[C&C] In my ever evolving fight against primes ...

[rcsample]

You analysis leaves out something, Rich: Level. Skills actually go from +1 (non-prime class skill) to +16 or more (prime class skill at level 10). While in some cases, this isn't going to show up (i.e. fighters and wizards), a couple of classes have 3 or more attributes linked to skills.

My prime discussion is more about (as I've attempted to state above) it's disparity when compared to attribute min/max bonuses. Why should the range of unskilled-skilled bonuses be different than attribute min/max bonuses?

Since I like to think of myself as a moderate , I would give nature the same weight as nurture, therefore, I would use the (relatively the same) attribute bonus spread on a range of skill levels (no knowledge(-3)->minimal knowledge(-2)->....Advanced Knowledge(+2)->Expert Knowledge(+3)). Assign skill level to stat at beginning of game, Expert Knowledge has to be assigned to current class Prime Stat...I'm just sort of talking through my thoughts here...I'd have to think about the implementation in more detail.

Another question to you is: if character level is tied skill knowledge, why do we need primes/non-primes at all?

The overall issue to me is at one end of the spectrum we have D&D (with no skills and optional ability checks for on-the-fly "skills", static target numbers for SV throws) and on the other end of the spectrum we have D&D 3.5 (where we have a plethora of skills, Difficulty checks that can vary based on opponent, etc). C&C is somewhere inbetween....the inbetween can be good and bad.

I like C&C. I've been playing for almost a year now. I think a lot of my reactions to it is based on my players. I have a mixed group of experienced/in-experienced gamers. The more experienced ones "go with the flow". The less experiences ones are more rigid. "Why did he get to add his class level here but I don't get to do that here", etc. I realize a lot has to do with my consistency and I'm going to make mistakes. I've been waffling between continuing C&C and transitioning to Labyrinth Lord + Advanced Edition Companion. I think someone said "it's easier to add than subtract". I feel like I could start with LL+AEC and add or I could continue to use C&C with some subtractions.
All games have their pros and cons. I'm probably gonna stick with C&C.....

[Drew?]

Bravo Grimaryl - I couldn't have put it better myself!

[Grimaryl Atyar]

Also note that I did not say that the attribute score has no effects, I am just saying that training has far more to do with what you know how to do than the attribute does.

Granted, the attribute determines the range of what you can learn and be strong enough, or fast enough, to do, but its the training that has far more to do with exactly how well you do things, or how much you know about what you have studied and experienced, etc....

As for levelling and its effects, well refer to my paragraph about my Sensei in my prior post. His "experience" is what made him, and kept him, superior to me in martial arts. I knew the moves he knew, I knew the principles he knew, but it was his disciplined experience that made him my superior, my Sensei.

I know Biology, I know Psychology, but its the Biologist who has been working and researching in the field for years who is the better Biologist, it is the Psychologist who has been working in the field counseling people for years, who is the better Psychologist.

This "experience" is what class levels represent, the Prime attributes and Attribute modifiers represent basic ability and basic training, class levels represent what our life experiences teach us.

[Matt S]

Bravo Grimaryl - I couldn't have put it better myself!

I second that. Grimaryl has posted some really outstanding insight throughout this thread.

[rcsample]

So IMO, training is hands down a far bigger factor on how much you know, and how good you are at what you do.

So to me, having "training" (Primes in C&C) have far more effect on what a person, let alone a character, knows, and knows how to do, than raw attribute scores does, makes far more sense to me.

Thanks for the response.

Isn't training then effectivly represented by the class structure?

So we have two bonuses that I would call representative of "training" : One associated with a prime bonus(+6), one associated with a +1/level bonus. Why two bonuses?

Why not combine the two: +1/level for prime attrib checks, +0 for non-prime attrib checks. (You can also leave +1/level for the currently defined Class Abilities that require Attrib checks...I'd call these skills, but whatever...)

Rich

[Matt S]

Thanks for the response.

Isn't training then effectivly represented by the class structure?

So we have two bonuses that I would call representative of "training" : One associated with a prime bonus(+6), one associated with a +1/level bonus. Why two bonuses?

Why not combine the two: +1/level for prime attrib checks, +0 for non-prime attrib checks. (You can also leave +1/level for the currently defined Class Abilities that require Attrib checks...I'd call these skills, but whatever...)

Rich

That sounds similar to 3e's approach (for better or worse), where skills that you have no ranks in will never improve over time, outside factors notwithstanding. Being that I've never played C&C before, it's hard for me to say which approach is preferable.

[rcsample]

Thanks for the response.

Isn't training then effectivly represented by the class structure?

So we have two bonuses that I would call representative of "training" : One associated with a prime bonus(+6), one associated with a +1/level bonus. Why two bonuses?

Why not combine the two: +1/level for prime attrib checks, +0 for non-prime attrib checks. (You can also leave +1/level for the currently defined Class Abilities that require Attrib checks...I'd call these skills, but whatever...)

Rich

That sounds similar to 3e's approach (for better or worse), where skills that you have no ranks in will never improve over time, outside factors notwithstanding. Being that I've never played C&C before, it's hard for me to say which approach is preferable.

I'm not sure I like my "solution" above...it increases +1/level of "skills" that are linked to a prime not directly linked to the class, to infinity.

I understand where Grim is coming from. Upon further reflection I think my issue is linking primes to abilities rather than "Skill bundles" (which I hear StarSiege does?)....

Rich

[Grimaryl Atyar]

So IMO, training is hands down a far bigger factor on how much you know, and how good you are at what you do.

So to me, having "training" (Primes in C&C) have far more effect on what a person, let alone a character, knows, and knows how to do, than raw attribute scores does, makes far more sense to me.

Thanks for the response.

Isn't training then effectivly represented by the class structure?

So we have two bonuses that I would call representative of "training" : One associated with a prime bonus(+6), one associated with a +1/level bonus. Why two bonuses?

Why not combine the two: +1/level for prime attrib checks, +0 for non-prime attrib checks. (You can also leave +1/level for the currently defined Class Abilities that require Attrib checks...I'd call these skills, but whatever...)

Rich

My thoughts posted in the post following the one you quoted:

"As for levelling and its effects, well refer to my paragraph about my Sensei in my prior post. His "experience" is what made him, and kept him, superior to me in martial arts. I knew the moves he knew, I knew the principles he knew, but it was his disciplined experience that made him my superior, my Sensei.

I know Biology, I know Psychology, but its the Biologist who has been working and researching in the field for years who is the better Biologist, it is the Psychologist who has been working in the field counseling people for years, who is the better Psychologist.

This "experience" is what class levels represent, the Prime attributes and Attribute modifiers represent basic ability and basic training, class levels represent what our life experiences teach us."

[rcsample]

This "experience" is what class levels represent, the Prime attributes and Attribute modifiers represent basic ability and basic training, class levels represent what our life experiences teach us."

I think my hangup is attaching primes(which in your words is basic training) to attributes. The issue for me in that is INT or WIS, etc. are pretty broad areas of "expertise". I understand C&C to be doing this to provide a quick-n-dirty fairly free form skill check system. I think I may be looking for a little more detail and maybe the Star Siege idea of a starting skill bundle(s?) might be more palateable for me..

Thanks for your input...

Rich

[+2 backscratcher]

I am just saying that training has far more to do with what you know how to do than the attribute does.

I agree, but one of my biggest beefs with primes is that the 'training' you speak off is based solely off an attribute score instead of a backround and/or concept.

For example, lets say you had a fighter who was brought up in the city and used to be a merchant in his past ( character concept ). To do this in C&C, you'd have to take primes in INT ( knowledge of economics, numbers and such ) and CHR prime ( to deal with customers, barter, haggle etc ).

My beef with that is your character is equally skilled in every other aspect of INT and CHR that have nothing to do with being a merchant or city dweller. Also a non human with only 2 primes ( one being STR ) couldn't even have this as a character concept.

Wouldn't it be more logical to get the +6 prime bonus ( or whatever number one might feel is best ) for only the things you actually have training/familiararity in? In my above example, that character would get the +6 prime bonus rolling SEIGE checks that have to do with being a fighter ( your class ), being a merchant ( something you had training in in your past ), and anything pertaining to city knowledge ( the area you were brought up in ). IMO, this is a much better way of doing things.

I have no problem with the SEIGE engine as a mechanic. I have a problem with the numbers and how they're derived. Anything can be houseruled of course, but I'd prefer to add some minor houserules to a game if needed instead of rewriting a major game mechanic due to it's poor design.

BTW, your real-life 'STR prime' example doesn't even work in the C&C rules because 'hitting hard' is not a SEIGE check!

[Drew?]

Thats why you still need skills . . . .

[Grimaryl Atyar]

I am just saying that training has far more to do with what you know how to do than the attribute does.

I agree, but one of my biggest beefs with primes is that the 'training' you speak off is based solely off an attribute score instead of a backround and/or concept.

For example, lets say you had a fighter who was brought up in the city and used to be a merchant in his past ( character concept ). To do this in C&C, you'd have to take primes in INT ( knowledge of economics, numbers and such ) and CHR prime ( to deal with customers, barter, haggle etc ).

My beef with that is your character is equally skilled in every other aspect of INT and CHR that have nothing to do with being a merchant or city dweller. Also a non human with only 2 primes ( one being STR ) couldn't even have this as a character concept.

Wouldn't it be more logical to get the +6 prime bonus ( or whatever number one might feel is best ) for only the things you actually have training/familiararity in? In my above example, that character would get the +6 prime bonus rolling SEIGE checks that have to do with being a fighter ( your class ), being a merchant ( something you had training in in your past ), and anything pertaining to city knowledge ( the area you were brought up in ). IMO, this is a much better way of doing things.

I have no problem with the SEIGE engine as a mechanic. I have a problem with the numbers and how they're derived. Anything can be houseruled of course, but I'd prefer to add some minor houserules to a game if needed instead of rewriting a major game mechanic due to it's poor design.

BTW, your real-life 'STR prime' example doesn't even work in the C&C rules because 'hitting hard' is not a SEIGE check!

Well, it is a choice. I initially wanted more definition to my skills, etc... but eventually realized my players did not like keeping track, and the very generic approach worked for us. As it stands now I make some general assumptions on skills adventurers would have, and then if they wanted beyond that they had to write up back grounds.

In fact, here is the last iteration of my house rules, technically I still use them, but everyone is happy just using the SIEGE engine and general assumptions rather than track detailed skills.

"
SKILLS and LANGUAGES:

If you want anything beyond what your chosen class give you do a back ground write up explaining how you were raised and trained. As long as you can make it a sensible and realistic back ground I don't care if you have 20 skills or languages. Consider 20 the limit, though.

When I decide a skill/language related roll is needed I will do it as if you have the relevant attribute as Prime, even if it is not, just like I treat Class Skills.

I will not accept skills that are too broadly defined, though. For example, Gymnastics is too broad. You must specify tumbling, balance beam, jumping, the horse, the rings, etc...

As for what a class automatically knows, lets use Wizard as an example. I will be willing to assume they "know" everything about spells, spell casting, spell creation, and creating scrolls, potions, and items. I will not assume they know about magical creatures, the planes of existence, etc...

Similar assumptions will be made for the other spell casting classes. You want them to know about monsters, the planes, etc... then do a back ground write up.

Now a fighter example. I will assume they know how best to fight as an individual and maintain their weapons and armor and how to ride their horse and give basic care to their horse and riding gear. If you want them to know how to make armor, weapons, leather goods, medically treat themselves or others, to be perceptive, etc... you must write up a background history.

For clarity, also list your skills you think your write up gives you. So after you finish your write up then list skills like this:

Weapon crafting
fishing
mountain climbing
skinning animals
etc... "

So I hear where your coming from, I have been there, the iteration prior to the one above was far more detailed, much more like 3E D&D, but I realized it was more detail and work than any of us really wanted to put into it. So is the one above.

[Drew?]

I ended introducing skills mainly because my players wanted them, they love the C&C system as a whole but wanted a little more "definition" to their characters. After pinching skill systems that didn't really "fit" I came up with a new approach.

Here's how I've being doing it (the "Anti-Prime" Brigade will hate it LoL) - its been working quite well for the last couple of Months.

This is a way for the use of skills in C&C games to 'fit' a little better with the Siege Engine System - so it’s possible to actually use both approaches - allowing characters to attempt pretty much anything whilst maintaining a more structured approach - with appropriate Challenge Ratings of course.

This would still allow a Fighter to attempt to pick a lock (for example) - he just wouldn't have much of a chance of succeeding.

I personally believe that rather than have a long static list of skills, the players should choose skills that fit their character concept and with the help of their CK - and come up with their own list of skills and their descriptions.

Skills would still have ranks of sorts - and these levels are ’rated’ like any characters attributes -

- Tertiary (the lowest skill level)
- Secondary (average skill level
- Primary (the highest skill level)

Like class skills, the character applies any appropriate attribute bonus to the task at hand - strength when shoeing a horse, or dexterity when making a horse-shoe - both would be considered to come under the skill heading of blacksmithing, but you would require strength for one and manual dexterity for the other. But unlike class skills, you don't add your class level in a 'straight' manner.

- Primary skills get a +1 bonus per level
- Secondary gets +1/2 levels
- Tertiary gets a +1 bonus per 3 levels

Your base challenge rating is determined by skill 'level' - level 3/Primary = 12, level 2/Secondary = 15, and level 1/Tertiary = 18. This in turn has a Challenge Rating applied by the Myth Master determined by the individual circumstances for that particular use of the skill.

As rule of thumb - the Number of slots a Character has for his Secondary Skills are equal to -

- Characters (INT+WIS) + Characters Starting Age/10

Skill Level / Cost to "buy" at First Level
Tertiary (18 ) / 2 point
Secondary (15) / 4 points
Primary (12) / 6 points

Skill Level / Cost to "buy" after First Level
Tertiary (18 ) / 3 point
Secondary (15) / 6 points
Primary (12) / 9 points

Example - Brother Kydric has 26 ’Slots’ to spend on his Secondary Skills - and he decides to spend 6 Slots on Healing. Giving him the Healing secondary skill at Level 3/Primary, his base challenge difficulty for all tests involving his Healing secondary skill is set at 12.

I set the costs for buying new skills as higher after the character has begun his "career" to make it more difficult later on in a characters development - mainly to stop PC's being "bogged down" with huge lists of skills.

A Character gains Secondary Skill points at every ’Odd’ level (3rd, 5th, 7th and so on), the points he gains are equal to his Class Prime attribute modifier (whichever is higher) +1 (with a minimum "gain" of 1 Secondary Skill point).

To make the check, the character performing the skill simply rolls a d20 and adds his appropriate modifiers - the difficulty is set by his skill level (either 12, 15, or 18) plus any challenge rating added by his CK.

So if a character is level three, has a dexterity of 15 (the appropriate attribute in this example), and his skill level is 3/Primary - when using the Weapon Smith secondary skill they are allowed a +4 to their roll.

In some instances the use of skills causes another to make a saving throw. In this case, the character, monster or non-player character makes a saving throw but modifies the roll by a -1 for each level of skill the character has (-1 for Tertiary, -2 for Secondary, and -3 for Primary).

This is also adjusted further for any attribute modifiers. When a saving throw is called for, the character’s level or monsters hit dice also affect the roll.

Furthermore, as mentioned above - there are always circumstances than need some modification beyond that mentioned above.

Unusual circumstances, the weather and pure chance can come into play to effect the chances of success. In addition, the difficulty of the situation also adjusts the roll.

Its fairly straight forward, fits in with the concept of primes - and doesn't screw up the SEIGE Engine system.

[Harshax]

Were I to add subtle complexities to the C&C Skill System, I might draw inspiration from Barbarians of Lemuria:

Each character chooses 4 professions at 1st level. These professions represent the character's background growing up, apprenticeship, hardships, or other jobs he took. The character then gets 4 points to distribute across these professions.

Whenever the CK calls for a skill check, the player rolls a d20 + Attribute Bonus + Prime + an applicable profession.

PROS
Still uses core prime mechanic
Curtails the perceived notion that skill attempts spiral out of control at high levels

CONS
Certain professions are easily covered in character class, eg: rogue/thief/burglar
While keeping total adds to a minimum, does introduce a complexity to the standard SIEGE mechanic

Since I'm looking to use C&C stripped down to OD&D classes (fighting-man, cleric, magic-user) some of the CONS are not detrimental for my uses.

[rcsample]

Here's how I've being doing it (the "Anti-Prime" Brigade will hate it LoL) - its been working quite well for the last couple of Months.

I hope I'm not giving the impression that I am Anti-Prime(trying to ignore the thread title here...), as much as trying to get a handle on why they didn't sit well with me. I think the magical backscratcher, Grim and you have helped me think through the issue. The issue for me is that I miss skills and by skills I don't mean a list of 1000+ skills because we have to capture every activity in the known universe, but skills as both you, Grim and +2 have outlined above. I like the approach you lay out above and I like the "house rule -background" that Grim lays out above that. It gives me some additional structure for skills without going "full 3.5e" on C&C.

Thanks to everyone and your patience while I wrapped my noggin around this issue....

Rich

[Grimaryl Atyar]

In case you do not realize it, C&C is "bare bones" on purpose. They expect us to house rule it to perfectly fit our tastes. Which suites me perfectly, I always tinker with any RPG I run, just this time I am achieving the first "perfect" game I have ever played.

Before I added many house rules to make it "better", and "good enough", but this is the first time where I feel I am actually achieving something that perfectly fits my tastes.

So I hope C&C helps others achieve this feeling of "the perfect game", because its a pretty cool feeling.

[Omote]

I'd like to add to Grimaryl Atyar thought that C&C is bare bones. I kind of disagree. The system has worked just well without adding anything. Yeah, it's designed to fit to taste, but can work perfectly well as is, regardless of your thoughts on primes.

~O

[+2 backscratcher]

Go Cavs!

Like every other Cleveland sports team, they will unfortunately find a way to lose it in the end. Remember your in CLEVELAND!

[Sunsword]

I'd like to add to Grimaryl Atyar thought that C&C is bare bones. I kind of disagree. The system has worked just well without adding anything. Yeah, it's designed to fit to taste, but can work perfectly well as is, regardless of your thoughts on primes.

~O

And I'd like to add that, even with the problems I have with C&C, its strength is that it scratches the itch for both of you.

[Lord Dynel]

I'd like to add to Grimaryl Atyar thought that C&C is bare bones. I kind of disagree. The system has worked just well without adding anything. Yeah, it's designed to fit to taste, but can work perfectly well as is, regardless of your thoughts on primes.

~O

And I'd like to add that, even with the problems I have with C&C, its strength is that it scratches the itch for both of you.

Exactly.