve of this.

Interesting, why do you think i would approve? Class abilities just for that class (something Steve reiterated in that thread, btw) is not the same as using the Prime attribute for all abilities. Note that he wasn't proposing an extra bonus, but a prime check (not attribute) instead. So i see them as two different issues.

-Fizz

[Rigon]

I am too tired to listen to you two bicker. Stop it.

As to the post, I remember Steve saying in his home game of C&C, he used (at the time) a single Prime for all abilities of a class, ie Str rolls for all ranger abilities or Cha for all knight abilities. Those against it felt that it drastically changed how Primes were received.

Also, I've played in games where the CK had all abilities f a class considered Prime for that class. A half-elf ranger with Str and Dex primes would still roll a track Wis check as if it where Prime. It works fine and I'm sure Steve's method works fine, but to me, it changes the fundamental nature of Primes.

R-

[Fizz]

As to the post, I remember Steve saying in his home game of C&C, he used (at the time) a single Prime for all abilities of a class, ie Str rolls for all ranger abilities or Cha for all knight abilities. Those against it felt that it drastically changed how Primes were received.

Also, I've played in games where the CK had all abilities f a class considered Prime for that class. A half-elf ranger with Str and Dex primes would still roll a track Wis check as if it where Prime. It works fine and I'm sure Steve's method works fine, but to me, it changes the fundamental nature of Primes.

R-

Yeah, Treebore used (or uses?) the method of treating all class abilities as prime. I don't know if Steve still uses his method of an "archetype" check. I think he ultimately abandoned it for the 6th printing after realizing that it would have a more profound impact- as you say it's a more drastic and fundamental change.

-Fizz

[JediOre]

Where is Treebore? I know I took a several year hiatus from forum boards (two jobs, two kids, etc.), but he was always a major force in the Troll Lord's forums and his absence is noticeable.

[Captain_K]

Sadly, last I heard Treebore is more or less off the boards.

I play with PRIMES are just that, required to be a prime for that +6 bonus. This essentially makes some classes with many abilities that require many primes to be focused in an area if you do not have all the required primes. I like it, it means each Ranger is "not the same" or at least they are more different.
Recall, no stat attached abilities like spell casting or many monk abilities means you normally are not making rolls.

You still have the ability that NO others should have (yes that means the elf cannot hear the noises a thief can) and you get your level. You just may not get your +6 for a prime unless you placed a stat there. When I allow someone to try to move quietly, I stack all the right penalties a thief gets for armor and junk and I heap on a -6 for out of class.

When you create the class and pick your primes, you should know what you're doing.

[Rigon]

Where is Treebore? I know I took a several year hiatus from forum boards (two jobs, two kids, etc.), but he was always a major force in the Troll Lord's forums and his absence is noticeable.

It's a long story, but we are trying to bring him back. Fingers crossed.

R-

[JediOre]

You let him know that guys like me can come and go, but pillars of the community need to on the forum boards!

[Captain_K]

Best of luck Rigon, if I can help let me know.

[Rigon]

You let him know that guys like me can come and go, but pillars of the community need to on the forum boards!

I'll tell him when I "see" him on Monday night.

R-