Troll Lord Games

I've been toying quite a bit with attribute advancement and stat progression for a fairly heavy retool of Castles and Crusades (while remaining mostly true to what I find attractive about the system), and I think I might've found a congenial solution to some of the issues I've been having. I'm planning on nixing the regular +1 every 4 levels progression, and replacing it with a single +1 that's granted at 20th level, which means that without further enhancement, the highest any player can progress to is 20. BUT, the stat progression changes after 18, which I give credit to csperkins70 for his awesome DnD '3rd edition' rulebook.

Instead, it goes as follows:

0: Can't use that ability at all.
1-2: -4
3-4: -3
5-6: -2
7-8: -1
9-12: 0
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3
19: +4
20: +5 (This is the maximum permanent stat for PC characters- ie, your character's base STR will never be more than 20.)
21: +6
22: +7
23: +8
24: +9
25: +10 (No PC can ever have temporary stats higher than this)
26: +11
27: +12
28: +13
29: +14
30: +15 (No creature can ever have stats higher than this)

What I like about this is that it imparts a notion of the power curve accelerating as stats get farther and farther away from what is normal for a human being. It does mean, however, that stat-enhancing items will be rarer and most that exist will grant only +1 or +2 effects. A Belt of +1 Strength is a big, big deal. And spells that boost attributes will be seriously powerful. I also like that this makes the base stat bonus possible just one lower than the bonus given by a prime. It also makes 17s and 18s truly precious, and their allocation all important.

One assumed that lower than 9 invokes a penalty of some kind?

serleran wrote:One assumed that lower than 9 invokes a penalty of some kind?

Yes, it goes just as the C&C chart at lower than 9.

What about the Wish spell?

GreyLord wrote:What about the Wish spell?

You might be able to boost an attribute to 21 permanently via a Wish, yes. But you can't make the same Wish more than once (by my rules anyway), so it wouldn't go any further than that.

I've been toying with a somewhat more limited attribute modifier scheme:

Score / Modifier

1 / -6
2 - 3 / -5
4 - 5 / -4
6 - 7 / -3
8 - 9 / -2
10 - 11 / -1
12 / 0
13 - 17 / +1
18 - 19 / +2
20 - 25 / +3

serleran wrote:I've been toying with a somewhat more limited attribute modifier scheme:

Score / Modifier

1 / -6
2 - 3 / -5
4 - 5 / -4
6 - 7 / -3
8 - 9 / -2
10 - 11 / -1
12 / 0
13 - 17 / +1
18 - 19 / +2
20 - 25 / +3

Are you limiting it to decrease power levels? Or is there another goal?

Considering it for two reasons:

1) exceptionally bad and good scores are rewarded (bad are rewarded negatively... that is, bad = bad.)

2) below average (or just around average) is not a good thing.

I realize this has consequences such as encouraging high scores, but I try to place emphasis on Prime. Also, if I were to do this, I would use 4d6-L (average 12-14) instead of the 3d6 I currently use.

serleran wrote:Considering it for two reasons:

1) exceptionally bad and good scores are rewarded (bad are rewarded negatively... that is, bad = bad.)

2) below average (or just around average) is not a good thing.

I realize this has consequences such as encouraging high scores, but I try to place emphasis on Prime. Also, if I were to do this, I would use 4d6-L (average 12-14) instead of the 3d6 I currently use.

Though without higher modifiers, the actual effect of high scores is pretty minimal. I've always used 4d6-L anyway, even with regular stat modifiers. I've always been on the 'adventurers are exceptional' camp, though after DMing Pathfinder a bit, I also know the value of healthy limitations to that.

Yes, that is a "concern" in that the possible modifier is not high enough to significantly affect any outcomes, but I find that in C&C, when using the SIEGE Engine, any modifier one can get (especially positive ones) are very important. However, I also tend to not use party level as "difficulty level." A 10th level adventurer is likely to stumble into more 4-7 difficulties than one of 10, and this, for me so far, makes those modifiers very important.

Of course, I have actually used this system so it could be flat and fail wonderfully. Just an exercise into the realm of number-crunching.