Adventurers Backpack question on classes

[8bitjunkie]

I like the new boxed set...worth it!

In the classes section, for each class the abilities listed don't have the associated attribute like presented in the Player's Handbook. e.g. disguise (charisma)
I can figure out some of them, on some I am just guessing. Does anyone know what they may be? I don't belong to the society so I am hoping that maybe it was discussed or beta tested there.
I will just make them up for now.

[Treebore]

I like the new boxed set...worth it!

In the classes section, for each class the abilities listed don't have the associated attribute like presented in the Player's Handbook. e.g. disguise (charisma)
I can figure out some of them, on some I am just guessing. Does anyone know what they may be? I don't belong to the society so I am hoping that maybe it was discussed or beta tested there.
I will just make them up for now.

Beta testing? Whats that? Trolls don't need no stinking "Beta testing"!

[Treebore]

Seriously, though, your going to have to make your own determinations until the final Adventurers Backpack comes out, and even then I have no doubt there will be "issues".

[8bitjunkie]

Hah true, just was hoping there was a society preview or something.

The only one I am struggling with really is the Thief class. The description talks about intelligence, etc but then the class prime attribute is Wisdom. Some of the abilities are obviously dex, I am guessing the main one "Case" is wisdom...after that hmm not so sure. Not a big deal, easy to just make a ruling for now.

[serleran]

It does not sound anything unlike the existing PHB so if you have that, the same guidelines apply.

[Troll Lord]

I like the new boxed set...worth it!

In the classes section, for each class the abilities listed don't have the associated attribute like presented in the Player's Handbook. e.g. disguise (charisma)
I can figure out some of them, on some I am just guessing. Does anyone know what they may be? I don't belong to the society so I am hoping that maybe it was discussed or beta tested there.
I will just make them up for now.

Actually, that's how the whole book will be set up. Any ability that is not listed is the classes' primary attribute, unless you, as the CK, want to set one for game play. So the Thief is skilled in all his abilities with his Wisdom. Sometimes these will not line up with what we might perceive it to be, which is intentional, as it reflects that classes' skill at that ability.

Does that make sense?

Steve

[Treebore]

I like the new boxed set...worth it!

In the classes section, for each class the abilities listed don't have the associated attribute like presented in the Player's Handbook. e.g. disguise (charisma)
I can figure out some of them, on some I am just guessing. Does anyone know what they may be? I don't belong to the society so I am hoping that maybe it was discussed or beta tested there.
I will just make them up for now.

Actually, that's how the whole book will be set up. Any ability that is not listed is the classes' primary attribute, unless you, as the CK, want to set one for game play. So the Thief is skilled in all his abilities with his Wisdom. Sometimes these will not line up with what we might perceive it to be, which is intentional, as it reflects that classes' skill at that ability.

Does that make sense?

Steve

Does to me, especially since I treat all class abilities of every class as if they are "Prime", so this will be essentially a step in that direction.

[8bitjunkie]

Makes sense and sounds good to me...but looking at my sixth edition phb, the example I used above is from the rogue. e.g. Disguise (Charisma) or rogue Listen (Wisdom). Which, is not the prime attribute of rogue (which is dexterity). Guess I was expecting the same logic and layout. I will go with all thief class abilities as Wisdom...like Treebore mentions above it makes it easier during play.

[tylermo]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but why not change this in the phb as well?

[Arduin]

but why not change this in the phb as well?

Because it helps wipe out the main reason to play a human PC..

[tylermo]

True dat. Duh.

[Rigon]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but why not change this in the phb as well?

This was brought up by Steve last year in another thread. And, for me, it would fundamentally change C&C so much as to be a new edition. It would remove the variety inherent in the classes now. By having all class skills associated with one attribute, it would greatly reduce the chance for a character to fail at a class skill.

R-

[tylermo]

Yeah. I remember that thread now. It probably would. Like I said, I'm not sure if I was crazy about the idea. Probably best to largely leave it as is. I do remember talking to one of my Troll buddies at Midsouth Con, and we had a discussion about whether or not the ranger's class prime should be something other than strength. Of course, that has nothing to do with the Adventurers Backpack.

[Treebore]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but why not change this in the phb as well?

This was brought up by Steve last year in another thread. And, for me, it would fundamentally change C&C so much as to be a new edition. It would remove the variety inherent in the classes now. By having all class skills associated with one attribute, it would greatly reduce the chance for a character to fail at a class skill.

R-

I've never felt that way, and I have treated Class Skills as "Prime" since practically day one. Since I went for the 1E AD&D "Iconic" class feel. Just like in 1E AD&D, its the personalities of the characters that differentiate them, despite all having the same degree of training and skill. Just like in real life, just because everyone receives the same level of training, and mandatory proficiency within those areas, doesn't make the workers all clones of each other.

So while I agree my House Rules make my C&C games far superior to the simple core ( ), I don't think it shifts it enough to be considered a new "edition". After all, such tinkering with the rules is inherent to C&C, and has been since its very beginning.

[Troll Lord]

We didn't change it in the PH, nor will we, because it is a fundamental rules change. And that we won't do.

The Adventurer's Backpack is a whole new animal. As will the Players Guide to Aihrde (which has the racial classes in it).

Thanks!
Steve

[mbeacom]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but why not change this in the phb as well?

This was brought up by Steve last year in another thread. And, for me, it would fundamentally change C&C so much as to be a new edition. It would remove the variety inherent in the classes now. By having all class skills associated with one attribute, it would greatly reduce the chance for a character to fail at a class skill.

R-

And, it feels incredibly boring and lazy. LIke pushing the "easy" button. Maybe good for newbies learning the game I suppose, but I find characters are much more interesting and deep when there are meaningful choices to be made in what they are good at within the class. If every class skill was auto-prime, one of the reasons C&C is so good would cease to exist. It would absolutely be a fundamental rule change.

[Rigon]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but why not change this in the phb as well?

This was brought up by Steve last year in another thread. And, for me, it would fundamentally change C&C so much as to be a new edition. It would remove the variety inherent in the classes now. By having all class skills associated with one attribute, it would greatly reduce the chance for a character to fail at a class skill.

R-

And, it feels incredibly boring and lazy. LIke pushing the "easy" button. Maybe good for newbies learning the game I suppose, but I find characters are much more interesting and deep when there are meaningful choices to be made in what they are good at within the class. If every class skill was auto-prime, one of the reasons C&C is so good would cease to exist. It would absolutely be a fundamental rule change.

That's my thoughts as well. But since this isn't going to happen (looking at you Steve ). As for how Tree does it, he allows all class skills to act as if they were Prime, but based off of the existing Attribute for the skill. The way I understand how Steve would do it, is all class skills would operate under the class' required Prime. Thus taking away the inherent variation of the classes.

R-

[serleran]

We didn't change it in the PH, nor will we, because it is a fundamental rules change. And that we won't do.

The Adventurer's Backpack is a whole new animal. As will the Players Guide to Aihrde (which has the racial classes in it).

Thanks!
Steve

Which races?

[Arduin]

We didn't change it in the PH, nor will we, because it is a fundamental rules change. And that we won't do.

The Adventurer's Backpack is a whole new animal. As will the Players Guide to Aihrde (which has the racial classes in it).

Thanks!
Steve

Which races?

Hottentots for one. My favorite!

[serleran]

Hoping to see a race of Hussar. I mean, something need to explain the contents of the equipment lists.

Maybe a walrus race, the Rhuveinae?

[Rigon]

Maybe a walrus race, the Rhuveinae?

I'd definitely play one of those.

R-

[Arduin]

Hoping to see a race of Hussar.

Heavy or light Hussars?

[serleran]

Hoping to see a race of Hussar.

Heavy or light Hussars?

They should probably have a weight range.

[Treebore]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but why not change this in the phb as well?

This was brought up by Steve last year in another thread. And, for me, it would fundamentally change C&C so much as to be a new edition. It would remove the variety inherent in the classes now. By having all class skills associated with one attribute, it would greatly reduce the chance for a character to fail at a class skill.

R-

And, it feels incredibly boring and lazy. LIke pushing the "easy" button. Maybe good for newbies learning the game I suppose, but I find characters are much more interesting and deep when there are meaningful choices to be made in what they are good at within the class. If every class skill was auto-prime, one of the reasons C&C is so good would cease to exist. It would absolutely be a fundamental rule change.

That's my thoughts as well. But since this isn't going to happen (looking at you Steve ). As for how Tree does it, he allows all class skills to act as if they were Prime, but based off of the existing Attribute for the skill. The way I understand how Steve would do it, is all class skills would operate under the class' required Prime. Thus taking away the inherent variation of the classes.

R-

Since all Class Skills are Prime in my game, regardless of the attribute itself being a prime, the effect of the boxed set rule, all Class Skills being under the required Prime, it is effectively the exact same thing.

All this boxed set rule does is say, "Everyone within a given class achieves the same degree of competence within their areas of required training." Which is exactly the same result my House Rules achieves. Which is effectively the exact same affect the 1E AD&D classes had. You guys have been having lots of fun in my game for many years now. Everyone had fun playing way back in the 1E AD&D days, so this optional rule won't ruin anyone's fun either.

[mbeacom]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but why not change this in the phb as well?

This was brought up by Steve last year in another thread. And, for me, it would fundamentally change C&C so much as to be a new edition. It would remove the variety inherent in the classes now. By having all class skills associated with one attribute, it would greatly reduce the chance for a character to fail at a class skill.

R-

And, it feels incredibly boring and lazy. LIke pushing the "easy" button. Maybe good for newbies learning the game I suppose, but I find characters are much more interesting and deep when there are meaningful choices to be made in what they are good at within the class. If every class skill was auto-prime, one of the reasons C&C is so good would cease to exist. It would absolutely be a fundamental rule change.

That's my thoughts as well. But since this isn't going to happen (looking at you Steve ). As for how Tree does it, he allows all class skills to act as if they were Prime, but based off of the existing Attribute for the skill. The way I understand how Steve would do it, is all class skills would operate under the class' required Prime. Thus taking away the inherent variation of the classes.

R-

Since all Class Skills are Prime in my game, regardless of the attribute itself being a prime, the effect of the boxed set rule, all Class Skills being under the required Prime, it is effectively the exact same thing.

All this boxed set rule does is say, "Everyone within a given class achieves the same degree of competence within their areas of required training." Which is exactly the same result my House Rules achieves. Which is effectively the exact same affect the 1E AD&D classes had. You guys have been having lots of fun in my game for many years now. Everyone had fun playing way back in the 1E AD&D days, so this optional rule won't ruin anyone's fun either.

AD&D will always hold a special place in my heart, but not because all the thieves had the same skill levels. That was a weakness that C&C overcame. I see no reason to regress on it. But that brings up a question as to this optional rule. Because there seems to be a subtle variation. Here's an example.

A. Option Rule treats all class skills as prime.
B. Optional Rule uses Class Prime stat for all Class Skills

In A. You would still make an INT check for Decipher Script. But in this case, it would be considered prime. If your INT is 10 and prime that would be a very different situation that if

In B. Your Decipher Script uses your prime stat DEX which is perhaps 15 or 16.

Both would add level and be prime but the skill modifiers would be different.

I'm curious which is what C&C is doing for their optional rule?

I'm personally not a fan of either since what is already there works so well and improves greatly on the lack of variety within AD&D classes, but I'm curious which it is we're talking about so I can be clear. Thanks!

[alcyone]

[
I'm curious which is what C&C is doing for their optional rule?

I'm personally not a fan of either since what is already there works so well and improves greatly on the lack of variety within AD&D classes, but I'm curious which it is we're talking about so I can be clear. Thanks!

I don't know what is in Adventurer's Backpack because I haven't seen it.

The aforementioned thread ended up talking about two different things, one was making a distinction between Prime (that every class has) and Primary (the ones you choose.) The other bit was Steve talking about what Mac suggested which was that all of a class's special abilities would use the Prime for that class. So last we heard that was what Steve and Mac were thinking. Plus Steve's post in this thread that says the same thing. Not sure what you mean by C&C's optional rule, but if it had one I guess this would be it.

Treebore's house rules have the other one; temporarily upgrade a class ability to a primary, if you will, for the duration of the use of a class ability.

If you go with Steve/Mac's way you have to fight your mental aversion to deciphering script with dexterity. If you go with Tree's way you don't have that issue. Steve/Mac's way also increases the importance of making your Prime have your highest score, which is what most people will do anyway, but I don't always.

I personally think Tree's way makes more sense but I don't use it in my games because I think it is important for players to constantly doubt the choices they made when they rolled up their character, and regret them every time they fail, because, well, it cheers me up.

This is all really to help whiny rangers, who just should probably have a different Prime.

[Arduin]

This is all really to help whiny rangers, who just should probably have a different Prime.

Yup. Theirs should be Wis.

[mbeacom]

This is all really to help whiny rangers, who just should probably have a different Prime.

Yup. Theirs should be Wis.

I've no problem with Rangers being STR prime, but let's concede that it should be WIS for the sake of discussion. Wouldn't it be far more simple just to change their prime, rather than a fundamental tenet of the game. I would consider changing one classes prime to be much less significant change than altering the rules such that all class skills are always prime. One change touches but one class and the other changes the entire system wide relationship of race to class when it comes to the choice of primes.

These are the kind of changes that over time lead to power creep and a dull ruleset, where whiney players simply get what they want without regard for how it impacts the overall experience. This is why modern D&D no longer has real spell interruption (and if you are interrupted, you don't lose the spell) and HP is renewed fully on a nightly basis. Because to not have such things is a bummer and makes some vocal people sad. Same goes for save or die and level drain effects.

One sorely egregious example of this kind of game design is Sculpt Spell in 5E. It only exists because people get sad that their fireballs might sometimes hurt their friends. But that's part of what makes fireball fireball. There's a potential downside, a potential risk. Fireball ceases to be this amazing razors edge when you can just arbitrarily choose who it misses. Same goes, IMO, for just flipping the prime switch just because some gamers think it sucks to not always be prime for every skill (ie easy button). I think it is precisely that you have to make choices about which prime to choose (and thus which abilities to excel at) that makes C&C so powerful. Meaningful choices. Take that away and you lose alot. Will the game still be fun? Sure. Will a good DM still be able to give a great experience? Absolutely. But a good DM can make even a lousy rule work if they know what they're doing. I ran more than one multi year 4E campaign and everyone had a blast, but that doesn't mean I'd use a lot of those rules if I didn't have to.

[lobocastle]

There is a lot of interesting discussion going on about this topic. As a house rule, I let the player choose the primes regardless of class. If a player wants to be a human fighter with intelligence, wisdom, and charisma as primes; then I am all for it. I have used Treebores house rule on this issue in the past and it went well.

JLL

[Rigon]

There is a lot of interesting discussion going on about this topic. As a house rule, I let the player choose the primes regardless of class. If a player wants to be a human fighter with intelligence, wisdom, and charisma as primes; then I am all for it. I have used Treebores house rule on this issue in the past and it went well.

JLL

That's the way I do it. It works well.

R-