SIEGE for the Common Man

[moriarty777]

First off, let me stress that I do like the current BTB implementation of the SIEGE mechanic. The only variation is using a +6 for prime-related checks as opposed to using two different bases (12 and 18).

Last night, while playing a mod which employed a number of animated statues amongst other statues that weren't (yet). The battle was on top of a large and tall building. Suffice to say that the players tried to be a bit creative here. One character tried to overbear/grapple his statuesque opponent in order to push it off the tall building. Easy enough... the rules for Grappling and Overbearing are nicely included in my new mint CK Screen! There was no size differential... and basically we're talking about an AC Base of 15 with no size modifiers and, in this case, no other modifiers.

Another Player figured out that the statues that weren't animated could be a threat and decided to push one off the building (where it would most likely break upon landing). The Challenge Base is 18 and decidedly harder to pull off.

Now at first there was some disagreement at why an attempt at overbearing might be easier than simply push something that is completely stationary but I managed to argue the point of center of balance differences between the two subjects (the moving statue in combat and the immobile one).

To make a long story short (which is probably too late at this point), the discussion drifted towards the SIEGE engine after the game and an interesting point was brought up -- The Common Man!

For all purposes consider him truly average... Stats are 10 across the board (thus no bonus and no penalty). Picture using him for a variety of SIEGE checks. One argument made is that easy or general checks don't need a roll ... and I accept that. But keeping in mind that many players coming to C&C are also coming from an environment that had a heavy emphasis on a lot of rolling... a roll for pretty much everything in fact. I try to break out of the habit myself but occasionally slip.

Would a typical commoner be able to pick a lock or move silently like a rogue? No of course not... a base of 12/18 makes PERFECT sense. The same goes with all the class skills.

However, when it comes to moving something heavy (like pushing a statue off a ledge), is a base of 18 too much? It certainly wouldn't be an automatic success. Does anyone have a general house rule lowering the base for General Skills and checks?

So fellow Crusaders, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this.

Many thanks,

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

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

[IanTheMoxious]

This isn't particularly SIEGE-like but in cases such as that I do an old fashioned stat check (roll D20, apply on the fly modifiers, if total is less than the stat then the check succeeded.) I would still use C&C stuff for the animated critters though.

[serleran]

Quote:
However, when it comes to moving something heavy (like pushing a statue off a ledge), is a base of 18 too much? It certainly wouldn't be an automatic success. Does anyone have a general house rule lowering the base for General Skills and checks?

This is covered by the rules. There is no check. You compare the PCs (or NPCs) military press which is 10 x Str score in pounds (a bit low, by the book) and get a value that compares directly to the weight of the object. For pure pushing, the amount should be doubled, or tripled (I'd go triple for Prime.) Lifting is straight, though, and with leverage, I'd give a multiplier.. say, a crowbar like object used would add a x2 multiple, so, for example, a PC with an 18 Str could crow-lift 360 pounds... which is pretty dang good.

For situations where a Strngth score is not obvious, 'cause its not listed (monsters, for example), I'd rule based on description, size, and the like... so, for example, a giant would have the equivalent of two that crow-lifting human at 18 Strength... and that's before leverage. Making some general charts displaying "average" wouldn't be too bad for that.

See, the problem is that incredibly awesome Strength check example, which flies against the nature of the SIEGE Engine. Its calling for a check when something else works better... and that something else is called "sense."

[Mythago]

I would agree with serleran's approach on this - you would only need to make some sort of check if perhaps you were trying to aim the falling statue on to some target below because that is where failure would be a possibility possibility - this could be a strength or dex check to 'aim'.

Alex D

[moriarty777]

Hmm... a few good points there. I had completely forgotten about the STRx10 ruling since, for all general purposes, it's just not something that's comes up much at all.

But yes, I try to employ that thing called 'common sense' often.

Had I thought of it, it would have been a lot better by simply having a Strength requirement to be able to move this thing (giving allowances for people to help). In other words, if this thing was 200 lbs ... it would take a total of 20 Str to push it off.

Simple and elegant... like the game is meant to be.

However, just for the sake of debate (probably because I played in a 3.5 game very recently), as simple as the task may be -- a SIEGE resolution could be used in the sense that some people use it for the equivalent of a 'spot' check. Someone who works and lifts weights might attest that there are 'right ways' and 'wrong ways' to do it. I guess that by extension, the same thing can be reasoned here too. How are you trying to get this thing off the ledge? Are you trying to topple it over by pushing the top of the statue with hopes of tipping it over?

Maybe that's starting to get a bit too crunchy.

Thanks for your input.

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

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