Prime Attribute Requirements

[Piperdog]

Maybe this has been covered before, but I couldn't find it.

At any rate, some people on other forums were saying they didn't like the Siege Mechanic, saying it was ridiculous that a guy with a Strength of 8, who made it a Prime, could have greater bonuses than a guy with an 18 Str. I think they are right on some level, so I have a house rule that the ability has to be above average to make it Prime, to keep it from being too out of whack. Anyone else do this?
_________________
When in doubt as to who is in charge on the battlefield, listen to the man with the bloodiest sword.

[double-c]

Piperdog wrote:
[R]idiculous that a guy with a Strength of 8, who made it a Prime, could have greater bonuses than a guy with an 18 Str.

I would actually like to hear the developers stance on why they decided to go this direction with the system?

Is it to show that your potential growth in that area will be slower than they rest of your attribute makeup?

[serleran]

The raw value of an attribute is less relevant; knowing how to use what you do have and a lot of luck makes up for the better stats. Some things, notably Strength, if one actually looks at the rules completely (military press is one example, as is encumbrance) they discover that there is no way a character with an 8 Strength can out-lift an 18 Strength (this is confused by the SIEGE example with the guy lifting the mast, which is why I hate that example; it ignores the absolute weight limit given in the Strength description)... but, in other ways, like surviving paralysis attacks, your purely statistical number is not that important -- being "better" at it, explained in any number of ways, is. Also, considering combat, the 8 Strength is severely distorted... there are no advantages to anything; the guy with the 18 gets +3 to and damage: I'd call that quite significant.

Oh, and making Prime more important removes a huge chunk of the "power-gamer" mindset present in nearly all versions of D&D where more is better -- in AD&D (for example), not only did you get massive bonuses for high scores, you also got to qualify for classes that gave you massive bonuses (a double treat.) C&C wanted players to pick characters based on the fun, not because they had amazing attribute scores and got all these awesome benefits too.

But, to answer the first question -- when I have done something like you propose, I restrict the score to needing to be 10+.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Dagger]

Taking an attribute as a prime essentially means your character is trained at skills related to that prime. So, there are 3 things that factor in to how well you perform a task:

1. Your attribute modifier (a measure of your innate physical/mental capability)

2. Your level (a measure of your experience)

3. The prime/secondary status of your attribute (your training in the task at hand)

What the developers of C&C have basically decided is that training and experience far outweigh natural talent.
_________________
Rusty

[double-c]

Dagger wrote:
What the developers of C&C have basically decided is that training and experience far outweigh natural talent.

Which I can honestly say is true.

[Hrolfgar]

I've seen real life muscle guys being outdone by skinny guys or small women in jobs when the stronger guy didn't know what he was doing.

[anglefish]

Dagger wrote:
Taking an attribute as a prime essentially means your character is trained at skills related to that prime. So, there are 3 things that factor in to how well you perform a task:

1. Your attribute modifier (a measure of your innate physical/mental capability)

2. Your level (a measure of your experience)

3. The prime/secondary status of your attribute (your training in the task at hand)

What the developers of C&C have basically decided is that training and experience far outweigh natural talent.

Star Siege works around this by giving your "Prime" bonus to skill sets, and seems to make more sense on paper (and ironicaly enough makes CnC look like the adaption instead.)

The real question is whywould someone with an 8 STR would want to make it a Prime? CnC supports playing archtypes, so either you're playing against type or you are picking a Prime that someone else has covered with a better score.

The best way to use "off-color" Primes is when you need PC to do tasks that the party doesn't have the class for. I.E, someone to disarm traps or track when the party lacks a thief or ranger. In that case, letting them add class levels helps too.

[serleran]

Wrong thread.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Julian Grimm]

I houseruled that an ability must be at least 10 to qualify for the prime. For me, it makes it a bit more AD&D like but also worked into a rule I had on spell casters.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Piperdog]

I agree with you guys on that. While the Siege Mechanic was a selling point for me to switch to C&C, it can be a bit quirky at times if you let it. I like the idea of primes representing additional training, natural aptitude, and general experience at using that attribute, but still...no amount of training or natural aptitude should allow a STR 8 guy lift more than a guy with an 18 STR; it is just illogical. There are a lot of other STR related tasks I can see being justifiable, but raw lifting power is not one of them.

I think the house rule of 10+ in a Prime makes a lot of sense.
_________________
When in doubt as to who is in charge on the battlefield, listen to the man with the bloodiest sword.

[Lord Dynel]

I think it's possible to play an Strength 8 Prime, who knows how to use what little strength he has, juat as easy as it would be the Strength 18, non-prime, person. In the case of lifting the mast, though, it even says in that example in the PHB:

C&C Player's Handbook, page 124 wrote:
If Logmar's Strength was 7, the Castle Keeper might decide that lifting the mast was impossible, and not even allow an attribute check.

I would probably allow a check, just to make Logmar feel good, but I would roll behind the screen (I do most of the SIEGE rolls anyway). But this is an important piece to remember. And this is something that the players have understand and accept. My players had a hell of a time with this, because they came from d20 where one could attempt almost anything, and was allowed, with usually some chance of success associated to it.

If it's not possible, it's just not possible...sometimes.

But back to the 8 Strength, Prime, fella. As anglefish said, this is a game of archtypes. Is it possible? Sure. It's also possible that a player may try to "shore up" low attributes with the Prime tag while letting his higher attributes "wing it" on their own power. I'm not saying one is more likey than the other, though. I would liek to hope that players woudl put their best foot forward when designing a character they want to play.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Fiffergrund]

I wrote the mast example (actually, the whole section), so perhaps I can clarify.

First, the only reason that a SIEGE check is even used for that example is that the scenario presents a matter of some urgency, and failure has a consequence. Otherwise, it would simply be decided by CK fiat - Logmar is strong enough, or he isn't. In this example, it's assumed that success depends on the approach taken to the lift, and not the weight of the mast.

In the heat of crisis, lots of factors apply - coolness under pressure, adrenaline, training, and instinct.

In most circumstances, I see it as improbable that a guy with 8 STR Prime should have a better chance of success than a 18 STR Non-Prime, but consider this:

The Prime guy would know how to position his body, get a firm grip in a non-slippery location, lift in the right spot to effectively give himself a fulcrum, and other mitigating circumstances. He'd know this in any situation. The Prime character is simply better at lifting weights that are within the lifting guidelines for both characters. The Non-Prime character is the only one that even has a chance for heavier weights - he's just not particularly skilled at it.

The CK needs to use the weight guidelines to determine what's flat-out impossible.

I don't see the example as a bad one. Success in this scenario is not just a matter of raw lifting power - it's a matter of whether or not the lifting power is applied correctly under pressure in a time-sensitive situation.

Whether or not the mast can be lifted by an 8 STR is a matter of deciding how big the mast is or whether or not adrenaline can give enough boost to save the pinned character's life. That's the CK's call.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[serleran]

Yeah. To me, regardless of situation, lifting anything is a matter of Strength. Make it a Dexterity save on Logmar's behalf to wriggle his way free, and fine... but, that's just me. Or, maybe he's unconscious and can't act? In that case, I'd probably rule that the mast can be lifted, but requires a combined Strength score (maybe around 25 - 30) to do so, no check needed.

Lots of ways to handle it, but at least it now says "if the guy had a Strength of 7, it could be ruled impossible." I don't think it said that in previous printings. That makes it more tolerable.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Treebore]

Piper, your a well trained Martial artist, and a trainer, and your asking how much difference training could make versus a raw score? If anyone on these boards knows the answer to that its you.
_________________
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

[anglefish]

Lord Dynel wrote:
My players had a hell of a time with this, because they came from d20 where one could attempt almost anything, and was allowed, with usually some chance of success associated to it.

I had a couple of players that took this to extremes. They insisted on rolling for everything, because they knew that sooner or later they'd get a lucky roll. Or at least try to sell me that a natural 20 was an automatic success. I told them, that somethings were just not possible.

Lord Dynel wrote:
If it's not possible, it's just not possible...sometimes.

But back to the 8 Strength, Prime, fella. As anglefish said, this is a game of archtypes. Is it possible? Sure. It's also possible that a player may try to "shore up" low attributes with the Prime tag while letting his higher attributes "wing it" on their own power. I'm not saying one is more likey than the other, though. I would liek to hope that players woudl put their best foot forward when designing a character they want to play.

In essence, this is one of those times when you wonder if a rule should broken down into its constituent parts (and risk rules bloat). The "answer" should be that among a CK's toolkit, he/she could judge that the task needs a minimum attribute number, Prime or not. Just as CK can use the PC background story (Swimming Rangers and Landlubber Halfings come to mind.)

Of course, then someone will always be asking "What is the minimum for task 'X.'" Perhaps the default answer to that would be "10-12." Which lets an ordinary joe pull off some nice tricks once in a while.

Personally, I think that once you get past the STR argument, the other attributes are abstract enough that you have some wiggle room for reasoning out Primes vs. Non-Primes, i.e. the Intelligence example on Page 123.

[Fiffergrund]

serleran wrote:
Yeah. To me, regardless of situation, lifting anything is a matter of Strength. Make it a Dexterity save on Logmar's behalf to wriggle his way free, and fine... but, that's just me. Or, maybe he's unconscious and can't act? In that case, I'd probably rule that the mast can be lifted, but requires a combined Strength score (maybe around 25 - 30) to do so, no check needed.

Lots of ways to handle it, but at least it now says "if the guy had a Strength of 7, it could be ruled impossible." I don't think it said that in previous printings. That makes it more tolerable.

These methods are absolutely reasonable and probably better than a SIEGE check, in any case. It was really tough coming up with an example of using the SIEGE engine with a Strength check.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back