Troll Lord Games

Ok, so I've solicited feed back on this from a couple of other people but I thought I would throw it out here and see what people had to say on this forum. (thanks for pointing me here Demiurge)

Whats a good challenge level for attribute checks made by 1st level characters when attempting things using non-prime stats?

Here's the setup. Lets say one of my players wants to attempt something that requires intelligence. It's not their prime stat.
Its not an incredibly difficult thing but I definitely want there to be a fair chance of failure and success, requiring a die roll.

Assuming its not a prime stat, the challenge base is 18. The character is LVL 1. What would be a good challenge level for something like this such that its possible but still has a chance for failure?

Here's how I look at it:

SIEGE checks are for things that have a significant (60% chance?) of failure. If the estimated chance of failure is lower than that (basically, the character should be able to do it most of the time), and it is within their class or race realm, then I don't require checks-they just accomplish it, assuming they have the necessary means, tools, and time to do whatever it is.

For tasks that have a real chance of failure, my eyeball for challenge levels are dependant on what the challenge is: "challenging" is CL 0, "difficult" is CL 3, "very difficult" is CL 6, "near impossible" is CL 9. I determine whether it is challenging, difficult, or near impossible.

I don't believe in 'negative challenge levels' (ie: CL -3, or a prime challenge base of 9). I think either you want your players to accomplish it, or you want a real chance of failure.

That being said, most 1-3rd level characters only face CL 0 challenges.

Personaly i go with a rough

I dont care if they fail or pass 11+ for sucess
I want it to be tough 15+
I want it easy 7+

These for nongame related... knowledge checks, do i know so and so... etc.
Game related.. i go by level of the adventure and modify up or down based on how hard i feel it should be.
Generaly i try to give them a slim chance , but some things are destined to fail...

I run challange levels exactly like ThrorII.

~O

Ok, Thror/Omote,
So what I'm seeing is that you'd likely use a CL of 0 and that you target about a 60 percent chance of failure.

Assuming its not a prime stat the challenge base would be 18. So for a LVL 1 character, they'd need to roll a 17 or higher if you add their level to the roll. Thats a minimum of an 85 percent chance of failure. If you don't use a negative CL, how would you ever get a 60 percent chance for failure for a LVL 1 character? Am I missing something?

Dead Horse, are those just your arbitrary numbers for how hard or easy you like it to be? Do your players know what they are?

Also, you're in Omaha? So am I. Do you have a regular game of C&C that you play in?

mbeacom, in cases that are so easy I simply don't have the PCs roll. They succeed at the task because they are heroes and mundane challanges, in my opinion, do not need rolls. Now, you say that you need a check to be made because, assumibly, there is some penalty for failure. You don't like the negative Challange Level thing, so you are left with a situation that is not part of the game rules.

If this case were ever to come up for me, I'd have the PC make a straight d20 roll. If the score is less then X (whatever you as CK think is appropriate) the PC fails. I would let the PC still add his attribute mod and level to this roll to keep consistant. As the CK, simply set the Challange Class (CC) at a number of your determining.

For example, in the CKG there is a section on saving throws for items. The PCs rolls the standard Siege Check but the CC is set specifically by the circumstance of the item saving throw. In your specific case I would just set the total challange class at 10, or whatever. That way the PC still rolls a Siege Check but the CC is set to the number you think appropriate and keeping the percentages more in line with your 1st level PCs chances for succeeding in said task.

~O

I have no problem with negative CLs. I was just asking Thror since he said he didn't like negative CLs but that he targeted a 60 percent chance of failure.

Also, I'll be running a very gritty lower fantasy style game where in the beginning the players are not assumed to be particularly heroic, but rather just slightly stronger and smarter than average farmers or townsfolk.

Thanks for clarifying. I like the feel of an unmodified 15 or above always being successful so I'll probably just try to work with numbers that make that work.

Dang it, never hit save by accident....

My system is arbitrary but resevered for when players insist on rolling on things i believe are trivial.
Should a wizard know the name of the shop keeper who sells pens and ink?
I say yes, but player rolls and askes ... i use my 7/11/15 numbers.

Really just decide if the task is going to spoil the game if they fail?
party wants to infiltrate a tower... they use a grapple and rope.
Will the 7 str mage beable to climb it?
Probably not but he can tie it around himself and be pulled up.
So i would hand wave the group climbing into the tower.
The adventure is in the tower! if they dont get in the adventure is blown.

Now if they want to climb a waterfall to avoid hobglins you bet they are rolling.

OK, here's an example:

Josephus, the 1st level fighter, wants to climb the castle walls and rescue the princess. His dex is 14 (prime and +1). Since he is not a rogue or ranger, Climb ability is not an option.

If he had a rope and hook, I'd say he can accomplish it in X turns--flat, no test required. If he is trying to scale the walls using his bare hands, I'd say he has to roll a 11 or more (d20) to succeed (CB of 12, +1 level)--or 45% chance. Now like the Climb ability states, a failure of 5 or less means no progress that round, while 6 or more means "lookout beloooooooow!!"

Now, if Valerius the brawny (fighter level 1, dex 12 non prime) tried this, he'd need a 18 or more (CB of 18) to succeed. Valerius better find a rope.

So, see, if they have proper tools, it's an auto accomplish. If they don't, it can be real hard.

OK, here's an example:

Josephus, the 1st level fighter, wants to climb the castle walls and rescue the princess. His dex is 14 (prime and +1). Since he is not a rogue or ranger, Climb ability is not an option.

If he had a rope and hook, I'd say he can accomplish it in X turns--flat, no test required. If he is trying to scale the walls using his bare hands, I'd say he has to roll a 11 or more (d20) to succeed (CB of 12, +1 ability)--or 45% chance. Now like the Climb ability states, a failure of 5 or less means no progress that round, while 6 or more means "lookout beloooooooow!!"

Now, if Valerius the brawny (fighter level 1, dex 12 non prime) tried this, he'd need a 18 or more (CB of 18) to succeed. Valerius better find a rope.

So, see, if they have proper tools, it's an auto accomplish. If they don't, it can be real hard.

Hey Thror,

Thanks for the further clarification. I'll get this figured out yet! Thanks to everybody!

My instinct at first was to use negative CL for very easy, but like others have said, if there's only a small % the PC will fail, just let them pass... do it with style in the narrative to make it exciting (consider rolling a die and ignoring it just to build tension)

But, to build off Thror's example, if Dex prime fighter is climbing a rope in the heat of battle, arrows whizzing past him, ducking behind a shield to bat away a stirge... maybe a roll is appropriate to hang on to that rope.

Whatever is more dramatic and FUN basically.

1) I do not use the SIEGE Engine for all resolutions. Some things make more sense to have x:y chance.

2) I do not believe in "negative" difficulties.

3) I do not believe that all challenges are equal for all people. A thief might have a difficulty 1 for a climb attempt; the fighter, if I allow him to try, might find it is a 4. Yes... this has all kinds of ramifications. I endorse them.

When I do use the SIEGE Engine, for low level characters, I use 1-4; rarely a 5 or 6.

Relaxo wrote:But, to build off Thror's example, if Dex prime fighter is climbing a rope in the heat of battle, arrows whizzing past him, ducking behind a shield to bat away a stirge... maybe a roll is appropriate to hang on to that rope.

Exactly, if they are under ranged weapon attack, or being straffed by harpies, even with a rope, Josephus and Valerius need to make SIEGE checks.

Conversely, I rule that rangers and rogues (who have Climb abilities), can scale the walls without a rope, with no check necessary. With a rope, even when under attack, they don't make checks. I rule the Climb/Scale ability only requires a SIEGE check for 'impossible' surfaces (sheer cliffs, etc). That way class abilities always outshine standard SIEGE checks.

Ooooh, great point! I didn't think about that but I totally agree, your class/race abilities should always trump a die roll. Thanks for that insight. This has been a really fruitful exchange.

ThrorII wrote: Conversely, I rule that rangers and rogues (who have Climb abilities), can scale the walls without a rope, with no check necessary. With a rope, even when under attack, they don't make checks. I rule the Climb/Scale ability only requires a SIEGE check for 'impossible' surfaces (sheer cliffs, etc). That way class abilities always outshine standard SIEGE checks.

Indeed! I think that's actually in the rules too.

Another way to do it is bonus for proper equipment. Ive given a slight bonus to a climb roll for using a hook and rope. rather than just by hand. After all a masterwork set of lock picking tools could make picking a lock easier than using a nail off the ground.