Idea regarding Prime Attributes

shadowheart469 · Post by **shadowheart469** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:59 pm

Hello, this is just a concept, no more. Looking for thoughts and criticism.

It involves class prime attributes. Now, I see nothing wrong with the by the book rule, that there is no correlation between the attribute level and what you can become. If you are, say, a Paladin with a 3 CHA you aren't likely to be effective, or perhaps even survive long.

That said, I thought for a tentative campaign I had in mind, to require at least a 9 in the prime requisite, or a 9 for basic (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric) and 12 for more specialized classes (druid, bard, illusionist, monk, etc).

Thoughts or ideas?

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:04 pm

Sounds good to me. It has a nice, old-school feel to me and it makes sense too... without being overly complicated.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:06 pm

It has a certain archetype reinforcement charm but avoids the double-bonus of AD&D (that is, simply qualifying gives you major modifiers, let alone the nice abilities for being the class itself), yet has no real bearing against much... unless you have players who can't roll very well and get stuck playing something they don't want to play. No big deal, really.

I tend to make it a rule that the score is a 13 to be Prime, and if you don't have enough stats to have them Prime, you just don't have those Primes.

shadowheart469 · Post by **shadowheart469** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:10 pm

serleran wrote:
It has a certain archetype reinforcement charm but avoids the double-bonus of AD&D (that is, simply qualifying gives you major modifiers, let alone the nice abilities for being the class itself), yet has no real bearing against much... unless you have players who can't roll very well and get stuck playing something they don't want to play. No big deal, really.

I tend to make it a rule that the score is a 13 to be Prime, and if you don't have enough stats to have them Prime, you just don't have those Primes.

Honestly, seeing that rule from you (where I don't recall) is what made me think about this 'issue.' I'm a little too old-school to like the idea that someone with a 3 INT can become a wizard, and by extension have a 12 target on INT based roles and saves. Though as I say (in my inexperience) logic tells me they'll fail eventually, and possibly catastrophically.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:36 pm

It should take care of things nicely. I just never have to deal with it as a problem because I allow my players to create their character, including attributes. So if an attribute is low its because of the concept the player has, not because of lousy rolls.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:30 pm

It's reasonable...

Though I have players re-roll base stats of 8 or less usually.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:45 pm

shadowheart469 wrote:
Honestly, seeing that rule from you (where I don't recall) is what made me think about this 'issue.' I'm a little too old-school to like the idea that someone with a 3 INT can become a wizard, and by extension have a 12 target on INT based roles and saves. Though as I say (in my inexperience) logic tells me they'll fail eventually, and possibly catastrophically.

Well, actually, taking into account the modifier for having an INT 3, they'd actually have a base target of 15 at a CL0.

And besides, if someone in my games wants to create that sort of character, I say more power to them as there are numerous examples in S&S fiction. Rincewind (the worst wizard on Discworld) comes to mind...

Morgrus · Post by **Morgrus** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:18 am

I like the option of having a lower ability score coupled with a prime because it opens up PC types that you can't play with other systems. With the primes you can make the Fool/Jester a low int but prime, this emulates fools luck. Others include Mr magoo types, clumsy smerf types(Big clumsy fighter with a big club ala 3 stooges, "huh? turns. accidentally kills ork.) etc. It helps with C&C to think out o the box a tad IMO.
_________________
Awww Craap.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:55 am

I like the rule. I do something similar but require a 10 for prime. Though I like Serl's 13 idea.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Morgrus · Post by **Morgrus** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:03 am

Mr. Grimm just have to say, like the new avatar, but what was that other rocky horror looking one from. I was oddly inthralling, in an epileptic sort of way.
_________________
Awww Craap.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:09 am

It was from the Shakespear's Sister video for the song "Stay". Lovely video BTW but I actually find the Cradle of Filth version brings out the creepiness of the song much better.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Turanil · Post by **Turanil** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:21 am

I, too, houserule 13 minimum for Primes.
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:23 pm

Like Morgrus, i like keeping them entirely separate. It allows a wider array of character possibilities, and they're all justifiable.

-Fizz

trollwad1 · Post by **trollwad1** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:26 pm

I have always liked the idea of 13 as a minimum for a prime (that is the point at which you receive bonuses for your attribute score.)

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:26 pm

I guess i don't understand why one needs to have a high attribute score in order to know how to use it, which is what this requirement does.

Consider strength. One can be a weakling yet still understand how to use leverage in order to achieve a result.

Or intelligence. One can be naturally stupid, yet be well read and have a wealth of information at his disposal.

By requiring minimum scores, it's coupling the two effects together. That's saying you can't understand leverage unless you're strong. Or that you can't be well-read if you're stupid. Or that you can't know how to influence people if you're ugly.

My understanding of Primes was to decouple the two notions- raw ability and `knack' or training.

-Fizz

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:50 pm

It has nothing to do with rationalization, on my end, and everything to do with enforcement of a particular archetypal structure... it doesn't have to be a logical conclusion or rule: it just has to work, and, for my purposes, it does.

So, no, I am not saying: if you have a Strength of 3 you cannot know how to use leverage (that would be Intelligence, anyway), but I am saying you will never be as able to affect your "raw ability" as someone who actually has more raw ability.

Others might have their own "reasons." But mine, pretty much, are strictly "its a game, and this is the effect I want."

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:21 pm

serleran wrote:
It has nothing to do with rationalization, on my end, and everything to do with enforcement of a particular archetypal structure... it doesn't have to be a logical conclusion or rule: it just has to work, and, for my purposes, it does.

Well, i was only comparing to the official rule. I did not mean to imply "don't ever use it". What i didn't understand is why people wanted to decouple them. I found it surprising.

Quote:
So, no, I am not saying: if you have a Strength of 3 you cannot know how to use leverage (that would be Intelligence, anyway),

Heh- you could say that about anything. I'll ignore my Charisma of 3 because i have Int prime and i learn `how to persuade people'. By that logic, you could make anything an Intelligence check.

In fact, the official rule even mentions leverage: A figher with a 15 strength, which is a prime attribute, knows better how to utilize his body's strength, whether through leverage or...."

Quote:
but I am saying you will never be as able to affect your "raw ability" as someone who actually has more raw ability.

Right- that's where the decoupling comes in. I always thought the dichotomy of primes and scores was something that people liked about C&C, but apparently not.

-Fizz

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:27 pm

Quote:
I always thought the dichotomy of primes and scores was something that people liked about C&C, but apparently not.

Some do, some don't. Me, I really like that its simple -- I don't really care what the rules are. I ignore them whenever I want, change them however I feel like, and just pretend its C&C... same thing I've always done, really. Some games are more friendly about breaking its constituent parts. Others not so much... and, I like to tinker with its fiddly bits. Primes is just one area that is possible.

Quote:
Heh- you could say that about anything. I'll ignore my Charisma of 3 because i have Int prime and i learn `how to persuade people'. By that logic, you could make anything an Intelligence check.

Sure if the situation warranted the application of the attribute in such a manner -- me, I find Intelligence more applicable for "leverage" than Strength. The latter definitely helps with having the means to do it, but the former helps in knowing where to apply what you do have. However, this is in too much favor for "realism," so I'll have to abandon that concept...

Actually, I think the 13 minimum came from some discussions with original playtesters of my classless character creation system -- it was seen as a "balance." And then, I just extrapolated it further to Primes in general. Doesn't make it good... but it does give a very particular "feel." Which can be good, if that's what you're going for.

Morgrus · Post by **Morgrus** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:58 am

Geeerrrr don't you know you HAVE to play the RAW not doing so is badwrong fun yull g3t pawnd.....uhh this is not the wotc boards.. ....
Thats what I love about c&c, it's flexibility to mold to play style of each group without having to retroengineer the system(gush..gush).
_________________
Awww Craap.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:04 am

Fizz wrote:
Consider strength. One can be a weakling yet still understand how to use leverage in order to achieve a result.

Or intelligence. One can be naturally stupid, yet be well read and have a wealth of information at his disposal.

Consider both together, where a character has a high intelligence and a low strength, both prime. Perhaps the character doesn't have the ability to shift objects by raw power, but knows how to design and construct leverage or counterweight systems that can. An understanding of applied strength.

More in general, but I've brought it up before, as long as folks continue to analyze the C&C system piecemeal, they will continue to find holes. Everything needs to be considered as a whole. Its much easier to frame extrapolations to rules when one isn't taking pieces in isolation, but instead, consider how they all work together.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:39 am

Morgrus wrote:
Geeerrrr don't you know you HAVE to play the RAW not doing so is badwrong fun yull g3t pawnd.....uhh this is not the wotc boards.. ....

No, i wasn't trying to claim otherwise. Just surprised that so many people seem to want to recouple ability scores and primes. I always thought most people liked the RAW version.

I personally will keep them decoupled. Anything that can give more character types with such a simple rule is good in my book.

-Fizz

Morgrus · Post by **Morgrus** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:52 am

Fizz wrote:
No, i wasn't trying to claim otherwise. Just surprised that so many people seem to want to recouple ability scores and primes. I always thought most people liked the RAW version.

I personally will keep them decoupled. Anything that can give more character types with such a simple rule is good in my book.

-Fizz

lol no that wasn't aimed at any one, I just found it funny that it was kinda a small rules argument (a great rarity for the boards & c&c in general ) and was trying to ironically link it to the bedlam of the wotc boards. No dissrespect intended, just joshing.
_________________
Awww Craap.