SIEGE QUESTIONS

[Lobo316]

A few situations that came up last night, I'd like some of my fellow forum members input on, just to make sure I am handing these situations correctly in C&C. Maybe get a little discussion going.

This is one area that still throws us for a small loop...Surprise

At it's basic level, it's a Wisdom check, correct? So, in the situation that came up last night, a party of 4 orcs and a human are moving along a game trail, not being overly alert to thier surroundings. The party know they are coming, and lay in wait. By the book, the orcs roll a Wisdom check to see if they are suprised. OK, nuff said there (I think).

Here's where I'm not sure of what the rules expect. The parties rogue and ranger decide they are going to hide in ambush and bit further up the trail, right off the road, to get the orcs flanked (and not have thier stealth messed up by the noisey fighter, cleric and knight).

Questions
Do they roll anything to camoflage or hide, Or do they just state they are hiding? The descritpion for BOTH the rogues Hide and the rangers Conceal, states "A successful check means...etc". So, apparently, a roll of some sort is required/expected?

If this roll is successful, they are hidden, right? So, the rogue rolls a 21. His base is 12. What would the CL be? I made it I think a 2 (CC 14) since it is forest and he's not a ranger, and the orcs were coming down the path, so he didn't have all day. So, a 21 is successful, he's hidden, but really, did a check need to be made there? (btw, did the same thing for the ranger, and his conceal).

Now since the rule for the both the rogue and the rangers hide/conceal ability specifically reference "A successful check" what does the roll itself mean? Does how well they rolled give them any boon? I gave them both a +2 to the orcs CL to be surprised for ever 5 points they passed thier checks by. Does that sound right.

Is there supposed to be an opposed check here?

For the orcs, I gave them a CB 18 (secondary), +1 for a 1st level rogue and ranger, +2 for the rogue passing his check by 5 points, +3 situational (for being oblivious). I also gave the ranger a +2 for being in a wilderness environment, so basically they were very easy to surprise (CC of 23 and 25).

Does this sound about right to you? Am I making theses checks out to be more than they are? Is there no real "opposed check" here?

If the roles were reversed, it seems a bit easier to run, the players making surprise rolls go againt the CC of the hidden attacker, but if that attacker is moving and using stealth to move quietly, is there any opposesed roll, or do I just modify the CC the PC is going against (-5 to the monster move silently)? Or am I supposed to give the OC a +5 to his wisdom check (or lower the CL by 5), etc?

We are really loving C&C, but this is one area that just stumped us a bit for the last two games.

[Arduin]

See Surprise pg. 128 PHB & pg. 122 & 123 for how to do these kind of checks.

[mgtremaine]

The way you handled it sounds totally fair.

I would have just stopped at the hide/conceal roll for the party members and allowed surprise round for the ambush. Why, well because they are just Orc's.... Part of the spirit of Siege is "do not make mundane rolls, just get on with the narrative." The party planned a good ambush give it to them. Opposing checks are more a d20 thing, usually I get things down to a single roll on one side or the other. [edited for the predictable typos]

That's my 2 cents.

-Mike

[Lobo316]

The way you handled it sounds totally fair.

I would have just stopped at the hide/conceal roll for the party members and allowed surprise round for the ambush. Why, well because they are just Orc's.... Part of the spirit of Siege is "do not make mundane rolls, just get on with the narrative." To party planed a good ambush give it to them. Opposing checks are more a d20 thing, usually I get things done to a single roll on one side or the other.

That's my 2 cents.

-Mike

And i appriciate those 2 cents ;o) Always curious to hear how other CKs would handle similiar situations. I'm getting the feeling that there's not to many "wrong ways" to handle these things, rather just different ways, depending upon the CK.

[alcyone]

Here's where I'm not sure of what the rules expect. The parties rogue and ranger decide they are going to hide in ambush and bit further up the trail, right off the road, to get the orcs flanked (and not have thier stealth messed up by the noisey fighter, cleric and knight).

IIRC, the rules say something about applying a modifier of between -5 and +5 for something just like that, a well-prepared ambush or well-hidden characters. I think what you did is fine. Surprise is kind of funny when you add in SIEGE checks for hide; but you might not assume that being hidden implies you have surprise; the surprise part is partially how quick you can jump out and yell "BOO!" In AD&D the ranger gets an increased chance of surprising enemies, so based on that alone I'd probably add 2 to the CL for the Orcs, hidden or not; he set up the ambush for himself and the rogue. Failing that, though, it seems reasonable to reward a successful hide with a similar reward.

I wonder whether succeeding at a surprise roll means you notice your surpriser, as implied by wisdom, or if it's more about your reaction time and ability to make a snap decision, which could be dex or even int.

Anyway, using the wisdom save method is just a stab at solving the problem with primes and not requiring class skills not everyone has, I imagine. I think in practice I don't use surprise very much; it's usually obvious when someone is springing a trap and the other party is not alert. I have a fondness for the AD&D surprise rules too, and have been considering using those instead.

[Lobo316]

So, is it the "right" thing to have the characters add thier level to those hide attempts (and the orcs to add thier HD to avoid surprise)? Seems reasonable.

I really like the smoothness of the system though, and even with the questions some of this brought up, it didn't slow down play a whole lot. We made a decsion, and moved on. Nice and neat.

[ThrorII]

I don't have my book with me right now, and I admit some idiosyncracies have crept in to our game, but here is how I would handle it:

1. The Ranger and Thief would both make a Hide/Conceal check (d20 +level +ability modifier) against the Challenge Class (12/18 +opponent HD), most likely a CC of 13 (12+1). A successful checkk means the orcs have NO Chance of noticing the two. A blown check means the orcs have a chance to notice them.

2. If the orcs get a chance (if either the Ranger or Thief blow their check, or they wait until the orcs are engaged by the others--in which case the orcs may notice the others first), the orcs will get a chance to become aware of the ambush.

The orcs would get a 'spot' check (d20+1 [HD]) vs. the Challenge Base is 18 (mental-nonprime) + the Challenge Level.

The Challenge level would be the lowest dex modier for the fighter, cleric, etc (since they have no inherent hiding abilities they don't add their level). The CL would for the Thief and/or Ranger would be their level+dex mod (whose ever is lower or relevant, in the case of a blown roll).

Thats how I'd rule it.

[Lord Crimson]

So, is it the "right" thing to have the characters add thier level to those hide attempts (and the orcs to add thier HD to avoid surprise)? Seems reasonable.

I really like the smoothness of the system though, and even with the questions some of this brought up, it didn't slow down play a whole lot. We made a decsion, and moved on. Nice and neat.

I wouldn't give the NPCs (the orcs, in this case) a roll.

The PCs would roll their hide roll vs. the Orcs' HD (1) plus any other modifiers I thought appropriate.

If the PCs succeed, they get auto-surprise or a boost on the surprise roll. If they don't, either the Orcs see them or they just don't get a bonus on surprise.

The Orcs don't get a spot roll if you do things this way. They've already contributed to the difficulty with their HD.

I prefer to eliminate a lot of Opposed Rolls in C&C and rule in favor of the PCs making whatever roll that decides success or failure. So PCs would make the Hide roll when they're hiding and they'd make the Spot roll when being ambushed, but the NPCs/Monsters roll very rarely.

[Lobo316]

Appreciate the replies and the insight gang

[Sir Ironside]

If I recall (Of another thread on here) if the circumstances need a hide roll, then you announce the roll.

Your opponent is actively searching, then you roll an opposed check.

There for...

1. You can forgo any kind of check if the situation is such one that none is needed.
2. The situation only involves a hide check.
3. The situation requires both a hide check and a opposed (spot) check.

All the CK needs to do is decide which one of the three most suits the situation as it presents itself.

[Lobo316]

So, I find myself liking Thror's and Lord Crimson's suggestions, and sir Ironsides as well.

So, I'm kind of looking at hiding like the rangers setting traps. I mean, if you are searching a dungeon corridor for straps, the EL is the level of the thief who set the trap. So, could do something where the players hide "automatically" and the orcs need to roll a d20+level of the thief/ranger to see if they are able to spot them (or a snare or trap, etc, set by the players).

Isn't that how it would work if the characters were trying to spot an orc ranger type (CC = orc Wis (12 or 18) + HD of the orc? (Of course, if I go with LC's way, it's always the players who make the rolls).

I'm also fond of the player rolling to hide (or setting traps, snares, etc) and giving them a bonus on their CL depending upon success. The more I think about it, I don't need to give the players a bonus for being a rouge or a ranger as the fact that hiding IS a class ability, it's already built into the formula (a fighter would havea base of 18, for example and not be able to add level), so really no need to add a bonus based on class...that's already taken into account.

What I am also fond of, is giving the player a bonus based on how well they make thier roll by, though I think a +2 for every 5 points of success may need to be adjusted.

[Omote]

There are no real "opposed checks" in C&C. You use the oppoenet's HD as the Challange Level (CL).

In this case, the rogue and the ranger move into position to hide again. The PCs have to make a hide check (dexterity) for the rogue, and a concealment check (dexterity) for the ranger.

In your example, the orcs already rolled to check for surprise. You need to only check for surprise at the beginning of the battle. There is no need for further surprise checks even though multiple surprise checks are not implicitly forbidden.

When the rogue and the ranger move around some terrain to try to hide during combat, they are the ones that need to make the Hide/Conceal (dexterity) checks once this process begins. The surprise round is over.

~O

[Lobo316]

There are no real "opposed checks" in C&C. You use the oppoenet's HD as the Challange Level (CL).

In this case, the rogue and the ranger move into position to hide again. The PCs have to make a hide check (dexterity) for the rogue, and a concealment check (dexterity) for the ranger.

In your example, the orcs already rolled to check for surprise. You need to only check for surprise at the beginning of the battle. There is no need for further surprise checks even though multiple surprise checks are not implicitly forbidden.

When the rogue and the ranger move around some terrain to try to hide during combat, they are the ones that need to make the Hide/Conceal (dexterity) checks once this process begins. The surprise round is over.

~O

Thanks for the input Omote. Note, there wasn't two surprise checks, just the one. I think it's gotten a little confusing in the discussion, but the questions are more on the mechanics.

From what you (and others) appear to be getting at, the philosophy here is more on the players rolling, then the monsters (exceptions are expected). So, in this example, the ranger/rouge would roll thier hide/conceal checks with a CC of 13 (prime+HD of the monsters). Is that about right? Do the monsters in this example, not get a chance to "spot" the hidden threat? Now, again as I said, there are exceptions...if the orcs are alert and moving slowing and activley looking for a threat, sure give 'em a wis chance to spot the threat.

But what if the orcs are a mile away and the ranger and rogue move into postion and wait?

Is there supposed to be a roll? If so, what's the CC? Same for a ranger setting a snare...is the snare automatically a CL of 1 (set by a level one ranger) or is there a roll to make it "better" or more effective (like my example of giving a +1 or 2 for every 5 points you make your check ny, in this case, set traps for the ranger)?

I know I'm tossing a lot of variables about, but that's kinda the point, I learn a little more insite about running the game, the more I read everyones input.

[Sir Ironside]

From what you (and others) appear to be getting at, the philosophy here is more on the players rolling, then the monsters (exceptions are expected). So, in this example, the ranger/rouge would roll thier hide/conceal checks with a CC of 13 (prime+HD of the monsters). Is that about right? Do the monsters in this example, not get a chance to "spot" the hidden threat?

My take is the characters only need to roll. The monsters are not actively looking, so the one roll does it all.

Now, again as I said, there are exceptions...if the orcs are alert and moving slowing and activley looking for a threat, sure give 'em a wis chance to spot the threat.

I would.

But what if the orcs are a mile away and the ranger and rogue move into postion and wait?

No check is needed, at all, for either side.

I know I'm tossing a lot of variables about, but that's kinda the point, I learn a little more insite about running the game, the more I read everyones input.

Sometimes over-thinking a rule does more harm in the long run. C&C is very fluid to what you want to do. The above is what I'd do, but not everyone would do what I'd do.

[Lord Dynel]

I'm cross-posting my reply from the other thread on surprise, since I think it's appropriate.

I too have an issue with surprise - something everyone should have (more or less) equal footing on (with a few exceptions) that shouldn't be tied to a specific attribute. I say that last part half-heartedly, because part of me feels that wisdom should play a part, but I'm not sold on the prime/non-prime aspect of it. It does, indeed, make things like clerics being always better at surprising than others, which makes little sense to me.

To remedy this, I've adopted the 2nd Edition AD&D rules for surprise. It's a d10 based roll, and surprise occurs on a 1-3 (excpet for rangers, which is 1-2), and one or both sides roll, depending on who is going to be surprised. There are modifiers for both sides, too, depending on conditions. I don't know if you're familiar with these rules or not but they might be worth looking into. I use them now and they work fantastically but your milage may vary. To me, it takes care of the issues I had with tying surprise to the SIEGE system.

[DrRotwang]

I just use the surprise rules from an old D&D set -- each side rolls a d6. 1-2 means that side is surprised.

It's a thing I love about C&C...it doesn't get jealous when I have other games' rules drop by.

[Arduin]

But what if the orcs are a mile away and the ranger and rogue move into postion and wait?

They roll their hide check. At this point if successful I'd give them surprise if check was successful. Like an ambush.