Troll Lord Games

Hey folks, I have posted the following on Dragonsfoot and RPG.net, but thought that I would post it here for some discussion as well:

After playing a game of C&C where the Castle Keeper was used to playing D20, and called for 'Spot' and 'Hide' checks several times for minor actions, we all realized that the C&C Seige Engine mechanic was not designed for the same 'style' of play as that found in D20/D&D 3.5.

Just to be perfectly forward - I was a C&C playtester, and really pushed for the integration of some kind of skill system (even if it was optional). There were many heated discussions on the topic, and one of the results of those discussions was the unified Seige Engine mechanic.
In a nutshell:

The reason being that the Seige Mechanic tends to make even routine Ability Checks difficult for low-level characters....especially if the ability score in question is not a Prime ability.

This is due to a couple of factors, but the major one is that the difficulty for all Ability Checks starts at +1 (for the easiest of tasks) and goes up from there to +20 or more. This difficulty is added to the "Challenge Base" for all checks, which starts at 12+ for Prime Abilities, and 18+ for Secondary Abilities.

According to the rulebook, if you are not attempting an Ability Check that falls under the Class or Race ability which you do not possess, you get to add your level to the 1D20 roll to beat the Challenge Base + Difficulty Modifier listed above. You also add/subtract any modifiers from a high or low Ability Score.

As written, this can lead to some 'wonky' situations where our characters couldn't have heard an explosion 15' from them due to being first level, and due to the nature of the Seige Engine mechanic. Again, this is if the Castle Keeper is playing C&C in a style similar to that of D&D 3.5 / D20 where he asks for 'Spot' and 'Listen' type checks to determine how encounters play out.

That's not to say that the Seige Mechanic is necessarily a bad way to handle things, just that it is not really a mechanic that is condusive to play in the same style as D&D 3.5 / D20 where checks are asked of the player for a lot of common actions.

That in mind, I created a couple of tables to illustrate the relative percent chances of success based on the Seige Engine mechanic:
Secondary Table

The table above lists the character's LEVEL down the LEFT COLUMN, and the action's DIFFICULTY MODIFIER accross the TOP ROW. The result you get if you cross-index the two, is the base percent chance of success your character can expect.
The table assumes the following:

The DIFFICULTY BASE for a Secondary Ability is 18+ on a D20 (which means you succeed on a roll of 18, 19, or 20).

The DIFFICULTY added to this roll (whether you base that on the Hit Dice of the opposing creature, the level of the character/NPC opposing the PC making the roll, or the Castle Keepers judgement) starts at +1 according to the C&C PHB, and can go as high as +20 or more.

This table assumes that the action being attempted does not fall under a Class or Race ability that the character does not possess, and is therefore adding his Level to the check result.

The character DOES NOT have an Ability Score bonus/penalty. If the character does have a bonus/penalty, add or subtract +/-5% for each +/-1.

As you can see from the table - If a CK called for a Wisdom Ability Check for a 'Spot'-type check, and the character making the check was 1st level, his Wisdom was NOT Prime, and he had no bonus/penalty to Wisdom, he would have only a 15% chance to succeed at 'spotting' the most obvious, and 'easy to see' object/event possible (based on the fact that the easiest of difficulties starts at +1, and advances from there).
Prime Table

The table above lists the character's LEVEL down the LEFT COLUMN, and the action's DIFFICULTY MODIFIER accross the TOP ROW. The result you get if you cross-index the two, is the base percent chance of success your character can expect.
The table assumes the following:

The DIFFICULTY BASE for a Secondary Ability is 12+ on a D20 (which means you succeed on a roll of 12, 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , or 20).

The DIFFICULTY added to this roll (whether you base that on the Hit Dice of the opposing creature, the level of the character/NPC opposing the PC making the roll, or the Castle Keepers judgement) starts at +1 according to the C&C PHB, and can go as high as +20 or more.

This table assumes that the action being attempted does not fall under a Class or Race ability that the character does not possess, and is therefore adding his Level to the check result.

The character DOES NOT have an Ability Score bonus/penalty. If the character does have a bonus/penalty, add or subtract +/-5% for each +/-1.

I am no mathematician, but I believe that the numbers are accurate.
Another example where the chance of success could really hurt a low level character:

Lets say you have a first level C&C character. DEX is not Prime. His ability score modifier for DEX is +0.

He is running from a Troll in a dungeon, and steps out onto a ledge accross a 10' wide chasm. There is a chain dangling over the chasm which he could (possibly) jump out and grab to swing accross to the other side.

Let's say we want to be generous and say that he can probably head back down the corridor a bit to get a running start before the Troll manages to catch up with him.

Even if you gave him a +1 (the easiest) difficulty, he would still need to roll an 18, 19, or 20 on a D20 to succeed using the Seige Engine mechanic (that's only a 15% chance of success against the easiest diffuculty).

Now this kind of falls into a grey area for me....It's one of those situations that I think would be dramatic enough that I would want to ask for an Ability Check roll to resolve - then again, knowing that the easiest I could make it (by the book) would still mean the character was almost 85% likely to fall into the 'bottomless' chasm, I can kind of see it as being something I would feel bad about forcing on a character. Know what I mean ?

As an aside - If you guys are tempted to respond that the hopeless character should never have put himself in a dungeon containing a Troll, you are correct - but I remember the harsh realities of old-school AD&D, and that stuff happened routinely!

Again, I am not saying that this is necessarily a flaw in the Seige Engine mechanic. Rather, it's something that potential C&C Castle Keepers really need to be aware of, and take into account when running their games. As illustrated by the numbers, if a CK calls for numerous checks for relatively minor actions throughout a game session, the chances are high that low level characters will fail even the simplest of tasks.

This leads me to believe that C&C is designed to be played more in an old-school 'AD&D-style' manner where narration and Dungeon Master fiat determined the results of various actions more than dice rolling.

Anyway, it's food for thought. So what do you guys think ?

Good overview, Melkor. Thought of subbing that as a Crusader article?

I think it would be a good PoV, especially for those gamers who might not have every played OS A/D&D and whose only reference to FRPG playing is TETSNBN.
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

sieg wrote:
Good overview, Melkor. Thought of subbing that as a Crusader article?

Hey Sieg,

Certainly...I've submitted some other stuff to the Trolls for possible inclusion in the Crusader (a couple of times now) with no response.

Maybe the Trolls hate me.

Exactly! Please see my post on page 3 of this thread.

The mechanics of d20 encourage the player to manipulate Fortune through feats. C&C demands we use Karma and Drama instead. However, we cannot deny that rolling dice is fun. D20 makes no excuse and encourages it with flat results of yes and no. What the CK could do is judge -- through Karma and Drama -- what the character can do and then determine how a negative result can diminish that without necessarily making it a failure.

Jrrneiklot posted the following over on my thread at RPG.net, and I thought it would be something worthy of discussing here as well.
Originally Posted by Jrrneiklot on RPG.net
"I'd say it's also not designed to play like AD&D. Example:

AD&D 10th level fighter saving against a 10th level wizard's spell. He needs an 11 or higher on a D20, so he'll make that save half of the time.

C&C 10th level fighter with the appropriate prime makes that save on a 12 or higher.

C&C 10th level fighter with a non-prime makes that save on an 18 or higher. BIG difference.

Now, consider an attribute check that doesn't add level.

AD&D fighter with a 12 dex, needs a 12 or less.

C&C fighter, 12 dex, prime, needs a thirteen at best, depending on the challenge level. A challenge level of 9 makes this task impossible.

C&C fighter, 12 dex, non prime, needs a 19 at best, depending on the challenge level. A challengge level of 3 makes this task impossible.

Something needs to be done to address this, though I don't know what."

Melkor wrote:
After playing a game of C&C where the Castle Keeper was used to playing D20, and called for 'Spot' and 'Hide' checks several times for minor actions, we all realized that the C&C Seige Engine mechanic was not designed for the same 'style' of play as that found in D20/D&D 3.5.

Excellent post. The charts give a good idea of chances for me to gauge.

I think you hit it right on with the above quote as well. Which, is exactlly why I prefer C&C over 3e.

I never liked the rolling for everyting in 3e. I remember the first time I went to pick over the dead body of an orc I just killed and the DM said, "Make a search roll." To grab his coin purse?!?

Common sense and the SIEGE engine get you pretty darn far.

Quote:
C&C 10th level fighter with the appropriate prime makes that save on a 12 or higher.

C&C 10th level fighter with a non-prime makes that save on an 18 or higher. BIG difference.

I don't find this a big concern. For a compaison, look at the same thing in 3e.

A level 10 wizard casting his 5th level spells (not counting any feats), the spell will have a DC of 19 assuming he has an INT of 18 (not difficult at level 10).

A level 10 fighter, with average stats will have the following modifiers for his saves:

Fortitude (3e save equivalent of fighter prime) +9 so will make on a roll of 10 or higher.

Will (Non prime) +3 so will need to roll 16 or higher.

Big difference. There's a 6 point difference there as well. Now, if the wizard took feats to raise his potency on the spell, the fighters roll could easily need to be 2-3 higher.

Quote:
AD&D fighter with a 12 dex, needs a 12 or less.

C&C fighter, 12 dex, prime, needs a thirteen at best, depending on the challenge level. A challenge level of 9 makes this task impossible.

C&C fighter, 12 dex, non prime, needs a 19 at best, depending on the challenge level. A challengge level of 3 makes this task impossible.

I don't see an issue here either. Challenge levels will change as you level. I would expect a 10th level fighter to experience a lesser challenge level then a 3rd level fighter trying to accomplish the same thing.

Again, common sense will dictate alot here as well. If it is a check in which the fighter has alot of experience doing (through the course of the campaign) then I'd likely allow him to add 1/2 his level to the check due to him doing such things regularly.

Melkor,

Nah they don't hate you, ya just gotta keep reminding them. They see bright shiny objects and occasionally lose focus.
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

sieg wrote:
Melkor,

Nah they don't hate you, ya just gotta keep reminding them. They see bright shiny objects and occasionally lose focus.

Yeah bright and shiny chainmail bikini tops recently.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

Quote:
Now, consider an attribute check that doesn't add level.

Also, in regards to the example of a fighter dex check as mentioned above, the first sentence of that example is paramount.

Primarily, the only checks which wont apply the characters level are checks that intrude into the abilities of another class, or the CK determines it is not something the character would normally be able to attempt.

So, yes. If that fighter is attempting to lets say move silently (and the CK allows it), and dex is not his prime...then yeah...anything above a challenge level 3 should by all rights be impossible. So, I'm not seeing the problem.

I just allow the PC's to treat any skill as if the related stat is a Prime. Whether it is Prime or not.

I like to think of it as 'keeping the challenge' alive and well in the game.

It's a relative situation.

And, as you pointed out, those tables are assuming no attribute bonuses.

If we are talking about some sort of 'easy' DEX task when DEX is the prime state (we'll say a thief for example) we can probably assume that DEX in this case will more than likely be one of their highest stats... meaning a +1 or a +2 bonus if the character is made up of decent rolls. In my book that gives a thief fair chance to do something he's pretty much skilled at. Humans have half their stats which are prime stats where as demi-humans have a third. Still good overall. However, common sense HAS to be the guiding principle and if you attempt to roll a check for EVERYTHING... then yes, you'll run into problems.

I think the charts are great! I too will probably use them to gain a better insight in determining these challenge levels for checks.

Keep up the good work!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Based on your post moriarty777, I threw together an example character (at 1st Level, then at 5th level with the Ability Scores rolled on 4D6, dropping the lowest D6) to show the numbers in action.

Granted, I rolled good - so that (and the method used for generating the Ability Scores) probably leads to a better than average character, and I also kept the scores accross all character race types.

I believe my numbers are accurate, if you guys spot a discrepancy, please let me know and I will correct it.

That in mind - Primary attributes are bold and in blue.
1st Level Human Fighter:
STR: 16 (+2)
DEX: 13 (+1)

CON: 14 (+1)

INT: 12 (+0)
WIS: 10 (+0)

CHA: 10 (+0)

Attribute Check Base Chance of Success (+1 for Level / -1 for Difficulty)

STR: 55%

DEX: 50%

CON: 20%

INT: 15%

WIS: 45%

CHA: 15%
1st Level Half-Elf Fighter:
STR: 16 (+2)
DEX: 13 (+1)

CON: 14 (+1)

INT: 12 (+0)

WIS: 10 (+0)*

CHA: 10 (+0)
* +2 to all attribute checks based on Wisdom for being Half-Elf.

Attribute Check Base Chance of Success (+1 for Level / -1 for Difficulty)

STR: 55%

DEX: 50%

CON: 20%

INT: 15%

WIS: 25%

CHA: 15%
1st Level Demi-Human Fighter:
STR: 16 (+2)
DEX: 13 (+1)

CON: 14 (+1)

INT: 12 (+0)

WIS: 10 (+0)

CHA: 10 (+0)

Attribute Check Base Chance of Success (+1 for Level / -1 for Difficulty)

STR: 55%

DEX: 50%

CON: 20%

INT: 15%

WIS: 15%

CHA: 15%
5th Level Human Fighter:
STR: 16 (+2)
DEX: 13 (+1)

CON: 14 (+1)

INT: 12 (+0)
WIS: 10 (+0)

CHA: 10 (+0)

Attribute Check Base Chance of Success (+5 for Level / -1 for Difficulty)

STR: 75%

DEX: 70%

CON: 40%

INT: 35%

WIS: 65%

CHA: 35%
5th Level Half-Elf Fighter:
STR: 16 (+2)
DEX: 13 (+1)

CON: 14 (+1)

INT: 12 (+0)

WIS: 10 (+0)*

CHA: 10 (+0)
* +2 to all attribute checks based on Wisdom for being Half-Elf.

Attribute Check Base Chance of Success (+5 for Level / -1 for Difficulty)

STR: 75%

DEX: 70%

CON: 40%

INT: 35%

WIS: 45%

CHA: 35%
5th Level Demi-Human Fighter:
STR: 16 (+2)
DEX: 13 (+1)

CON: 14 (+1)

INT: 12 (+0)

WIS: 10 (+0)

CHA: 10 (+0)

Attribute Check Base Chance of Success (+5 for Level / -1 for Difficulty)

STR: 75%

DEX: 70%

CON: 40%

INT: 35%

WIS: 35%

CHA: 35%

Megamanfan over on Dragonsfoot suggested changing the Challenge Base for Primes & Secondary Ability Scores to 10/15 (respectively) instead of 12/18 to increase the base chances of success.

I think that's a pretty good idea.

Maybe also implementing the old: "A 1 is always a success, while a 20 is always a failure" - so that chances listed on the tables above would max out at 95%, and that a 5% or less would always be a success.


Edit to add:

Ok, here's two tables based on changing the Challenge Base for a Prime Attribute to 10, and a Secondary Attribute to 15, as well as assuming that a roll of 1 on a D20 is always a success, and a roll of 20 is always a miss:
The Secondary Table:
The Primary Table:

After seeing the numbers, I will probably adopt this for my C&C games.

10 and 15 would seem good options for a more heroic game. Likewise letting 20's always work (which I pretty much assumed in any event)

Great analysis Melkor. And mathematically I agree with everything you said.

But I think that, this is kinda giving the 3rd Ed. treatment to a game that really doesnt "fit" that kind of gameplay.

The way I see it is that the seige engine is a more of a suggestion to the CK. And that a CK shouldn't always follow the 12/18 rule all the time. Lest we fall into the same trap as 3rd Ed by not utilizing the spirit of C&C which is dramatic storytelling rather than tossing dice.

For example if you think that the player should be able to make it across the pit, compare his Dex score, his anxiety (of the troll chasing him) and the terrain and come up with an overall feel of how easy it should be. In other words, I think somehow a combination of DM fiat and dice can be used. The trouble is players that are not used to that style of RPing.

You can get into some serious debates, but in the end its the CK's story and if the CK is consistent then I dont see a problem with it.

In conclusion, I agree with your conclusion that C&C is a more "old skool" game. Actually that is the primary reason why I picked it up in the first place.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

Many times I just tell my players to roll a d20. As long as they dont roll like crap I allow a succes. FOr instance if I want to give the players a 50/50 chance. I roll behind the screen as ask by players "High or Low?" If they say High and I rolled 11 or higher they succeed, and if they say low and I roll 10 or lower they succeed. I used the SIEGE system as a a recommendation and not concrete rules most of the time.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

Any kind of reliance on the system is counter-intuitive to the system. It is supposed to be a servant, not your master. That's in the rules. Use it.

serleran wrote:
Any kind of reliance on the system is counter-intuitive to the system. It is supposed to be a servant, not your master. That's in the rules. Use it.

Exactly.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

angelius wrote:
For example if you think that the player should be able to make it across the pit, compare his Dex score, his anxiety (of the troll chasing him) and the terrain and come up with an overall feel of how easy it should be. In other words, I think somehow a combination of DM fiat and dice can be used. The trouble is players that are not used to that style of RPing.

It'd be almost tempted to give a bonus to the character's roll equivalent to the number of HD of the creature has that's chasing him!
Seriously, the system can work as long as you're not a slave to it. Common sense and a good story should always be paramount... There are things I'm strict on in terms of rolling but equally many things I fudge (aka circumstantial bonuses) for the players in my game.

Then again, I have... also considered the notion for natural 20's and 1's as automatic successes and automatic failures... I use those guidelines for attack rolls. Another thing I have seen playing in 3.5 was a 20 gave an authomatic +10 to the skill roll where as a 1 gave an automatic -10 to the same skill checks (natural rolls of course). I don't know if that was a house rule, optional rule, or what... but it did work.

Another thing to slightly offset the tables (since I mentioned the notion of bonuses earlier in this thread) is maybe adopting the Ability Modifiers in 3.5; they are a bit higher. I know that won't be everyone's cup of tea though...

Despite what mechanics one decides to adopt, Serleran's post in this thread said it the best.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

angelius wrote:
Great analysis Melkor. And mathematically I agree with everything you said.

But I think that, this is kinda giving the 3rd Ed. treatment to a game that really doesnt "fit" that kind of gameplay.

My intention is to use the Seige Engine mechanic (probably reset at 10/15 as mentioned previously) only for appropriately dramatic moments.

I doubt I will be making use of 3.5-style 'Spot' and 'Bluff' checks to determine minor encounter outcomes and the like.

That said, I do tend to favor a bit higher chance of initial success for those critical moments where I feel that a roll might be appropriate. Seeing how the numbers play out on the 10/15 scale, I think it will work perfectly for dramatic situations where there is a chance of failure.

We'll see how it goes.

Well, let me jump right in here. Quick background - I don't play d20. I have but I don't. I do play mostly non-level based games, and have done so for a while.

I heartily agree with the many comments about using dramatic sense and not devolving the game to a dice fest. However, I think there is merit in making rolls to spot things, avoid surprise, search an area (for more than a coin purse), and so on as required when such events/tasks are dramatically interesting.

Walking into a room and declaring you search it to have the GM simply reveal that in the desk is hidden the key to the secret door on the back wall leads me to ask why hide that stuff in the first place.

I think the core SIEGE mechanic is interesting but, in my limited experience with C&C (which I actually like very much) I think it doesn't handle the low-level play the way I would like to see it handled.

Before I present some of my thoughts, I need a little clarification and I'll use climbing to do it.

Rangers get Scale as an ability; Rogues get Climb. 3 characters go to climb a rope attached to a wall - 50' climb (specific description) or tough, long climb (the climb is meant to be dramatic and part of the story of the adventure). All characters are level 1. Ranger is +1 DEX bonus, Rogue +3, and Fighter +0.

What are their chances? I'm going to present the d20 and Hero solutions just as examples - I am in no way implying that either is a better system because they stat this stuff out. Both systems have had many years of thought put into their play styles and how best to adjudicate this situation within their game contexts. If you want your head to explode with skill knowledge, go pick up The Ultimate Skill from Hero Games. You never will have any skill questions again. I'd link to it but it just came out at GenCon and isn't available online yet.

In d20 It's a DC 5 Climb Check (STR, Armor Check Penalty). Makes sense (although DEX should apply to climbing as well). Failing by 5 is required to fall, although failure results in no progress. Rolls required: 7.

In HERO it's a Climbing check (DEX based). The ranger and rogue would have the skill at 11 or more (on 3d6), while the fighter would have it at 8. -2 for 90-degree, +2 for ability to plant feet, +3 for using a rope = net +3. Additionally, a STR roll can be applied as a complimentary skill bonus (most character will get +1 but the fighter might get +2 or +3 depending on how much weight he is carrying). Armor of course applies. So, the ranger and rogue would have no problem, but the fighter would be 11 or 12. Still, you have to fail by 4 or more to fall, failure just means no progress. Rolls required: 4, 8 if attempting to be somewhat defensive.

This is what I understand for C&C:

Ranger and Fighter would have a DC of 18. They would get +1 to the roll for level and add their DEX bonus. I'd say in general, this is a relatively easy climb - I'm unsure if it is a +1 but no more than a +3. That would be a tough climb for them.

A rogue would have a DC of 12, +1 for level, plus DEX bonus with the same assessments for the climb. Still tough.

I like crunchy games, but I like rules light games as well (FUDGE, Savage Worlds). I love the old school flavor of C&C and I think the SIEGE mechanic is intriguing if not extremely useful.

Now, before I present my suggestions, I want to be sure I understand this situation properly. Can one of you C&C gurus walk through assessing that climb?

Personally, I'd allow all three classes to ascend the rope. I realize that climbing a rope is much harder than it looks, but not for the heroes in my game. However, you specifically say:

Quote:
the climb is meant to be dramatic and part of the story of the adventure

Okay, so using Drama, you rule the rope is a task. Is it a task for the party as a whole or a task to each individual? If it is a task for each member, then allowing the Thief and Ranger their class ability thus giving them about a 50% chance of success while the Fighter has only a 10% chance seems appropriate. If the task is easier than 50% for the classes with the ability, why roll? Use Karma (their ability) and rule they can climb it, but the fighter must still roll. IMO, I'd give him a bonus for the rope. Say he must still roll a 15+ to climb. What will the group do if he fails the roll? It is unlikely they will leave him behind despite that the other two can make the climb. This sounds more interesting to me than having three roll offs.

I wouldn't make the thief roll. He has the class skill and that is for surfaces without a rope to climb, so I'd rule he could do it with a rope without a problem.

And as climbing with a rope involves a fair amount of upper body strength when you are toting armor, pack, gear and whatever, I'd have the others make a strength check to see if they could hold out till the top. If the strength check fails then they have to make a con check to push through the fatigue and attempt to continue.

hehe ... what I do right now to not let all this bother me is to just roll spot/listen/sneak etc etc for my players behind the screen.

Also I hardly ever tell players what the DC is for any roll.

The only rolls that they ever really know is maybe AC, it's easy to figure it out once you've failed and saved one...but I also rarely tell them what the save is for monster abilities.

I know I'm not the kind of CK for every player and my method would drive some completely nuts. But that's how I run my campaigns and it definitely takes getting used to if you're more rules oriented.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

mudpyr8 wrote:
Now, before I present my suggestions, I want to be sure I understand this situation properly. Can one of you C&C gurus walk through assessing that climb?

I am no Guru, but here is my take on it. The Ranger, Thief, and Fighter are all going to have STR or DEX as a prime (for this particular climb I would rule either stat can be used), so the CB is 12 for all three. If they went up as light as they could, nothing but a dagger and clothing the CL would be -8. If they went up with load, the CL would range from 0 to +8, depending on how stupid anyone of them wanted to be. The Ranger and Thief could add level to the check, the fighter could not. All these CL's of course assume that the Ranger or Thief have actual climbing gear....

So the Challenge Class would range from 4+ to 20+, depending on load. If they fail, they take 1d6 damage from falling before the belay person catches them. Then they can make another roll to finish, etc. Once one person was up and they could set up a climbing system with other ropes, the rest of the people would not have to roll. For dramatic effect, I would have each one of the 'safe climbers' roll a d20, and do not get a 1!! Or something unlucky happens.....
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

As far as that climb goes, the first question that needs to be answered is how hard do you want it to be?

A level 1 character with a CR 1 (ie. +1 to difficulty) has a challenge approx equal to his character and will find it challenging. But yet suited for his level. +2 to +3 to difficulty would be extremely hard climb.

If it was me, I would break it down like this

Rogue (DEX prime) = needs a 1 3

Ranger, Fighter (DEX not prime) = needs 19

This is keeping in line with a "dramatic" climb. They will need help, say good climbing gear +2, dex bonus +? , how well the rope was knotted for additional circumstance bonus (but also additional risk if they fail the rope check) etc. It's really up to the CK how complicated he wants it to be.

I do allow taking 10 and 20. Using the same rules as 3rd ed. for those choices. But since the climb is dramatic, they will not be allowed to do either.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

DangerDwarf wrote:
I never liked the rolling for everyting in 3e. I remember the first time I went to pick over the dead body of an orc I just killed and the DM said, "Make a search roll." To grab his coin purse?!?

Ah! It all makes sense to me now. I was running a 3e game yesterday and every time the party finished off the bad guys, some of the players raced each other to roll search checks to find the goods on the bodies. It struck me as odd. I would tell them what they found, and they'd ask, "Did I find anything else? I got a 22 on my Search check!" And expected to find something else because it was such a good search check. The way I play, if you have time to search the bodies, no check it required. I guess that crew of 3e players haven't been playing that way.

Interesting.

mudpyr8 wrote:
Rangers get Scale as an ability; Rogues get Climb. 3 characters go to climb a rope attached to a wall - 50' climb (specific description) or tough, long climb (the climb is meant to be dramatic and part of the story of the adventure). All characters are level 1. Ranger is +1 DEX bonus, Rogue +3, and Fighter +0.

What are their chances?

This is what I understand for C&C:

Ranger and Fighter would have a DC of 18. They would get +1 to the roll for level and add their DEX bonus. I'd say in general, this is a relatively easy climb - I'm unsure if it is a +1 but no more than a +3. That would be a tough climb for them.

A rogue would have a DC of 12, +1 for level, plus DEX bonus with the same assessments for the climb. Still tough.

Now, before I present my suggestions, I want to be sure I understand this situation properly. Can one of you C&C gurus walk through assessing that climb?

A couple of things to note:

The descriptions of both the Rogue's "Climb" ability and the Ranger's "Scale" ability both contain the fiat: "...that others would find impossible to climb.".

To me, a wall with a rope to facilitate climbing is something that is possible for any character to attempt without resorting to the use of one of the Class Abilities mentioned above.

That said, if the characters weren't in a rush, and there were no circumstances that would actively hinder them (a severely wounded character, a character weak from poison, etc.), I would probably say that there would be no need for a roll, and just assume that they eventually were able to make the climb by helping one another out.

If they were rushed, or there was some circumstance actively hindering them from making the climb (goblin archers shooting arrows at them, or the like), I would probably call for a check based on STR as opposed to DEX (pulling one's self up a rope instead of trying to find ample handleholds and foot rests while shimmying up a wall).

You would have to account for which of your example characters had which Attributes as Primes, and which as Secondary Attributes - because those determine the Challenge Base.

Just for fun, lets say they are all 1st level. The Fighter has a STR bonus of +1, and STR is prime. The Ranger has no STR bonus, but STR is Prime, and the Thief has no STR bonus, and his STR is secondary.

Let's assume the wall is slightly sloped, making for an easy climb, and while the characters are moving quickly to avoid a slowly flooding room, they are not yet moving at 'break neck' speed, so the difficulty is +1 (remember, according to the C&C rulebook, all difficulties are listed as starting at +1 and go up from there to +20 or more).

The Fighter would need to roll an 11+ to succeed (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 = 50% chance of success.

The Ranger would have to roll a 12+ to succeed (45% chance of success).

The Thief would have to roll a 18+ to succeed (15% chance of success).

A failure would indicate falling back into the rising water, and possibly taking some damage. But I would allow several tries as the water continued to rise, and if some of the characters made it to the top, I would probably allow them to pull any characters that failed up without too big of a fuss.

As you can see, the chances of success using the 12/18 Challenge Base are very low for starting characters, which is why I am considering using the 10/15 Challenge Base instead.

imho as long as its fair...but challenging = everyone have fun at the end!
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!