Troll Lord Games

After an absence of a year or so, I CK'ed a game of C&C. Being a bit rusty, a few questions arose from my fellow gamers (who were new to C&C):

- wouldn't it be easier to just give a +6 bonus to all prime rolls instead of the CK having to ask whether the stat is prime and then set the challenge base at 12 or 18?

- The rules say that a challenge level of 1 to 5 is reserved for easy tasks. Are there no negative challenge levels? If the 'easiest" challenge level is 1, that means the easiest attribute attempt will have a target number of either 13 or 19... hardly "easy."

Is there any official source that gives sample challenge levels?

Making the base 12 or 18 is an effective +6. The math is the same either way. So, you don't hurt anything by calling it a +6 bonus. Technically, there are subtle reasons to not do that, but its so subtle that it might as well not bother with being used.

And, you can make a challenge level anything you want. Personally, I find the concept of "negative difficulty" to be ludicrous (if something is that easy, why are you rolling for it?) but others don't agree and that's fine. The game still plays.

The PHB has examples of using the SIEGE Engine. It needs more of them. The Castle Keeper Guide, I believe, will explain it more with more (and hopefully better) examples.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

serleran wrote:
Making the base 12 or 18 is an effective +6. The math is the same either way. So, you don't hurt anything by calling it a +6 bonus. Technically, there are subtle reasons to not do that, but its so subtle that it might as well not bother with being used.

And, you can make a challenge level anything you want. Personally, I find the concept of "negative difficulty" to be ludicrous (if something is that easy, why are you rolling for it?) but others don't agree and that's fine. The game still plays.

The PHB has examples of using the SIEGE Engine. It needs more of them. The Castle Keeper Guide, I believe, will explain it more with more (and hopefully better) examples.

When you are CK, do you ever use challenges lower than 12? I'm basically thinking of getting rid of the 12/18 dynamic and just assigning them however seems good, sort of like D&D 3.x. In that game, a challenge of 15 seemed to be the norm, 5-10 was a base for somewhat easy challenges, etc.

Of course I use difficulties lower than 12. However, the "start number" is always 12 or 18, and difficulties are added to that, and are always positive values. I don't believe in the concept of a "negative difficulty" as I've said on these boards many, many times. There are countless ways to get additional modifiers, mostly if the player plays well and considers the situation.

I also don't use the SIEGE Engine for everything. Surprise, for example, is based on a d12 and has nothing to do with Wisdom.

Your question seems to be more of the normal kind that comes up a lot on these boards --

"Doesn't using the SIEGE Engine mean all saves/checks are very hard?"

The answer is -- yes, especially difficult for non-Prime rolls. This is where, as the Castle Keeper, you have to be flexible and allow circumstantial modification to a roll. It is not codified. It should not be. Also, level does not scale against the party, usually... so, eventually, difficulties that were hard when you started will be non-challenges at higher level.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

I'll use a negative CL of 1 or 2 in some instances, this allows a minimum 50% chance of making the check for primes and roughly 20% for non primes. But unless there is a specific circumstance that has a consequence for failing the roll, I don't use a negative CL higher than 2...just give it to them, if they think to attempt it.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

I don't require a SIEGE check if there is no real chance of failure (or there really shouldn't be a chance of failure). SIEGE checks are for DIFFICULT actions (hence the challenge base of 12/18). If you are climbing a cliff with a secured rope, and are under no pressure [no one is shooting at you], then you will succeed. No check needed.

I won't do negative challenge levels (-1, -2, etc). If it requires a negative CL to emulate it being easier, then it doesn't require a roll.

Another good example would be jumping. A character jumping a 5' pit trap can do it easily (no roll) unless he is in combat (str roll needed). If the pit was 10' wide, I'd require a roll regardless.

I'm pretty sure the PH says to only require a roll if the out come is meaningful to the game itself. Otherwise assume success. So the 1 to 5 is for easy, every day, common kind of tasks, that the outcome of has an important bearing upon the game itself.

So don't worry about rolling for everything, only roll if the answer to this question is yes, "Does the result of the roll, if I ask for it, have an important impact on what is going on in the game?"

As to the "negative challenge levels" thing, as Serl says, you never go negative, you add a positive modifier to the attempt, which makes the outcome more and more likely to be successful.

So say you set jumping a 5 foot wide ditch at CL 0. Then you give a +1 to the check for every 5 foot they run up to making the jump. Say they use a pole to pole vault over it, so you give a +5 to it. By giving positive modifiers to the check I have already effectively made it a CL of negative 6 or more. I just used positive modifiers to do it.

So they are already at a TN of 12 or lower, and if Prime they are at a TN of 6 or better.

See how I did that? 1+5+6 (Prime)? All positive numbers that lower the needed TN for success.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

See...I've been running this as a base of 12 for a prime...18 for a non-prime. So any CL is added or subtracted from that. So a CL+5 would mean a 17 result for a Prime check...a CL -2 is only a 10. That was my interpretation of the way it works.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Go0gleplex wrote:
See...I've been running this as a base of 12 for a prime...18 for a non-prime. So any CL is added or subtracted from that. So a CL+5 would mean a 17 result for a Prime check...a CL -2 is only a 10. That was my interpretation of the way it works.

That seems to be because you are only adding to the CL, I am looking at adding to the PC's roll directly. That is how positives are effectively like adding a negative to the CL's.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Possibly. I'm generating a TN the PCs need to roll to or better. I don't use the +6 modifier for the Prime to add to the roll. They would add their level and mods to their roll of course.

I guess whether or not you use negative CL's is determinate on how you develop your TNs
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society