demi-humans 2 primes, monsters 3 or more

[Gnostic Gnoll]

Oh, I'm not saying one shouldn't keep the players on their toes, I just think it wouldn't be much more difficult to keep track of monsters with a division of primes beyond P/M.

[serleran]

Yes, especially if you have, say... a gobbo leader with Dex and Cha, gobbo guards with Str and Con, gobbo spellslingers with Dex and Int, gobbo healers with Con and Wis... and on and on.

[gideon_thorne]

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying one shouldn't keep the players on their toes, I just think it wouldn't be much more difficult to keep track of monsters with a division of primes beyond P/M.

Praps, but the core idea of C&C is to make matters uncomplicated at their basic, and let folks tack on what they need. Takes up less space in the books that way and doesnt run up the cost of the book. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Scurvy_Platypus]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Praps, but the core idea of C&C is to make matters uncomplicated at their basic, and let folks tack on what they need. Takes up less space in the books that way and doesnt run up the cost of the book. ^_^

And it's a core idea that I for one am quite pleased with. Adding things in and therefore complicating it (even if it is only a small amount) is always an easy thing to do. I _really_ like that I can choose where I want to complicate things and the degree to which I wish to do so.

[Nifelhein]

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
This line of thinking is also something of a 3.5ism. Monsters and NPCs do not necessarily need ability scores if the primes are split up; it would simply be a matter of deciding on a finer basis where the primes go. Their bonuses would still be determined by their hit dice, as normal, but a clunky monster with Strength and Constitution as primes simply rolls that much better on those than their Dexterity-based checks.

Well, he was not only talking about assigning primes, but giving them attributes, primes would be a fairly minor issue, as it already is, doubt everyone would be satisfied with them giving two primes for a whole race anyway.

Now giving attributes would lead down a problematic road.

Quote:
Pshaw. Any player worth the title has memorized the Monster Manual anyway. Any GM can do the same.

Heavens no, i have better things to do than that, players memorize because it increases their odds of "winning" on the game or the game itself. it all comes down to competition, that is why 3.X is so successful.

Julian Grimm wrote:
D20 thought this way and see the confusing mess it made with it's monsters. When you have to calculate more than a general desricption of monster strength (i.e. HD) you move into the mess of CR and other factors that overly complicated d20. Supposedly that was simple too but how many headaches did that create?

As I said, the snowball effect comes into play.

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying one shouldn't keep the players on their toes, I just think it wouldn't be much more difficult to keep track of monsters with a division of primes beyond P/M.

I find it easier to build upon simple basics than to break down complicated or specific rules to a degree I want. Also, I doubt people would complain about a commoner being broken because he has 6 primes, but people would surely complain if a PC had those.

The Gm can make the imbalance if he wants it to exist, C&C just approaches the matter with a good eye, giving GMs the power to do anything they want with the rules presented, My experience tells me we will usually power down those we think can break the game.

I certainly won't use a single goblin tumbling around, then deciphering an ancient tome while running tirelessly across the plains to ultimately take a giant boulder out of the way of his master's lair. Now if I gave that much power to a player, I doubt he would not be doing just that, and feel like he was having a hell of a time while doing it.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[IanTheMoxious]

I find this whole topic as it is toned a touch silly. If you are properly running your monsters, the PC's will only have time to worry about pointy things, horrible venom, and vile magics rending their flesh. Something is wrong if PC's start worring about what monster has what save metagame wise. Unless you are the GM none of this matters. So what if a "monster elf" has every ability prime? PC's shouldn't be thinking about it anyway!

[Fizz]

OK, back from the double-header i had to work today... i can chime in again.

I recall some monsters in the original books having descriptions of `strength equivalent of 18/00' or somesuch. I'm not sure offhand if any in M&T do, but what do you do in that case? Would you give them the appropriate modifier?

It seems to me that attribute scores on monster are most useful when a PC is pitting himself against the beastie in that attribute. Say a fighter and bugbear are pitted in a feat of strength against the other. How would you determine who wins? A case like that seems easier to envision if everyone had a strength score.

I do understand the notion of simplicity. In fact, i'm going to dissiminate all of monster primes into each attribute, not the P/M split. That'll have more impact than attribute scores anyways.

-Fizz

[Julian Grimm]

Fizz wrote:
I recall some monsters in the original books having descriptions of `strength equivalent of 18/00' or somesuch. I'm not sure offhand if any in M&T do, but what do you do in that case? Would you give them the appropriate modifier?

In that instance you would since it is clearly stated in the monster description.

It seems to me that attribute scores on monster are most useful when a PC is pitting himself against the beastie in that attribute. Say a fighter and bugbear are pitted in a feat of strength against the other. How would you determine who wins? A case like that seems easier to envision if everyone had a strength score.

That is a point to consider. In that instance I would probbaly use the monsters HD as the modifier to the roll.

Quote:
I do understand the notion of simplicity. In fact, i'm going to dissiminate all of monster primes into each attribute, not the P/M split. That'll have more impact than attribute scores anyways.

-Fizz

That's fine, but it should not be addressed in the C&C core material except as an option in the CKG. Since it has been stated it was presented to be added to by the individual players.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Fizz]

Julian Grimm wrote:
That's fine, but it should not be addressed in the C&C core material except as an option in the CKG. Since it has been stated it was presented to be added to by the individual players.

Well, i can see the point about adding ability scores. But as important as primes are to C&C, i do find it really odd that they only gave them cursory treatment on the monsters. I think that's a missed opportunity without adding complexity.

Fortunately, it shouldn't be too tricky for specific primes to be chosen for monsters on the fly.

-Fizz

[DangerDwarf]

Fizz wrote:
Well, i can see the point about adding ability scores. But as important as primes are to C&C, i do find it really odd that they only gave them cursory treatment on the monsters. I think that's a missed opportunity without adding complexity.

I believe that if a mechanic is not necessary with a vast majority of your encounters, then it is not necessary for the game.

Without trying to be a smartass...

Those of you who would liek either individualized primes and/or monster attributes, how many of your encounters during a regular session of play do these exacts become pertinent? I'm not trying to be smart about it, I'm genuinely curious and assume that perhaps it is boiling down to a difference in play styles.

I've been running C&C for just shy of a year now and can't think of a single, in-game, time that I was needing to know what n orc, bugbear, whatevers CON was, or STR, or what ever.

Are these issues you are actually running into while playing?

[Fizz]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Those of you who would liek either individualized primes and/or monster attributes, how many of your encounters during a regular session of play do these exacts become pertinent? I'm not trying to be smart about it, I'm genuinely curious and assume that perhaps it is boiling down to a difference in play styles.

Well, there are a few points here.

First, my playing experience with C&C is still a bit limited. But typically the encounters i throw at my group give them a choice of how to act. They're not just about combat. They may need to out-smart, out-charm, or out-endure the monster, because out-fighting it will be impossible. The monster may be making several checks or saves, and the choice of prime matters.

Second, i do use a modified combat system where combat does depend on primes (either strength or dexterity, depending on the weapon used). This applies to the monsters as well. IMO, combat is just a specialized form of attribute check. (I remember Gideon once saying he wanted to do this too, but was outvoted. Maybe it'll be in the CKG.)

So, monster primes do make a regular appearance in my games. You're right, we might just be seeing a difference in our playing styles.

-Fizz

[simontmn]

This seems a bit silly. If you care what Primes your NPC dwarf has, make him PC-class, and give him 2 Primes. A 1st level Fighter, say - ok he gets +1 hit & damage with his specialised weapon, if he's carrying it - not the end of the world.

The M&T stats are for quick resolution of encounters with unclassed, generic, single-hit-dice dwarves & elves.

[simontmn]

It seems to me that attribute scores on monster are most useful when a PC is pitting himself against the beastie in that attribute. Say a fighter and bugbear are pitted in a feat of strength against the other. How would you determine who wins? A case like that seems easier to envision if everyone had a strength score.

Quote:
That is a point to consider. In that instance I would probbaly use the monsters HD as the modifier to the roll.

That's the RAW - bugbear rolls d20 + 3 for hit dice (+6 effectively for Phys primes); human Fighter rolls d20 + Level + STR mod (+6 effectively for Phys primes); if it's a grapple, bugbeat gets a size bonus.

Opposed rolls aren't part of the RAW, but rolling d20+9 (+ size bonus) for bugbear vs Fighter d20+ (Level + STR mod +6) would be well within the spirit.

[gideon_thorne]

Certainly, the system does take a bit of a re arrange in the thought process. But one thing I have noticed is that each group tends to find their own level in what is comfortable and works for them. Which is entirely the way C&C was intended to work. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Zudrak]

DangerDwarf wrote:
I'm of the camp that fails to see a major deal in this.

I don't try to rationalize it, I don't try to explain it, I just accept it and roll on.

"But that dwarf has 6 primes and I only have 2!"

*shrug* And?

That doesn't make sense!

And HP's, Fire & Forget spells along with a host of other things do? It's just a game. It's an abstract representation.

Now if that 1d8 HD dwarf with the ultra-primes utilizes his "unfair" advantage to take over the world, yeah then we have a problem. But if the schmoe is just the guy who's fixing the dent in my sheild? C'mon and let him make it, its probably the only cool thing he has going for him.

DangerDwarf wrote:
And interestingly enough, even with "6 whole primes" they regularly get owned by gimpy 2 primed demihumans with a class level.

DangerDwarf wrote:
#1 Rule of Thumb on why the M, P or Both system works for me?

If I spend more time writing up stats for a critter than it will take my players to kill it....

something is seriously wrong.

I'm a-going to write me up a book of DD quotes. You had me laughing out loud. Good on ya, mate!

The last quote is my favorite. I remember, while wincing, writing out stats for 3e monsters for our campaign after the PC's got to the teen levels. That was February 2005 when I started looking for that "something else" and would have gone back to 1e AD&D if it weren't for Gary Gygax and Peter Bradley pointing me in C&C's direction.

Happy gaming,

Zudrak
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax