Please critique these house rules

[vivsavage]

These are house rules I'm thinking of adopting. These are off the top of my head, so they're are a bit rough around the edges. Any suggestions you have for refinement are appreciated.

1) Hit Points at 1st level

I feel that 1st level PCs should have a bit more HP than they currently have. To address this, I want to add about 6 HP to the maximum starting HP of a 1st level character. Thus, a 1st level fighter would have 16 hp plus CON bonus. To make sure higher level PCs don't have too many HP, I'm thinking of having fixed HP increases at subsequent levels... probably the "average" HP gain minus one... thus a fighter would get 4 hp (plus CON bonus) at future levels.

2) Hit Points & Wounds

I've never been happy with the way hit points are defined in D&D, etc. I now define them as purely a reflection of non-lethal damage, skill & luck. They do not represent actual lethal damage. To address the latter, I've introduced a wound mechanic. For every single hit that you take in excess of 25% of your total HP, you take a wound. Thus a PC with 28 hit points has a wound level of 7. Wounds give you a -1 penalty to all actions. When your wound total reaches -6, you're dead (that may change). When your HPs reach zero, you most make a CON roll (modified by your wound penalty) to stay conscious. You do this with each new injury.

3) Primes

Any class ability is automatically considered prime

4) Background skills

Each PC chooses a background profession (farmer, miller, blacksmith, etc). Everything you do that has some connection with this background is considered prime (so to speak), even if that attribute you're using isn't prime. If the attribute is already prime, add an extra +3 to the attempt.

[Treebore]

Sounds good.

I have been thinking of having every level/HD represent one actual point of "physical damage" + CON. So if your 5th level you have at least 5 points of "physical" HP, and every hit that 1st point of damage is done is "physical".

So I then describe each successive hit in more severe terms, showing/reflecting this real physical damage. Now I don't use this for anything beyond that. It is purely a guideline I use for describing the damage being done, and I find it helps make things seem more realistic.

I think trying to take it to being an actual mechanics effect just makes it wonky. So I haven't done that. Plus I have been feeling challenged with how to make this work when a PC wields a Hammer of Thunderbolts with gauntlets and girdle. Ugliness.

Like with your house rule, such a PC will possibly be doing 2 to 3 wound points per hit, possibly more, depending on how you do crits. I already do your Primes rule and my new campaigns will require a basic background write up to determine skills.
_________________
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

[gideon_thorne]

Ive seen #3 bandied around a lot. To me, it defeats the purpose of having primes. Just IMHO of course.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Ive seen #3 bandied around a lot. To me, it defeats the purpose of having primes. Just IMHO of course.

As always, I disagree.
C&C classes are archetypes. So a Ranger should be good at everything a Ranger does. Same for Thieves, etc... So having everything that is within their classes abilities be base 12 instead of base 18 makes much more sense to me. It isn't like these class abilities cover everything, its only what is within their class archetype. So not being Prime still has a big impact outside of their classes abilities. Not to mention on saving throws alone.

Even with a skill system, I have even those who take tracking as a skill, if they are not a Ranger, they can only use base TN 18, but they now get to add level. Not perfect, but having class abilities be primes allows for a skill system to work, and allow that class to have a +6 advantage.

Now if I was btb on using the SIEGE for everything, I probably would go the other way, but I like skills. So I I like treating classes as archetypes all the way, including class abilities being treated as primes.
_________________
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

[serleran]

These comments reflect preferences in game style only.

1) Removes one of the most exciting elements regarding non-name level advancement, the HD roll. After months of play, to finally get that new die added, do I get a high result, or a low result? With the proposed system, it is a fat constant. That is good, if you need to also remove disappointment for low roll results (which is why, in my games, one option for training is to earn a re-roll.) Increasing HP at 1st level is fairly common -- if you do this, I would suggest not using the standard rules for bleeding out as presented in the PHB, but having death occur at zero; doing otherwise actually adds even more HP to the characters.

2) Too much tracking and number changing for my tastes. At each level, the wound limit has a tendency to change, so you have to not only modify HP, but wound limits -- also, there is no mention of removal of wounds. A spell like cure light wounds might heal only 3 HP, which is unlikely to be an actual wound, so the spell does virtually nothing (and has a meaningless name) so I would suggest, if you are inclined, to have the cure wound spells heal a preset number of wounds (with corresponding HP) so that a CLW will restore 1 wound, serious 1d2+1, critical 1d4+2, or whatever else you feel more appropriate.

3) Reduces the decision-making process that is Prime allocation and has no effect on classes with no (or few) Prime-based class abilities (like Fighters who have zero.) I would not go so far as to reduce all class-based ability checks to a CB of 12 -- instead, I would consider 15, and leave saves alone (that is, not affected.) Furthermore, you should enforce when level is added -- the fact that classes always add level to their own abilities is a great advantage over that of others; also, remember that CC does not have to always match the level of the character attempting the action (that is, a 1st level PC could encounter a situation where the "difficulty" is -10 though I hate that concept, personally.)

4) With a firm enough hand over what backgrounds can be selected (ie, "I am a sage so, umm, anything covering knowing anything...") this could work. I would treat it as a class ability (level added, CB 15 unless actually Prime) but would not give a further bonus to the check; having it function like a class ability is powerful enough.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[vivsavage]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Ive seen #3 bandied around a lot. To me, it defeats the purpose of having primes. Just IMHO of course.

I have a big problem with the way primes are handled in C&C. Take the ranger: all his skills are based off dexterity or wisdom, yet his prime is fixed as being strength. If you take anything but a human ranger, you're guaranteed to have some abilities that aren't very good because either dexterity or wisdom won't be primes.

[vivsavage]

serleran wrote:
Too much tracking and number changing for my tastes. At each level, the wound limit has a tendency to change, so you have to not only modify HP, but wound limits

That would take about 2 seconds to change, so I don't see it as a factor (for me, of course)

serleran wrote:
also, there is no mention of removal of wounds.

true enough. I forgot to mention those rules. My thinking is simple -- for every wound factor healed in hit points, you heal one wound. This doesn't have to be healed all at once -- it can be cumulative.

serleran wrote:
A spell like cure light wounds might heal only 3 HP, which is unlikely to be an actual wound, so the spell does virtually nothing (and has a meaningless name)

It makes it harder to heal wounds, I agree. Which is my preference. If you have a wound factor of 6, it might take two CLW spells to remove a wound. Or a couple of extra nights of sleep.

serleran wrote:
Reduces the decision-making process that is Prime allocation

Maybe... but I have a HUGE problem with the way primes are handled in general (see the previous post). From a philosophical point, it bugs me that a guy with a non-prime dexterity of 18 isn't as good at dexterity checks as a guy with a prime dexterity of 10. Just doesn't compute with me.

[Lord Dynel]

vivsavage wrote:
I have a big problem with the way primes are handled in C&C. Take the ranger: all his skills are based off dexterity or wisdom, yet his prime is fixed as being strength. If you take anything but a human ranger, you're guaranteed to have some abilities that aren't very good because either dexterity or wisdom won't be primes.

In a case like this, would it not be simpler to chane the ranger's Prime to Wisdom? I think that making all the abilities skills prime would undermine the prime/skill system. What would you do with those classes that have very few (or any) relevant abilities? Do they get the shaft.

If you feel some major modification need to happen I would suggest making class ability-based checks for all classes at a base of 15. If the character has the ability as a Prime, then the skill check is the normal 12.

Rangers have Dex and Wis relevant abilities. If the ranger has Str and Dex as primes, for example, then all Dex based abilities would be base 12, and all Wisdom abilities would be base 15. If the ranger has Str and Int as primes, then Wis and Dex based abilities would be base 15.

[gideon_thorne]

Treebore wrote:
As always, I disagree.
C&C classes are archetypes. So a Ranger should be good at everything a Ranger does. Same for Thieves, etc... So having everything that is within their classes abilities be base 12 instead of base 18 makes much more sense to me. It isn't like these class abilities cover everything, its only what is within their class archetype. So not being Prime still has a big impact outside of their classes abilities. Not to mention on saving throws alone.

The above lacks a certain realism. Not every person is equally skilled at all aspects of a given profession. Making each class look the same by making all their abilities advance the same promulgates the 'cookie cutter' critique so often touted as a downside of archetypes.

Sides, I throw archetypes to the wind. I also unhook primes from class, players can put em where they want. Makes the characters even more diverse IMHO.^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[vivsavage]

Lord Dynel wrote:
If you feel some major modification need to happen I would suggest making class ability-based checks for all classes at a base of 15. If the character has the ability as a Prime, then the skill check is the normal 12.

Rangers have Dex and Wis relevant abilities. If the ranger has Str and Dex as primes, for example, then all Dex based abilities would be base 12, and all Wisdom abilities would be base 15. If the ranger has Str and Int as primes, then Wis and Dex based abilities would be base 15.

That would certainly work. But my issues with the SEIGE engine go further than this. My previous post's last paragraph explains more. Basically the whole concept of primes seems odd to me. It greatly reduces the importance of ability scores. If you can change my mind, I'd be grateful!

[vivsavage]

gideon_thorne wrote:
The above lacks a certain realism.

Realism in C&C?

gideon_thorne wrote:
Not every person is equally skilled at all aspects of a given profession. Making each class look the same by making all their abilities advance the same promulgates the 'cookie cutter' critique so often touted as a downside of archetypes.

I'm not sure I agree. Your ability modifiers and level have a lot to say about differences among archetypes.

[Treebore]

vivsavage wrote:
Your ability modifiers and level have a lot to say about differences among archetypes.

yes, yes, they do.

Still, its not really a problem for Gideon. Like he says, he does not require Class Primes, so that freedom of choice can offset the issue if the player chooses to do so with his Prime choices.

All I can say is my players don't complain about me allowing class abilities to be base TN 12, despite Primes. Several of them are also CK's and have adapted this to their games. I think. Its been a while since I have played in games ran by Rigon, Lord Seurek, or slimykuotoan, so they would have to say if I remember correctly. Nwelte uses it, though.

So we don't think it ruins our enjoyment of the game, and in fact, think it improves it. We do enforce that if it is not a class skill, and is not a Prime, you do not add class level, and the base TN is 18.
_________________
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

[anonymous]

2) is quite close to the wounds rule in Mutants & Masterminds/True20/Blue Rose. Are you familiar with any of these?

[gideon_thorne]

vivsavage wrote:
Realism in C&C?

Yes, even in a game, a certain real world simulation can be achieved.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Not every person is equally skilled at all aspects of a given profession. Making each class look the same by making all their abilities advance the same promulgates the 'cookie cutter' critique so often touted as a downside of archetypes.

Quote:
I'm not sure I agree. Your ability modifiers and level have a lot to say about differences among archetypes.

Not enough, in my estimation.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[vivsavage]

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
2) is quite close to the wounds rule in Mutants & Masterminds/True20/Blue Rose. Are you familiar with any of these?

Yep. It's also very similar to Ars Magica, LOTR (by Decipher) and especially Earthdawn. I find it very simple and easy to use and yet addresses my issues with inflating hit points.

[Lord Dynel]

vivsavage wrote:
That would certainly work. But my issues with the SEIGE engine go further than this. My previous post's last paragraph explains more. Basically the whole concept of primes seems odd to me. It greatly reduces the importance of ability scores. If you can change my mind, I'd be grateful!

Okay, so we got the class-ability checks taken care of. We'll say for any class ability that a character is not "Primed" in, he has a Challenge Base of 15. That represents the fact that though he's not the greatest at it, he's not too shabby and the 15 can repreent his training above the normal person.

I don't know if I can convince you or not of your other issues with the Prime system, but I'll give it a shot.
I look at it this way - a strong person (Strength Prime) excels in just about every strength related task there is. Same thing with a dextrous person - nearly every time, a more dextrous, faster, agile person will get the job done in those related tasks over the strong, but slow, person.

Now, if someone has Strength as a prime and has a 10 Str, and another person has a Str of 18 and does not have a Strength as prime, it does seem odd, I know. I think of it like this - the 18 Str tries to force every situation, using brute strength, and has never learned to use his strength properly (using leverage, etc.). The Str 10 person has, and thus he has an easier time doing Str related tasks. Now in a fist fight, the Str 18 guy is gonna whip the Str 10 guys ass, but the Str 10 guy can get that statue they found down in the dungeon back to town a heck of a lot quicker.

As a second example, lets look at Charisma - probably an easier attribute to look at. The Cha 16 guy is handsome, but he's either a pompous ass or maybe he never tried using his looks to get ahead; maybe he's shy or something (in other words, Charisma is non-prime). The Cha 10 guy is kind of ordinary looking, but he has way with words and can usually get what he wants (he has Charisma prime).

Hopefully I've enlightened you a little bit, good sir!

[gideon_thorne]

vivsavage wrote:
That would certainly work. But my issues with the SEIGE engine go further than this. My previous post's last paragraph explains more. Basically the whole concept of primes seems odd to me. It greatly reduces the importance of ability scores. If you can change my mind, I'd be grateful!

Nope, cant change your mind on this one. This is exactly correct. Primes do reduce the importance of the ability score. The score, itself, in this game, serves best to break ties and give attribute mods.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Traveller]

1. I don't have an issue with hit points for starting characters since I know several people who do that sort of thing already. Some do maximum hit points at first level, some use CON for hit points at first level. You seem to be straddling the fence, and that's ok. However, I do take issue with fixed hit point increases by level as I believe it to penalize the player, forcing him to play an "average" character with "average" hit points instead of the character being either truly woeful or truly exceptional because of the luck of the die. If the player manages to earn a high die roll, more power to him. A dragon won't care one way or another when it comes to dinner time (and especially when it's one of my modified dragons).

2. While I see where you're going with this, I never had a problem with how AD&D represented hit points because how AD&D represented hit points is almost identical to how you represent them, as a mixture of non-lethal damage, skill, and luck. Personally, the vitality/wound system from Star Wars d20 might serve better here. When hit points reach zero, further damage is taken from CON. When CON is reduced to zero, you are dead. Critical hits for example could affect CON directly and bypass hit points altogether, making combat truly deadly if you want it that way.

3 and 4. Don't have a problem with background professions, but the skills that make up the profession should not be automatically prime. The same goes for class abilities. Characters in literature, unless it's bad literature, do not perform everything equally well. They have flaws, and so should role playing characters. As an example, I'm supposed to be such a good merchant that I can sell air and have you be happy you bought that air, yet I'm irresponsible in the presence of a credit card.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[vivsavage]

Traveller wrote:
2. While I see where you're going with this, I never had a problem with how AD&D represented hit points because how AD&D represented hit points is almost identical to how you represent them, as a mixture of non-lethal damage, skill, and luck.

But AD&D doesn't make any differentiation between what is a lethal or non-lethal blow. There is also inconsistency with healing and unavoidable damage (falling, etc).

Traveller wrote:
Personally, the vitality/wound system from Star Wars d20 might serve better here. When hit points reach zero, further damage is taken from CON. When CON is reduced to zero, you are dead. Critical hits for example could affect CON directly and bypass hit points altogether, making combat truly deadly if you want it that way.

I thought of the W&V system from Unearthed Arcana, but I like mine better. I prefer the way it handles multiple injuries. W&V just gives you a flat -2 penalty to STR and CON when you suffer a critical hit or have your vitality depleted.

Traveller wrote:
Don't have a problem with background professions, but the skills that make up the profession should not be automatically prime.

If you don't make them prime, then I don't see any difference between having backgrounds and not having them. If you play BtB, a character who attempts something like blacksmithing has the same chance of success whether he has a smithing background or not. All that matters is whether you're relevant ability is prime or not. It's just not realistic enough for me.

Traveller wrote:
The same goes for class abilities. Characters in literature, unless it's bad literature, do not perform everything equally well. They have flaws, and so should role playing characters. As an example, I'm supposed to be such a good merchant that I can sell air and have you be happy you bought that air, yet I'm irresponsible in the presence of a credit card.

I agree, but with the issues described above. C&C's use of primes emphasizes inherent natural ability over skill or background, something I'm not too keen on. It's easily house-ruled, though

[gideon_thorne]

vivsavage wrote:
I agree, but with the issues described above. C&C's use of primes emphasizes inherent natural ability over skill or background, something I'm not too keen on. It's easily house-ruled, though

Actually, a prime itself emphasizes training in a particular attribute. Natural ability is emphasized by the score itself.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[vivsavage]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Actually, a prime itself emphasizes training in a particular attribute. Natural ability is emphasized by the score itself.

I like that. But it still raises the question "if you're trained in an attribute, why not raise the attribute instead of using primes"?

[Treebore]

vivsavage wrote:
I like that. But it still raises the question "if you're trained in an attribute, why not raise the attribute instead of using primes"?

Because raising the attribute reflects increasing the raw power/strength/degree of that attribute. Prime says you have learned many ways in which to utilize that attribute towards solving the problems/challenges life throws at you.
_________________
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

[vivsavage]

Treebore wrote:
Because raising the attribute reflects increasing the raw power/strength/degree of that attribute. Prime says you have learned many ways in which to utilize that attribute towards solving the problems/challenges life throws at you.

So it's sort of like taking two athletes of equal ability, but finding that one is a better basketball player than the other because, although they may both have DEX scores of 15, one player is simply more attuned to using his DEX for basketball?

I think this works pretty well for everything except CON and STR.

[gideon_thorne]

vivsavage wrote:
I like that. But it still raises the question "if you're trained in an attribute, why not raise the attribute instead of using primes"?

Well, an attribute represents raw ability and potential. The prime itself emphasizes training as I suggested. Now, a characters level is where experience and development come into play. Level is where all that raw potential and focus grows. So, in a sense, when you go up in level, your raising all your attributes in a broad fashion.

At least thats the general logic. Of course, interpretation varies widely from group to group. So you must not think I'm trying to goad you into 'one true way' thinking.

Here's another thought though. A prime could represent a whole swath of related ability when it comes to character classes. A fighter, for example, with a high intelligence prime, could have a wide knowledge of tactics, strategy, siege warfare, engineering skills (related to the construction and deconstruction of fortresses) and a number of other 'combat' related abilities, all of which, btb, they could legitimately add their level too without impacting on the abilities of another class. This is a 'skills system without a skills system' approach. (also, one that doesn't cost xp) This idea can be developed through character backgrounds.

Is my fighter a military man? XYZ primes means he knows subjects about the military. Is my fighter a gladiator, then he will have a different set of skills than someone who was raised by pirates, than someone who was raised by nomads, ect ect.

And, also an example of how I, for one, interpret primes.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

vivsavage wrote:
So it's sort of like taking two athletes of equal ability, but finding that one is a better basketball player than the other because, although they may both have DEX scores of 15, one player is simply more attuned to using his DEX for basketball?

I think this works pretty well for everything except CON and STR.

I think it works for those as well. CON has a lot to do with inherent ability. IE your CON either allows you to resist a disease/poison, or not. However, you can enhance your CON by eating well, IE living healthy.

With STR, there are a lot of little tricks on how to apply your STR and increase the liklihood you will topple that pillar, roll that huge boulder, etc... So Prime reflects you know all these little tricks that increase your degree of health, or ability to lift.roll, etc... than someone who simply has a high attribute.
_________________
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

[Traveller]

vivsavage wrote:
But AD&D doesn't make any differentiation between what is a lethal or non-lethal blow. There is also inconsistency with healing and unavoidable damage (falling, etc).

It's not supposed to. In its simplest form hit points are an abstract concept and not a physical meter. Any inconsistency you may see regarding hit points likely is due to an incomplete understanding of what the hit point actually represents. There are several good threads regarding hit points on this forum.

vivisavage wrote:
I thought of the W&V system from Unearthed Arcana, but I like mine better. I prefer the way it handles multiple injuries. W&V just gives you a flat -2 penalty to STR and CON when you suffer a critical hit or have your vitality depleted.

Except for the fact that you're the one using the system, and you get to make the rules. This is a house rules thread, right? It almost sounds as if you're slavishly using a rule you like instead of tweaking it to fit.
I'm teasing a bit, but you get my point I hope?

vivisavage wrote:
If you don't make them prime, then I don't see any difference between having backgrounds and not having them. If you play BtB, a character who attempts something like blacksmithing has the same chance of success whether he has a smithing background or not. All that matters is whether you're relevant ability is prime or not. It's just not realistic enough for me.

So it's more realistic to be good at everything than to suck at something? Sorry, but that isn't realistic. Castles & Crusades is based upon archetypes, unlike Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay which has starting professions that serve as a pathway into an adventuring class. Based upon the gaming triad from The Forge, WFRP is a simulationist game while Castles & Crusades is a gamist one. C&C with a decent amount of work on the CK's part can be simulationist, but at what point does it cease to be Castles & Crusades?
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[vivsavage]

Traveller wrote:
Any inconsistency you may see regarding hit points likely is due to an incomplete understanding of what the hit point actually represents.

No, I have a complete understanding of what they represent, and have since 1981. I didn't say HP were inconsistent, but the way healing works is. I simply don't like the way D&D/C&C/et al handles hit points. I could write a detailed explanation of why I don't like it, but can we merely suffice it to say that I find the current traditional HP system to be lacking for my personal tastes?

Traveller wrote:
Except for the fact that you're the one using the system, and you get to make the rules. This is a house rules thread, right? It almost sounds as if you're slavishly using a rule you like instead of tweaking it to fit.

Um, not sure what you mean. I am tweaking an existing rule to make it fit the way I like. I'm changing HP very, very little by adding a simple wound mechanic.

Traveller wrote:
So it's more realistic to be good at everything than to suck at something? Sorry, but that isn't realistic. Castles & Crusades is based upon archetypes, unlike Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay which has starting professions that serve as a pathway into an adventuring class. Based upon the gaming triad from The Forge, WFRP is a simulationist game while Castles & Crusades is a gamist one. C&C with a decent amount of work on the CK's part can be simulationist, but at what point does it cease to be Castles & Crusades?

I'm not asking it to be simulationist at all. After all, why play C&C if you want a simulationist game? All I'm saying is, I'd like to develop a simple, easy way for character backgrounds to affect certain "skill" rolls. You're saying I feel it is "more realistic to be good at everything than to suck at something". Not true. At all. I don't know where you're getting that from. I have issues with the mechanics and am expressing those feelings. That's it. I feel you're extracting thoughts from my posts that I didn't intend.

[Traveller]

Blacksmiths are not good at everything. Some blacksmiths can make armor well and suck at making swords. Some make horseshoes real well and can't make barrel hoops. By making all profession abilities prime, that variation in talent is eliminated. Thus my statement that what you want isn't realistic.

In a gamist game, it isn't terribly important that fighter A can make a sword while fighter B can make horse barding. What's important is the mission: killing the monsters and taking their stuff. The impression I had gotten from your posts was that you were trying to make the game more simulationist. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's your game and your rules, but if you're NOT trying to make the game more simulationist, why create background professions at all when it isn't necessary?
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[vivsavage]

Traveller wrote:
Blacksmiths are not good at everything. Some blacksmiths can make armor well and suck at making swords. Some make horseshoes real well and can't make barrel hoops. By making all profession abilities prime, that variation in talent is eliminated. Thus my statement that what you want isn't realistic.

I understand what you're saying. Here's my basic issue with the way primes work: let's say you've got a an elf ranger who has grown up in the woods (as elves are wont to do). His primes are STR and DEX. Because he doesn't have WIS for a prime, so he's not really good at the survival stuff, even though his class and upbringing would indicate he should be. I also don't like the fact the elves and half-elves are generally going to be a bit inferior to humans as rangers because of the ranger's fixed STR prime, meaning that either WIS or DEX based abilities aren't going to be up to snuff... and elves should be really woodsy But I digress... and could easily house rule this (which is the point of this thread).

Anyways, I also think that attribute mods help address the "all class abilities shouldn't be at the same level" issue.

Traveller wrote:
In a gamist game, it isn't terribly important that fighter A can make a sword while fighter B can make horse barding. What's important is the mission: killing the monsters and taking their stuff. The impression I had gotten from your posts was that you were trying to make the game more simulationist. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's your game and your rules, but if you're NOT trying to make the game more simulationist, why create background professions at all when it isn't necessary?

I don't want to be so specific as to differentiate between the smith who makes swords better than barding. But my players all like to flesh out their characters backgrounds, and that will certainly come into play in my games. I don't see it being simulationist so much as adding detail to character background and having some mechanic to reflect that. So, when player A says "my PC comes from the slums of Dung City where he had to beg and hide to survive before he met Wizzo the wizard who taught him arcana", I want to be able to address that. Hence, very basic backgrounds (but not a detailed skill system). Maybe instead of making these things prime, I'll just add a +2 bonus or make the default DC 15 or something.

By the way, I enjoyed your house rules article on your website. Where did you get the C&C fonts?

[gideon_thorne]

vivsavage wrote:
I understand what you're saying. Here's my basic issue with the way primes work: let's say you've got a an elf ranger who has grown up in the woods (as elves are wont to do). His primes are STR and DEX. Because he doesn't have WIS for a prime, so he's not really good at the survival stuff, even though his class and upbringing would indicate he should be. I also don't like the fact the elves and half-elves are generally going to be a bit inferior to humans as rangers because of the ranger's fixed STR prime, meaning that either WIS or DEX based abilities aren't going to be up to snuff... and elves should be really woodsy But I digress..

Elves already have innate abilities that make them as good, if not superior to a ranger though.
And picking and choosing, pro's and cons, is part of the game. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley