Monster saves and character primes

[Mythago]

Hi

I have just got the M&T book. I see that elves and dwarfs etc have M and P saves. So this means that all their characteristics e.g. str, con etc are primes save base =12. Seems very weird because player character elves and dwarfs etc only get two prime characteristics.

This does this square up?

Alex

[Fizz]

Mythago wrote:
Hi

I have just got the M&T book. I see that elves and dwarfs etc have M and P saves. So this means that all their characteristics e.g. str, con etc are primes save base =12. Seems very weird because player character elves and dwarfs etc only get two prime characteristics.

This does this square up?

Alex

You are correct in your interpretation. I too find it weird. IMC, i modify monsters such that they all have individualized primes.

Btb, monsters are not meant to have the level of detail that PCs have. So saves were categorized into just the two groups. It does simplify things, but can lead to odd instances like this.

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

Player characters and 'monsters' just operate on a different set of assumptions. The odd adventuring elf or dwarf may not be able to bring the full power of their respective races out with them on adventures. There could be any number of reasons why. Rationalize it or change it as you think best, however. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[phadeout]

Hmmm, this gets me thinking...

Since every monster "technically" has 3 or 6 "Prime" saves, you'd think PCs would have have at least 3 too?

Maybe the easiest option, rather than giving Monsters individual saves, is to give each PC a "free Prime Save selection" outside their normal Prime stats.

So Humans would have 4 Saves that have clear a CL 12, and everyone else would have 3 Saves that have to clear a CL 12.

Just a thought.

[DangerDwarf]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Rationalize it or change it as you think best, however. ^_~`

Those in M&T are taking questionable "enhancement supplements" in order to be more competitive against adventurers in the field. Until the various guilds take a more active stance on their substance abuse policies, this sadly will continue because they are being permitted to get away with it.

Rationalization in action.

[rabindranath72]

Dwarves and Elves in M&T do not have levels, while characters do. So, they are "stuck" with whatever they have.

In any case, you can always rule that they must choose between M & P, and not have both.

[Omote]

rabindranath72 wrote:
Dwarves and Elves ... are "stuck" with whatever they have.

This is the reasoning I have kept the saves P+M for "monster" demi-human races. They arn't ever going to have a lot of HP, BtH, etc unless they have NPC levels. I play them BTB in this instance.

..........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[rabindranath72]

phadeout wrote:
Hmmm, this gets me thinking...

Since every monster "technically" has 3 or 6 "Prime" saves, you'd think PCs would have have at least 3 too?

Maybe the easiest option, rather than giving Monsters individual saves, is to give each PC a "free Prime Save selection" outside their normal Prime stats.

So Humans would have 4 Saves that have clear a CL 12, and everyone else would have 3 Saves that have to clear a CL 12.

Just a thought.

Do not be carried away by 3e-isms that monsters and characters must have the same treatment. In C&C what is important is the end result, not how it is reached. So, 2+2=4, but even 3+1 and 4+0. The only important thing for C&C is "4" (or 42, for those who love Douglas Adams)

[Mythago]

Nobody has explained why a whatever level elf has only two primes and a 1 hd elf has 6 primes. I don t mind all paths lead to the end result and using short cuts for monsters stats etc hence the useage of M and P saves in the first place - even that approach gives a 'monster' elf a leg up on your whatever level elf.

My feeling is that all PC's should get 3 primes another advantage has to be found for hummies.

I was ...am ...excited by C&C buts this 'broken' mechanic is dissapointing and a big inconsistency - somebody official explain and solve my angst

please!
Alex

[Ghul]

I would go with "M or P" as opposed to "M and P". So, if your party of forest explorers encounters a band of hostile sylvan elves, the warriors/archers of the enemy would be of the "P" category, while any spellbinders would be of the "M" category.

--Ghul

[Jynx]

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that C&C offers you a very basic mechanic on which to build on... which means you can change it if you like or remove it even!

When I read this post I thought to myself 'This is a definate broken Mechanic', but then I realized we're not talking about 3.5 where everything seems to be counterbalanced. With C&C I feel extremely comfortable with changing things and so I go with what Ghul last said in that you can choose either M or P and move on with the game.

As to why this would go unoticed before.... well I guess it wasn't a huge concern. Perhaps the designers just didn't see this problem or felt that the end user/CK would excercise better judgment in their own game.

Do you see this as a major stumbling block for yourself?

[Omote]

Mythago wrote:
...somebody official explain and solve my angst

Your question was answered a few postes above with the following response:

gideon_thorne wrote:
Player characters and 'monsters' just operate on a different set of assumptions.

PC races and "monsters" don't use the same set of mechanics to "stat" them up.

.............................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[gideon_thorne]

Mythago wrote:
I was ...am ...excited by C&C buts this 'broken' mechanic is dissapointing and a big inconsistency - somebody official explain and solve my angst

please!
Alex

Someone already did. ^_^

Monsters operate on their own set of assumptions, hence the prime system being the way it is for them. How people choose to rationalize it, is entirely up to them.

A character has levels to give them advantage and said character gains more advantage as they advance. "Monsters" even elves and dwarves, are 'fixed'. Meaning, unless the game master wants to tack on a special ability or two, the generic 'elf and dwarf' is not going to get any better.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[rabindranath72]

Plus PCs have stats with possible bonuses. Well, if even this is not enough, just use PC races for monsters

[serleran]

Quote:
Nobody has explained why a whatever level elf has only two primes and a 1 hd elf has 6 primes. I don t mind all paths lead to the end result and using short cuts for monsters stats etc hence the useage of M and P saves in the first place - even that approach gives a 'monster' elf a leg up on your whatever level elf.

My feeling is that all PC's should get 3 primes another advantage has to be found for hummies.

I was ...am ...excited by C&C buts this 'broken' mechanic is dissapointing and a big inconsistency - somebody official explain and solve my angst.

I'm as "official" as it can get at the moment, so whatever I say is the law...

A "whatever level" elf has two primes because of two reasons, the first is the most important... 1) They are played by a non-CK, making them Player Characters which leads to 2) All PCs use the rules in the Player's Handbook, in which it states all non-humans get 2 Primes, one of which is mandated by class. And before one asks "what about the leveled NPCs?" I'll say: a CK can, and should, give NPCs whatever abilities the NPC needs for the purpose of its creation.

Monsters have either "Mental" Primes, "Physical" Primes, No Primes, or Both. This is not the same thing as having attribute Prime (which they can't seeing as they don't even have attribute scores.) Instead, it means, and you'll find the "rule" for it under the Saving Categories section of the PHB... is that they are good against certain "natures" of attacks, like avoiding being paralyzed, or not being poisoned, or maybe, just not dying at all. These are indicative of an attribute, in that a PCs score for a particular category will aid (or possibly offset) the category in general. Hell, technically, one could argue that Monsters are jipped... they either get 1 Prime, 2 Primes, or 0 Primes... it just happens that their Primes cover a lot more than the PC's Primes. In fact, another reason why Monsters are so "Prime heavy" is incredibly simple -- to make them Monsters, which is to say, a real challenge... not something that can just be hand-waved. Their Primes gives them an advantage.

Elfs that are Monsters are, perforce, not subject to the PHB... they have a separate rulebook called Monsters and Treasure which guides how they are used. The mechanic is identical (that is, the way the save is resolved,) so there is no "brokenness" to the system.

Quote:
My feeling is that all PC's should get 3 primes another advantage has to be found for hummies.

That would make all the PCs very powerful, very quickly, and would soon mean few things would be a challenge. Half the fun of C&C is the fact that PCs cannot just succeed.. they must be smart, they must be quick to run, and they must be a team. You could do it, but I would not suggest it. Oh, and there would probably be few non-humans in a game like that, but that can be even better if you really like a humanocentric universe (I personally don't; I'm a human in real life... I'd rather not be one in the fantasy game.)

In any event, if you really feel there is a problem, then there is one very easy thing you can do: you can break the M or P "Prime categories" into specific attributes. Of course, that would mean things like Dragons get dramatically weakened.

[Mythago]

serleran

thank you for taking the time to reply. Your post is appreciated. You have made me realise that the monster save prime system is about saves and not attribute checks per se. ok...or have i misunderstood.

This leads me to ask how do monsters make attribute checks if the saves P and M system is about saves and not attribute checks per se. (A big strength of D&D 3.5 was its inclusion of attribute values). what happens when my kobold shamen wishes to track, climb, move quietly etc

Any thoughts on this?

regards

Alex

[serleran]

If there is a reasonable chance of failure, you just look at the governing attribute (which would be Wisdom for tracking, for example) and note that that is a "Mental" use of Monster Primes. It gets a d20 + HD + other bonuses against a 12 (Prime) + difficulty. If the beast has the scent special it has other bonuses/abilities which mitigate/replace/enhance tracking.

Technically speaking, a monster never makes an "ability check" but a "save." Same as a PC, really.. oh, and some abilities, like for PCs, just work (look at something like Breath Weapon and compare to Weapon Specialization... both are auto-effects, is my point.)

Usually, I'd recommend something (for the abovementioned) like "would be more fun to have the kobold shaman trail the party? Perhaps stay behind by a day or two, and spring an ambush?" Or, "is it better for the game in play that the shaman leave the party alone for a while... maybe waiting for them to return; or maybe, he's so scared he's ran off, never to be seen again."

The save categories have "attribute actions" associated, and correlate to an attribute score. However, Monsters don't have such values, and must use "Prime" or "not-Prime" for entire categories. This is one reason they are much more powerful in C&C than in other D&D games. They can do more.

[gideon_thorne]

serleran wrote:
The save categories have "attribute actions" associated, and correlate to an attribute score. However, Monsters don't have such values, and must use "Prime" or "not-Prime" for entire categories. This is one reason they are much more powerful in C&C than in other D&D games. They can do more.

*chuckles* Ya, like I said.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
Technically speaking, a monster never makes an "ability check" but a "save." Same as a PC, really.. oh, and some abilities, like for PCs, just work (look at something like Breath Weapon and compare to Weapon Specialization... both are auto-effects, is my point.)

I'm a little confused by this. Let's suppose you have an orc chasing after a party member. The party member leaps across a pit to try to escape. The orc tries to jump it too.

If monsters don't make ability checks, how do you resolve if the orc makes it? Or are you suggesting the decision should be up to the CK entirely?

-Fizz

[DangerDwarf]

Fizz wrote:
I'm a little confused by this. Let's suppose you have an orc chasing after a party member. The party member leaps across a pit to try to escape. The orc tries to jump it too.

If monsters don't make ability checks, how do you resolve if the orc makes it? Or are you suggesting the decision should be up to the CK entirely?

-Fizz

Ummmm. Save vs. Falling to Doom?

I think it odd wording as well.

[gideon_thorne]

Fizz wrote:
I'm a little confused by this. Let's suppose you have an orc chasing after a party member. The party member leaps across a pit to try to escape. The orc tries to jump it too.

If monsters don't make ability checks, how do you resolve if the orc makes it? Or are you suggesting the decision should be up to the CK entirely?

-Fizz

They roll vs their physical prime and add their # of HD. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[DangerDwarf]

gideon_thorne wrote:
They roll vs their physical prime and add their # of HD. ^_^

Or in other words...

They make an ability check.

[Mythago]

Actually I think not. You might feel this is a point of somantics only. But monsters don't have attributes onlt prime or non prime saves values - so all their actions are always saves by default. Its a kind of perspective approach necessary for monsters with no attribute values.

i.e. orc jumping across chasm is a save vs falling which would be a physical save and hence a 12 base plus 1 for 1 HD and any conditional mods say +1 because he has a good run up but -2 due to the length of jump required. so ase number is 14 + to succeed.

Of course this still means that a monster elf dwarf hobbit will with regard to base values on saves pretty much always be better than a 1st level pc elf dwarf hobbit etc...this still brings me full circle as that feels a bit off. D&D 3.5 is so all sorted on that account - you have attibute (avg) values listed in monster manaula and so monsters do resolve action checks in the same mechanic with fully relative and comparartive values.

sigh...Trying to understand a better way of gaming (C&C) honest!

Alex

[DangerDwarf]

Mythago wrote:
You might feel this is a point of semantics only. But monsters don't have attributes only prime or non prime saves values - so all their actions are always saves by default. Its a kind of perspective approach necessary for monsters with no attribute values.

Yeah, I do feel it is a matter of semantics, as I don't believe that perspective is required for critters without listed attribute values.

I can abstract that a critter still has attributes without their values being listed. Yes he has strength. Yes he has dexterity. Do I need to know what they are? Nah, I know he is good at physical things because it has "P" listed in his write up.

So, for me, as that orc goes charging after the character and attempts to leap the pit? He's gonna make an ability check to see if he has the ability to do so.

In the end does it matter rather someone refers to it as an ability check or a physical save? Nope, still the same mechanic.

As for why the elves or dwarves have more "primes" than their PC counterpart? Doesn't bother or concern me any. I'm playing a game where a fighter with 86 hit points can't be killed by a single, well placed hit from a massive 2 handed sword. It will take several hits.

So, maybe its not always realistic, but it sure is fun.

[serleran]

Actually, read the line in the PHB that states attribute checks are saves... a slightly "special form" of them, but all SIEGE rolls are "saves." In this way, C&C is more like The Arcanum than it is D&D.

The technical difference is irrelevant, however, since the result is the same. Its just that a monster cannot make an "attribute check" and most "ability check" because they do not have attributes, and their "abilities" are (usually) auto-effects... anything else, like a tracking roll is a "save" unless they truly do have that as a special, in which case it resolves normally (like it was an "ability.") So, actually, I guess a monster that doesn't have tracking as a Special would not get its HD to the roll, just like a PC would not get its level. However, the monster description should always take precedence over the stat-block, in that a monster described as especialy cunning, intelligent, primitive, predatory, or other synonyms, should be able to track without a problem.

[Fizz]

The mechanic may be essentially the same, but the language is a bit silly.

To me, a `saving throw', is just that. It's a roll to save yourself from something unpleasant. The ability to track does not prevent harm coming to yourself.

An attribute or ability check is something done voluntarily. You want to do it using your own skills, talents, etc.

I'm aware the game will play perfectly fine btb. But the language seems to be confusing for no good reason.

This has convinced me more that monsters should have attribute scores (they've got Intelligence already anyways), with only a couple primes at most (maybe 3 for dragons, none for zombies, etc).

-Fizz

[Jynx]

Up until now, I've simply given 'skill' type checks for monsters a basic 18 - no primes, and only use the HD as a bonus to their rolls. As far as I care, the SAVES are just that... saves not skill checks, therefore thre is no need to know if the difficulty starts at 12 or 18. I'm not a player character killer type of CK, so anything to give the party a better chance at survival is good for me. They are the heroes in the story afterall!

Saves on the other hand, are what they are... either M or P or Both - with a little bit of 'winging' it as needed - meaning if I feel the monster in question really shouldn't get an M or P Save, or neither, then he won't get it, regardless what the book sais! And a Save is to 'save ones life' or avoid spell and other like effects.

So as in the example earlier in this thread with that 'orc monster' (or perhaps even an 'elf monster') chasing am elven 1st level character over a chasm would not have a better chance at success than the PC! The monster would have a D20 + 1 HD and the player would have a D20 + whatever applies.

It's so simple and works great. C&C is meant to be kept simple and the moment we turn our monsters into characters with abvility scores and all that, then we're right back into a 3.5 type game that I would much rather avoid - personally.

[anglefish]

Mythago wrote:
Of course this still means that a monster elf dwarf hobbit will with regard to base values on saves pretty much always be better than a 1st level pc elf dwarf hobbit etc...this still brings me full circle as that feels a bit off. D&D 3.5 is so all sorted on that account - you have attibute (avg) values listed in monster manaula and so monsters do resolve action checks in the same mechanic with fully relative and comparartive values.

sigh...Trying to understand a better way of gaming (C&C) honest!

Alex

In DnD, there have always been certain paradigms that GMs must either accept, ignore or change when they run the game.
* Changing power levels: PC start very weak, at least substandared in one area compared to the average in their race (whether it's HP for a wizard or Int. for a fighter.), but their specialization as a class makes them demigods at later levels, which forces the game to change flavor eventually.

*Spell Levels instead of Metaphysics: Fire and Forget spells with no really connection to the game world's metaphysics (a hugely missed opportunity in any fantasy game, IMHO)

*Detectable Alignments: Wormtales not need apply when a paladin can use Detect Evil and play whack a villian.

*Archetypes: In pre 3.0, you couldn't really play against "type," being shoe horned into demihuman restrictions. C&C is much more leinent in this regard, and some feel that 3.0 went way to far in the other direction.

I'm sure there are others that I'm not thinking about now.

Regardless, C&C is pitched as a "house rulers" dream, so there's no reason you can't add extra stats to your game.

As for me in this regard, it's one of those things that I can live with as is in C&C. Sooner or later the PCs will outstrip their M&T counterparts and the point will be moot.

[Mythago]

[/quote]C&C is meant to be kept simple and the moment we turn our monsters into characters with abvility scores and all that, then we're right back into a 3.5 type game that I would much rather avoid - personally.[/quote]

I am all for simplicity. That is why knowing or being given an average value for monster attributes and 'class' abilities e.g. tracking (wisdom) etc would have been so much more simple than having to think this kind of thing up during play. May be an easy'ish thing to do on the fly for an orc but what about weirder creatures like a beholder - you get me?

Attribue values could have been simply described in the M&T manual as their modifier value as for PC's i.e. a minus, a zero or a positive number, together with listing what attributes would on average be the chosen primes for that monster/race...

that is presicely what D&D 3.0 Monster manual did and was a genuinley helpful piece of work for DM's IMO. For examle it lists Beholders as having an avg Widom of 15 and having the skill (amongst otheres) Survival +2 (Tracking +4). To me this is REALLY helpful legwork thats been done for my benefit to make my life as a DM/CK easier!

I beleive that this was an innovation in monster descriptions that C&C monster manual should have taken forward ...

Alex

[serleran]

Quote:
is presicely what D&D 3.0 Monster manual did and was a genuinley helpful piece of work for DM's IMO. For examle it lists Beholders as having an avg Widom of 15 and having the skill (amongst otheres) Survival +2 (Tracking +4). To me this is REALLY helpful legwork thats been done for my benefit to make my life as a DM/CK easier!

No, it is restrictive, and unneccesary, and gives many "skills" that are rarely useful simply for the purpose of ensuring "balance," whatever the hell that is. By its very structure it eliminates options, or causes the DM to be forced to re-calculate based on ad hoc situations. So, instead of providing bonmuses for abilities that are never used, C&C gave monsters abilities that are always used, and the rest work off the SIEGE Engine... its still an "ad hoc" but with the unified, very easy mechanic, such things are just determining a difficulty.

Here's an example... your d20 beholder gets nothing in Craft: Quiltmaking, but should it decide it needs to sew one with teeth needles, you've got to look at its Int score, determine the bonus from that, and then pick a difficulty, which is probably "Epic." Same thing in C&C is easy... it gets a Mental (I'd rule it was Physical, but d20 does lots of crazy attribute assignments...) save against whatever difficulty. You've actually eliminated a step, and kept needless lines of text and numbers, and more stuff to memorize, out.... all things that a NEW (and yes, C&C was meant for new players) need to handle the game; from there, they can feel able to build off the baseline.

Then there's the whole combat thing....... C&C is not d20, nor should the "logic" of that game be applied to it.