+1 Per Level

[DangerDwarf]

In Another Thread Matthew wrote:
And I have major problems with the 5% increments of "add level" in the SIEGE system.

I didn't want to clutter up the other thread with this, but I think it is a very valid point and probably the main area of weakness in C&C at higher level play.

With adding your level to many rolls, by the time you reach 10th level you will either not need to roll, or many rolls will be so easy as to be negligible due to the nature of this mechanic unless the CK is artificially inflating CL's to keep up with your level.

And if the CK is inflating the CL's just to keep many tasks a challenge, then why add level in the first place? If you aren't inflating CL's, then many actions will become merely narrative in nature as opposed to actually rolling.

[moriarty777]

Interesting point but there are a couple of things that I feel should be kept in mind.

When you are talking about a skill based challenge... say picking a lock or scaling a wall, there probably should be a cap to the difficulties that you'd want to set them at. At some point, a challenging lock will no longer be a challenge to a seasoned and skillful rogue. On the other hand, no matter how skillful or powerful your characters get, that doesn't mean that eventually they will be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound with a 'Jump' check. There are things that will always be impossible to do from a particular hero's mortal perspective.

All this is naturally the purview of the CK running the game and the flavor and tone they wish to set.

However, if you consider saves or checks that take uses the opponent's level or hitdice to determine the CL, then what is the problem?

The game should be partially about outsmarting and besting opponents, not just jumping through hurdles along the way. The game should be more than a continual rolling of the dice which is why, even in low level games, one should have the players roll for only certain things and not everything put in their path.

It can be a valid concern but I think it may end up plaguing only certain types of people running and playing the game.

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

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

[voynich]

is it not the case that some characters, regardless of level, will never be able to accomplish certain tasks? for example, a level 20 fighter can never "out-silence" even a level 1 rogue. this juxtaposes and reinforces the archetypes, and shows that, to someone a challenge is impossible (or nearly so) it becomes progressively easier to those whom it was "intended." i also tend to agree that some rolls are not to be made (i seem to recall this being in the rulebook as well) so the "challenge" is moot anyway. however, what i do not always agree with is that level / hd is always the point of difficulty since it makes all "sneak" tests "opposed" and far too difficult.
_________________
the voynich manuscript is a mysterious illustrated book written in an indecipherable text. it is thought to have been written between 1450 and 1520. the author, script and language of the manuscript remain unknown.

[DangerDwarf]

yeah, with Saves and Opponents there is no problem at al other than triggering my stated dislike for "big numbers" which is a personal annoyance, not a rule problem.

But take Logmar the Black from the example of a STR check in the PHB. If he was level 16 in the same circumstance, he'd only need to roll a 2 to lift the mast. Not very dramatic and I don't feel that being level 16 as opposed to level 6 in that situation should make that sort of difference.

Same with jumping a pit. being a higher level shouldn't grant that much more success.

But yes, the game should be more than continually rolling the dice, but nor should it become overly narrative either.

[Rigon]

I think Moriarty hit it square on. Not all challenges will be able to be defeated. Plus, there is always the possibility of rolling a 1 (which, I think in the RAW, is an automatic failure).

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[DangerDwarf]

Rigon wrote:
Plus, there is always the possibility of rolling a 1 (which, I think in the RAW, is an automatic failure).

Nope, not in C&C.

[Rigon]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Nope, not in C&C.

Too... many... house... rules...
R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[gideon_thorne]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Same with jumping a pit. being a higher level shouldn't grant that much more success.

Now that depends on how the roll is applied. Its certainly a bit more than 'the character lifts the mast'.

My question would be, in what manner? How has the characters past experience given him more insight into shifting a heavy object.

There are all sorts of explanations.

One being, the character has learned how to draw on that inner strength that folks can find in moments of extreme duress or panic.

Another, the character has learned to apply the science of leverage.

The characters level could be an indicator of something similar to the first example, an exercise of chi.

Or perhaps its endemic to the physiology of a given race. Dwarves, being more compact are naturally more dense. Perhaps some factor in their training gives them the ability to compact even further.

Its a fantasy game. Not all explanations have to be ground into the realm of contemporary science.

As for the +1 per level. Why shouldn't the challenge grow along with the character? The explanations as to why are as innumerable as the explanations above on why level is applied to strength.

Color outside the lines once in a while. It makes the picture as a whole more interesting.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Matthew]

moriarty777 wrote:
It can be a valid concern but I think it may end up plaguing only certain types of people running and playing the game.

Hey, I'm people.

moriarty777 wrote:
When you are talking about a skill based challenge... say picking a lock or scaling a wall, there probably should be a cap to the difficulties that you'd want to set them at. At some point, a challenging lock will no longer be a challenge to a seasoned and skillful rogue. On the other hand, no matter how skillful or powerful your characters get, that doesn't mean that eventually they will be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound with a 'Jump' check. There are things that will always be impossible to do from a particular hero's mortal perspective.

I think my big "no, no" with this approach is how I perceive level advancement; I don't consider it to have as much to do with the experience of the character in the sense of skills, as with an indication of how powerful the character is. My feeling is that stuff like the Unearthed Arcana breaking down of Tracking into a level scheme are very bad ideas. Neither level advancement nor attributes should have such a huge impact on whether a character can track. The Thief is probably the thin edge of the wedge, from my perspective, though it is possible to construe the majority of his skills as supernatural abilities.

moriarty777 wrote:
However, if you consider saves or checks that take uses the opponent's level or hitdice to determine the CL, then what is the problem?

Folding everything into the combat paradigm, much of which was originally viewed as being supernatural in character (saving throws and hit points especially), is something I would generally seek to avoid now. I used to make use of an extensive skill system for AD&D, and whilst the C&C SIEGE check is much, much simpler (thankfully) than that ever was, I am no longer happy with 5% increments by level as a measurement of character skill. Jumping, swimming, climbing, etcetera, I don't mind these things being advanced, but it seems like they go from "awful" to "awesome", where I would prefer for the scale to be much shorter.

moriarty777 wrote:
All this is naturally the purview of the CK running the game and the flavor and tone they wish to set.

Quite true! Certainly, I have no problem with the SIEGE system with regards to other folk's campaign style. It just does not suit mine. To be clear, the quote that begins this thread should be read as:

"And I have major problems with the 5% increments of "add level" in the SIEGE system, but they are my problems."

To put it another way, these are issues I have considered very closely, and I am satisfied that the core of the SIEGE system simply does not jive with my campaign style, though I found many of the ancillary ideas to be very useful.

moriarty777 wrote:
The game should be partially about outsmarting and besting opponents, not just jumping through hurdles along the way. The game should be more than a continual rolling of the dice which is why, even in low level games, one should have the players roll for only certain things and not everything put in their path.

Quite right, and just such a methodolgy is what renders the SIEGE system redundent for my purposes. If I want a probability of failure to exist, it is just as easy for me to assign it, which neatly sidesteps the issues I have with 5% increments by character level for task resolution.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Lord Dynel]

This discussion reminds me of one of the major problems I had with 1st and 2nd edition - saving throws. Eventually, nearly every life-threatening situation became a simple "side-stepping" procedure that (I thought) made even rolling them nearly a moot point. A formality, if you will.

I can see attribute rolls, saves, and SIEGE checks becoming this way, too, in some cases. It's kind of like a "Law of Diminishing Returns" in that, eventually, any danger or threat will yield less and less challenge. I agree that the game isn't just about checks and rolls, but when those arise they should be more than just a formality (to those that feel that way).

I would suggest capping the bonus from a character's level to 10 on any checks that include adding a characters level to it. I thought I recalled many people saying that their games rarely reached beyond that neighborhood anyway. I kind of think of it as another take on diminishing returns - characters can only get so good at certain things before they "plateau." If that's unacceptable, then maybe cap non-prime checks to a level bonus of 10. There's certainly a workaround for those that have issue with this. I can definitely see the point, though, as I've had issue with similar problems in the past.

[DangerDwarf]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Its a fantasy game. Not all explanations have to be ground into the realm of contemporary science.

I understand that, and that doesn't really bother me. Where I have the slight problem however, is simply game mechanics related. Perhaps I'm not explaining my concern great enough.

Freddy Fingers is a 4th level rogue wearing leather armor and not encumbered. After a botched heist, he is jumping rooftop to rooftop evading the city guard. As a bit of a thug, he has Strength as a Prime and his score in Strength is 14 giving him a +1 bonus to his Strength checks. Whenever Freddy comes to large alleyways in which he has to jump over the CK assigns a challenge level of 5 for Freddy to clear it with a leap. So, Freddy has to roll a 12 or better to successfully leap the gaps (with his bonuses added in) and it makes for a dramatic and fun session of chase.

Several misadventures later Freddy is now a 12th level Rogue and low and behold he botches another heist and once again he takes to the rooftop to evade the guards. Assuming the CK applies CL's consistently, because he is now level 12 those leaps will only be a difficulty of 4 for him to clear, which in neither difficult or dramatic.

There should be improvement in Freddy's ability between level 4 and 12 but it shouldn't be so much that this situation becomes more of a narrative chase. At level 12, you should be able to continue to challenge the PC and give a dramatic, chase and jump scene without having to artificially inflate the CL's to keep it a challenge.

Now, to be fair, this only presents itself as a problem when allowing physical things like jumping, lifting, etc, to add a PC's level to their roll. The PC goes from having these things be a challenge at lower levels to being done overly easy at higher ones IF the CK applies CL's consistently. PC's too easily become supermen in regards to physical challenges.

I encountered it in my high level DL campaign and since then, I don't allow PC's to add their level to most physical checks like that. Easy fix. I could just as easily artificially inflate the Cl's to keep the scene dramatic, but I'm less pleased with that solution.

[DangerDwarf]

Lord Dynel wrote:
This discussion reminds me of one of the major problems I had with 1st and 2nd edition - saving throws.

Exactly.

[Jackal]

There are a few points that have been missed (perhaps in my skimming).
First, it's important to keep in mind that C&C is not a roll heavy game. A warrior with a prime str of 18 doesn't need to roll to kick in your run of the mill door whether he's 1st level or 20th so the difficulty doesn't much matter. This is very important in the "why does it get so much easier to jump a certain distance" debate...the answer being, why are we rolling for this at all? Based on the character's str and/or dex, the CK should tell you how far you can jump. A good use of the siege engine would be to allow a str check for a foot or two extra distance or a dex check to see if the character manages to land (or grab hold) even though the reach is beyond his ability to jump. And those two things can easily go up with level.

As for saving throws, bigger creatures and challenges make for higher difficulties. In most cases, it's easy to assume very high level characters have little to no problem shrugging off the attacks of weaker creatures. In those that don't we do have to remember what Peter said...it's a fantasy game. lol

Also, it's important to bring up 12/18. Over the years, many people have asked why the numbers were stacked against the characters (not starting with a 50/50 chance). One of the reasons is to allow for the +1 per level mechanic to work out as often as it does.

Finally, I think the problem comes in when the siege engine is used for things it was not intended. I know I had to relearn which rolls to make and which should just be adjudicated by the CK with no roll required. Combat withstanding, C&C is designed to work with very few rolls. Character action and attributes will answer more questions than rolls in default C&C.

So, Freddy Fingers can jump 8 feet (based on his prime str and high attribute). If the alleyway is between 8 and 10 feet perhaps allow for a dex or str check to clear it anyway. If it's beyond 10 feet...he's out of luck and better start looking for another exit quick....no matter what level he may be.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

[Matthew]

Jackal wrote:
Finally, I think the problem comes in when the siege engine is used for things it was not intended. I know I had to relearn which rolls to make and which should just be adjudicated by the CK with no roll required. Combat withstanding, C&C is designed to work with very few rolls. Character action and attributes will answer more questions than rolls in default C&C.

Question is, though, when is it advantageous to use a SIEGE check? I think the answer to that is going to depend on the individual. For me, it is pretty much "never", but for other people it may be "frequently". There is no absolute right or wrong answer, just preferential usage.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Dagger]

DangerDwarf wrote:
And if the CK is inflating the CL's just to keep many tasks a challenge, then why add level in the first place? If you aren't inflating CL's, then many actions will become merely narrative in nature as opposed to actually rolling.

I think this sort of thing is inherent in fantasy RPGs. It's no different than why the CK keeps throwing deadlier and more powerful monsters at the party as they gain levels.
_________________
Rusty

[Taranthyll]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Several misadventures later Freddy is now a 12th level Rogue and low and behold he botches another heist and once again he takes to the rooftop to evade the guards. Assuming the CK applies CL's consistently, because he is now level 12 those leaps will only be a difficulty of 4 for him to clear, which in neither difficult or dramatic.

I don't have a problem with this. After a long career of botched heists and rooftop escapes, Freddy has leaped nearly every alley in town. He's done it so many times that his confidence is high and his potential for failure is nearly nil. I might even suggest not requiring a roll at all at this point unless you want to include the 3 or less chance that his foot slips on the ledge as he jumps.

Remember that one of the assumptions in C&C is "don't roll unless it is necessary." I never require rolls for routine tasks, and I would consider leaping across rooftops to be routine for high-level rogues (characters of other classes, however, are likely to become street pizza). I enjoy a cinematic sword & sorcery style game, so to me it is just part of the genre that as characters grow in in experience, fame and stature they are able to easily overcome obstacles that would be insurmountable to novices.

[cheeplives]

Another way to handle this would be to have a difficulty chart that actually was "sliding" in naturel. I proposed one during development but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

The idea would be to have Difficulty Levels of:

Easy

Average

Difficult

Demanding

Heroic

The sliding scale would work as follows:

Easy tasks have a Challenge Level of Character Level minus 6

Average tasks have a Challenge Level of Character Level minus 2

Difficult tasks have a Challenge Level of Character Level

Demanding tasks have a Challenge Level of Character Level plus 2

Heroic tasks have a Challenge Level of Character Level plus 6

So if the GM says that jumping a chasm is an Average task, it's an Average task for EVERY character in the game... a 12th level character would have a Challenge Level of 10 while a 1st level character would haev a Challenge Level of -1. Thus, assuming a Prime attribute with a +1 attribute bonus, they'd need:

12th Level = 10 CL + 12 CB = 22 TN. d20 + 13 = 60% chance of success

1st Level = -1 CL + 12 CB = 11 TN. d20 + 2 = 60% chance of success

This system makes a Difficulty more static and, in my opinion, puts to closer to Monsters. In C&C you're expected to have more challenging monsters as you advance in level. Thus, the Challenge Levels for monsters should stay about on par with the character's level... putting Difficulty on a sliding scale maintains this balance for ad hoc Challenge Levels.
_________________
discreteinfinity.com -- my little corner of the internet.

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon -- Available now from Troll Lord Games!

[Luther]

Another point is being missed: the CK only allows you to add your level to the roll where he deems it appropriate. In much the same way as a Fighter should not be allowed to add his level to a Move Silently roll, you can deny any character a Level Bonus if it doesn't fit the action being attempted and just rely on Primes.

In my games, running, jumping, and other athletic skills are base rolll+att.bonus checks. The only exceptions are a few specific skills and character backgrounds. A Fighter with a sailor's background would be allowed to add his level to a swim roll, for instance, and I'll usually allow Barbarians to add their level to a wide range of STR and CON checks to represent their rugged nature and use of their primal fury (which is why Barbarians work just fine RAW in my games).

So in the 'fallen mast' example, if you want to move that thing it's down to a roll+STR bonus check unless there's a Barbarian handy who wants to hulk out with his Primal Fury.

Also, don't forget that there's often more than one way to 'move a mast.' If your strong PCs are all busy elsewhere or just happen to be unconcious under that thing, I would judge that the Wizard might know enough about leverage to apply his INT instead of STR to the roll. I would also judge, in this instance that it takes longer (needing to find a proper lever, set up a brace, etc.).

And finally, you can have seemingly impossible tasks that can be solved with combined rolls. If the mast is so heavy that even an PRIME 18 STR Fighter won't shift it, allow the Wizard to use his knowledge of leverage to add to the fighter's roll. Of course, you should letthe players come up with the idea, but the mechanical interpretation is all in the CK's hands.

This is why I like the SEIGE System. It is very flexible and challenging at all levels if you apply a little common sense to it and remember the three types of rolls:

Class Ability outside of your class/ basic attribute (fighter sneaking, anyone jumping, running, etc.):roll+att.bonus

Class Ability: roll+att.bonus+level

Background Ability (former blacksmith mending weapons, former sailor swimming, etc.): roll+att.bonus+level

[Omote]

Luther wrote:
Another point is being missed: the CK only allows you to add your level to the roll where he deems it appropriate. In much the same way as a Fighter should not be allowed to add his level to a Move Silently roll, you can deny any character a Level Bonus if it doesn't fit the action being attempted and just rely on Primes.

Exactly. This is the way the book spells out such things. The examples in the PHB provide a few good hints at this.

Also, this exact thing will probably be covered in the CKG. I know I have talked to the Troll Duders personally about this, and high-level play, and based on their answers they know full well about this situation.

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

[Matthew]

Dagger wrote:
I think this sort of thing is inherent in fantasy RPGs. It's no different than why the CK keeps throwing deadlier and more powerful monsters at the party as they gain levels.

I think it's quite a lot different, if I understand Danger Dwarf correctly. The idea is not that you get a bigger and bigger mast to lift up, but just that the difficulty keeps increasing in proportion to your ability (ala 4e).

cheeplives wrote:
So if the GM says that jumping a chasm is an Average task, it's an Average task for EVERY character in the game... a 12th level character would have a Challenge Level of 10 while a 1st level character would haev a Challenge Level of -1. Thus, assuming a Prime attribute with a +1 attribute bonus, they'd need:

I think this is exactly the solution that Danger Dwarf is complaining about (I could be wrong, though). For my part, I think it is overcomlicated for what it sets out to achieve. You might as well just assign the difficulties as set percentages and cut out the middle man (which is more or less what I do).

Luther wrote:
Another point is being missed: the CK only allows you to add your level to the roll where he deems it appropriate. In much the same way as a Fighter should not be allowed to add his level to a Move Silently roll, you can deny any character a Level Bonus if it doesn't fit the action being attempted and just rely on Primes.

I don't think that is being missed at all. The complaint is not directed at characters who do not gain +5% per level, but those that do. Other characters become increasingly incapable of matching those feats, which is a separate, if related, concern.

As I say, though, these things are all subjective. What works for one may not work for another. Apaprently the D20/3e skill system works for some people...
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[gideon_thorne]

DangerDwarf wrote:
I understand that, and that doesn't really bother me. Where I have the slight problem however, is simply game mechanics related. Perhaps I'm not explaining my concern great enough.

Freddy Fingers is a 4th level rogue wearing leather armor and not encumbered. After a botched heist, he is jumping rooftop to rooftop evading the city guard. As a bit of a thug, he has Strength as a Prime and his score in Strength is 14 giving him a +1 bonus to his Strength checks. Whenever Freddy comes to large alleyways in which he has to jump over the CK assigns a challenge level of 5 for Freddy to clear it with a leap. So, Freddy has to roll a 12 or better to successfully leap the gaps (with his bonuses added in) and it makes for a dramatic and fun session of chase.

Several misadventures later Freddy is now a 12th level Rogue and low and behold he botches another heist and once again he takes to the rooftop to evade the guards. Assuming the CK applies CL's consistently, because he is now level 12 those leaps will only be a difficulty of 4 for him to clear, which in neither difficult or dramatic.

There should be improvement in Freddy's ability between level 4 and 12 but it shouldn't be so much that this situation becomes more of a narrative chase. At level 12, you should be able to continue to challenge the PC and give a dramatic, chase and jump scene without having to artificially inflate the CL's to keep it a challenge.

Now, to be fair, this only presents itself as a problem when allowing physical things like jumping, lifting, etc, to add a PC's level to their roll. The PC goes from having these things be a challenge at lower levels to being done overly easy at higher ones IF the CK applies CL's consistently. PC's too easily become supermen in regards to physical challenges.

I encountered it in my high level DL campaign and since then, I don't allow PC's to add their level to most physical checks like that. Easy fix. I could just as easily artificially inflate the Cl's to keep the scene dramatic, but I'm less pleased with that solution.

*chuckles* Confuses me why your applying a strength check to jumping anyhow. I'd use dex.

But in any case, there is always that small chance of failure.

Naturally someone is going to get better with time. I fail to see the problem. There are always ways to offer challenges to a player.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

I don't have a problem with it. IF it was CL 4 at level 2 it should be CL 4 at level 15, and show how the character has become smarter, stronger, and learned plenty of tricks to make it easier to do. Like at level 2 he may have moved that boulder with his bare hands. At level 15 he probably creates a lever and fulcrum situation, making it much, much easier to do.

As for scaling other challenges, such as locks, your darn skippy I do! He is now facing locks created/designed/built by level 15 thieves! So they are much harder to unlock! Same with other traps and obstacles. Including climbing walls that were designed by another high level thief who knows exactly what to do to that wall to make it much more difficult to climb.

Everything in C&C scales just like spell saving throws do, for much the same reason. Everyone is learning newer and better tricks of their trade.
_________________
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

[Luther]

Matthew wrote:
I don't think that is being missed at all. The complaint is not directed at characters who do not gain +5% per level, but those that do. Other characters become increasingly incapable of matching those feats, which is a separate, if related, concern.

Actually, after all the posting, it's a two part complaint. The first part was indeed about 5% increments (read the post header). DD said that the game fell apart at higher levels because you have to increase the CL to provide an adequate challenge to higher level characters, said characters are performing herculean tasks, jumping massive gorges and lifting insane weights. The problem was that this assumes that characters add thier level to all rolls. My point is that this is the incorrect way to use the system.

The second part of the complaint is that there is little difference between an Attribute of 9 and 15. As pointed out, the big difference is the use of Primes in this instance, but I would also add that the relative scores can be used without dice all on their own. Basically, if you have an arm wrestling contest with all other things being equal, you can judge that the guy wth a 9 STR will lose to a guy with 15 STR almost every time with no roll necessary.

And it is perfectly natural and acceptable that there is a growing 'skill gap' between characters performing specific tasks as they go up in level. Other characters shouldn't be able to match the feats of those who specialize in specific areas. a 20th level thief is dead sneaky and a fighter at 20th is not. He never trains that skill, and is likely much too armoured at that level to use it anyway. And a person who never learned to swim is not going to be come a better swimmer just because he's a 20th level wizard as opposed to a 1st...

[Coleston the Cavalier]

Here's what I do, but it's not for everybody:

For saving throws I use a 3d6 Attribute check (+/- bonuses & penalties) against a simple target number (which may be modified by the circumstance and the the level of the opponent/spell, etc).

For class abilities I use a 3d6 Attribute check (+/- bonuses & penalties) adding +1 per class level against a simple target number as well (modified by the circumstance and the the level of the opponent/spell, etc).

But I also cap levels at 10th level.
_________________


John Adams

[Matthew]

Luther wrote:
Actually, after all the posting, it's a two part complaint. The first part, was the fact that there is little difference between an Attribute of 9 and 15. As pointed out, the big difference is the use of Primes in this instance, but I would also add that the relative scores can be used without dice all on their own. Basically, if you have an arm wrestling contest with all other things being equal, you can judge that the guy wth a 9 STR will lose to a guy with 15 STR almost every time with no roll necessary.

I think you are inventing complaints here. The 5% increment complaint refers only to level advancement and checks that use it.

Luther wrote:
The second part of the complaint is that because you have to increase the CL to provide an adequate challenge to higher level characters, said characters are performing herculean tasks, jumping massive gorges and lifting insane weights. The problem was that this assumes that characters add thier level to all rolls. My point is that this is the incorrect way to use the system.

I think again you are misunderstanding the nature of the complaint. It's not that you have to increase the size of the task, but the difficulty of the same task.

Luther wrote:
And it is perfectly natural and acceptable that there is a growing 'skill gap' between characters performing specific tasks as they go up in level. Other characters shouldn't be able to match the feats of those who specialize in specific areas. a 20th level thief is dead sneaky and a fighter at 20th is not. He never trains that skill, and is likely much too armoured at that level to use it anyway. And a person who never learned to swim is not going to be come a better swimmer just because he's a 20th level wizard as opposed to a 1st...

Perhaps to you it is perfectly natural and acceptable, to me it is completely abhorrent and unacceptable. The degree of difference between a 20th Level Thief and a 20th Level Fighter with regards to a SIEGE check is too great for my taste.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[DangerDwarf]

Alright, I just got home from work and have a chance to read through these. I'll wade through the best I can.

Jackal wrote:
As for saving throws, bigger creatures and challenges make for higher difficulties. In most cases, it's easy to assume very high level characters have little to no problem shrugging off the attacks of weaker creatures.

Agreed, and not the nature of this complaint.

Jackal wrote:
C&C is designed to work with very few rolls. Character action and attributes will answer more questions than rolls in default C&C.

Agreed, and part of the nature of the complaint. Allowing level to be added to most physical type checks makes these few checks obsolete at higher levels of the game unless the CK artificially inflates the CL. You go from a game with few rolls to a completely narrative game...which isn't a game but just telling a cooperative story.

Dagger wrote:
It's no different than why the CK keeps throwing deadlier and more powerful monsters at the party as they gain levels.

It is completely different. Bigger critters are more of a challenge for a reason. Artificially inflating the CL of the exact same 8 foot jump 10 levels later is not in the same boat.

Taranthyll wrote:
I might even suggest not requiring a roll at all at this point

Which is EXACTLY the nature of my complaint. In regards to physical challenges, you just moved from the realm of game to the realm of cooperative story telling. previous exciting moments now become narrative as your character becomes a physical superman due to rapid +5% advances.

Luther wrote:
you can deny any character a Level Bonus if it doesn't fit the action being attempted and just rely on Primes.

Agreed, and that point has not been missed. in fact it was my "fix" for this situation in my game.

Note: Luther, I agree with alot of what you said in the post and do much of the same things but it doesn't address the issue I'm grumbling about. It is good stuff though.

Matthew wrote:
I think this is exactly the solution that Danger Dwarf is complaining about (I could be wrong, though). For my part, I think it is overcomlicated for what it sets out to achieve. You might as well just assign the difficulties as set percentages and cut out the middle man (which is more or less what I do).

You are correct Matthew. While interesting, it goes the artificial inflation route.

gideon_thorne wrote:
But in any case, there is always that small chance of failure.

Which is exactly the problem. That in most physical challenges, a high level PC is a superman with only a small chance of failure in jumping, climbing, pole vaulting over the enemy line, whatever. This is supposed to be a game of excitement and action at all levels. A 10 foot jump should leave a player of both a 4th and a14th level character with dice in hand wondering if he'll make it.

Matthew wrote:
I think again you are misunderstanding the nature of the complaint. It's not that you have to increase the size of the task, but the difficulty of the same task.

Again correct.

[gideon_thorne]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Which is exactly the problem. That in most physical challenges, a high level PC is a superman with only a small chance of failure in jumping, climbing, pole vaulting over the enemy line, whatever. This is supposed to be a game of excitement and action at all levels. A 10 foot jump should leave a player of both a 4th and a14th level character with dice in hand wondering if he'll make it..

Its only a problem if you continue to focus on only one aspect of the situation.

A character is naturally going to get better. But not everyone is going to be able to consider all possibilities of a situation.

Sure, the character may be able to succeed a majority of the time with pole vaults. But he might become used to that success and might not consider other possibilities.

"OH yes, no problem, I can vault over this 10 foot gorge!"

But what the character has failed to consider is that the 10 foot gorge is an illusion and is actually 100 foot wider than it appears...

This is the trouble when one focuses on the numbers and avoids considering the whole picture.

A greater 'challenge' doesn't always mean tossing higher numbers at the problem. Perhaps the complexity of the challenge needs to be considered as well. Think in multiple layers and multiple dimensions.

This is a game about challenging players too, not just math probabilities on a sheet.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[DangerDwarf]

gideon_thorne wrote:
A greater 'challenge' doesn't always mean tossing higher numbers at the problem. Perhaps the complexity of the challenge needs to be considered as well. Think in multiple layers and multiple dimensions.

This is a game about challenging players too, not just math probabilities on a sheet.

I agree with ya Pete, but it still takes away the options of more mundane challenges.

Right now I think I'm going to give adding 1/2 level to physical checks a shot. Allows for improvement without the PC's becoming running, jumping, ubermen by level 12.

[Taranthyll]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Which is exactly the problem. That in most physical challenges, a high level PC is a superman with only a small chance of failure in jumping, climbing, pole vaulting over the enemy line, whatever. This is supposed to be a game of excitement and action at all levels. A 10 foot jump should leave a player of both a 4th and a14th level character with dice in hand wondering if he'll make it.

This is where my play style apparently differs from yours. If you are trying to maintain strict realism, then I would concede your point, but I like a fast-paced cinematic action style of play. At 14th level my players are making rolls to do the fantasy equivalent of calculating the jump to hyperspace while dodging pursuing T.I.E fighters in the middle of an asteroid field - not rolling to see if they looked both ways before crossing the street.

C&C tries to emulate the Sword&Sorcery genre typified by loin-cloth clad warriors single-handedly carving through waves of defenders as they assault the wizard's tower to save the naked slave girl before she can be sacrificed in a dark ritual to summon a sanity destroying horror of Lovecraftian proportions. In that regard I think the system works quite well.

I mean the game is called Castles & Crusades not Accountants & Tax attorneys

[DangerDwarf]

Taranthyll wrote:
At 14th level my players are making rolls to do the fantasy equivalent of calculating the jump to hyperspace while dodging pursuing T.I.E fighters in the middle of an asteroid field - not rolling to see if they looked both ways before crossing the street.

Completely missing the point.

It is not about rolling for everything.

Its about:
CK: Ok, your 2nd level fighter is running down the hallway, the orb of damnation clenched in your arm. A horde of shrieking kobolds in hot pursuit. Ahead you see a wide approximately 10 foot pit blocking your way.

Player: I grip the orb tighter and leap.

CK: Roll

*dice clatter and the player anxiously await hearing whether his character succeeds or fails*

CK: You manage to bare clear the pit and continue your mad dash for the surface.

Player: yes!

As opposed to:
CK: Ok, your 12th level fighter is running down the hallway, the orb of salvation clenched in your arm. A horde of bellowing giants in hot pursuit. Ahead you see a wide approximately 10 foot pit blocking your way.

Player: I grip the orb tighter and leap.

*The CK eyes the difficulty due to the +1/level and realizies its not possible for the fighter to fail here*

CK: Okay, um I guess you manage to clear the pit and continue your mad dash for the surface.

Player: Ok.

Regardless of whether he is level 2 or level 12, the same 10 foot pit should pose some sort of challenge, and it is dramatically appropriate for it to do so.

Rapid physical advancement due to +1/level trivializes these challenges or causes you to artificially inflate the difficulty of doing the challenge.