Making Primes optional

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Tue May 09, 2006 10:59 pm

I think this has been discussed somewhere before, but I was wonder what consiquences would there be if I removed primes from the prereqs of each class? Ex: If fighters didn't have to take Str as a Prime, but could pick any 3 (or 2 in the case of a demihuman) Primes that the player wanted.

This would allow for a more custom character, but what would happen to the Seige Engine?

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

miller6 · Post by **miller6** » Tue May 09, 2006 11:41 pm

I can't answer for the Trolls, but as a 3rd party comment, I'd say that if it's for publication, stick to the rules, but if it's your home campaign, do whatever you want. That aside, if strength isn't a prime then your fighter loses the benefit of adding his level to his strength checks = Big loss, no better at it than a thief or wizard. Doesn't sound much like a fighter anymore to me...but that's just my take on the issue.

Brian miller

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Wed May 10, 2006 1:43 am

My thinking was that you could customize your character a little bit more.

Take the fighter example from above: The PC is supposed to be a swashbuckling, wisecracking, debonior person. So I want Dex, Int, and Cha as Primes to represent those characteristics. I don't invision the PC as being the big, bulky tough.

By removing the Prime requisite, this type of character could exist.

Besides, I'm just thinking out loud.

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

miller6 · Post by **miller6** » Wed May 10, 2006 3:02 am

A swashbuckler or pirate would be more of a rogue than a fighter. Hey, rogues engage in battle too! If your thinking of a Sinbad, Aladin or Blackbeard type character, then you're basically talking a high level rogue who fights low level fighters and monsters (which he mostly has to trick into defeat). I would think none of them would be likely to fair well versus an equally experienced fighter (like, oh, say Achilles or Heracles).

Or...such a character arguably might also be considered a dual-class Fighter/Rogue.

Just food for thought. Interesting topic.

Brian Miller

dcs · Post by **dcs** » Wed May 10, 2006 12:34 pm

I honestly think that a Swashbuckler-type character deserves its own class. The Swashbuckler isn't quite a fighter, but he's not quite a rogue either (remember that 'rogue' is a euphemism for 'thief'). A Swashbuckler would have a good attack bonus (at least the equivalent of a cleric's), some acrobatic ability, perhaps a specialization in the rapier, etc.
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions

cleaverthepit · Post by **cleaverthepit** » Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 pm

You can make primes optional and it will not effect how the SIEGE engine works. All this will do is divorce the class from the prime and erode its archetypical state. For those who do not care, this is no problem (you mention the Swashbuckler). It is, by the by, the easiest manner in which to begin the process of giving classes a more unique feel.

Go for it I says.

Davis Chenault

Nelzie · Post by **Nelzie** » Wed May 10, 2006 7:48 pm

dcs wrote:
I honestly think that a Swashbuckler-type character deserves its own class. The Swashbuckler isn't quite a fighter, but he's not quite a rogue either (remember that 'rogue' is a euphemism for 'thief'). A Swashbuckler would have a good attack bonus (at least the equivalent of a cleric's), some acrobatic ability, perhaps a specialization in the rapier, etc.

I would think that a Swashbuckler, akin to The Dread Pirate Roberts or Inigo Montoya, for examples, would have quite a high attack bonus, more along lines of the Fighter Class.

Perhaps they would use DEX instead of STR as a Prime, and instead of a few of the more Fighter Oriented combat skills, they would have some kind of acrobatic skill and should still be able to fight more then combatant in a round. (With multiple attacks, like the Fighter class recieves with Combat Dominence.)

Tempered with a limited set of armor, like up to a Chain Shirt. (Or they can wear heavier stuff, but lose all of their class abilities like acrobatic fighting and the quickness that helped them battle more then one opponent in one round.)

That's the angle that I am taking with the "Swashbuckler" class for my campaign world, which is really a conversion of the Fighter with the Swashbuckler kit from AD&D2e's Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Gameconscious · Post by **Gameconscious** » Wed May 10, 2006 7:55 pm

Maybe it's just me, but Swashbuckler was what I immediately thought when I looked at the C&C Bard.

Charismatic, smart, light armors, light weapons, but still an excellent fighter (by virtue of the base attack and hit points). It even says that the bard's inspiration may come simply from their demeanor.

That certainly says swashbuckler to me.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:52 pm

So why wouldn't a fighter with STR, DEX, and CHA as Primes pull off being a swashbuckler?

Don't get me wrong, I can see why not having Prime requisites is an appealing idea.

I also think that a fighter(human) with STR, DEX, and CHA as the primes could pull off just about everything that the aforementioned examples did in the movies. Granted, STR wasn't a "big" part of what they did, but there were certain things they did that having STR as a Prime would have helped.

So I would have a fighter played as a swashbuckler and see how the SIEGE/Prime system makes it work out. Then i would worry about changing the rules if the results are not satisfactory.

Nelzie · Post by **Nelzie** » Thu May 11, 2006 11:30 am

I look at primes as a way to "feed" a particular character concept. Especially if the player comes up with a short historical perspective about the character that includes certain aspects that relate to the chosen prime.

One character in a recent short run campaign was a fighter from a family of coopers. He choise INT and CON as his extra primes. He suggested that he was into the business of being a mercenary.

Later, when the party came cross some Barrels that looked to have been recently stolen and then stored in the dungeon, I gave his character a decent bonus to determine what the cooper markings on the barrel were and to see if the barrels may have been tampered with since originally being plugged.

The character was able to tell what the barrels were made for and that the markings appeared to be accurate and that nobody had tampered with the barrels.

So, the party had a barrel of lamp oil and a barrel of inexpensive wine, without needing to waste any of it by testing.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:12 am

I've thought about doing this as well, and probably will if I run a C&C campaign. However, at a minimum, I would still require Wizards to take INT and Priests WIS.

I could even see restricting certain prime choices for certain classes. For example, perhaps Wizards couldn't take STR.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:09 pm

Scott wrote:
However, at a minimum, I would still require Wizards to take INT and Priests WIS.

I would disargee with this. Granted, most players who decide to play Wizards/Clerics/etc, will take the class prime anyways. But by removing class primes it allows for demihumans to have "equal" chance of having "equal" classes. For example (I know this has been talked about a long time ago, but) a ranger has a Str prime, but not one of the class's abilities are Str based. So a human ranger will take Str (because it's required), Dex (because half the class abilities are Dex based), and Wis (because the other half of the class abilities are Wis based). Whereas, a demihuman (elf/dwarf/etc) ranger will take Str (required) and either Dex or Wis. This reduces the effectiveness of the character. But by removing the prime requirements, the demihuman ranger can now take both Dex and Wis, making an as effective ranger as the human one. Plus it frees up the human ranger to place the third prime where ever he likes it.

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

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:57 pm

As others have said, I don't think it would effect the Siege engine at all, and some very good points have been raised as to why not have class specific primes. It may be something I consider before for my next campaign.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Mon May 15, 2006 10:49 am

I was thinking about this last night; removing class specific prime, but adding a requisite abilitie score or two to each class. I was thinking something like this:

Fighter Str 9

Cleric Wis 9

Rogue Dex 9

Wizard Int 9

Ranger Str 13, Wis 14

Assassin Str 12, Dex 12

Barbarian Str 15, Con 15

Monk Str 15, Con 11, Wis 15

Illusionist Dex 16, Int 15

Druid Wis 12, Cha 15

Knight Str 15, Cha 12

Paladin Str 12, Wis 13, Cha 17

Bard Dex 15, Cha 15

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

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:15 pm

If I was to go your route my preferences agree with you in all but the Druid and the Knight. CHA is more important to the Knight (look at his class ability requirements) and DEX is more important than STR in terms of his riding. So I would probably do CHA 15 and DEX 12 for the Knight. Maybe even ad a STR requirement of 10 or 12.

As for the Druid, WIS is just as important to the Druid as it is for a straight Cleric, so I would require WIS 15 and CHA 12.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Mon May 15, 2006 9:35 pm

I could live with that Treebore.

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

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed May 17, 2006 9:23 am

Rigon wrote:
I was thinking about this last night; removing class specific prime, but adding a requisite abilitie score or two to each class. I was thinking something like this:

Fighter Str 9

Cleric Wis 9

Rogue Dex 9

Wizard Int 9

Ranger Str 13, Wis 14

Assassin Str 12, Dex 12

Barbarian Str 15, Con 15

Monk Str 15, Con 11, Wis 15

Illusionist Dex 16, Int 15

Druid Wis 12, Cha 15

Knight Str 15, Cha 12

Paladin Str 12, Wis 13, Cha 17

Bard Dex 15, Cha 15

R-

Nice setup, I like it. Actually, this is the approach I took when I "plugged" the SIEGE engine in my RC games. I left the class requirements based on scores, and allowed free choice of Primes.

I also was tempted to do the same with my Dragonlance games, by using the requirements of the classes from the PHB/UA/DLA.

In general, I think that the Primes mechanic is something above and beyond numeric characterization. It adds another degree of freedom in describing a character, which however is not necessarily orthogonal to the numeric choices.

Cheers,

Antonio

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Wed May 17, 2006 10:55 am

Hey Antonio, welcome to the boards.

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

Combat_Kyle · Post by **Combat_Kyle** » Wed May 17, 2006 4:25 pm

The only thing I dont like about minimum ability scores for classes is that is only allows you to create a character is you roll high enough. A player could have a great concept for a paladin, but he doesn't roll the required 17 to put in his charisma, that concept is wasted. You can be a great paladin and "only" have a 15 cha, which in MHO is a great score. I think this takes away from the feel of C&C which the focus is on role playing and not building (god I hate that term) characters.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:28 pm

I haven't seen a fighter in actual play for/under the C&C rules, but one of my sons is playing a Ranger and the other is playing a Knight. When these two classes shine they really, really shine. So I am concerned that the Fighter never shines. It looks to me like the Fighter is just "solid". If that is the case it will be difficult to sell my kids, and most people I have ever gamed with, on the advantages of being solid, in other words good in a fight all the time.

Now we are creating characters for a second C&C campaign, to run concurrently with the other/first campaign and my son who plays the Knight now wants to do a Paladin, but my other son is considering a fighter or the Bounty Hunter from the C&C Netbook of Classes I found linked to PeelSeel2's site. So I may get to see the Fighter in action soon.

Oh, BTW, my 10 year old son rolled up his stats for his Paladin last night, in front of me. Get a load of these stats: STR 17, INT 16, CON 18, WIS 18, DEX 18, CHA 15! It was fun! By the time he rolled the second 18 the whole family was watching him roll. Felt like we were watching him play craps, or something, and winning big money.

As for minimal stat requirements, if a player wanted to play a specific class I had them roll stats in order. Whatever stat did not meet the minimum requirement for the class was automatically pumped up to the class minimum. Worked well for me through about fifteen years of DMing/playing 1E/2E.

miller6 · Post by **miller6** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:57 pm

serleran wrote:
... so its not as bad as it was in 1E where there was little reason to play a Fighter if you happen to have had th nice good scores for something else.

The choice shouldn't be made based on power or abilities though. Fighters were far more versitile than rangers and paladins because they weren't restricted to being nature or religion lovers. They could be ANYTHING else and have any alignment. That's a pretty big advantage in my book.
I had this same discussion with Tug just a few weeks ago.

Brian Miller

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:09 am

Treebore wrote:
I haven't seen a fighter in actual play for/under the C&C rules, but one of my sons is playing a Ranger and the other is playing a Knight. When these two classes shine they really, really shine. So I am concerned that the Fighter never shines. It looks to me like the Fighter is just "solid". If that is the case it will be difficult to sell my kids, and most people I have ever gamed with, on the advantages of being solid, in other words good in a fight all the time.

I'm palying a Fighter in Skath's chat game over at DF. The other warrior types are a Ranger and a Bard. My character really shines in combat, as a Fighter should. All that other stuff is great, but in a smack down, nothing beats a good old Fighter.

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