+1 Per Level

[Jackal]

Matthew wrote:
Question is, though, when is it advantageous to use a SIEGE check? I think the answer to that is going to depend on the individual. For me, it is pretty much "never", but for other people it may be "frequently". There is no absolute right or wrong answer, just preferential usage.

True indeed. But C&C default is to use the siege rolls infrequently (the PHB mentions this several times) so it stands to reason that those who choose to make more die rolls than the system was designed for (and rolls for things the system was not designed for) will have more oddities come up.

So my point is, the siege engine works very well as designed. It's only when you start overusing your dice that you run into problems. Which is fine if you don't mind said problems or have fixes for them.

DangerDwarf wrote:
Which is EXACTLY the nature of my complaint. In regards to physical challenges, you just moved from the realm of game to the realm of cooperative story telling. previous exciting moments now become narrative as your character becomes a physical superman due to rapid +5% advances.

In this case, your complaint is with the siege engine design in general, not the way it scales, etc. C&C is designed to let the CK tell the story and decide success or failure based on player action and narrative more than the roll of a die (with the exception of combat). That's the nature of the beast as mentioned in the PHB. As I said above, this can easily be changed but the more artificial die rolls you create the more the CK is going to have to artificially compensate. That only stands to reason.

But, keep in mind, there are ways to use die rolls for physical challenges without having to artificially inflate challenge class. I mentioned one above with regards to jumping a certain distance. It's just a different way of thinking.

Example: A large boulder blocks the path of the party. The CK decides none of the characters have the strength to move the boulder (lets assume they don't ask to work together). But the party fighter (14 prime str) says, "Hey, can I wedge something under the boulder and try to roll it down hill?" As the fighter has a str prime (and thus is well trained in how to best use his str) the CK allows the roll and the fighter succeeds.

In the above example, as well as my earlier jumping example, there is nothing wrong with that check getting 5% easier each level as it's easy to assume (in a fantasy game) that our fighter learns better ways to lift, push, apply pressure to the lever, etc. He didn't get any stronger but that's ok because he's not just trying to heft the boulder and chuck it down the road either.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't see why any CK would allow a str 10 (prime or not) character to try and throw a boulder across the road, no matter what his level is. With no roll required, he is either strong enough or not.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

[Taranthyll]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Regardless of whether he is level 2 or level 12, the same 10 foot pit should pose some sort of challenge, and it is dramatically appropriate for it to do so.

Rapid physical advancement due to +1/level trivializes these challenges or causes you to artificially inflate the difficulty of doing the challenge.

I didn't miss the point, I just disagree with your position that the same obstacle should be just as exciting and dramatic at 14th level as it is at 1st level.

Look at it this way - if something is within the realm of possibility for a novice, then repeated practice over a number of years is only going to improve the your chances until it becomes pretty much automatic. For example go to a skating rink and attempt a triple-axle. I don't know how good a skater you are, but you will probably fail. Now ask an olympic figure skater to perform a triple-axle, and they will be able to perform one with little chance of failure, but I'll bet they fell on their ass a whole lot of times when they were starting out. The same task went from nigh-impossible to routine with practice.

[Morgrus]

Maybe the +1/lev is a abstract like HPs. The measure of will and determination to do a task. So jumping a 10f pit wit a 12th lev fighter might normally be +12 but emotion(fear), injury or environmental factors like footing or lighting may play a part in the challenge level. So a 10f pit may normally not require a roll, but if you are at less than half hp with only torch light on sandy soil, then yea. The jump my require multiple rolls too. The takeoff for distance then the landing to retain footing then one to see if you hold on to the orb. Thats 3 challenges(and rolly fun) in one jump with lots o chance to mess up.To provide challenge just complicate the situation(merfiess law) , no need to inflate difficulty(Akums razor). Rules light don't have to be rolls light. DD you really would like Alternity (free fast play rules at Alternity .net). It uses the roll under method as the core mechanic but with a bell curve for modifiers ie +1step=+1d4,+2=+1d6 so on.
_________________
Awww Craap.

[Treebore]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Completely missing the point.

It is not about rolling for everything.

Its about:
CK: Ok, your 2nd level fighter is running down the hallway, the orb of damnation clenched in your arm. A horde of shrieking kobolds in hot pursuit. Ahead you see a wide approximately 10 foot pit blocking your way.

Player: I grip the orb tighter and leap.

CK: Roll

*dice clatter and the player anxiously await hearing whether his character succeeds or fails*

CK: You manage to bare clear the pit and continue your mad dash for the surface.

Player: yes!

As opposed to:
CK: Ok, your 12th level fighter is running down the hallway, the orb of salvation clenched in your arm. A horde of bellowing giants in hot pursuit. Ahead you see a wide approximately 10 foot pit blocking your way.

Player: I grip the orb tighter and leap.

*The CK eyes the difficulty due to the +1/level and realizies its not possible for the fighter to fail here*

CK: Okay, um I guess you manage to clear the pit and continue your mad dash for the surface.

Player: Ok.

Regardless of whether he is level 2 or level 12, the same 10 foot pit should pose some sort of challenge, and it is dramatically appropriate for it to do so.

Rapid physical advancement due to +1/level trivializes these challenges or causes you to artificially inflate the difficulty of doing the challenge.

I only agree in that a "1" would be a failure in my games, I have fumbles in my house rules. So there is a small element of drama, unless they roll a "1", then the drama elevates a good bit.

Otherwise, I don't think a 12th level fighter should be intimidated by a 10 foot wide jump. They have done such jumps many times. Their confidence level is high, their experience making such jumps is great, and who knows? They may have a Girdle of Giant Strength, Boots of Leaping, Ring of Jumping, etc... So they should think a 10 foot pit is a piece of cake.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Joe Mac]

Lord Dynel wrote:
This discussion reminds me of one of the major problems I had with 1st and 2nd edition - saving throws. Eventually, nearly every life-threatening situation became a simple "side-stepping" procedure that (I thought) made even rolling them nearly a moot point. A formality, if you will.

How so? You lost me, there.. Even at high levels, AD&D characters have a very substantial chance to fail their saving throws....how is that a formality?

[Joe Mac]

Matthew wrote:
I think my big "no, no" with this approach is how I perceive level advancement; I don't consider it to have as much to do with the experience of the character in the sense of skills, as with an indication of how powerful the character is. My feeling is that stuff like the Unearthed Arcana breaking down of Tracking into a level scheme are very bad ideas. Neither level advancement nor attributes should have such a huge impact on whether a character can track.

Matthew, in what manner do you see the character becoming more 'powerful' with level advancement, that is thoroughly distinct from his professional skills?

There are some interesting thoughts coming out in this thread, but I'm having a bit of difficulty following them -- perhaps due to the late hour, and the empty whisky glass next to me.

[Lord Dynel]

Joe Mac wrote:
How so? You lost me, there.. Even at high levels, AD&D characters have a very substantial chance to fail their saving throws....how is that a formality?

Well, because saving throws became ridculously easy at higher levels. Something that was a challenge early in early levels (say, getting bit by a snake) was, by the end, a formality. Now granted, some classes continued to have a ( kind of) high target number in a few categories (like thieves against breaths weapons, for example), but for the most part they were pretty easy. Then, add in a magic item, or two a racial bonus, or a spell buff and they became, more-or-less, a formality - which seem to be a concern among some here how SIEGE checks become at higher levels. The more I hear about the possibility of this issue arising, the more I want to have a cap of 10 on level bonus to checks. It might be a workable solution to this issue.

I would not have called the chance for saving throw failure "substantial," but that's my opinion. Maybe we have different recollections.
YMMV.

[DangerDwarf]

Yes, I agree hat they became ridiculously easy at higher level. A level 17 fighter's save would sit at 3, 5, 4, 4, 6.

[DangerDwarf]

Taranthyll wrote:
I didn't miss the point, I just disagree with your position that the same obstacle should be just as exciting and dramatic at 14th level as it is at 1st level.

Look at it this way - if something is within the realm of possibility for a novice, then repeated practice over a number of years is only going to improve the your chances until it becomes pretty much automatic. For example go to a skating rink and attempt a triple-axle. I don't know how good a skater you are, but you will probably fail. Now ask an olympic figure skater to perform a triple-axle, and they will be able to perform one with little chance of failure, but I'll bet they fell on their ass a whole lot of times when they were starting out. The same task went from nigh-impossible to routine with practice.

Treebore wrote:
Otherwise, I don't think a 12th level fighter should be intimidated by a 10 foot wide jump. They have done such jumps many times. Their confidence level is high, their experience making such jumps is great, and who knows? They may have a Girdle of Giant Strength, Boots of Leaping, Ring of Jumping, etc... So they should think a 10 foot pit is a piece of cake.

So, by high level C&C you no longer require rolls outside of combat because the character has become proficient and competent in all those things? Just narrate conflict resolution at that point?

[DangerDwarf]

Joe Mac wrote:
and the empty whisky glass next to me.

You just reminded me I need to go pick up some more Evan Williams on my off days.

[Matthew]

Jackal wrote:
True indeed. But C&C default is to use the siege rolls infrequently (the PHB mentions this several times) so it stands to reason that those who choose to make more die rolls than the system was designed for (and rolls for things the system was not designed for) will have more oddities come up.

So my point is, the siege engine works very well as designed. It's only when you start overusing your dice that you run into problems. Which is fine if you don't mind said problems or have fixes for them.

I think that's the heart of the issue, though. If I want a task to have a risk of failure, but cannot derive the percentage I think suitable via the basic SIEGE check model, then I may choose to use an alternative method. At that point the SIEGE check becomes redundent for me, and I might as well have been using assigned probability all along.

To be clear, I think the SIEGE check system is a great simplification of the D20/3e/4e approach towards task resolution, and an excellent compromise, it is just that neither are suitable for my purposes.

Joe Mac wrote:
Matthew, in what manner do you see the character becoming more 'powerful' with level advancement, that is thoroughly distinct from his professional skills?

A lot of this is going to come down to preferences and base expectations, but I will try to explain...

I think we all agree that carpenters should have varying levels of skill without reference to level. We don't imagine a level 20 carpenter being +100% less competent than a level 20 carpenter because the idea of carpentry being measured by character level is rather silly. The carpenter is as skilled as is necessary or appropriate, and this has nothing to do with his level.

Player characters, however, advance by level; and as they do so they gain in power, acquiring more hit points, better saving throws, a better bonus to hit and more life energy levels. Spell casting classes gain the ability to cast more spells of greater power, and thieves become better at their skills.

The question is where to draw the line between "stuff that should be related to level" and "stuff that should be independent of level". In AD&D 1e, the difference between the PHB and UA Ranger marks a point of transition. In the PHB, the Ranger has a 90% chance of tracking an opponent, and that's that (situational modifiers not withstanding). In UA this becomes [10% + 10% per level].

Two very different answers to the same question. I find the idea that low level rangers suck at tracking, whilst high level rangers rock at it to be too great a variance, as I want most of the rangers in my campaign world to be low level and I want them to be competent trackers.

The same applies to a slew of tasks where I want there to be some small risk of failure without hardcoding the task into level advancement at 5% increments. I might consider it reasonable for a ranger to have an 80% chance of tracking +1% per level, or [60% + Wisdom (1-18%) + 1% per level), or any other of a myriad of permutations.

When it comes to combat, though, I do want these things measured by level, because undoing that assumption would require completely rethinking the combat and level advancement system, and I am quite happy with the way that is set up.

Blah, blah... anyway, those are my thoughts.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Jackal]

Matthew wrote:
I think that's the heart of the issue, though. If I want a task to have a risk of failure, but cannot derive the percentage I think suitable via the basic SIEGE check model, then I may choose to use an alternative method. At that point the SIEGE check becomes redundent for me, and I might as well have been using assigned probability all along.

To be clear, I think the SIEGE check system is a great simplification of the D20/3e/4e approach towards task resolution, and an excellent compromise, it is just that neither are suitable for my purposes.

I agree, that is the true heart of the issue. It's not that the siege engine doesn't work well as designed (or scales too fast, etc). It just doesn't work as well for those who want to use more die rolls for whatever reason.

I, personally, am very happy to set my dice aside for about 50% of all non-combat actions. But I understand that this isn't for everyone.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

[Matthew]

Jackal wrote:
I agree, that is the true heart of the issue. It's not that the siege engine doesn't work well as designed (or scales too fast, etc). It just doesn't work as well for those who want to use more die rolls for whatever reason.

I think I would probably describe the SIEGE check as working well within certain parameters and assumptions, but not so well outside of them. I am not really convinced that the frequency with which one relies on the dice is the fulcrum, though it certainly has an impact. To me, of more significance is what you use a SIEGE check for and whether the formula results in what the game master considers a reasonable percentage.

Jackal wrote:
I, personally, am very happy to set my dice aside for about 50% of all non-combat actions. But I understand that this isn't for everyone.

I agree, and I also infrequently turn to the dice to resolve a non combat task. My problem is that on those infrequent occasions the SIEGE check is either unsuitable or works no better than assigning a probability. As I say, though, this is very much my issue.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Jackal]

Matthew wrote:
I think I would probably describe the SIEGE check as working well within certain parameters and assumptions, but not so well outside of them. I am not really convinced that the frequency with which one relies on the dice is the fulcrum, though it certainly has an impact. To me, of more significance is what you use a SIEGE check for and whether the formula results in what the game master considers a reasonable percentage.



I agree, and I also infrequently turn to the dice to resolve a non combat task. My problem is that on those infrequent occasions the SIEGE check is either unsuitable or works no better than assigning a probability. As I say, though, this is very much my issue.

Agreed. I should probably state my thought more clearly; the siege engine works as intended (for types of checks as well as how often you make checks). The further you step outside that box, the more unusual situations come up. So not only does making more checks create odd situations, but making certain types of checks will do the same.

One of the things the siege engine does not do well (which seems to be your biggest hang up) is allowing checks for purely physical actions. In C&C such actions are, by default, adjudicated by the CK based on attributes and player narrative (and then allowing a check to go above and beyond in some small way).

This type of thing works for me as I don't like making a str check to pick up something, break down a door, or jump across a gap. You either have the strength or dexterity to accomplish such a task or you don't. If you don't you can either work together or make a check to extend your capabilities in some way (such as Freddy making a check to catch the opposite ledge when trying to make a jump that is one or two feet further than he can normally jump). Doing things this way keeps the dice rolling down and allows for the story to flow better (at least in my games).

I much prefer answering the question, "Can I break down the door?" with "what's your str" than, "make a str check."

But, as you pointed out in regards to your game, this is also very much my issue. It just happens to flow with C&C default (one of the reasons I picked it as my game of choice while playtesting it).
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

[Taranthyll]

DangerDwarf wrote:
So, by high level C&C you no longer require rolls outside of combat because the character has become proficient and competent in all those things? Just narrate conflict resolution at that point?

For tasks which have become so routine and are no longer a challenge to the character, then yes; or make the roll to see if he rolls low enough that he fails due to extraordinary bad luck (although not in the RAW, I like the natural '1' always fails rule because there is almost always at least a small chance of screwing up). I honestly don't have a problem with narrative resolution of tasks that a character ought to be able to make with ease.

p.s. It just occurred to me that the jumping example is moot anyway; for some reason I had a mind-dump, probably due to cross-system contamination, and thought that there was a class that had Jump as an ability. There isn't, so nobody gets to add their level to jump checks. I'd probably allow it, though, if a particular thief character opted to specialize as a second-story man and devoted a lot of his free time to training in rooftop jumps, perhaps like the free-runners shown in the recent remake of Casino Royale. (Best chase scene ever )

[Matthew]

Jackal wrote:
Agreed. I should probably state my thought more clearly; the siege engine works as intended (for types of checks as well as how often you make checks). The further you step outside that box, the more unusual situations come up. So not only does making more checks create odd situations, but making certain types of checks will do the same.

One of the things the siege engine does not do well (which seems to be your biggest hang up) is allowing checks for purely physical actions. In C&C such actions are, by default, adjudicated by the CK based on attributes and player narrative (and then allowing a check to go above and beyond in some small way).

This type of thing works for me as I don't like making a str check to pick up something, break down a door, or jump across a gap. You either have the strength or dexterity to accomplish such a task or you don't. If you don't you can either work together or make a check to extend your capabilities in some way (such as Freddy making a check to catch the opposite ledge when trying to make a jump that is one or two feet further than he can normally jump). Doing things this way keeps the dice rolling down and allows for the story to flow better (at least in my games).

I much prefer answering the question, "Can I break down the door?" with "what's your str" than, "make a str check."

But, as you pointed out in regards to your game, this is also very much my issue. It just happens to flow with C&C default (one of the reasons I picked it as my game of choice while playtesting it).

I think the physical tasks were more Danger Dwarf's bugbear. I similarly prefer to go by strength scores for most feats that require strength. Of course, there are exceptions, and those occasions are when I am most likely to resort to the dice.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Joe Mac]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I would not have called the chance for saving throw failure "substantial," but that's my opinion. Maybe we have different recollections.

Well, as an active AD&D guy, I'm not recollecting, I'm living it now baby!
When C&C came out, I was intrigued by the difference in saving throw systems, and I decided to do a thorough comparative analysis. The first thing I did was to average all AD&D saving throws, finding the average required save for an AD&D character of each level, regardless of class or save category, up to 20th level. Here's what I found:

Level Average save

1 14

2 14

3 14

4 14

5 13

6 13

7 12

8 12

9 11

10 10

11 10

12 10

13 9

14 9

15 8

16 8

17 7

18 7

19 6

20 6

Would you not call these numbers a substantial chance of failure, especially since many of us have never run a game with characters higher than 15th level? I'd consider 'name' level and up a 'high level' game, and such characters, barring any modifiers, have around a 50% chance of failing a save.

Sure, there are some racial modifiers, and I tend to be fairly generous with applying ability score mods to saves if I think they're appropriate. Potent rings of protection, or other magical items that boost saves, I'm somewhat stingy with.

My point is, players of high level AD&D characters should be worried about blowing a save! Even with some fat modifiers, they're likely to have at least a 25% chance of failure.

[cheeplives]

Joe Mac wrote:
My point is, players of high level AD&D characters should be worried about blowing a save! Even with some fat modifiers, they're likely to have at least a 25% chance of failure.

I guess I fail to see the problem... playing C&C you add modifiers to Challenge Levels... in general, you should be adding the opposition's HD or Level as a CL to most saves. So if a C&C group is fighting things "at their appropriate level", which is to say within 3 levels of the group's level would mean that AT WORST the CL would be +17 for a 20th level character and at best probably +20 or +21. That means that for a Prime Check you're looking at a 60% chance of success with a +17 CL up to a 40% chance for the +21 CL. For non-Prime checks you're looking at 30% for +17 CL to 10% for the +21 CL.

Those are much greater than AD&D's odds of failure. C&C was meant to scale up, keeping challenges challenging as the bonuses raise. That, to me, is a very strong feature. I wish they had codified it more by making ALL challenges level dependant rather than set bonuses (as I posted earlier). Doing that would resolve most of the issues with the "physical attribute issue" that's been bandied about because you just don't get *that* much better at leaping or lifting as you get more experience.
_________________
discreteinfinity.com -- my little corner of the internet.

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon -- Available now from Troll Lord Games!

[Joe Mac]

By the way -- this is interesting (to me, at least..):

The average spread between the extremes, at each of those levels, is 8. That is, the difference between the most favorable save in any category, for any character class, and the least favorable, tends to be 8.

For example, the best save for any 10th level AD&D character is 6 -- that's a cleric versus para/poison/death. The worst save for a 10th level character is 14 -- a thief versus breath weapon.

The only math I ever had the slightest interest in was RPG math...

[Joe Mac]

cheeplives wrote:
I guess I fail to see the problem... playing C&C you add modifiers to Challenge Levels...

Those are much greater than AD&D's odds of failure.

No problems, just a difference in style -- I want a character's chance to make a save to get gradually better as he climbs in level. I don't like the challenge matching the character's level perfectly, so that a high probability of failure looms, even for a great hero...

One of the most common points of contention with C&C saves is the spell issue. In my opinion, caster level as challenge level makes spellcasters MUCH too powerful; I prefer spell level as challenge level. Some agree, some disagree vehemently. No point arguing it again here.
Even within AD&D, there is some scaling of save challenges; you save versus the poison of a 'large' spider at +2, but save at 4 versus Lolth's bite... And of course, the AD&D DM is encouraged to assign bonuses or penalties to saving throws as he sees fit (DMG p.81).

[Joe Mac]

Matthew wrote:
A lot of this is going to come down to preferences and base expectations, but I will try to explain...



Blah, blah... anyway, those are my thoughts.

Interesting points -- thanks Matthew. I agree, the ranger's tracking rules were a bit of a turning point. That fact had registered in the recesses of my mind, but I hadn't given it a great deal of thought.

When I was recently putting together a lightly house-ruled AD&D ranger (minus spells, plus a few other things), I was looking at the PHB tracking rules and asking myself, "was there really anything wrong with this..?"

You've inspired me to sit down with the PHB and UA tonight, compare some differences in class skill resolution, and think on it further.

[Lord Dynel]

Joe Mac wrote:
Well, as an active AD&D guy, I'm not recollecting, I'm living it now baby!
When C&C came out, I was intrigued by the difference in saving throw systems, and I decided to do a thorough comparative analysis. The first thing I did was to average all AD&D saving throws, finding the average required save for an AD&D character of each level, regardless of class or save category, up to 20th level. Here's what I found:

Level Average save

1 14

2 14

3 14

4 14

5 13

6 13

7 12

8 12

9 11

10 10

11 10

12 10

13 9

14 9

15 8

16 8

17 7

18 7

19 6

20 6

Would you not call these numbers a substantial chance of failure, especially since many of us have never run a game with characters higher than 15th level? I'd consider 'name' level and up a 'high level' game, and such characters, barring any modifiers, have around a 50% chance of failing a save.

Sure, there are some racial modifiers, and I tend to be fairly generous with applying ability score mods to saves if I think they're appropriate. Potent rings of protection, or other magical items that boost saves, I'm somewhat stingy with.

My point is, players of high level AD&D characters should be worried about blowing a save! Even with some fat modifiers, they're likely to have at least a 25% chance of failure.

This is where we'll agree to disagree.
Even at their baseline, I don't think there is substantial risk of failure. But I don't know if I ever saw a character in all my 1e (or 2e) days that had just baseline saves. There were always bonuses from this ability or that magic item. Add a couple plusses to the already low save bases (in most cases - the fighter and thief did, admittedly, have some high saves in a few categories) and you've got a cakewalk. Of course, you said yourself that you're stingy with the items that boost saves (though you give bonuses for abilities, sometimes). So, in your game, there may be a bit more failing than what I had normally witnessed.

But, hey, opinions vary. What I think isn't a substantial risk of failure you do. It's all good. It's things like this that makes these boards interesting!

[DangerDwarf]

Taranthyll wrote:
There isn't, so nobody gets to add their level to jump checks.

By the book, yes they can. Look at the SIEGE examples in the book. Lifting isn't a class skill of the fighter either.

[DangerDwarf]

Jackal wrote:
One of the things the siege engine does not do well (which seems to be your biggest hang up) is allowing checks for purely physical actions.

Yeah, thats my true gripe. I run high-action, fast paced games where characters jump off ledges, vault over pits, dive across gorges, bound off walls and countless other cinematic, physical things. They don't translate well to high level C&C though.

[Lord Dynel]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Yeah, thats my true gripe. I run high-action, fast paced games where characters jump off ledges, vault over pits, dive across gorges, bound off walls and countless other cinematic, physical things. They don't translate well to high level C&C though.

Well, you wouldn't have a problem, DD, of you stop making so many checks!
Seriously, though, I can see you dilemma.

[Taranthyll]

DangerDwarf wrote:
By the book, yes they can. Look at the SIEGE examples in the book. Lifting isn't a class skill of the fighter either.

I think this might be a grey area in the rules. The SIEGE examples do show the level added to the check, but the section entitled Adding Character Level to Checks states that for non-class ability checks "The character does not add his level to the attribute check roll. Instead, the character rolls a d20 and adds the appropriate modifier only."

I always figured that whether or not to add the level to non-class checks was simply at the CK's discretion and assumed that the examples in which level was added was simply one of those occasions .

If you interpret it that way, wouldn't it solve your complaint with power creep on physical checks?

[DangerDwarf]

Taranthyll wrote:
The SIEGE examples do show the level added to the check, but the section entitled Adding Character Level to Checks states that for non-class ability checks "The character does not add his level to the attribute check roll. Instead, the character rolls a d20 and adds the appropriate modifier only."

I've always figured that strength was an attribute and not an ability and read that part as reference to actual class abilities as listed in each class.

I figure the usage of Attribute and Ability was deliberate. I could be mistaken though.

[voynich]

i often wonder why castles and crusades would have a fairly elegant and detailed encumbrance system and then rely on an attribute check for weightlifting. maybe i missed it, but does not c&c have some sort of "lift formula?"
_________________
the voynich manuscript is a mysterious illustrated book written in an indecipherable text. it is thought to have been written between 1450 and 1520. the author, script and language of the manuscript remain unknown.

[Omote]

voynich wrote:
i often wonder why castles and crusades would have a fairly elegant and detailed encumbrance system and then rely on an attribute check for weightlifting. maybe i missed it, but does not c&c have some sort of "lift formula?"

The idea behind that is that the CK assigns a Challange Level associated with the lift, and the character makes a simple strength check.

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

[Jackal]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Yeah, thats my true gripe. I run high-action, fast paced games where characters jump off ledges, vault over pits, dive across gorges, bound off walls and countless other cinematic, physical things. They don't translate well to high level C&C though.

My games are a lot like that as well. I just happen to like the way C&C handles such things by default (using attribute scores and character narrative instead of die rolls to allow CK adjudication). All in what you like I guess.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society