Please share your SIEGE number variants

[Joe Mac]

After much crunching of numbers, I think I want to use 12/15 rather than 12/18, for two reasons:

1. 12/15 seems to duplicate AD&D save ranges, by level, more closely than 12/18, and

2. Although I realize that common sense must be applied -- that a 3 prime should never be able to perform as well as an 18 secondary -- it rankles me that I might sometimes need to override the rules for the fundamental system of the game. I tend to fall squarely in the middle of the nature/nurture argument, so I can see a character with average ability (9-12), and lots of training/practice, perform as well as an 18 secondary -- but not a character with really pitiful ability to begin with.

I could (and indeed plan to) limit primes to a minimum 9, but I'm equally uncomfortable with a prime 9 outperforming a secondary 18 by a significant margin.

For me, the +3 difference for the prime, with 12/15, is enough of a distinction to make SIEGE meaningful, and I think 18 is arguably too draconian a challenge base, if one intends to replicate the feel of AD&D (I have a Word file with a whole bunch of tables that led me to this conclusion, and will gladly e-mail it to anyone interested).

So that's where my thinking stands on the matter at this moment, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I'm hoping to keep the scope of this thread fairly narrow: assuming you use the primary/secondary SIEGE paradigm, what two numbers do you use? If you diverge from 12/18, what's your thinking behind it? I've seen a few folks argue for 10/15...what are your numbers?

Thanks.

[Fizz]

When i first read C&C, i too was worried that this difference of 6 was too high. But i've come to think otherwise.

Iirc, a difference of 6 was chosen because that is the closest integer value to one standard deviation of a d20. So there is a statistical reason for it.

However, if you think an CB of 18 is too harsh, maybe instead of lowering it, you could lower both values. Maybe to 10/16?

Another option (which i've half-considered) is to change the ability score modifiers to be more like d20. That way an attribute 18 non-prime is still better than a non-prime score of 3, but keeps primes very important.

Though you might want to try it with the baseline values first before you decide. I'm sure others here will share their experiences which are certainly broader than my own.

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

There's a few folks that do the 12/15/18 method.

12 for the class prime. 15 for the other primes, 18 for non primes. It gives a bit more of a spread while giving prominence to the main class abilities. It also does different things to saving throws. So bear that in mind when considering number shifts.

Ultimately, the base target number really doesnt matter as long as its consistent across the board. Various groups find different utility in different probabilties. It depends on what sort of game you want.

There aren't really any wrong answers as long as it works for you.^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Maliki]

I use 12/15 in my current campaign, I used the standard 12/18 in my first campaign and in a campaign as a palyer we used 10/15, all seemed to work just fine. It all depends on how difficult you want to make things for the players.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[serleran]

I use my original idea for it. Can't share it publically, as its covered by the PHB and CKG NDA.

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
I use my original idea for it. Can't share it publically, as its covered by the PHB and CKG NDA.

Then hurry up and release the thing man!
-Fizz

[serleran]

Wish I could, to be honest, but releases, their contents, and their prices (and all other aspects, except what I am specifically responsible for writing) are beyond my scope and duties, and even then, what I am responsible for gets edited. Someone needs to fence-smack Davis.

[Julian Grimm]

gideon_thorne wrote:
There's a few folks that do the 12/15/18 method.

12 for the class prime. 15 for the other primes, 18 for non primes. It gives a bit more of a spread while giving prominence to the main class abilities. It also does different things to saving throws. So bear that in mind when considering number shifts.

Ultimately, the base target number really doesnt matter as long as its consistent across the board. Various groups find different utility in different probabilties. It depends on what sort of game you want.

There aren't really any wrong answers as long as it works for you.^_^

I like this as a varient over the others. I may have to test it out but it looks solid.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Omote]

I've read everbody's arguments over the years, and considered and weighed the different possibilities and still can't figure exactly why so many people want to change the BTB mechanics? I've played though them many times now and don't see a real problem with this.

If the check becomes too difficult, then the player probably should have managed his character creation process better. OR, the CK could always impose a simple -X modifier to the CL.

However, as Maliki so well put, "as long as it's consistant."

.........................................Omote

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

[Treebore]

The difference of 6 has definitely seemed ideal for our 10th level game. I like 10th level characters that still sweat saves because its non Prime. They sweat the Prime saves, but they know they have a good chance. That difference of 6 makes them scared, and very happy when they make it.

Like Gideon and others have said, consistancy is the most critical, so everything should fall into place well enough, and you can always change things down the road.

[Omote]

While I've never played or run a C&C game of high level, it's nice to hear a first-hand account of how the mechanics play out. If a 10th level PC still is not uber-proficient in every check they make, then I think the game designers have done thier job. Regardless of level, not every type of check should be made with ease. And that works for me.

Just my opinion.

.......................................Omote

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

[pineappleleader]

serleran wrote:
I use my original idea for it. Can't share it publically, as its covered by the PHB and CKG NDA.

Is it going to be in the CKG as a variant method?
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

[pineappleleader]

Someone else came up with the idea of using 18 as the target for every save and adding +6 to Prime saves. As was pointed out this makes Opposed Roles very easy to figure out who rolled better, and doesn't change the save mechanic at all. (I wish I could remember whose idea this is. ).

IIRC:

Saves add Level and are Attribute Checks.

Attribute Checks=1d20+Mod+Level>=CC

CC= CB+CL

CB=12 or 18

CL=CK picks a number btw 1 and 16+

TASK CL

Easy 1-5

Difficult 6-10

Very Difficult 11-15

Heroic 16+

In C&C 1 on a d20 does not = automatic failure.

An easy Prime save would then be 12+5=17. An easy Non-Prime save would be 18+5=23. The best Mod that a PC can have is +3.

Easy Prime saves become automatic (best case) at level 1 4.

Easy Non-Prime saves become automatic (best case) at level 20.

This does not seem like a broken system to me. If automatic saves bother you make a roll of 1 on a d20 = automatic failure.

IMHO the basic mechanic seems to work fine as is.
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

[serleran]

Quote:
Is it going to be in the CKG as a variant method?

As a rumor, yes, I've heard that. I'm not sure, to be honest. But, because it was going to be the "official way" for most the develop process of C&C, I still cannot just up and tell the world. The Trolls own it. I don't. I would love to see it in the CKG though.

[Joe Mac]

Thanks for all the replies, guys. I was about to post some of my AD&D save analysis that led to my 12/15 conclusion, but then I thought of another wrinkle I could -- and should -- apply to this analysis. I'm off to the DMG, and will report back when I've baked this idea more thoroughly.

I agree, the numbers used all depend on the tone we're seeking for our own C&C game -- for me, that's the feel of AD&D, simply enough. One of the beauties of SIEGE is the ability to turn the "grit dial" to whatever setting you like...

[Joe Mac]

serleran wrote:
As a rumor, yes, I've heard that. I'm not sure, to be honest. But, because it was going to be the "official way" for most the develop process of C&C, I still cannot just up and tell the world. The Trolls own it. I don't. I would love to see it in the CKG though.

Serl, is that the "Target 20" I've seen mentioned? If not, is Target 20 covered by the NDA, or can someone clue me in on it..?

[serleran]

Quote:
Serl, is that the "Target 20" I've seen mentioned?

That was its name in the beginning, yes. It is covered by the NDA. Though, I think we can discuss the "rule of 6."

[csperkins1970]

Based on the various editions of D&D and AD&D that I've played, I thought that a base of 15 would work for ability checks.

Primes add +5 to these checks.

Half-elves, due to their human ancestry, are allowed to choose a third ability score with which they gain a +2 bonus to all ability checks.

[Jason Vey]

pineappleleader wrote:
Someone else came up with the idea of using 18 as the target for every save and adding +6 to Prime saves. As was pointed out this makes Opposed Roles very easy to figure out who rolled better, and doesn't change the save mechanic at all. (I wish I could remember whose idea this is. ).

I use 15 as the target for every roll, with Primes granting a +5. So far it's worked out well.

[irda ranger]

Joe Mac wrote:
After much crunching of numbers, I think I want to use 12/15 rather than 12/18, for two reasons:

1. 12/15 seems to duplicate AD&D save ranges, by level, more closely than 12/18,

There's more to Primes than Saves. EVERYTHING you do in C&C which "isn't Bth-based" is a SIEGE check which uses Primes. Swinging from a chandelier? Dex check. Soothing riotous crowd of angry peasants? A Chr check. Etc. Etc. Something to keep in mind.

Joe Mac wrote:
2. Although I realize that common sense must be applied -- that a 3 prime should never be able to perform as well as an 18 secondary -- it rankles me that I might sometimes need to override the rules for the fundamental system of the game. I tend to fall squarely in the middle of the nature/nurture argument, so I can see a character with average ability (9-12), and lots of training/practice, perform as well as an 18 secondary -- but not a character with really pitiful ability to begin with.

I know where you're coming from, but I dont mess with the Primes to fix this. IMC some things are Stat-limited (such as encumbrance), and some checks are just a straight d20+Stat Mod (no Prime, no Level).

Now, despite what I just said above, there's a difference between a bench-press and a sword fight. They both depend on strength, but there is such a modicum of skill involved in fencing that even a moderately trained fencer will whoop someone who has no training at all (regardless of their relative strengths). Same goes for chess, and (IMHO) making saving throws. There is no substitute for training.

To make the nurture argument here (if it helps you): as far as I can tell, almost anyone can be trained to do almost anything. As just one example, more than 1/2 of professional soccer players in Europe are born during the first 3 months of the year. Do you know why? Because the cut-off date for children's leagues each year is Jan 1, and the kids born immediately afterwards were (while growing up) always just a little more mature and practiced than their peers, meaning they got more field time, more practice, and more coach attention. This very small difference (just 3-9 months older, but more opportunities because of it) pays increasing dividends each year, resulting in a difference in skill that seems like they were "just born that way." Well, they weren't. They were made. The same goes even for "geniuses" like Mozart, who had more practice time at the piano under his belt at age six than most (aspiring professional-type kids) had at 15.

Joe Mac wrote:
I could (and indeed plan to) limit primes to a minimum 9, but I'm equally uncomfortable with a prime 9 outperforming a secondary 18 by a significant margin.

I'm not. See above. There is much less difference between the "greatest" humans and the "worst" than you might thing. There was a fairly famous physicist during the mid-20th century named Richard Feynman. His IQ was measured at "only" 137, which is low by world-ranked physicist's standards. Some of his peers thought the IQ test was broken. Richard didn't. He admitted that a lot of his co-workers were smarter than he was generally, but that when it came to physics he just worked harder. His work on nanotechnology is still considered visionary.

Joe Mac wrote:
For me, the +3 difference for the prime, with 12/15, is enough of a distinction to make SIEGE meaningful

I think +3 is too narrow. I think there should be more than a 3 level difference between Prime and non-Prime. It makes the choice of Prime a lot less relevant, and smears the clear lines between PC's. A full standard deviations means that "Joe is the Dex guy, and Mike is the Str guy", and they always will be. For me, that's a plus. It gives everyone on the team a clear role.

Joe Mac wrote:
I think 18 is arguably too draconian a challenge base, if one intends to replicate the feel of AD&D.

Possibly. Three points though:

1. C&C is not AD&D; it's C&C. If you want to play AD&D that badly, maybe you just should play AD&D.

2. The CB for something the PC is good at is 12. That's not draconian. They only have to beat 18 when they are venturing outside their comfort zone. It makes sense to me that doing something you haven't really practiced or put must time into is harder than something where you have.

3. As someone who posted a while ago put it, I would make sure that you're not asking for rolls to resolve matters that can be handled with role-playing and common sense. In C&C, I think a roll should only be asked for when the PC is trying to "reach" for something beyond their grasp; when they're trying to do something heroic.

Joe Mac wrote:
So that's where my thinking stands on the matter at this moment, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I'm hoping to keep the scope of this thread fairly narrow: assuming you use the primary/secondary SIEGE paradigm, what two numbers do you use? If you diverge from 12/18, what's your thinking behind it? I've seen a few folks argue for 10/15...what are your numbers?

Thanks.

Just for simplicity, I set all CB's to 12, and modify for Prime with a +6 modifier on both sides of the roll (+6 to the CL if the opponent is Prime, and +6 to the roll if the PC is prime). I keep the full 6 point spread, but reach it by a different road.

I use this point spread because I think it is a big part of why C&C feels the way it does to me. It makes the PCs specialists, and everyone loves knowing they have role to play. Its not a grit dial, but a specialization dial. The bigger the point spread, the clearer the distinction between the PCs, and what each one is good at.

In a few situations these leads to some people getting screwed over, because (for example) everyone has to make the save versus the breath weapon, and the non-DEX (or CON, for gas) prime characters are in for trouble. That does happen. BUT, it doesnt happen nearly as often as something like: Uh oh, a room full of circular saws, flame throwers and pressure plates. Stiltskin, do your thing., and the gnome thief-acrobat happily tumbles through fire and spinning-steel death unscathed.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Joe Mac]

Irda, thanks for your thoughts, and for the most part, I don't disagree. Just a couple of responses:

Save numbers on a D20 were the best thing I could compare directly between AD&D and C&C, since AD&D uses a host of subsystems to resolve class abilities. Trying to compare chances of success on class abilities would be maddening, and somewhat pointless... I picked saves not only for ease of comparison, but because they often represent last-ditch, life & death matters. There's much more to the game than saves, of course, but when it comes down to saving against an attack from the ultimate beastie/bad guy in a classic AD&D module (played with C&C rules), I want the chances of success to be as similar as possible.

I do strongly disagree with the notion that there isn't much difference between the high and low range of human ability. My own experience and expertise is as a competitive strength athlete and a combat instructor (armed and unarmed) for a large police department. As an athlete, I'm pretty competitive on the state level, less than impressive on a regional level, and utterly worthless on a national level. No amount of training and hard work will change the fact that I'm simply bumping against the limits of my genetic potential -- and I'm very lucky, as it is, to have the potential I've got. I'm thankful for it, and I don't believe I've reached my limits -- but after 20+ years of training, I know I'm never going to be astride a podium next to a guy named "Magnus".

As an instructor, I work with people with wide ranges of potential. All have room for great improvement, with lots of hard work -- but some will hit the wall of their inherent limitations much, much sooner than others. Fighting is a good example: trained skill can only make up for so much of a discrepancy in size and strength, hollywood and martial arts fantasies notwithstanding. I've seen a couple of 150-pound cops who are extremely skilled fighters (competitive in mixed-martial arts, in fact) get their clocks cleaned on the street by 230+ pound crackheads with prison physiques, bad attitudes, and no fighting skill to speak of. There's only so much you can compensate for with training...

I'm not sure what to make of your examples on the subject. An IQ of 137 represents 1 person in 147 on a 15 SD test, or 1 person in 96 on a 16 SD test. Either way, he has a 17 Int prime, which should be sufficient for whatever he wants to do with his brain!

As for the football pros, I've no doubt that they had both every coaching advantage in youth leagues, AND a boatload of genetic potential.

I think everyone has the potential to be very good at something, but not everyone has the potential to be good at anything. To perform at very high levels, you need plenty of 'nature' and 'nurture'...and that about sums up my thoughts on the subject. Thanks again.

[gideon_thorne]

Joe Mac wrote:
As an instructor, I work with people with wide ranges of potential. All have room for great improvement, with lots of hard work -- but some will hit the wall of their inherent limitations much, much sooner than others. Fighting is a good example: trained skill can only make up for so much of a discrepancy in size and strength, hollywood and martial arts fantasies notwithstanding. I've seen a couple of 150-pound cops who are extremely skilled fighters (competitive in mixed-martial arts, in fact) get their clocks cleaned on the street by 230+ pound crackheads with prison physiques, bad attitudes, and no fighting skill to speak of. There's only so much you can compensate for with training...

For this, you have attribute modifiers. Coupled with the prime/ non prime variance you have quite a wide range of potential.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Joe Mac]

gideon_thorne wrote:
For this, you have attribute modifiers. Coupled with the prime/ non prime variance you have quite a wide range of potential.

Yep, but having average natural ability outperform superior natural ability by a wide margin, based on training (prime), doesn't work for me. Average might keep up, or nudge slightly past -- a 4 point split perhaps -- but 6 points stretches my suspension of disbelief mechanism.
But then again: 1 in 216 just isn't that uncommon, and I use attributes beyond 18. Perhaps I can live with an average prime outperforming an 18 secondary, but not 19, 20, or more...

That burning smell is my brain considering the issue.

[citizen_drow]

Hello all, with much work I have coaxed my stubborn players to switch to C&C (from D&D 3.0/3.5) and now they (and I, the CK) love it. Anyways, SIEGE check/target numbers (house rules) I use: (16/ 14/12/10).

(16) Non Prime Attribute

(14) Prime Attribute

(14) Non Prime Class or Race Ability

(12) Prime Class Race or Ability

(10) Prime Class AND Race ability - see example

* My group sometimes get confused on when to add level to rolls, so NO Level are added to any rolls, INSTEAD ALL target/check difficulties LESSEN by 1 at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 13, 15, 17, and 19. Minimum target/check number is 2

* Example; A 1st level Elf Rogue Has Move Silently twice AND it is a rogue's prime therefore it starts at a base target/check number of 10

* PS: I dropped the enhanced senses and gave the elf the Listen ability

cheers

[Tadhg]

citizen_drow wrote:
Hello all, with much work I have coaxed my stubborn players to switch to C&C (from D&D 3.0/3.5) and now they (and I, the CK) love it. Anyways, SIEGE check/target numbers (house rules) I use: (16/ 14/12/10).

(

Fantastic!!

Welcome to the Crusade, citizen_drow!

Enjoy the game.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[irda ranger]

Quote:
Save numbers on a D20 were the best thing I could compare directly between AD&D and C&C, since AD&D uses a host of subsystems to resolve class abilities. Trying to compare chances of success on class abilities would be maddening

You know why the drunk looks for his keys under the street light, right?

Quote:
No amount of training and hard work will change the fact that I'm simply bumping against the limits of my genetic potential -- and I'm very lucky, as it is, to have the potential I've got.

...

All have room for great improvement, with lots of hard work -- but some will hit the wall of their inherent limitations much, much sooner than others.

...

I've seen a couple of 150-pound cops who are extremely skilled fighters (competitive in mixed-martial arts, in fact) get their clocks cleaned on the street by 230+ pound crackheads with prison physiques, bad attitudes, and no fighting skill to speak of. There's only so much you can compensate for with training...

You better fix level advancement then, too. The 6 (or 3) point spread from Primes pales in comparison to the 20 point spread from being 20th level vs. 1st.

Quote:
I think everyone has the potential to be very good at something, but not everyone has the potential to be good at anything.

I think this runs counter to your larger argument. The bigger the "Prime advantage", the better you are at "something" as opposed to "everything." Reducing the "Prime advantage" to 3 points makes everyone 50% closer to being "just as good as everyone else."

Quote:
and that about sums up my thoughts on the subject. Thanks again.

Me too. You're welcome.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Omote]

Welcome citizen_drow. You say your Crusade has already begun. That is the steel of a true adventurer. Best.

.....................................Omote

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

[Joe Mac]

irda ranger wrote:
You better fix level advancement then, too. The 6 (or 3) point spread from Primes pales in comparison to the 20 point spread from being 20th level vs. 1st.

Touche!
Actually, as one of the factors influencing success in an activity, I do value experience more highly than natural ability, training, or education.

On that note, my thoughts are still evolving on when I do and do not want to add level to a check. For example, on p. 110 of the C&C PHB, there are two examples of strength checks; this is where prime vs. secondary comes to the fore -- how well is the character able to use his brawn? I note that character level is added to these checks also, and the only good reason I can think of for doing so (it not being a class ability) is that these guys are Heroes -- and that may be reason enough. It is a game, after all.
I'm hijacking my own thread, here. Drow, thanks for that interesting variant! How much playing have you done with it, and how do you like it thus far?

[citizen_drow]

The variant is working great, thanks for asking. This Wednesday will be our third game using the C&C rules! I guess without adding levels it would seem more difficult to make successful rolls, so a tweak to this variant is to lessen the difficulty (check/target number) by 1 every even level for a faster progression (with a minimum difficulty check/TN of 2).

- Cheers

[gideon_thorne]

Quote:
I think everyone has the potential to be very good at something, but not everyone has the potential to be good at anything.

*smiles* The Jacks of All trades would disagree. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley