Add ability requirements for classes.

Steerpike · Post by **Steerpike** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:21 pm

I am thinking of taking the ability requirements from 1e AD&D and using them with C&C. I always kind of liked those...was kind of neat, for example, when your rolls qualified for a Paladin.

I'm curious though - any drawback to doing this? Doesn't seem to be anything glaring, but C&C took a lot from old-school D&D and they didn't include this requirement, so I'm open to the idea that I am missing something that makes this undesirable.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:25 pm

Steerpike wrote:
I am thinking of taking the ability requirements from 1e AD&D and using them with C&C. I always kind of liked those...was kind of neat, for example, when your rolls qualified for a Paladin.

I'm curious though - any drawback to doing this? Doesn't seem to be anything glaring, but C&C took a lot from old-school D&D and they didn't include this requirement, so I'm open to the idea that I am missing something that makes this undesirable.

They took them out to allow choice. For players to choose what class they play, no matter their attributes, or for CK's to add in such requirements because they want to.
_________________
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

Steerpike · Post by **Steerpike** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:28 pm

I thought that was probably the case. I think my group tends to like using them, and it is certainly easy to add back into the game. If the players decide it's not for them, it's just as easily removed.

I like this philosophy behind C&C a lot.

cinderblock · Post by **cinderblock** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:41 pm

With ability reqs added back in (particularly for fighting types) I believe it would make certain classes less attractive. In 1e all fighting classes used the same attack tables, in C&C only the fighter gets a bonus at level one. Besides flavor and role-playing, why play a class that is harder to qualify for, doesn't fight as well and (in most cases) has a quicker level advancement.

I've been toying with the same idea but if I did throw requisite scores back in I'd have all fighting types progress their BTH as the fighter with the exception of the bard.

Anyone else have a thought on this?

Steerpike · Post by **Steerpike** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:48 pm

Hmmmm. Yes, that makes sense. I am considering it mostly from a roleplay and flavor standpoint.

Of course, those inequities you mentioned exist without the ability requirements, so it seems like those classes would be disfavored whether you have the ability requirements or not. I mean, either the player qualifies for Paladin or doesn't. The reason for and against choosing the Paladin over another fighting class would still be the same, wouldn't they?

cinderblock · Post by **cinderblock** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:55 pm

I didn't mean to imply that I saw them as weaker. Sorry if I did. What I meant was by adding the reqs back in it (in my opinion) seriously underscores the differences. In first Ed., the attack table was unified so, as far as swinging a sword, vanilla fighters all did it equally well. Then up comes a paladin whose reqs IIRC were 12 STR 9 WIS and 17 CHR who could fight equally well but was much harder to qualify for. He just got some cool extra abilities for rolling those great stats and a steeper learning curve to level i.e. more xp.

Does this clear it up?

Steerpike · Post by **Steerpike** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:59 pm

Ah...ok I see what you're saying.

And it makes sense. It may not be worth adding in the requirements. The only one I really found compelling was the high charisma from Paladin, just because of the kind of flavor it gives to the class.

At any rate, we'll be playing the rules as written for some time before I start tinkering with them. I like to have more familiarity with a system before house-ruling, and this Saturday is our first C&C session.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:09 pm

There is actually one requirement... one of your Primes to be one associated with the class. A fighter for instance has to have Strength as one of his primes.

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

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

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:32 pm

I do not allow selection of Prime if the attribute is below 9 nor do I allow a character to be a class where the Prime attribute for the class is below 11. I am not a fan of "pick first, roll after." I much prefer roll and then let fate screw you.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:54 pm

serleran wrote:
I much prefer roll and then let fate screw you.

I get more than enough of that in real life, don't like intentionally putting it into my gaming.
_________________
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

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:12 pm

Instead of putting in attribute requirements for the C&C classes, how about award an experience bonus for exceptional attributes? For example, the fighter might gain a +5% XP bonus for having a STR 13-15 and/or a +10% bonus for a STR of 16+?

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

cinderblock · Post by **cinderblock** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:21 am

I always liked those bonuses. I might have to look at that as well.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:39 am

Quote:
I get more than enough of that in real life, don't like intentionally putting it into my gaming.

Yes, and I get more than enough "I am the God of my Own World" type crap from myself to not bother to want to play where people feel they need "control." It is an illusion, anyway... and, the way I see it, if you can't let dice decide for you, why are you rolling them?
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:11 am

It is an illusion, serl, I do agree, but you have to give the players something to control, I feel, or else thy feel even the basic choice of character of choice is out of their hands. At least that's what it appears to be and why the change was made. I actually like the old way myself for no other reason than to make the more special classes "more special." I suppose that people wanted to have "control" over their own destiny as to what class they will play. Rolling 3d6 straight down the sheet was cool in it's day, and I did say I liked it, but I like the "new" way also.

Steer, if you want to do it, knock yourself out. It would make paladins, rangers, monks, and the like more rare, but not extinct. As long as your players don't mind, and you(and they) don't mind seeing a plethora of the "basic four," then that's all that matters! Good gaming!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:13 am

Actually, I take it all back... since I roll for myself. But, when I am the DM / CK, I just let the players pick whatever they want, even their attributes. I don't really care if you have 18s in everything, or are a lawful good goblin paladin assassin.... if it will make sense in the game, then so be it. But, I do like to roll for me. It forces me to play something I might not have.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Relaxo · Post by **Relaxo** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:38 am

Treebore wrote:
I get more than enough of that in real life, don't like intentionally putting it into my gaming.

+1

cinderblock · Post by **cinderblock** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:21 pm

I'm with serl on this. I really like 3d6 straight down and then play that character. Its made for some pretty fun challenges in our games. Not everybody likes it and for my current groups, didn't use it. Some peeps just have different play styles. But in my ideal gaming situation that would be the method I went with. With reqs added back in it would, in my opinion, make rolling that paladin something pretty special. I definitely wouldn't use it for every game but can see it for some campaigns.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:16 pm

serleran wrote:
But, I do like to roll for me. It forces me to play something I might not have.

I agree. I actually like the old method for rolling and then seeing what you qualify for. It's nice to have the ability to pick and choose, but I miss the old ways sometimes.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:34 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
I agree. I actually like the old method for rolling and then seeing what you qualify for. It's nice to have the ability to pick and choose, but I miss the old ways sometimes.

I was introduced with "put them where you want them", so thats all I've ever done.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:36 pm

Steerpike wrote:
I am thinking of taking the ability requirements from 1e AD&D and using them with C&C. I always kind of liked those...was kind of neat, for example, when your rolls qualified for a Paladin.

I'm curious though - any drawback to doing this? Doesn't seem to be anything glaring, but C&C took a lot from old-school D&D and they didn't include this requirement, so I'm open to the idea that I am missing something that makes this undesirable.

I don't see a problem with this.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:41 pm

cinderblock wrote:
With ability reqs added back in (particularly for fighting types) I believe it would make certain classes less attractive. In 1e all fighting classes used the same attack tables, in C&C only the fighter gets a bonus at level one. Besides flavor and role-playing, why play a class that is harder to qualify for, doesn't fight as well and (in most cases) has a quicker level advancement.

I've been toying with the same idea but if I did throw requisite scores back in I'd have all fighting types progress their BTH as the fighter with the exception of the bard.

Anyone else have a thought on this?

I don't see how this makes a class less attractive, harder to qualify for for sure makes things like paladins rare, but to me that makes the class even more attractive if you qualify for it. Giving the other classes the BTH of the fighter just weakens the fighter class.

If you qualify for a paladin, then you already have a good set of stats, lots of cool powers, and the 2nd best BTH, I don't see the need to up them anymore.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:16 am

Maliki wrote:
I don't see how this makes a class less attractive, harder to qualify for for sure makes things like paladins rare, but to me that makes the class even more attractive if you qualify for it. Giving the other classes the BTH of the fighter just weakens the fighter class.

If you qualify for a paladin, then you already have a good set of stats, lots of cool powers, and the 2nd best BTH, I don't see the need to up them anymore.

I agree with you, Maliki. I think cinderblock was saying (and I could be wrong) is why bother with the harder to qualify classes if the easier to qualify for classes are just as good (or the harder to qualify classes don't hold a bigger advantage over the easier classes)? I see that point, but I wouldn't personally say that they are better. In combat ability, yes, the fighter holds the advantage, with extra attacks and the best BtH. But to me, combat isn't everything. A paladin has undead turning and healing, a ranger has favored enemies and woodland skills. It'd definitely be a flavor thing in my games, or at least to me. A fighter is a "one-trick pony" mechanically - he fights, and that's just about it. A paladion or ranger fights, too, but they have more "tricks" that make them a little more appealing. To me, that's what the draw would be for wanting to qualify for those classes. Fighters being a lot more commonplace than other fighting-types makes the world pretty standard, but seeing a paladin in action wouldn't be a run-of-the-mill experience and would garner more attention - in game and around the table. That's my opinion.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:23 am

When attribute requirements are not present, a certain feel or flavor of the game is lost. If everyone can be a ranger, it doesn't make those who are any more special for being such. The same can be said of racial requirements (which I only rarely use, for the record) in that, if a player can be a dwarf simply because they "want it" then it doesn't matter that only 1% of the population actually is a dwarf... attribute requirements help simulate this without having the heavy-hand DM fiat answer of "no" attached... it leaves a glimmer of a hope.

Of course, it also encourages power-gaming when there are "high marks" to get, and doing so gives many more advantages over not getting them. So, a DM is really left with a dilemma of what is desired.

Me, I like making the players think about their choices, even if I don't care what end result they conclude.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:25 pm

serleran wrote:
When attribute requirements are not present, a certain feel or flavor of the game is lost. If everyone can be a ranger, it doesn't make those who are any more special for being such. The same can be said of racial requirements (which I only rarely use, for the record) in that, if a player can be a dwarf simply because they "want it" then it doesn't matter that only 1% of the population actually is a dwarf... attribute requirements help simulate this without having the heavy-hand DM fiat answer of "no" attached... it leaves a glimmer of a hope.

I agree with a lot of this, serl. I feethe same way about the "more special" classes - when there are a ton of paladins walking around, it does take some of the mystique out of them.

I don't know if I would restrict races, though. While your point is very valid, I feel that there should be statistical minimums and maximums for all the classes. If there's an 18 strength halfling or a 5 Con dwarf, then so be it. I personally see no reason why extremes couldn't exist for all races, spanning the shole range of ability scores, from 3 to 18. But that's my opinion.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Troll Lord Games

Add ability requirements for classes.

Add ability requirements for classes.

Re: Add ability requirements for classes.

Re: Add ability requirements for classes.