challenge levels

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:38 am

I'm sure this has been discussed over the years, but I'm relatively new around here, so I'd appreciate some feedback if you're so inclined. As I dig into new games, I tend to come across things that bug me a bit, and hearing from other gamers who are more experienced with the game helps alleviate my concerns.

It seems to me that the standard way of assigning a CL makes things too difficult. A 1st level PC (and let's assume no stat bonuses, just to get some baseline percentages) only has a 50% chance to succeed even with a prime, and only a 20% with a secondary attribute, and that's before assigning a CL. CLs of 1-5 are supposed to be "easy," 6-10 "difficult," and 11-15 "very difficult" (PHB 123). If that's right, then the PC has less than a 50% chance with a prime, and almost no chance with a secondary attribute, to succeed even at "easy" tasks. Yes, as the character advances in level, that helps, but then the CL will presumably increase as well, especially since the CL is often based on opposing characters / monsters, who will often have a similar level / HD as the player, pretty much negating the PC's level bonus - the PC will never really succeed any more often at a high level than a low level. It reminds me of video games that are a bit too aggressive at scaling.

I was looking at the StarSiege intro manual, and saw that it handles the CL a bit differently, giving these as baseline difficulties:

Easy -6
Average +0
Difficult +2
Staggering +6
Hopeless +12
Impossible +18

Frankly, this strikes me as better. It makes things a bit easier on the poor PC, especially as he levels. I also prefer thinking in these terms than using a monster's level. For example, I don't see why sneaking by a stupid giant should be difficulty just because it has lots of HD, or why sneaking past a guard dog should be difficult just because it has fewer HD. I'd rather just think about the whole situation, and then use my judgment to assess a CL using something like the StarSiege ratings.

Thoughts? Most of you are more experienced with the game than I am, so am I worrying for nothing? Does the usual way of doing things work out fine in practice, or do you find that PCs fail their checks a bit more than you'd like?

DeadReborn · Post by **DeadReborn** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:47 pm

IMHO, the system works great as written. I've seen PCs make saves that were tough and blow saves that were easy. I get excited along with the players when they make those tough saves and bummed when they miss them, so it has really added some excitement. Just like in life, there's no guarantee.

If you like the CLs from StartSiege, try them out. If they work for you and your group, great.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:35 pm

kreider, I can understand where you're coming from. I had some of the same concerns as you. I think a lot of it comes down to this:

kreider204 wrote: It makes things a bit easier on the poor PC, especially as he levels.

I hope not to come off like an ass or anything (it's so easy these days

) but I think that's a lot of the issue. I guess it comes down to how you view player characters in your game. With C&C, I like that they've turned away from "PCs as super heroes" view. Now, if that's they way you like to see the PCs in your game, that's cool, nothing wrong with that. Personally, I like the fact that the PCs aren't good at everything and, at any point, they may fail a check or a save - even at 10th or 12th level. I like that not every chack is automatic. I know the SS system isn't like that, exactly, but it does make it somewhat easier for the characters. I guess it's been years and years of 3.x (with a little PF at the end) that really has turned me off of the power scale those systems present. I love those systems, don't get me wrong, but I find the grittier, "PCs as normal folk who've taken up arms" approach a refreshing change of pace.

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:25 pm

Thanks for the feedback (so far - keep it coming!).

Just to clarify, I'm not very familiar with any version of D&D except 1st ed. AD&D (and the Holmes boxed set I had before that), so I hope it's not a matter of me simply making unfair comparisons. On the other hand, I do play / GM Savage Worlds a lot, and maybe that's spoiled me a bit.

I'm actually thinking of AD&D though, especially the thief. He would start with very low chances of success (for everything except climbing walls, as I recall), but then become objectively better as he leveled. With C&C, my concern is that increasing CLs might make it feel as though he's never really getting better.

But again, I'm still pretty inexperienced with this game - just a player so far, but hopefully CKing soon. This may be one of those things where the math looks a little funny but it works out in practice just fine - which it sounds as though it does for you guys, given the right expectations of character ability.

Thanks again! Anyone else?

Arduin · Post by **Arduin** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:34 pm

kreider204 wrote: I'm actually thinking of AD&D though, especially the thief. He would start with very low chances of success (for everything except climbing walls, as I recall), but then become objectively better as he leveled. With C&C, my concern is that increasing CLs might make it feel as though he's never really getting better.

Even in 1st Ed, the chance of a thief being noticed (picking a pocket, etc.), increased with the targets level... "The chance for success of any performance is based on the ability level of the thief performing it. This is modified with respect to picking pockets by the experience level of his or her victim"

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:43 pm

Good point, I forgot that. (It's been 25 years since I last played D&D - when did I get so old!

). That applied to picking pockets, hiding in shadows, and moving silently, yes? But not locks, traps, etc.?

Arduin · Post by **Arduin** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm

kreider204 wrote:Good point, I forgot that. (It's been 25 years since I last played D&D - when did I get so old! ). That applied to picking pockets, hiding in shadows, and moving silently, yes? But not locks, traps, etc.?

Correct. Although, DM's were free to make more difficult locks & traps. Also, there was 0% of finding/disabling magical traps. Unlike in C&C

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:44 pm

I don't have PCs make many rolls for easy tasks (skill related). Saving throws is another story. I always have PCs attempt a saving throw no matter the difficultly. Who says PCs have to make rolls everytime they want to do a easy task? If you play in the modern style of fantasy RPGs where the character has to make a die roll for almost everything they do, the RAW in C&C can make this play style pretty tough for the players.

The best way to do it is to try and avoid too many skill rolls.

Also, consider making skill rolls a "simple" check of a straight Siege roll with no CL modifier when necessary.

~O

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:06 pm

Omote wrote:I don't have PCs make many rolls for easy tasks (skill related). Saving throws is another story. I always have PCs attempt a saving throw no matter the difficultly.

Agreed. It speeds up play dramatically, over the course of the session, when you can tell your players, "sure, you can do that." And saves should always be rolled for, no matter how trivial it might be.

Omote wrote:Who says PCs have to make rolls everytime they want to do a easy task? If you play in the modern style of fantasy RPGs where the character has to make a die roll for almost everything they do, the RAW in C&C can make this play style pretty tough for the players.

Exactly. I always think of "ease of play" when thinking about this. But often I don't consider how many saves against, possibly, non-primes they would have to make. Even simple tasks would be difficult. I try to use common sense, even for those checks that are for a non-prime attribute. If the non-wisdom prime wizard wants to start a fire, I'd let him, without a check. Just after a rain, with a 20 mph wind? Yeah, probably not - that makes a CL come into play, and he better let the ranger or barbarian try...unless he wants to use magic, of course!

And this was pretty prevelant in older editions, too. Saving throws, after a while, in 1st and 2nd AD&D got to be routine (or easier) after 10th level or so.

The best way to do it is to try and avoid too many skill rolls.

Omote wrote:Also, consider making skill rolls a "simple" check of a straight Siege roll with no CL modifier when necessary.

This makes pretty good sense, too, and has helped me out many times.

DeadReborn · Post by **DeadReborn** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:10 pm

Another thing to give PCs an extra boost if needed is to give them situational modifiers. A simple +1 or +2 due to certain circumstances can mean the difference. I know this probably goes without saying, but just thought I'd mention it any way.

Also, I agree with Omote and Lord Dynel (which I find I do frequently

). Rolling dice should only come into play when there is a chance of failure. If it's something the player can easily overcome, no need for a check.

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:42 pm

Omote wrote:Also, consider making skill rolls a "simple" check of a straight Siege roll with no CL modifier when necessary.

I just started to realize the importance of this now. After playing 3e so much, I'm in the habit of always assigning a modifier for checks. Then I realized that the SIEGE roll is a lot like the old D&D saving throw where the difficulty is sort of already built into the target number.

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:50 pm

Frost wrote:
Omote wrote:Also, consider making skill rolls a "simple" check of a straight Siege roll with no CL modifier when necessary.
I just started to realize the importance of this now. After playing 3e so much, I'm in the habit of always assigning a modifier for checks. Then I realized that the SIEGE roll is a lot like the old D&D saving throw where the difficulty is sort of already built into the target number.

I agree with this - but then it seems more in line with StarSiege than with the PHB. According to the PHB, a CL of zero is easier than easy. For StarSiege, it's "average" - which seems like the sort of simple / straight siege check we're talking about.

I've also noticed that the CK's I've played with do this quite a bit - the CC (not CB, to be clear) is usually just 12 for prime, 18 for secondary, for basic tasks.

It's sounds like this all might be more a difference of terminology than practice ...

Arduin · Post by **Arduin** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:58 pm

kreider204 wrote: I've also noticed that the CK's I've played with do this quite a bit - the CC (not CB, to be clear) is usually just 12 for prime, 18 for secondary, for basic tasks.

Can you give an example of a basic task that you're seeing in the game?

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:32 pm

Over the summer, I was playing a thief in a Wilderlands C&C game that James Mishler was CKing. I'd say most of my class ability siege checks - listening at doors, checking for traps, etc. - were based on my Dex prime CB of 12. Of course, James may have been taking it easy on me because I was still fairly new to the game.

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:27 pm

We discussed something similar to this awhile back. A relayed a friend's comments from a Facebook discussion. He owns C&C 4th printing, but has only played 1 or 2 sessions. Here's the link

http://trolllord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11468

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:41 pm

I'll even throw in another Facebook discussion with my friend. He suggested a simpler way to play the game.

http://trolllord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11478

Arduin · Post by **Arduin** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:37 am

kreider204 wrote:Over the summer, I was playing a thief in a Wilderlands C&C game that James Mishler was CKing. I'd say most of my class ability siege checks - listening at doors, checking for traps, etc. - were based on my Dex prime CB of 12. Of course, James may have been taking it easy on me because I was still fairly new to the game.

Sounds pretty standard out of the book.

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:40 am

Arduin wrote:
kreider204 wrote:Over the summer, I was playing a thief in a Wilderlands C&C game that James Mishler was CKing. I'd say most of my class ability siege checks - listening at doors, checking for traps, etc. - were based on my Dex prime CB of 12. Of course, James may have been taking it easy on me because I was still fairly new to the game.
Sounds pretty standard out of the book.

I may not have been very clear. I meant the CC = my CB most of the time. There was no CL added to the CC most of the time, i.e., most rolls had a CL of 0.

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:41 am

tylermo wrote:We discussed something similar to this awhile back. A relayed a friend's comments from a Facebook discussion. He owns C&C 4th printing, but has only played 1 or 2 sessions. Here's the link

http://trolllord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11468

Thanks, Tyler - that was very interesting and helpful.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:58 am

kreider204 wrote:
Arduin wrote:
kreider204 wrote:Over the summer, I was playing a thief in a Wilderlands C&C game that James Mishler was CKing. I'd say most of my class ability siege checks - listening at doors, checking for traps, etc. - were based on my Dex prime CB of 12. Of course, James may have been taking it easy on me because I was still fairly new to the game.
Sounds pretty standard out of the book.
I may not have been very clear. I meant the CC = my CB most of the time. There was no CL added to the CC most of the time, i.e., most rolls had a CL of 0.

It might have been he was taking it easy on you, kreider, since you were new. It might be just the way he plays, or was he adding CLs to other people's checks? I've talked to at least one CK who believes the base numbers are tough enough as they are, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear of someone taking the next step.

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:37 am

Keep in mind, I'm very happy with C&C. I've only played some lower level characters and some 4th level pre-gens I use at con games. I can't speak to percentages of success when it comes to the siege engine, especial at higher levels. My friend has only played a few sessions, but did give the 4th printing a thorough read through. As for me and my house, we shall play C&C...and Savage Worlds. Or occasional sessions with oop classics or new games.

Arduin · Post by **Arduin** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:31 pm

kreider204 wrote:
Arduin wrote:
kreider204 wrote:Over the summer, I was playing a thief in a Wilderlands C&C game that James Mishler was CKing. I'd say most of my class ability siege checks - listening at doors, checking for traps, etc. - were based on my Dex prime CB of 12. Of course, James may have been taking it easy on me because I was still fairly new to the game.
Sounds pretty standard out of the book.
I may not have been very clear. I meant the CC = my CB most of the time. There was no CL added to the CC most of the time, i.e., most rolls had a CL of 0.

Oh, okay. I understand. Well, at 1st level most of the CL's would be in the 1 range anyway. That is only 5% harder than a CL of 0...

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:29 pm

Arduin wrote:
kreider204 wrote:
I may not have been very clear. I meant the CC = my CB most of the time. There was no CL added to the CC most of the time, i.e., most rolls had a CL of 0.
Oh, okay. I understand. Well, at 1st level most of the CL's would be in the 1 range anyway. That is only 5% harder than a CL of 0...

Indeed. James was probably just keeping things simple while I wrapped by head around the system.

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 pm

tylermo wrote:Keep in mind, I'm very happy with C&C. I've only played some lower level characters and some 4th level pre-gens I use at con games. I can't speak to percentages of success when it comes to the siege engine, especial at higher levels. My friend has only played a few sessions, but did give the 4th printing a thorough read through. As for me and my house, we shall play C&C...and Savage Worlds. Or occasional sessions with oop classics or new games.

I'm right there with you. SW and C&C are pretty much all I play these days. I'm definitely not unhappy with C&C, and I'm definitely not trying to troll here (although maybe trolling is a good thing on the TLG boards ...

). I'm mostly just thinking about making the move to CK, and have some questions and mild concerns about how to assign CLs, so the community input is much appreciated.

Arduin · Post by **Arduin** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:35 pm

kreider204 wrote: I'm mostly just thinking about making the move to CK, and have some questions and mild concerns about how to assign CLs, so the community input is much appreciated.

The CKG has an "under the hood" section of the Siege Engine. It really breaks down the mechanics (and what it means difficulty wise for PC's) so that the CK can really think with applying/creating CL's at all levels. A must read IMO...

kreider204 · Post by **kreider204** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:52 pm

Good stuff - thanks for the head's up!

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:20 pm

I know you're not trolling. One has to disclaimer everything in a forum, because things can always be misinterpreted. Or, people get hyper-sensitive. Anyway, you and I are cut of the same cloth. I need to do a more in depth reading of parts of the ckg. I've barely cracked the surface.

Lord Crimson · Post by **Lord Crimson** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:03 pm

kreider204 wrote:For example, I don't see why sneaking by a stupid giant should be difficulty just because it has lots of HD, or why sneaking past a guard dog should be difficult just because it has fewer HD. I'd rather just think about the whole situation, and then use my judgment to assess a CL using something like the StarSiege ratings.

While I don't disagree with this idea (it's fairly close to the idea I use when I'm determining the CL for most non-HD-based CLs, like traps and locks), keep in mind that StarSIEGE doesn't use a leveling system by default, which is why a different system was necessary.

This doesn't mean it's a bad system (like I said, it's similar to what I use), but it was designed to function in a level-less system. Whereas the default assumption in C&C (and most level-based systems for that matter) is that "things with higher levels/HD are tougher/better".

So by getting rid of the CL=HD arrangement you are further divorcing C&C from that default "level=power" assumption that tends to be a fairly significant part of the allure of level-based Fantasy RPGs. So, more of a thematic consideration rather than a mechanical one.

That said - it won't break anything to give it a try and see how you like it.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:40 am

I do not believe in negative or 0 challenges and do not use them. If something is "easy" I don't require a check unless it is not something you should not be doing, because you have no training or whatever.

redwullf · Post by **redwullf** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:53 pm

serleran wrote:I do not believe in negative or 0 challenges and do not use them. If something is "easy" I don't require a check unless it is not something you should not be doing, because you have no training or whatever.

+1

Agreed - why bother forcing rolls on "easy" or "typical/average" checks? The PC says their character does it, they do it. Move along.

Troll Lord Games

challenge levels

challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels

Re: challenge levels