Troll Lord Games

From pg. 16 "Every check has an associated attribute. Whenever one of
these checks is made a d20 is rolled by the player. Attribute
and level modifiers, for class abilities only, are added to this roll, if applicable.

From pg. 165 Example one: (shaded box) "Logmar the Black, a 6th level fighter, is attempting to lift a fallen ship’s mast ... His level and strength modifier are added, giving a total of 20."

Lifting isn't a listed class ability... Is this a rule conflict? One of my players pointed it out to me.

My older printing is much clearer: p.8 "Every check has an associated attribute. Whenever one of these checks is is made, a d20 is rolled by the player. Attribute and level modifiers are added to this roll, if appropriate"

Perhaps your quote is referring to the tripartite division of checks: general, race and/or class, or non class, and is trying to distinguish the last from the former two

Officially, everyone adds level for any check that is NOT specifically a Class skill. Only those with a given class skill may add their level to such checks. So for "Hide in Shadows", only those with it as a CLASS ability may add their level, everyone else only gets to add attribute modifiers and Racial modifiers. Prime versus non Prime is also taken into account. So a Fighter with DEX Prime will be better at sneaking than a Fighter with DEX as a non Prime, but not as good as the Thief, who also gets to add level.

This has been a discussion many times on these forums during the early days.

Hard to say. I guess the underlying question, that isn't addressed in either printing in a clear manner, is whether or not class levels are added to non-saving throw checks when the activity isn't a listed class skill? It states to NOT add class level if the skill is not on your list but IS on another class list.

Example: Figuring out a riddle. Maybe an Int check. Should the PC also add their class level? Makes as much sense as adding class level to lifting a rock...

Treebore wrote:Officially, everyone adds level for any check that is NOT specifically a Class skill.

I don't know. I listed an "official" rule from pg. 16 of the PHB that states the opposite. That's the problem. They are BOTH official rules from the PHB.

Errata time. I'll post in the PHB errata thread.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:Officially, everyone adds level for any check that is NOT specifically a Class skill.

I don't know. I listed an "official" rule from pg. 16 of the PHB that states the opposite. That's the problem. They are BOTH official rules from the PHB.

Errata time. I'll post in the PHB errata thread.

Pretty sure that is why the words "If applicable" are at the end of that sentence. The CK has to know when it applies to the situation. What I stated above defines the situations.

Being as clear as possible for this particular game mechanic is of prime importance to the C&C game.

~O

Treebore wrote: Pretty sure that is why the words "If applicable" are at the end of that sentence. The CK has to know when it applies to the situation. What I stated above defines the situations.

Not clear enough when it just stated to only add if a class ability. I added to the PHB errata thread as there is no way to determine with what is written in the PHB.

I was just looking for a third rule/line in the PHB that clarified the two opposing rules I listed. I searched and it doesn't exist.

If you have the latest printing PHB, go to the CKing section, page 167, and read about adding levels to attribute checks. I do see why the wording on Page 16 is confusing, but it is thoroughly clarified in the CK section.

Treebore wrote:If you have the latest printing PHB, go to the CKing section, page 167, and read about adding levels to attribute checks. I do see why the wording on Page 16 is confusing, but it is thoroughly clarified in the CK section.

I quoted from the latest printing. The two sections are in DIRECT opposition in this core rule. Hence this thread. Players cannot be told one thing and the CK the opposite on a core mechanic. Which is why errata is being requested. It is something only the game's designers can rectify.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:If you have the latest printing PHB, go to the CKing section, page 167, and read about adding levels to attribute checks. I do see why the wording on Page 16 is confusing, but it is thoroughly clarified in the CK section.

I quoted from the latest printing. The two sections are in DIRECT opposition in this core rule. Hence this thread. Players cannot be told one thing and the CK the opposite on a core mechanic. Which is why errata is being requested. It is something only the game's designers can rectify.

Its not necessarily the opposite, since according to page 167 a CK has to DECIDE what they will allow. Once YOU decide how you want to do it, then everything else just needs to be clarified. Its one of those small confusions the Trolls left in C&C to make it more House Rule friendly. They tell you how to do it ONLY if you decide you want to allow it to be done that way. Now the sentence I really dislike on page 167 is the part about not even allowing a character to try to succeed at a NON class ability. THAT, I think, hope, and treat as being completely wrong. I allow anyone to try to do anything that is NOT a class ability, and adding their level. So that is definitely worthy of putting into House Rules, and hopefully is errata that needs to change that.

Treebore wrote: Now the sentence I really dislike on page 167 is the part about not even allowing a character to try to succeed at a NON class ability. THAT, I think, hope, and treat as being completely wrong.
I allow anyone to try to do anything that is NOT a class ability, and adding their level. So that is definitely worthy of putting into House Rules, and hopefully is errata that needs to change that.

"In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."?

That's not being reviewed as far as I know and is firmly part of the C&C class/siege engine formula.

Could lifting something heavy be a STR check and only the fighter and ranger are STR classes, so STR checks get their levels? Just adding more confusion I fear...

Captain_K wrote:Could lifting something heavy be a STR check and only the fighter and ranger are STR classes, so STR checks get their levels? Just adding more confusion I fear...

You fear correctly sir.

Treebore wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:If you have the latest printing PHB, go to the CKing section, page 167, and read about adding levels to attribute checks. I do see why the wording on Page 16 is confusing, but it is thoroughly clarified in the CK section.

I quoted from the latest printing. The two sections are in DIRECT opposition in this core rule. Hence this thread. Players cannot be told one thing and the CK the opposite on a core mechanic. Which is why errata is being requested. It is something only the game's designers can rectify.

Its not necessarily the opposite, since according to page 167 a CK has to DECIDE what they will allow. Once YOU decide how you want to do it, then everything else just needs to be clarified. Its one of those small confusions the Trolls left in C&C to make it more House Rule friendly. They tell you how to do it ONLY if you decide you want to allow it to be done that way. Now the sentence I really dislike on page 167 is the part about not even allowing a character to try to succeed at a NON class ability. THAT, I think, hope, and treat as being completely wrong. I allow anyone to try to do anything that is NOT a class ability, and adding their level. So that is definitely worthy of putting into House Rules, and hopefully is errata that needs to change that.

This is how I've always understood it to work. And I believe that is one of the things left intentionally vague for CKs to determine for their games.

R-

Captain_K wrote:Could lifting something heavy be a STR check and only the fighter and ranger are STR classes, so STR checks get their levels? Just adding more confusion I fear...

No confusion. If that is how you want to run it, then yes, they get to add level to that Str check.

R-

This is one of those things that can be needlessly complicated if you try to extrapolate rules and not take them for face value.

There exists in this game, attribute checks. Like lifting the statue, tracking goblins*, distance running to the next town, checking for traps*, etc. This is done as an attribute check, which according to page 163 (6th print):

PHB wrote:To resolve these situations, the Castle Keeper informs the player to make a specific attribute check: strength, dexterity, constitution, charisma, wisdom or intelligence. The player rolls a d20 and adds the character’s level and the attribute modifier of the attribute designated by the Castle Keeper. If the total score equals or exceeds the Challenge Class, that number representing the difficulty of conflict requiring the check (see below), the character succeeds. If it fails to equal or exceed it, the check fails.

Sometimes, attribute checks fall into the purview of a specific class - the ones mentioned above with a * are but a couple, but others would be applying a disguise or deciphering an unknown script. If your class has this ability, then you may still add your level to the check. If are trying to attempt one of these "special attribute checks," so to speak, that infringe on another class' ability, then...

PHB, page 167 wrote:If a Castle Keeper, for whatever reason, does allow a character to attempt to use a class ability of another class, then the SIEGE engine attribute mechanic changes in one significant way. The character does not add his level to the attribute check roll. Instead, the character rolls a d20 and adds the appropriate attribute modifier only.

I don't know how much easier it can be described. Remember: everything is an attribute check. Everything. Yes, even saving throws. And you add your class level to it. But if it's something that specifically another class can do (a class ability of a class), you have two options:

a) not allow it at all, or
b) allow it, but not allow the character to add his/her level.

It really doesn't get any simpler that that!

Of course there are two different "rules" to cover two different situations.

serleran wrote:Of course there are two different "rules" to cover two different situations.

Or one rule with a couple of exceptions. Six in one, half a dozen in the other...

Lord Dynel wrote:

serleran wrote:Of course there are two different "rules" to cover two different situations.

Or one rule with a couple of exceptions. Six in one, half a dozen in the other...

But that discounts and possibility of a baker's dozen. Surely there's room to accept a third exception.

serleran wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote:

serleran wrote:Of course there are two different "rules" to cover two different situations.

Or one rule with a couple of exceptions. Six in one, half a dozen in the other...

But that discounts and possibility of a baker's dozen. Surely there's room to accept a third exception.

There's always room for a third exception...

Wow. Things shouldn't be this hard. How did people used to play these sort of games.

A lot of wisdom in this thread and a lot of opinions.

This is what I do and how I interpret things: A Siege-check is generally tied to task resolution which can take the form of one of three things generally.

Saving Throws
Ability Checks
Skill Checks

The confusion or issue people stumble upon the most is skills (class vs non-class). Can a Fighter Pick a Lock? Generally speaking, NO! They never got any training to do so which means they don't get to add their levels to the check. Some GM's may still let them try (maybe with an additional penalty) and others would just flat-out say no.

Other tasks, such as jumping or lifting something, is not something that is necessarily trained. Do you need a skill to know how to lift something? No. You can make the argument that general training in athletics will make you jump further or higher and a weight lifter knows how to best lift something in a given situation. This might be irrelevant when you consider Saving Throws.

Does training or specialized knowledge really come into play when dodging the blast radius of a fireball or resisting poison. I suppose with poison, you could train to gain resistance to it but an explosion is an explosion. A breath weapon is a breath weapon. Generally any dexterity or strength related saving throws shouldn't have 'experience' attributed to it. However, we do add our levels for all our saving throws.

A classic answer is tied to the abstract nature of hitpoints. It is argued that Hitpoints is an abstract concept and some of hitpoints represent a 'luck' factor. I submit that Saves fall in the same distinction: As you become 'greater' (higher level), you have luck on your side. There is no reason why some physical feats such as lifting a heavy beam that has fallen, or jumping a chasm (when the situation calls for it), couldn't have the same logic applied.

All in all, you can interpret how you like because, in the end, it's the guy behind the GM screen that makes the call and his or her interpretation is what counts.



M