Alternate Resolution System

[Julian Grimm]

I have finished up a playtest version of the resolution system I use in place of the SIEGE engine. Moriarty777 was kind enough to host both the PDF and Open Office versions of the document for me. Since this is basically a 'Beta' I am releasing it for evaluation and feedback before I make a final version of the system.

PDF

Open Office


I hope you enjoy it.

[Galannor]

I read your blogspot: I'm with you and I grieve for your loss.
Many years ago I too lost a dear friend of mine in a car accident, and perhaps I can feel how you're feeling now: as I said, we don't know each other but I'm by your side.
Take care of you,
G.

[Julian Grimm]

I read your blogspot: I'm with you and I grieve for your loss.
Many years ago I too lost a dear friend of mine in a car accident, and perhaps I can feel how you're feeling now: as I said, we don't know each other but I'm by your side.
Take care of you,
G.

Thank you.

[CKDad]

Julian - haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but I'm sincerely curious about your reasoning for using an alternate task resolution system. Are you looking for more complexity, or crunch, or is there something missing or broken?

[Julian Grimm]

Julian - haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but I'm sincerely curious about your reasoning for using an alternate task resolution system. Are you looking for more complexity, or crunch, or is there something missing or broken?

My biggest reason is that there are problems I see with the SIEGE engine especially in the area of number bloat the rivals 3.X in high bonuses. For example a 10th level character can get as much as a +16 to a check in some cases ( Level bonus plus prime) before adding in ability bonuses. To combat this and retain challenge your target number will only have to go higher leading to a situation that I don't particularly care for.

The other problems that I have revolves around non-prime Target Numbers and non-class abilities. Those 18's before CL is applied can be almost impossible to hit and when you are running for a small party lacking a needed class (Say the rogue) certain things are nearly impossible to achieve.

The system attempts to fix both of those issues and I think it tackles the problem nicely. I have also used this system with AD&D, S&W and D20 D&D and it works well for them with a little adjusting for the rule sets. The goal is to provide equal challenge along all levels of the game with little in the way of the escalation of bonuses and target numbers.

[Galannor]

I'm really interested and curious about your system resolution, and I think I'll try it in my next sessions of C&C, along the usual SIEGE Engine: just a question - how do you handle skill training? How many skills can a character choose to get a training in, at the beginning of his/her own career? Can he choose subsequently other skills, as he or she levels up?
Anyway, many thanks and congratulations: this system looks pretty cool!
G.

[Julian Grimm]

I'm really interested and curious about your system resolution, and I think I'll try it in my next sessions of C&C, along the usual SIEGE Engine: just a question - how do you handle skill training? How many skills can a character choose to get a training in, at the beginning of his/her own career? Can he choose subsequently other skills, as he or she levels up?
Anyway, many thanks and congratulations: this system looks pretty cool!
G.

First, as a disclaimer, I don't use skills in my games. I used to but I have found skills just don't fit my style of game any more. The Optional skill system is from one I worked on a while back. Generally I allow 3 skills plus bonus skills based on the INT modifier. So you would have three skills starting then, if you have a modifier of +2 to INT you get two more skills.

For new skills I would allow them to be learned every third level; Say 1 plus INT modifier.

[koralas]

My biggest reason is that there are problems I see with the SIEGE engine especially in the area of number bloat the rivals 3.X in high bonuses. For example a 10th level character can get as much as a +16 to a check in some cases ( Level bonus plus prime) before adding in ability bonuses. To combat this and retain challenge your target number will only have to go higher leading to a situation that I don't particularly care for.

Regarding your first point, this system doesn't eliminate number bloat, but does slow it down, and the options in Appendix IV reintroduces a "prime" like mechanic with the addition of skills that returns the bloat. Utilizing 12/18 instead of 18 +0/+6 reduces the overall number bloat that you point out, though the end result is still the same. In the SIEGE mechanic you can always make minor adjustments to the CL to keep things a challenge where appropriate. But with the DL system you have implemented, you have very little room for micro-modification, the TN always increases at a rate of 3 per DL. Regardless, you do not eliminate the second part of your statement in this paragraph, as the characters progress, you will at some point need to assign challenges with higher DL's to continue to challenge them.

One thing to keep in consideration is that a SIEGE check is only meant to be taken when there is a reasonable chance for failure.

The other problems that I have revolves around non-prime Target Numbers and non-class abilities. Those 18's before CL is applied can be almost impossible to hit and when you are running for a small party lacking a needed class (Say the rogue) certain things are nearly impossible to achieve.

This is a good thing, not everyone is skilled at performing every task. So, if you need someone with Thieving skills because your party lacks a Thief, you look for a hireling. Sure the party will have to cough up some treasure and XP for this companion, but that is life.

Looking at it from another direction, a brutish fighter (Prime - Str, Con) should not have only a 15% less chance to pick a lock than a Thief (Prime - Dex, Int), that is just plain silly. That is the difference between a TN of 12 and a TN of 15, though if the optional skill system is used, then the Thief has a 30% better chance of picking that lock over the brutish fighter since he will undoubtedly take Thievery for the +3, so the result is the equivalent difference between Prime/Non-Prime (or Non-Class) of +6, except the Thief starts with a 65% chance of success instead of a 40% chance of success against a DL I lock.

From your document you mention the common question on Primes, I think really the more common question is on class skills not primes. Primes are pretty well defined in the PHB talking about the Challenge Base of 12/18, as is when to assign a CL, how to determine the numeric value of the CL, and adding it to the CB. Finally, adding the character level is actually very well defined in the rules, but way back on page 125, many veteran gamers may start to gloss over some sections by getting lazy and thinking to themselves, "I already know this stuff, let me just breeze through it." I know I did... Oddly, newer gamers probably have a less difficult time than us veterans as they will tend to read much more meticulously.

I do find the 3 Save method somewhat intriguing though, and have a question and a comment.

First the comment... For monsters, in M&T they have either Physical, Mental, or Both for saves. I would look at the chart and probably assign it this way -
Physical Saves - Fortitude DL is unchanged, Reflex save are the next DL higher but gain a +1 to the die roll, Willpower is the next DL higher

Mental Saves - Fortitude is the next DL higher, Reflex save are the next DL higher but gain a +1 to the die roll, Willpower the DL is unchanged

Both - All DL's are at the base level for the challenge

Next the question - How do you rule on something like a 4th level character wielding a wand of fireballs? What would the DL be? DL I since it is a 4th level character or DL II since you need to be 9th level to craft a wand? What if the wand was created by someone with an even higher level?

[Julian Grimm]

Regarding your first point, this system doesn't eliminate number bloat, but does slow it down, and the options in Appendix IV reintroduces a "prime" like mechanic with the addition of skills that returns the bloat. Utilizing 12/18 instead of 18 +0/+6 reduces the overall number bloat that you point out, though the end result is still the same. In the SIEGE mechanic you can always make minor adjustments to the CL to keep things a challenge where appropriate. But with the DL system you have implemented, you have very little room for micro-modification, the TN always increases at a rate of 3 per DL. Regardless, you do not eliminate the second part of your statement in this paragraph, as the characters progress, you will at some point need to assign challenges with higher DL's to continue to challenge them.

I never said it would eliminate number bloat. Unless you set the system to a flat 12/18 (Or other TNs) and have no advancement for level you will have to deal with some bloating. This just slows it down to a more manageable level. The DL system was not meant to be micromanaged as you can do with D20.

As for the second part of my statement consider this:

A 10th level character under the SIEGE engine using a class ability has, essentially, a +16 to the check. (No matter what you call it a prime gives a +6 bonus) This is before ability bonuses which could make it +19 not counting any other modifier. To get a good challenge for this check you will need a SIEGE Check of at least 30 or more.

A 10th level character under 4-Step using a class ability has only +5 before you add in ability bonuses. At the most adding in ability bonuses makes this a +8. Still only half the bonus of the SIEGE engine. You can still be challenged with a DL of III or IV this way.

Therefore, bloat is at a reasonable level.


If you really think the numbers are getting to high then rerun them with the PC only getting +1 every third level. Your 10th level PC only has a +3 before modifiers. Either way you slice it you're still better off than a +16.

One thing to keep in consideration is that a SIEGE check is only meant to be taken when there is a reasonable chance for failure.

4-step has the same philosophy.

This is a good thing, not everyone is skilled at performing every task. So, if you need someone with Thieving skills because your party lacks a Thief, you look for a hireling. Sure the party will have to cough up some treasure and XP for this companion, but that is life.

Looking at it from another direction, a brutish fighter (Prime - Str, Con) should not have only a 15% less chance to pick a lock than a Thief (Prime - Dex, Int), that is just plain silly. That is the difference between a TN of 12 and a TN of 15, though if the optional skill system is used, then the Thief has a 30% better chance of picking that lock over the brutish fighter since he will undoubtedly take Thievery for the +3, so the result is the equivalent difference between Prime/Non-Prime (or Non-Class) of +6, except the Thief starts with a 65% chance of success instead of a 40% chance of success against a DL I lock.

Personally, I don't care for running for a party, henchmen, hirelings, retainers and anything else that can be brought in. I have no problem with a brutish fighter getting lucky and getting a lock open or a wizard sneaking past a small group of guards. I don't look at C&C from an old-school, strict archetype perspective. If the game flow keeps up with a bit of class bending then so be it.

From your document you mention the common question on Primes, I think really the more common question is on class skills not primes. Primes are pretty well defined in the PHB talking about the Challenge Base of 12/18, as is when to assign a CL, how to determine the numeric value of the CL, and adding it to the CB. Finally, adding the character level is actually very well defined in the rules, but way back on page 125, many veteran gamers may start to gloss over some sections by getting lazy and thinking to themselves, "I already know this stuff, let me just breeze through it." I know I did... Oddly, newer gamers probably have a less difficult time than us veterans as they will tend to read much more meticulously.

These were not my questions just those I have notices. I actually have a good grasp of the SIEGE engine and still don't like it.

I do find the 3 Save method somewhat intriguing though, and have a question and a comment.

First the comment... For monsters, in M&T they have either Physical, Mental, or Both for saves. I would look at the chart and probably assign it this way -
Physical Saves - Fortitude DL is unchanged, Reflex save are the next DL higher but gain a +1 to the die roll, Willpower is the next DL higher

Mental Saves - Fortitude is the next DL higher, Reflex save are the next DL higher but gain a +1 to the die roll, Willpower the DL is unchanged

Both - All DL's are at the base level for the challenge

That is about the way I do it.

Next the question - How do you rule on something like a 4th level character wielding a wand of fireballs? What would the DL be? DL I since it is a 4th level character or DL II since you need to be 9th level to craft a wand? What if the wand was created by someone with an even higher level?

Good question! I would call it based on the level of the caster who created the wand. Since you have to be at least 9th level I would start there. Your fireball would be a 9d6 fireball starting (1d6 per caster level x 9) so I would start at DLII but don't be afraid to go up.

[koralas]

I never said it would eliminate number bloat. Unless you set the system to a flat 12/18 (Or other TNs) and have no advancement for level you will have to deal with some bloating. This just slows it down to a more manageable level. The DL system was not meant to be micromanaged as you can do with D20.

When it comes to using a skill that is the purview of another class, I don't really have a problem with that. After all, as you say lower in your post, if the brutish fighter gets lucky and picks the lock, good for him. But it isn't luck when you continue to build modifiers, and start with only a 15% less chance as someone trained to do that.

A 10th level character under the SIEGE engine using a class ability has, essentially, a +16 to the check. (No matter what you call it a prime gives a +6 bonus) This is before ability bonuses which could make it +19 not counting any other modifier. To get a good challenge for this check you will need a SIEGE Check of at least 30 or more.

A 10th level character under 4-Step using a class ability has only +5 before you add in ability bonuses. At the most adding in ability bonuses makes this a +8. Still only half the bonus of the SIEGE engine. You can still be challenged with a DL of III or IV this way.

Back to the number bloat issue. Yes 12/18 or 18 +0/+6 results in the same die roll required, but it also reduces the number bloat. This works both for what the character adds and the CL of a given task. For example, in the above 10th level Thief is attempting to pick a lock. This lock is guarding the tomb of a fallen hero , it's CL is 10 (top of the very hard category for C&C). CB + CL = 22 (Prime) or 28 (Non-Prime), the Thief has Dex 18, so gets a +13 to his roll, meaning he needs to roll a 9 to succeed. With 4-Step, the TN at DL III is 18, The Thief has a +8 to his roll meaning he needs a 10 to succeed. Not much difference between the two. Now if you went to 18 +0/+6, that increases the bonus to +19, and changes the TN to 28 for everyone, still requiring a die roll of 9 or better. Further, non-thieves in SIEGE cannot unlock this trap (unless you use a natural 20 as always being a success) without some major magic assistance, but in 4-step they only need to roll a 13.

That last is the real issue I have with this system. It all but eliminates the heavy skill based classes from the game. Why play a Thief? He becomes only a third-rate fighter because everyone can do just about everything he does, and almost as well. Why play a Bard? A fighter can do everything he does, and has better fighting skills. Why play a Ranger? She is a second-rate fighter, well except against one enemy type. This isn't so much about archetype as it is power bloat for the other classes. It may keep the game flowing, but it greatly changes the game. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, everyone likes their own style of play (And that is rule #0 [shout out to all the Asimov fans]), but it isn't really the same game any longer.

Actually taking a look back at this and it really is giving 90% of the benefits of class and a half multi-classing, without the extra XP requirements; though, it is blending of multiple classes, particularly the skill heavy ones that require SIEGE checks for their abilities.

These were not my questions just those I have notices. I actually have a good grasp of the SIEGE engine and still don't like it.

Ah the crux of it! As I said, that is fine, but remove SIEGE from C&C and you have changed the game, it really isn't C&C any more. This is more than a simple house rule over something, but the replacement of the core mechanic of the game. However, the beauty of C&C is that it makes it easy to do that and keep rule #0 alive and well.

[Julian Grimm]

koralas, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Normally I would love to debate the points with you but I'm just not up to it right now. This has been a tough few days for me and I have other things on my mind right now. I do understand what you are saying and to be honest I think SIEGE and 4-Step solves an problem but come at it from different perspectives.

That said;

Ah the crux of it! As I said, that is fine, but remove SIEGE from C&C and you have changed the game, it really isn't C&C any more. This is more than a simple house rule over something, but the replacement of the core mechanic of the game. However, the beauty of C&C is that it makes it easy to do that and keep rule #0 alive and well.

I really dislike this argument.90% of C&C still remains intact the only thing that changes is how you resolve certain non-combat tasks. Now, if I were to completely change the classes, spells, and monsters; add a detailed skill system, work using percentages and so on then, you could say that the game has been changed to where it does not resemble C&C.

One of my philosophies on gaming is that the rules are just guidelines for play. If something doesn't work for you then you change it and move on and don't worry about if the game is still X. At heart I like tweaking and changing rules to fit the campaign I want to run and that is where this system and most of my other work has came from.

[Julian Grimm]

A poster on Dragonsfoot pointed out a potential problem with Monster HD and DLs. Instead of dividing monster HD by 2 to get the DL, divide the monster HD by 3 with a minimum DL of I.

[Julian Grimm]

Just so everyone knows I will begin looking at revisions for the document in June or July. This should give those that want to provide feedback on the system time to do so. As it stands now, the revision looks to just fix typos and cover the above change to calculating DLs for Monsters. I will also be double checking for any number bloat issues that I may have missed. If everything seems good this revision will probably be the closest to what I consider the final version.

[Julian Grimm]

Necro Time!!!

I have reopened the document for revision and am looking it over now. So far the only change will be with the monster DL's as I mentioned above. I am not sure if I will keep the skill section either as that does conflict with the base ideas in C&C. What I may do is chop that off and work up a supplement that deals with skills themselves.

Unless I notice something major this will be the final revision outside of minor tweaks. The next time I plan on really looking at the system will be after I find out if DDN will fall under the OGL as there are some things I would like to incorporate. If there is any other feedback please let me know as I don't plan to make the final release until late July or Early August.

[Julian Grimm]

Update:

I finally have time to look at this. Things around here have been beyond busy and I have had some personal setbacks to deal with. I am now looking closer at this and have decided on the changes I want to make. The biggest will be focusing the document more to C&C than it originally was. I had written it with the option of it being more universal but decided that this should be geared for C&C.

The changes I am looking so far are these:

* Eliminating the Prime Requisites section

* Eliminating the Skill section for reworking into a supplemental document

* Making Primes a part of the system but altered to fit the idea of the document

* Revision of Monster DL's

If everything goes well you should be seeing the revision by the end of August.

[Julian Grimm]

Running late on this thanks to some issues that needed attention. The revision has been sent to Pat and I am awaiting his ideas on this. Hopefully we will have this ready for download soon. Thanks for the patience.