Quote from: Benoist;504067And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"

LOL, exactly...  

The very main reason why I despise house rules.  If you remove the SIEGE engine from C&C, you are in essence almost playing AD&D.    LOL

Good point....

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;504091LOL, exactly...  

The very main reason why I despise house rules.  If you remove the SIEGE engine from C&C, you are in essence almost playing AD&D.    LOL

Good point....

...

You are breaking my frigging brain with your logic here, mate.

Quote from: joewolz;504035I see.  This has never happened to me in actual play, but I can see how it might...if the cleric ever decided to try tracking.  This complaint (and not necessarily from you) smacks of a hypothetical brought from a critical reading of the rules, not a complaint from actual play experience.

It did come up in my game, only with the Cleric outdoing the Rogue and the Assassin at finding traps.

It's certainly no deal-breaker, but it's bad.

Man, I should really try the fix I outlined above one of these days.

To be fair to C&C though, you get to pick some Primes.  If you as a Ranger, Thief, or Assassin don't pick the Trait that ties to those skills as a Prime, then aren't you pretty much choosing to not be good at that?  If a Ranger did take Wisdom as a Prime, he would be better at tracking then the Cleric.

I agree that C&C suffers with the whole 3e problem of core class abilities as general skills, and with a stat-based skill system with too few stats, but it's not as if the Thief couldn't be better at Finding Traps if he wanted to.

I stand corrected.  It hasn't happened in my games, but now that I know it can...

I still prefer C&C to anything else I've seen from the OSR.  Perhaps it's because I  missed 1st and 2nd edition D&D, but C&C just works for me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;504157To be fair to C&C though, you get to pick some Primes.  If you as a Ranger, Thief, or Assassin don't pick the Trait that ties to those skills as a Prime, then aren't you pretty much choosing to not be good at that?  If a Ranger did take Wisdom as a Prime, he would be better at tracking then the Cleric.

I agree that C&C suffers with the whole 3e problem of core class abilities as general skills, and with a stat-based skill system with too few stats, but it's not as if the Thief couldn't be better at Finding Traps if he wanted to.

Indeed the problem can be ameliorated somewhat if the Thief picks Wisdom as a Prime (not necessarily "fixed", because he's still not likely to have as a high a Wisdom as the Cleric, which should bring the "level gap" down to 0-2 instead of 7-9, but this is nitpicking).

But here's where we agree to disagree. I feel the Thief should be better at finding traps than the Cleric, because he's a Thief. Not because he's a particularly "wise" Thief.

Having to pick a Prime so you can perform your class skills better than people outside your class, to me, defeats the purpose of both Primes (because it turns the choice of your non-class-specific Prime into a false choice) and, to a lesser degree, of having a class system in the first place.

It sounds like, as someone said above, Wisdom is being overused in this case. The same would apply to Int if it was used for alertness & finding traps. Frankly it would be better (if not 100% perfect) to just go ahead and use Dexterity on the theory that it represents quickness, adroitness, and alertness.

I've been pushing simple skill systems in various threads lately. Let me try to suggest something for D&D-type games, drawn from Talislanta, and if I have time, I'll try to do another alternative or two, drawing from one or two other games.

Begin by choosing your race & class (if distinct from race). These give you a bunch of core skills at 0. Each may also let you choose a certain number from a menu of optional skills, and you may also choose, say two "background" skills (generally, non-adventuring skills). Note that Thief skills are rolled into this system.

If you do something that falls under a skill, and you have that skill, you roll d20 + ability bonus + skill level (which is initially 0). GM may add a modifier between -10 and +10 based on difficulty. A result of 6 or greater is a partial success. 11 or higher is a success. 0 is a critical failure and 20 is a critical success. If needed, skill descriptions can give ideas as to what distinguishes a partial success from a full success.

With this system, I think rolling for surprise can be used as a skill; it can even be an opposed roll based on level of success. (You could think of it as: people with critical success act in round one, then people with regular success begin to act in round two, and so on. Or level of success determines the range at which you detect the other party.) If you do this, then Alertness becomes a skill for rangers and Elves.

Whenever you go up a level, all your existing skills get a +1. (Exception: bought skills, see below.)

You can also spend XP to raise an existing skill by +1. -- Note, this a problem in D&D, because of the XP inflation curve, where it's not a problem in Talislanta. I'm tempted to say that raising a skill in games that use the D&D progression tables will cost around 25% the difference between what it took to get to your current level, and what it will take to get to the next level. Or, say 500 times your current level.

You can also spend XP to gain new skills. As above, this would have to inflate relative to your current level. Cost depends on the skill, but for example learning a thief-type skill costs the same as raising an existing skill. Skills gained this way do not increase automatically when you gain a level--they have to be raised individually.

Generally the skills that you get at chargen will include some that are pretty exclusive, class-to-class. But if a cleric, say, wants to learn tracking, or most other skills, he can--he just has to spend to learn it, and spend again to raise it.

What if you don't have the skill to try something? Instead of rolling a d20, you roll a d10, but you still get your attribute modifier.

Quote from: The Butcher;504253Indeed the problem can be ameliorated somewhat if the Thief picks Wisdom as a Prime (not necessarily "fixed", because he's still not likely to have as a high a Wisdom as the Cleric, which should bring the "level gap" down to 0-2 instead of 7-9, but this is nitpicking).

But here's where we agree to disagree. I feel the Thief should be better at finding traps than the Cleric, because he's a Thief. Not because he's a particularly "wise" Thief.

Having to pick a Prime so you can perform your class skills better than people outside your class, to me, defeats the purpose of both Primes (because it turns the choice of your non-class-specific Prime into a false choice) and, to a lesser degree, of having a class system in the first place.

First of all, minor correction, I'm pretty sure finding traps is based on INT, not WIS (at least in the 4th printing of C&C).  And since the Rogue gets to add their level while others do not, they should become the most competent at it once they have spent some time (i.e. gained some levels) in the class.  After all, for a rogue who is just starting out, just learning the ropes, it's understandable that they might not be all that good at some of their traditional abilities.  Even without INT as a prime, by 3rd level he should be the best trap finder.

Quote from: joewolz;504161I still prefer C&C to anything else I've seen from the OSR.  Perhaps it's because I  missed 1st and 2nd edition D&D, but C&C just works for me.

I've played everything from the 0e -> OSR and C&C is a perfectly fine game. I think the classes are better designed and presented than in AD&D.

You are in an interesting position since you can judge the game without any nostalgia. Regardless of how objective I try to be, I know that I have a bias toward 0e because it was my first dungeon orgasm.

Quote from: Technomancer;504268First of all, minor correction, I'm pretty sure finding traps is based on INT, not WIS (at least in the 4th printing of C&C).  And since the Rogue gets to add their level while others do not, they should become the most competent at it once they have spent some time (i.e. gained some levels) in the class.  After all, for a rogue who is just starting out, just learning the ropes, it's understandable that they might not be all that good at some of their traditional abilities.  Even without INT as a prime, by 3rd level he should be the best trap finder.

I don't have my book (2nd printing) with me right now, so you may be right. As long as it's anything other than Dexterity, though, the point stands. Substitute Wisdom for Intelligence, and Cleric for Wizard; the problem remains the same -- characters of different classes beat the Rogue at what should be one of his defining schticks.

Also, 3rd level is hardly enough to offset the considerable difference between a Prime and a non-Prime. A Prime (base DC 12) means a +6 difference versus a non-Prime (base DC 18). All Wizards have INT as Prime, so they get a head start of +6 on a Rogue with the non-Prime INT of the same value (which it usually isn't, most Wizard PCs have higher INT than Rogue PCs, for obvious reasons). Our Rogue will have to wait until 6th level to level the playing field, and 7th level to actually outperform the Wizard at one of his class abilities (assuming equivalent INT scores).

Now, I appreciate that this is not an issue for a lot of people. Hell, I play in a C&C game and I like it, so it's certainly no dealbreaker. But when I choose to roll up a Rogue, I do so because I expect to sneak up on people, and backstab, and pick pockets, and find and disarm traps. And I'd be fairly miffed if the Wizard, or the Cleric, or any other character of any other class was outperforming me in what I perceive to be my character's thing. In a class-based system, niche protection is kind of a big deal to me; do away with it, and it feels kind of pointless to have a class system in place. It feels like bad game design to me. But that's just how I roll.

Quote from: The Butcher;504253Having to pick a Prime so you can perform your class skills better than people outside your class, to me, defeats the purpose of both Primes (because it turns the choice of your non-class-specific Prime into a false choice) and, to a lesser degree, of having a class system in the first place.

I use a primary/secondary/tertiary attribute spread, as suggested in the Castle Keeper's Guide. This is coupled with a set 15 target number and +3/+0/-3 modifiers. I find that this gives players more options and makes Prime choices a bit more meaningful. The original system just seems too black and white to me - either you are competent at something or you suck at it.

Personally I like that C&C puts so much emphasis on attribute values, over race and class choices. When I roll a new character I always begin the process of imagining who that character is by looking at the stat values. Is he strong? smart? a leader of men? To me the attributes are what really define the character as an individual, over and above the culture of his people or his chosen profession.

So why is Peter Bradley the devil?

Quote from: The Butcher;504306Also, 3rd level is hardly enough to offset the considerable difference between a Prime and a non-Prime. A Prime (base DC 12) means a +6 difference versus a non-Prime (base DC 18). All Wizards have INT as Prime, so they get a head start of +6 on a Rogue with the non-Prime INT of the same value (which it usually isn't, most Wizard PCs have higher INT than Rogue PCs, for obvious reasons). Our Rogue will have to wait until 6th level to level the playing field, and 7th level to actually outperform the Wizard at one of his class abilities (assuming equivalent INT scores).

D'oh, you are right, I was only thinking of the actual attribute bonus and not taking the prime into consideration.

What if primes didn't give as much of a bonus.  Say, +3, no greater than the highest attribute bonus.  Would that make it more palatable?

My main criticism of C&C is the SIEGE engine.  At the time, I really didn't need another D&D-ish game, let alone one with a new save/skill mechanic.  I already had games like classic AD&D with it's subsystems, RuneQuest 2/Stormbringer, and 3e with it's save/skill/feat systems.

On top of that, if I want a game with an old-school feel, I'll go play an old-school game.  The counter argument to that was "C&C is in print and supported", but that doesn't matter to me, though I acknowledge it is an issue for others.  

And I didn't care for the art, and the editing in the early prints was pretty bad.

So I passed it by, as a game I'd play, but I familiarized myself with it so I would understand Castle Zagyg when it came out.  Without CZ, I never would have even bothered.

Quote from: Spinachcat;504334So why is Peter Bradley the devil?

Oh, he's not the devil.  Not even close.  I haven't dealt with him in years (used to be on the gygax talk mailing lists and hang out at the trolls messageboard when they ran the LGGC), but my recollection is that at times (not always), he came across in a smarmy, condescending manner.  In addition, he really seemed like someone living in a bubble where reality dare not intrude, and seemed to lack any sort of real life experience.

So in other words, he's much like a lot of "parental basement dwelling" gamers, which are a dime a dozen on the net.  :-P

Quote from: Technomancer;504402What if primes didn't give as much of a bonus.  Say, +3, no greater than the highest attribute bonus.  Would that make it more palatable?

I know your question was directed at The Butcher, but IMO I would say 'no', it still wouldn't be palatable because it doesn't go far enough to address the problem.  If I were to play C&C again, I would address the 'problem' as such;

 1)  Ditch Primes and the SEIGE stuff as written.

 2)  Base target numbers is 15 adjusted up or down depending on difficulty ( CK's ruling ).

 3)  If performing an action pertaining to your class, you get a +3 bonus + your level as a modifier.

 4)  If performing an action pertaining to your backround*, you get a +3 bonus + HALF of your level rounded down as a modifier.

   Of course your appropriate attribute modifier is also always added to your rolls too.

 * Backrounds would be something simple like 'rural farmer', 'nobelman', or 'towns blacksmith'.

  Now maybe the actual numbers would need to be adjusted somewhat, but IMO this would address the problems I see with the Prime/SEIGE mechanic as written.