+1 Per Level

[Grey]

I do wonder if some of this is all a matter of personal taste - to my mind a level 12 thief SHOULD be able to cross the rooftops as readily as walking the street! Similarly, a high level fighter able to lift a fallen beam with no problem seems right to me (after all they can't lift a whole ship, but can manouver a fallen mast)

I suppose that maybe becauseI don't have a background in D&D I might view levels differently, but this seems a similar discussions that I've seen around Call of Cthulhu/ Basic Role Playing with high level skills!

Looking at M&T, where a thief over 9th level could have charge of a 'neighbourhood' I like that C&C allows 'high' level characters achieve relevant feats easily - after all, even at 12th level (or higher) no thief can jump over a 50 foot chasm, they just get better at what they CAN attempt, rather than becoming superhuman in abilities.

Interesting discussion overall, that really got me thinking about what I like about the Siege Engine

D.

[Luther]

I think another problem others have with the SEIGE system comes from misunderstanding of how to use CL and what it represents.

A high CL jump is not necessarily caused by increased distance. It might also be called for because said thief is running full tilt across the rooftops in the dark in a heavy downpour. The high CL of lifting the mast mentioned before could be due to weight, but also the slipperiness of the thing from being covered in sea spray as well as the movement of the boat.

So I don't think it's the system breaking down at higher levels, I think it's CK narration that is. If C&C needs anything, it's a good section on showing just how a CL can be raised, when it's appropriate to add levels to the die roll and how to add increased difficulty to mundane tasks for higher level characters by using the sorts of things I just mentioned (and happen to know from too many years as a DM/CK). Hopefully, the forthcoming CKG will do just that...

[gideon_thorne]

Yes, a lot of this is personal preference. But, consider this, if C&C had been locked down to a specific style, would it then be as easy to modify for personal taste?

Seems to me that the answer is simple enough for promoting challenge. Simply don't add level when it comes to jumping and such activities unless a player is willing to invest the expenditure of XP into buying Jumping and the like as an ability.

One can then add plus or minus modifiers as one sees fit to give more risk, or reduce it, and its not dependent on level.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Matthew]

Luther wrote:
I think another problem others have with the SEIGE system comes from misunderstanding of how to use CL and what it represents.

I assure you I am fully familiar with the SIEGE system, and how to use the Challenge Level in relation to the Challenge Base to find an appropriate Challenge Class. I do not think anything that has been said here would indicate otherwise.
_________________
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)

[DangerDwarf]

Luther wrote:
I think another problem others have with the SEIGE system comes from misunderstanding of how to use CL and what it represents.

It has nothing to do with a misunderstanding of the SIEGE mechanic.

[Luther]

DangerDwarf wrote:
It has nothing to do with a misunderstanding of the SIEGE mechanic.

Well, I'm stymied then.

I hate to appear obtuse, but what exactly is the issue then? Your initial post said this:

Quote:
I didn't want to clutter up the other thread with this, but I think it is a very valid point and probably the main area of weakness in C&C at higher level play.

With adding your level to many rolls, by the time you reach 10th level you will either not need to roll, or many rolls will be so easy as to be negligible due to the nature of this mechanic unless the CK is artificially inflating CL's to keep up with your level.

And if the CK is inflating the CL's just to keep many tasks a challenge, then why add level in the first place? If you aren't inflating CL's, then many actions will become merely narrative in nature as opposed to actually rolling.

All of these points have been answered.

Quote:
With adding your level to many rolls, by the time you reach 10th level you will either not need to roll, or many rolls will be so easy as to be negligible due to the nature of this mechanic unless the CK is artificially inflating CL's to keep up with your level.

I have explained, as have others, that there are two things that make this work. First, certain rolls, like basic STR rolls to pick up something heavy, can be used w/o adding Levels to keep 'non-skill based' actions consistent through levels 1-20.

Furthermore, where skill does come into affect, like a 15th level thief climbing walls or trying to sneak past a guard, CLs can be scaled up by adding environmental effects that make them more difficult (the wall is very sheer and it's raining cats and dogs making it slick) or because the person the sneak is trying to get past is more experienced, alert or supernaturally sensitive.

So, as we have all tried to explain, it isn't higher level play that's the weakeness. It works just fine. As you go higher in level, the CK will provide higher level challenges (as well as a few lower level ones) with signifigant description to show how much more skilled the character is. "You scale the wet wall, struggling to find handholds in it's practically sheer surface and barely make it to the top without falling, but you know that it took great skill to do that and your enemies will be caught off their gaurd, for few would have thought it possible.'

Quote:
And if the CK is inflating the CL's just to keep many tasks a challenge, then why add level in the first place? If you aren't inflating CL's, then many actions will become merely narrative in nature as opposed to actually rolling.

As answered before: you don't have to add levels. And if you do, provide an expanded CL with a logical reason and the players will never know the difference.

So, in summary, it looks to me like the system isn't broken at all, rather (and this assumption is held up by your later posts) you don't like the system itself. The method of adding levels to represent hero experience and CLs to represent more challenging tasks, seems anathema to you and Matthew, specifically because you don't like adding larger and larger numbers to the rolls.

Take everything I say next with the friendly tone it is intended to have.

I know you've been agonizing over which to use: C&C or AD&D, but it's pretty clear to me that you're an AD&D sort of fellow. I like the additive nature of C&C (adding is much easier than subtracting) and the unified mechanic in general. But you and Matthew seem to prefer the wider range of more detailed systems, percentages and so on that make up AD&D.

Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you like I'm not one of those people who scream 'heretic' at the top of their lungs, but I've got to say that your barking up the wrong tree if you want that from C&C, because with the amount of change that would be required, you should probably just stick with the original AD&D. You'd be much happier and, more importantly, get the maximum amount of fun out of your game time...

[Matthew]

Luther wrote:
I know you've been agonizing over which to use: C&C or AD&D, but it's pretty clear to me that you're an AD&D sort of fellow. I like the additive nature of C&C (adding is much easier than subtracting) and the unified mechanic in general. But you and Matthew seem to prefer the wider range of more detailed systems, percentages and so on that make up AD&D.

Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you like I'm not one of those people who scream 'heretic' at the top of their lungs, but I've got to say that your barking up the wrong tree if you want that from C&C, because with the amount of change that would be required, you should probably just stick with the original AD&D. You'd be much happier and, more importantly, get the maximum amount of fun out of your game time...

I dunno about that. I think the SIEGE check works very well in moderation (and after some slight preferential tweaking), the question is only really when to use it. When playing C&C I tend to use the SIEGE check for character abilities, but reasonable assigned percentages for randomised abstract task resolution. I probably wouldn't use either for lifting up a mast, that would likely just be a straight comparison of strength to difficulty. On the other hand, two characters of equal strength and dexterity arm wrestling would probably be a coin toss. I don't think it's an "all or nothing" scenario.
_________________
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)

[DangerDwarf]

Luther wrote:
I have explained, as have others, that there are two things that make this work. First, certain rolls, like basic STR rolls to pick up something heavy, can be used w/o adding Levels to keep 'non-skill based' actions consistent through levels 1-20.

I understand that, I've even stated that is how I now handle physical checks. However, RAW allows for level to be added to attribute checks unless it intrudes in the area of a class ability of another class. But, simply disallowing the addition of level is less than optimal for me as I don't think it should be a decision of "too fast" advancement physically or "zero advancement" physically. Thus my thought of using a bonus of 1/2 level in the area of physical checks.

Luther wrote:
Furthermore, where skill does come into affect, like a 15th level thief climbing walls or trying to sneak past a guard, CLs can be scaled up by adding environmental effects that make them more difficult (the wall is very sheer and it's raining cats and dogs making it slick) or because the person the sneak is trying to get past is more experienced, alert or supernaturally sensitive.

I've never stated that environmental effects and such shouldn't play a factor No misunderstanding there, that is not artificial inflation of a CL. Artificial inflation is providing a higher CL for the same task just to keep it a challenge.

Luther wrote:
The method of adding levels to represent hero experience and CLs to represent more challenging tasks, seems anathema to you and Matthew, specifically because you don't like adding larger and larger numbers to the rolls.

Not the case at all. I've explained it several times, it is the overly rapid rate of physical advancement which is my gripe.

Luther wrote:
I like the additive nature of C&C (adding is much easier than subtracting) and the unified mechanic in general.

See, I'm more of a subtracter. Even in C&C I subtract in my head.

8HD critter casts a spell on a 7th level PC? 8-7 = 1. CL =1. So, Prime save would be 13 and non-prime would be 19. My wife is the same way. She doesn't add her bonuses, she subtracts until she know exactly what the die roll needs to be. So if she has a "to hit" bonus of +5 and is fighting a critter with an AC of 17, she doesn't roll the die and add 5 to it, she subtracts her "to hit" from the ac then rolls the die. A matter of preference.

And I'm not trying to blast C&C here. I love the game for what it is, but I also think it is acceptable to discuss the system and tweak it to personal taste. C&C does that well.

Also, at first I wasn't too fond of the scaling difficulties that Cheeplives posted, seeing it as artificial inflation. But, I'm beginning to see the beauty in his idea. It scales abilities that should be scaled and can serve as an abstraction of the unchanging nature of physical checks without having to use two different methods (+1 to level for skilled checks, no +1 for physical)

Think I'll go back and look at that.

[anonymous]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Freddy Fingers is a 4th level rogue wearing leather armor and not encumbered. After a botched heist, he is jumping rooftop to rooftop evading the city guard. As a bit of a thug, he has Strength as a Prime and his score in Strength is 14 giving him a +1 bonus to his Strength checks. Whenever Freddy comes to large alleyways in which he has to jump over the CK assigns a challenge level of 5 for Freddy to clear it with a leap. So, Freddy has to roll a 12 or better to successfully leap the gaps (with his bonuses added in) and it makes for a dramatic and fun session of chase.

Several misadventures later Freddy is now a 12th level Rogue and low and behold he botches another heist and once again he takes to the rooftop to evade the guards. Assuming the CK applies CL's consistently, because he is now level 12 those leaps will only be a difficulty of 4 for him to clear, which in neither difficult or dramatic.

Which to me seems perfectly reasonable: after all, he's made the jump before and he knows he can do it again. I like the idea of a sliding scale of bonuses, from applying your full level (e.g. a thief sneaking past a guard) to applying a lesser bonus to no bonus at all (a druid sneaking past a guard)

[Matthew]

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
Which to me seems perfectly reasonable: after all, he's made the jump before and he knows he can do it again.

He can make the jump fifty times or once, it won't matter in terms of bonuses unless he actually gains an experience level (unless the Game Master decides that he gets bonuses from having done the jump before). The complaint, though, is not really about how you justify it or modify it to fit your tastes (those are both easy to do for anybody with a bit of imagination).

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
I like the idea of a sliding scale of bonuses, from applying your full level (e.g. a thief sneaking past a guard) to applying a lesser bonus to no bonus at all (a druid sneaking past a guard).

This is what it's really about, whether the individual likes it, or doesn't like it, as a method of randomly determining abstracted task resolution.

Take Level 10 Character A and Level 10 Character B. They both have Attribute X as their prime, which is 9-12, but one class adds their level to task Y and the other does not.

Both have 12 as a target number for tasks involving Attribute X, which means both have a 45% chance of success before anything else is considered. The game master has placed average challenge Y at some point in the adventure. Both characters attempt to succeed, but the game master notices that one character has a 95% chance of success, and the other a 45% chance.

Whether you are "okay" with this or not is basically what it all comes down to. For my part, if I choose to modify the percentages to accord with the difficulty I think appropriate for each character [i.e. I make it CL 4 for one and CL 14 for another, or whatever], then I am of the opinion that I might as well have assigned the probability to begin with.
_________________
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)

[Breakdaddy]

We cap hit point advancement in the game at what, like level 9 (no longer rolling for hit points)? Then why not cap the +1 per level at level 9 or 10 as well? I can easily see capping my group at +10 when they reach lvl 10 but hey, thats me. Maybe allowing certain things to keep going (saves and turn undead maybe?) but not base skill checks.

[Treebore]

Breakdaddy wrote:
We cap hit point advancement in the game at what, like level 9 (no longer rolling for hit points)? Then why not cap the +1 per level at level 9 or 10 as well? I can easily see capping my group at +10 when they reach lvl 10 but hey, thats me. Maybe allowing certain things to keep going (saves and turn undead maybe?) but not base skill checks.

Nope, not for me. I set my CL's by who is opposed to often to worry about 10 foot pits, or 100 pound boulders becoming too easy to jump over or move.

Like traps, for instance, are set by a level 15 thief, then the CL is 15.

Plus, I see level increases as being improvement in technique, a beginning jumper can only jump 3 or 4 feet. If they become Olympic class, they can jump a whole lot farther.

So I look at level 1 as that beginning jumper, that level 10 character has improved their technique so much they are approaching Olympic class.

So I don't see any problem with how things work. It works for me.
_________________
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

[Matthew]

Breakdaddy wrote:
We cap hit point advancement in the game at what, like level 9 (no longer rolling for hit points)? Then why not cap the +1 per level at level 9 or 10 as well? I can easily see capping my group at +10 when they reach lvl 10 but hey, thats me. Maybe allowing certain things to keep going (saves and turn undead maybe?) but not base skill checks.

We cap hit points at level 6. However, I would still want a level one ranger to be capable of being a great tracker. So, I would rather start him off with 90% tracking and go up 1% per level (or dislocate it from level advancement) than deal with the +5% per level stuff. In the long run, it's just easier for me to set reasonable probabilities than worry about explicit abstract formula for calculating things.
_________________
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)

[Breakdaddy]

Treebore wrote:
Nope, not for me. I set my CL's by who is opposed to often to worry about 10 foot pits, or 100 pound boulders becoming too easy to jump over or move.

Like traps, for instance, are set by a level 15 thief, then the CL is 15.

Plus, I see level increases as being improvement in technique, a beginning jumper can only jump 3 or 4 feet. If they become Olympic class, they can jump a whole lot farther.

So I look at level 1 as that beginning jumper, that level 10 character has improved their technique so much they are approaching Olympic class.

So I don't see any problem with how things work. It works for me.

Right, it's not for you. You werent one of the guys who disliked the add +1 per level so I kinda assumed this wasn't a good fit for you to begin with. This idea is mainly something for the guys who don't like the +1 per level to kick around. I know it will be a good while before my guys are level 10.

[Breakdaddy]

Matthew wrote:
We cap hit points at level 6. However, I would still want a level one ranger to be capable of being a great tracker. So, I would rather start him off with 90% tracking and go up 1% per level (or dislocate it from level advancement) than deal with the +5% per level stuff. In the long run, it's just easier for me to set reasonable probabilities than worry about explicit abstract formula for calculating things.

We already use a variant of the SIEGE system that makes level 1 guys more competent than by RAW. I don't have any issues with this but my guys are only level 5-6 so I haven't gotten to the point where it *would* be an issue. I'm just glad that C&C is flexible enough to allow us to use such reasonable methods without breaking the system.

[Matthew]

Breakdaddy wrote:
We already use a variant of the SIEGE system that makes level 1 guys more competent than by RAW. I don't have any issues with this but my guys are only level 5-6 so I haven't gotten to the point where it *would* be an issue. I'm just glad that C&C is flexible enough to allow us to use such reasonable methods without breaking the system.

Absolutely. By far the best thing about Castles & Crusades is that it is light, flexible, and robust enough to accomodate virtually any changes that an individual game master or group feels necessary.
_________________
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)

[Lord Dynel]

I like the idea of capping checks at 10 or so. That would make most things doable, and still make checks have that chance of failure. I agree that other things, like the aforementioned saves and turning checks, should continue to progress normally.