Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Open Discussion on all things C&C from new product to general questions to the rules, the laws, and the chaos.
Post Reply
Incantatar
Skobbit
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:37 pm

Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Incantatar »

Hi, after adding all errata found here to my C&C books, i read a sentence that really confused me. Sorry if that has been discussed before, i only found a 6-pages thread in another forum. A quick answer is all i need.

In the first paragraph of "adding character level to checks" the PHB states "In general it is recommended that a CK should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting non-class abilities."
So anyone wanting to do anything not stated in his class abilities should not be allowed to try? Isn't that a clear contradiction to some of the examples given and quite frankly very strange?

Edit:
I'm starting to get more and more confused with SIEGE. First the PHB tells me to only use it when there is a significant chance of failure, which i interpret as somehow difficult skill attempts. Then it says to modify the CL with 1-5 for "easy" tasks. I thought i shouldn't even let the players roll easy tasks. I guess i have to search the web for better explanations. :|

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Lord Dynel »

Welcome, Incantatar, to the Crusade!

I don't know your gaming background, Incantatar, but it's my belief that it's stated so in the PHB because of the time frame in which C&C was produced. The d20 era brounght down a lot of walls when it come to skills and making checks. Some things, like a bard's ability or a barbarian's rage could obviously not be tried. But some things, like skills, could be tried by anyone. 3.0 D&D was tighter with this, but 3.5 relaxed a lot on skills and who could learn what ability. With no skill system in C&C, there had to be a clear cut way of handling things that should be the under the purview of a particular class.

But maybe this has nothing to do with C&C. I think it may, but that's my opinion. I feel that it was the intention of the Trolls (at least, originally, and possibly still) to disallow classes to infringe on the abilities of other classes. But like many examples of how to adjudicate things (from how initiative is handled to what to give XP for), there's more than one way to do it, and the Troll have provided some of the options. To me, it reads, "We Trolls wouldn't allow a particular class to try something from another class, but if you want them to here's how to do it." The Troll gang is very loose in certain aspects of the game and want to stress that a lot of the time, it's up to the CK and how he sees fit. I know, in this case, a lot of folks feel it should be a mix of the two - certain class abilities shouldn't be attempted by another class, while others are okay but no adding of level to the check.
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

User avatar
DeadReborn
Ulthal
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Port Charlotte, FL

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by DeadReborn »

Welcome! The general concenus is if a character attempts something that falls in the realm of another class, they do not add their level to the check. For example, a Ranger attempting to track adds his level to the check, any other class attempting to track would not.

Edit: Lord Dynel beat me to it. :)
"My simple card trick has turned you into an ice cream cone!
Which means...I AM A LEVEL TEN WIZARD!"-SpongeBob SquarePants

Incantatar
Skobbit
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Incantatar »

Lord Dynel wrote:Welcome, Incantatar, to the Crusade!
I feel that it was the intention of the Trolls (at least, originally, and possibly still) to disallow classes to infringe on the abilities of other classes. But like many examples of how to adjudicate things (from how initiative is handled to what to give XP for), there's more than one way to do it, and the Troll have provided some of the options. To me, it reads, "We Trolls wouldn't allow a particular class to try something from another class, but if you want them to here's how to do it." The Troll gang is very loose in certain aspects of the game and want to stress that a lot of the time, it's up to the CK and how he sees fit. I know, in this case, a lot of folks feel it should be a mix of the two - certain class abilities shouldn't be attempted by another class, while others are okay but no adding of level to the check.
Thanks Lord Dynel. My gaming background is years of third edition D&D and recently Pathfinder. But i own the AD&D 1e books since a few years and really dig the feel of the older editions.

I kinda get what you say and it seems to make sense to not let anybody try to do certain stuff like disarming magic traps and so on. But "Climb" is on at least two class lists. Isn't it very harsh and unrealistic to forbid other classes to try to climb? Does even any CK do this?
I kinda would rewrite this paragraph or put a clarification in an errata for newbs like me. The errata i read on the encumbrance rules really helped, as the book confused me there too.
Welcome! The general concenus is if a character attempts something that falls in the realm of another class, they do not add their level to the check. For example, a Ranger attempting to track adds his level to the check, any other class attempting to track would not.
Yes. This really is sensible to a degree.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Arduin »

Incantatar wrote: So anyone wanting to do anything not stated in his class abilities should not be allowed to try? Isn't that a clear contradiction to some of the examples given and quite frankly very strange?
"There will be times when a player will want a character to attempt
an action that intrudes in the realm of the class ability of another
character class. For example, a fighter might wish to open a lock, or a
wizard might attempt to track. It is up to the Castle Keeper to decide
if such an action is even possible.
In general, it is recommended that
a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in
attempting a non-class ability.
"

SO, if the CK IS going to allow it, no level is added to the check.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
MormonYoYoMan
Ulthal
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 7:00 am
Location: Texas

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by MormonYoYoMan »

Shucks, I let PCs try anything. Sometimes, they're desperate; other times, they're just stupid. Either way, it's entertaining in the way that old Warner Brothers cartoons and Three Stooges movies are entertaining. Just wait for the disaster to happen!
-
*jeep! & God Bless!
--Grandpa Chet
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." - George Washington.

Incantatar
Skobbit
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Incantatar »

Arduin wrote: "There will be times when a player will want a character to attempt
an action that intrudes in the realm of the class ability of another
character class. For example, a fighter might wish to open a lock, or a
wizard might attempt to track. It is up to the Castle Keeper to decide
if such an action is even possible.
In general, it is recommended that
a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in
attempting a non-class ability.
"

SO, if the CK IS going to allow it, no level is added to the check.
True, although this doesn't answer my question. The two other posters explained that non-class abilities not really meant non-class but other-class, which was the point of my initial confusion.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Arduin »

MormonYoYoMan wrote:Shucks, I let PCs try anything. Sometimes, they're desperate; other times, they're just stupid. Either way, it's entertaining in the way that old Warner Brothers cartoons and Three Stooges movies are entertaining. Just wait for the disaster to happen!
Allowing a chance of success and allowing a "try" are ENTIRELY different things. :twisted:
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
MormonYoYoMan
Ulthal
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 7:00 am
Location: Texas

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by MormonYoYoMan »

Shhhhhh! Never let a desperate player know that! :mrgreen:
-
*jeep! & God Bless!
--Grandpa Chet
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." - George Washington.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Arduin »

Incantatar wrote: SO, if the CK IS going to allow it, no level is added to the check.
True, although this doesn't answer my question. The two other posters explained that non-class abilities not really meant non-class but other-class, which was the point of my initial confusion.[/quote]


Okay. So, are you still confused?
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Snoring Rock »

Climb; here is my take on this...

I let anyone try to climb, regardless of class. At first level rogue, fighter and cleric, all about the same using the siege engine. The fighter may be prime in strength so he gets a +6 and his modifier, say +2 for a total of +8. The cleric is not prime in strength and has a +0 modifier. But higher in level the fighter and cleric need ropes and hooks to keep up with the rogue because they do not get to add level. The rogue can climb a rock face using his level as a bonus. The others need rope to gain a bonus (I give +10 for a rope). But the poor cleric cant even use a rope, he needs someone to lift him up. That make sense? Climbing a sheer cliff as a rogue at level 10 gives him +10 to climb, +8 for a total of +18 for the cliff I placed a CL 25 on. The fighter gets just his modifier and prime, and the cleric just waits for a basket to get lowered.

Rogue: Prime +6, Level +10, Modifier +2 = +18 with the use of a rope he gets +10 for a grand total of +28. Cant fall.
Fighter: Prime +6, Level +0, Modifer +2 = +8 with a rope +10 = +18 he needs to roll a 7 on d20 to make it
Cleric: No Prime +0, Level +0. Modifier +0 = +0 with a rope +10. Tha tis a 50/50 chance of falling. He waits for basket.

Thats how I do it.

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Omote »

Basically, if you are running the C&C game it is up to you to determine if one of the players can even try to use a class ability that falls under the purview of another class. If you do allow this, than the level is not added to the Seige Check to determine success. If you don't allow this, than that character can't even try to perform that action.

~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Arduin »

Omote wrote:Basically, if you are running the C&C game it is up to you to determine if one of the players can even try to use a class ability that falls under the purview of another class. If you do allow this, than the level is not added to the Seige Check to determine success. If you don't allow this, than that character can't even try to perform that action.

~O

+1 Concise & accurate
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Incantatar
Skobbit
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Incantatar »

I agree and will handle it the same.
But i would not "generally recommend" not letting players try other-class abilities. Everybody should be able to try to climb, move silently and listen. Why shouldn't a wizard be able to decipher writings as a bard (with class lvl)? Most other class abilities are really obvious tied to a class and should be generally forbidden to other classes.

And this then begs the question why a fighter adds his class levels when he swims or pushes a statue but doesn't when he climbs. I have to tell the player "Well, because a rogue climbs but no other class swims and pushes statues." The player new to C&C is probably a bit baffled with this reasoning - rightly so imo.

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Lord Dynel »

Incantatar wrote:I agree and will handle it the same.
But i would not "generally recommend" not letting players try other-class abilities. Everybody should be able to try to climb, move silently and listen. Why shouldn't a wizard be able to decipher writings as a bard (with class lvl)? Most other class abilities are really obvious tied to a class and should be generally forbidden to other classes.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this logic, as long as you explain that there's some reasoning behind your decisions. I say that because I see you example of a wizard deciphering script. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But would you let the party's barbarian try that? If not, why? If not him, then who? I bring this up because I would expect other players at my table to have these same questions. Maybe you didn't mean your example that way, but I interpreted it as you'd let some classes try certain class abilities of other classes if it made sense. In your example, I'd let "learned" characters (wizard, maybe illusionist, cleric, possibly a rogue, for example) try.
And this then begs the question why a fighter adds his class levels when he swims or pushes a statue but doesn't when he climbs. I have to tell the player "Well, because a rogue climbs but no other class swims and pushes statues." The player new to C&C is probably a bit baffled with this reasoning - rightly so imo.
This is what I was referring to in my first post. You have to use sound judgement and sometimes you add your level and sometimes you don't. For basic stuff, it's okay to "just allow" it. Climbing up a knotted rope? Sure, knock yourself out. Getting up that tree or vine wall? Make a roll. Now if you want to add level for that, that's up to you - I wouldn't. Climbing up the wall of the palace. Rogue only. I rationalize it so - the fighter spent his time training how to use weapons and armor effectively, and how hone his skill in battle. The rogue spent his time practicing on old locks and sneaking aroud the back alleys. And climbing walls. These are his specialties. He should be better at it than the fighter. To reflect this, in game, he gets to add his level. I know that might seem unfair, but it seems you might be looking at from the fighter's side of it instead of looking at the rogue's side of the situation. Maybe you're not, I don't intend to assume. Just trying to enlighten a little. :)
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

User avatar
dachda
Lore Drake
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:00 am
Location: Topsham, Maine

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by dachda »

Lord Dynel and Incantatar's last posts made me think of Casino Royale with Daniel Craig as James Bond. Remember that first chase scene thru the construction site? Bond is chasing a dude who was using parkour or free running to maneuver thru the site, bouncing off objects, diving thru them, jumping and rolling? Meanwhile Bond, is plodding thru the same obstacles, often forced to go round them, or smacking into them in shin bruising fashion? I'd say the parkour dude was practicing his class skill, while Bond was not. The former wouldn't even need to roll a siege check as for him the obstacles were too easy compared to his class skill ability, while Bond was making dex or strength checks galore, and mostly making them. So Bond is using a class skill, but must make many more siege checks as it is not his class skill, while the guy with that class skill may not even be required to do so.

A rogue shouldn't need to bother with a siege check in most circumstances. A rough stone wall, shouldn't need a siege check, on a dry day with no one shooting crossbows and all the time in the world to climb. A fighter though, might be required to take one as it is not his class skill. But because it is a dry day, etc . . . I'd let him add his class level.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Sentence on p.125 (PHB 4th ed)

Post by Snoring Rock »

Discussing the climbing skill, fighter vs. rogue, got me thinking. So I went and looked it up. In 3.5/Pathfinder, the climb skill is no longer a class skill per/se for the rogue. It is just one of those skills that several classes are proficient in. Rogues lost that secial ablility.


Not on CnC!! Woohoo!

Post Reply