New To C&C, Ancient To Roll Playing - Some Clarifications

[redwullf]

Hi there,

I received my Player's Handbook in the mail yesterday and I am already enamored with C&C. It has that warm, nostalgic, old school D&D feel, less all of the baggage AD&D (1st and 2nd) came with. Having said the obvious (grin), I would like just a little clarification to make sure I understand the system.

Question 1: Challenge Classes (SIEGE Engine checks)

I think I understand this system well, but I wanted to be sure. When making opposed attribute checks or saving throws, is the challenge level (CL) always the opponents level or HD? For example, the Barbarians Intimidate ability: "Any creature of equal or lesser hit dice of the barbarian whom fails a charisma check suffers a -2 to all rolls..." So, if I understand the system correctly, a creature may have "Physical" saves, "Mental" saves, etc. Let's assume the Barbarian is Intimidating an Orc, who has "saves P." This tells me that the Challenge Base is 18, since Charisma is a mental stat, and the Challenge Level (CL) would be the Barbarian's level? Is that correct? Assuming the Barbarian is, say, 5th level, the Orc would have to make a d20 check against CC 23, which is impossible to make since the most he could hope for is a 21 (roll of 20, +1 for his Hit Die). Does this sound correct?

Conversely, a number of monsters list abilities which require saving throws. Example, the Gray Ooze has a Transparent ability: "If a victim approaches within 5 feet of a gray ooze, it is allowed a wisdom or mental save, at a -6 penalty, to notice the creature before it strikes." If a PC has Wisdom as a Prime Attribute, would the Save be: (Prime) d20 + PC Level + Attribute Modifier - 6 (for the penalty mentioned) vs. 12 + 3 (the Ooze's HD)? Assuming the character is, say, a 5th level Cleric with Wis of 16 as a Prime Attribute, would the check be: d20 + 5 +2 - 6 (or d20 +1) vs. CC 15?

What about, say, a Rogue's Hide ability? This is where I'm least comfortable in my interpretation of attribute checks... Would the Rogue make his Dex check against the opponent's Level or HD: CB 12 + Opponents HD or Level? If the Rogue is trying to sneak past an HD 4 Ogre, would the CC simply be 12 + 4 = 16? What would modify such a check (light conditions, multiple Ogres, etc)? Or would this be an "opposed" check of some sort, where the Rogue would make a CB 12 Dexterity Check and CK would make a CB 12 or 18 Wisdom Check, depending on the NPC or creature? It seems to me that not all creatures are equally observent. If, say, the creature has Mental Prime, we can assume it has a higher Wisdom. Would this increase the Rogue's CC to Hide? If so, what would be a "standard" increase for such a creature? If it's an NPC, would you simply add the NPCs Wisdom modifier to the CC (say, +2 for a 16 Wisdom, making the CC 12 + NPCs Level + 2)? Clear assistance here is much appreciated.

SIEGE Engine seems to suggest that my examples above are pretty much the standard way to resolve such checks and saving throws, where your Challenge Level is always the opposing creatures level or HD. Sound right?

Question 2: Helmets

Helmets state that they provide their AC modifier only against blows to the head, but I couldn't find where something like this is likely to occur. In the arbitrary combat system, when or how would a character need to care what his head's AC is?

Thanks in advance for the answers I'm sure to receive!

[Breakdaddy]

First off, welcome!

I'm sneaking a few moments from a work project so I must be brief. Hopefully more thorough answers are forthcoming. The answer to most of your questions is "however the CK wants it done" but, more helpfully, yes, as a general rule you want to use the HD of your opponent. If you sneak past a 4 HD guard the CL would be 4 for your check. I do SIEGE a bit differently than the book (all rolls are base 18, you add +6 if youre rolling for a prime) so that it's easy to actually make opposed rolls where you can compare one to the other. On the gray ooze, by the book it would certainly be roll a d20+level-6 (for penalty)+ any attribute modifier, vs 12 (if a prime) + the monster HD (3). So you'd need to roll a 15 if my math is right here.

Helmets- Having gamed with the Trolls, I will tell you that by the book the helmet stuff is strictly CK arbitration. There are no PHB mechanics for called shots to the head that I can recall.

[redwullf]

Breakdaddy,

Thanks for the response. I had a feeling that was the case with the helmets. In regard to the SIEGE check mechanics, I appreciate your brief confirmation that I'm correct. I'm still hoping that someone will weigh in on my specific examples, check my math and understanding, and perhaps provide some additional insight into modifiers, examples, etc.

Thanks again!

[Go0gleplex]

Your math on the first two examples appears to be correct as is how you understand it to work. The example of the rogue may require one of the Trolls for anything remotely official. When in doubt, CK choice rules.

[redwullf]

Your math on the first two examples appears to be correct as is how you understand it to work. The example of the rogue may require one of the Trolls for anything remotely official. When in doubt, CK choice rules.

I don't doubt for a moment that the CK's choice always rules - this is a staple of role playing... The DM/GM/CK/Narrator always trumps the rules.

However, surely the Trolls had a standard application for SIEGE checks in mind when they created the system. I'm curious to know what that standard is, what the Trolls envisioned when they put the RAW to paper, and what they use in their own games. I'm not looking for house rules or variations on the system, I'm looking for RAW as the designers intended.

Thank you for the response, and looking forward to more insights on my questions.

[Go0gleplex]

Okay...giving this a bit more thought. The rogue would indeed use the base+HD as the CC to hide from the ogre. IMO The ogre would be allowed a Search check if actively looking for the rogue using its mental base+level of the rogue as its CC, but would not necessarily get a spot roll since the rogue successfully hid. As for lighting and other ogres, any lighting modifier will be up to the CK to establish as I'm unaware of any hard rules for it.

RAW, deep shadows count as concealment for purposes of hiding without further modifier, so this has been factored into the process. In total darkness, in terms of ogres, there would be no added concealment of modifiers due to the ogres possessing dark vision. Against opponents without dark vision, darkness would simply allow the rogue to hide since they would be unable to be observed by the enemy. In terms of the enemy searching for the rogue in total darkness, I'd likely treat the rogue as being invisible in relation to a Search check with a modifier to match since the Hide ability allows them to be nearly invisible RAW.

For multiple ogres, I would simply give each ogre its own roll without modifier for their being more than one.

[alcyone]

C&C does not have opposed checks. This is clarified somewhat in the CKG, which sadly I don't have next to me. What happens is you look at the prime/non-prime of your opponent's ability, which then adjusts the challenge base (based on your own prime/non-prime) by +0 (non-prime) or +6 (prime).

Can someone with the CKG handy quote the section?

[alcyone]

Never mind, found it: Part 3: The Siege Engine, page 234:

"[...] the character performs the
action against the opposition’s attribute, with the primary or non-primary
designation of the attribute in question and the creature’s level or hit
dice determining the action’s difficulty level, not an opposing roll. So, if
the opposition’s attribute is a prime, CL 6 is added the action’s CB; if the
opposition’s attribute is secondary, the CL is +0."

[redwullf]

Never mind, found it: Part 3: The Siege Engine, page 234:

"[...] the character performs the
action against the opposition’s attribute, with the primary or non-primary
designation of the attribute in question and the creature’s level or hit
dice determining the action’s difficulty level, not an opposing roll. So, if
the opposition’s attribute is a prime, CL 6 is added the action’s CB; if the
opposition’s attribute is secondary, the CL is +0."

This is extremely helpful. The fact that I do not yet have the CKG explains why I haven't felt 100% "informed" about this system. Though the PHB covers SIEGE Engine in a fair amount of detail, I did not see that simple block of information you just provided. Trolls, it might be worth putting that simple explanatory segment of text into the PHB. After all, the PHB is pitched as "all we need to play the game." And, if that explanation already exists in the PHB, and I simply haven't landed on it yet, I apologize up front.

Again, thank you for the help. That is exactly the clarification I was looking for.

EDIT: Actually, hold on a minute. Is this saying that if a Rogue wanted to Hide from our 4 HD Ogre, and the Ogre has "Saves: P" (making Dex a primary attribute), does this mean the CK adds 6 to the Rogue's CB? This makes no sense...what does the Ogre's dexterity have to do with being able to spot a hiding Rogue, or, more accurately, making a Rogue's CC to Hide more difficult? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this... And maybe someone can take our virtual 5th level rogue with a Dex 16 through the math against our 4 HD Ogre (darkvision aside, just an example) to help me understand what I'm missing? Coming from AD&D, 3rd Edition, and Pathfinder, I'm probably way over-thinking this, since I'm still "gunshy" about RAW vs. RAI, and therefore reading too far into this. But, I really do want to understand how the system works.

[alcyone]

Doesn't have to be the same attribute. Hide(Dex) could be reasonably opposed by int or wis, or just mental for a monster. The CKG section contains an example about grabbing something out of someone's hand, so it could well have been intended to be only when it's the same attribute (dex vs. dex in the example). I don't know.

So, CB for hiding from the Ogre would be 0 (non prime mental) + 4 (HD) + anything else you see fit (it's dark, it's bright, there is a big glowing orange arrow floating above the rogue's head).

As for me, I just add the monster's level and I'm done with it, and if the monster seems to have an obvious advantage/disadvantage due to its nature (it can see in the dark, has 100 eyes, and can track by scent), I just add or subtract some arbitrary amount.

[Go0gleplex]

As I would see it, You would take the Rogue's prime/non-prime + the HD of the ogre. That would be the roll to beat made by the rogue. The ogre rolls nothing. If the rogue has DEX as prime, then his CC would be 16 (12+4). He would roll d20+level+2 Dex bonus. So if he rolled a 10 the final result would be 10+5+2=17. He successfully hides from the ogre. The above referenced piece of text would not apply in this case since the rogue's hide atttempt is not acting against the ogre's attributes, ie, he is not making an opposable action.

If you have a situation where the character's action is acting against an opposing attribute then you would add +6 in addition to the HD of the creature if the attribute was prime. So if the rogue were attempting to jerk the ogre's loin cloth down around its ankles (assuming it is wearing one and actively avoiding such a fate) the rogue's CC would be 12+4+6 (the ogre DEX is prime) for a total of 22.

[redwullf]

Two different, but very helpful answers. I think I'm beginning to understand the "basic" expectation. CC = CB + CL (where CL is the opposition's Level/HD), period. All other modifiers are really at the CK's discretion, right? To go back to my original concern, some HD 4 monsters/PCs might be more observant than others - but, I think I'm beginning to understand that, as CK, I'll handle these on a case by case basis. Sound about right?

I apologize for dragging this out. I've become so hard-wired for RAW thanks to 3E and Pathfinder, that I'm having a hard time downshifting to C&C, which exists comfortably in between the frivolous hand-waving of "skill checks" in AD&D and the iron-fisted calculations of 3E. During our Pathfinder games, if I "screw up" someone's check or Saving Throw, you can rest assured they'll kick and scream (because my veteran players are students of the rules, and can meta-play the crap out my encounters). One thing that really drew me to check out C&C in the first place is how bogged down our game play has become due to rule complexities, and the dozens of meaningless "abilities" Pathfinder characters have. I run a table of 6 players, and it can take upwards of 5 minutes to run a single round of combat (often upwards of 10). With the exception of, say, our fighter, pretty much everyone has to reference their spells, talents, abilities, feats, and break out calculators to evaluate their hit because of all the "tests" that have to be passed (am I within 30 feet? Am I in a "dungeon" or outside, and if I'm in a dungeon, what is defined as a dungeon exactly? Is this my favorite enemy? Did the Bard's inspiration run out this round or last round? What about the Wizard's Haste spell?)...it goes on and on.

I appreciate your patience and understanding, and most importantly your support!

[Go0gleplex]

One thing to keep in mind in regards to the answers. The reason Hide is not opposed by an attribute is because the rogue cannot be under observation while making the hide attempt. So the ogre and his buddies have to be looking elsewhere leaving no active attribute to oppose the check.

I'm going to play this from the opposing end for you now. If the ogre suspects there is a weasely rogue about, it can search of course. However, in doing so it is opposing the rogue's hide, which would mean the CC would be 18 (mental base) + 5 (rogue's level) for a 23. Since Hide is not an attribute, but a skill, it should not be inclusive of the opposing attribute bonus...so the 23 is the final CC total. The ogre of course rolls his d20 and adds in his 4 HD...meaning he'll only find the rogue on a 19 or 20, unless the rogue gets nervous and jack rabbits or there is no real place for the rogue to hide that would prevent him from being found out by a determined search...such as being in nothing more than deep shadows vs the ogre's dark or twilight vision.

And you nailed it on the head. As a CK, it's a case by case handling, though you can set yourself some basic ground rules if it makes things easier. As it states in the CKG, don't become a slave to the rules.

Enjoy the Crusade!

[redwullf]

One thing to keep in mind in regards to the answers. The reason Hide is not opposed by an attribute is because the rogue cannot be under observation while making the hide attempt. So the ogre and his buddies have to be looking elsewhere leaving no active attribute to oppose the check.

I'm going to play this from the opposing end for you now. If the ogre suspects there is a weasely rogue about, it can search of course. However, in doing so it is opposing the rogue's hide, which would mean the CC would be 18 (mental base) + 5 (rogue's level) for a 23. Since Hide is not an attribute, but a skill, it should not be inclusive of the opposing attribute bonus...so the 23 is the final CC total. The ogre of course rolls his d20 and adds in his 4 HD...meaning he'll only find the rogue on a 19 or 20, unless the rogue gets nervous and jack rabbits or there is no real place for the rogue to hide that would prevent him from being found out by a determined search...such as being in nothing more than deep shadows vs the ogre's dark or twilight vision.

And you nailed it on the head. As a CK, it's a case by case handling, though you can set yourself some basic ground rules if it makes things easier. As it states in the CKG, don't become a slave to the rules.

Excellent additional input! Thank you again for your help. I'm sure I'll have more questions as I continue on through the PHB, and even more when we start playing.

[Breakdaddy]

The best piece of advice I can give you is one that took me a while to figure out myself: The default answer as a CK to any reasonable thing a PC is trying to do is "YES". Yes, you can try. This is in direct opposition to some other games where the default answer is "NO, unless...". No, unless you have that feat. No, unless you have that skill. C&C is a game of yes. You wont always succeed, but yes you can try. Don't always rely on rolls. That's hard to do when shifting from 3.x D&D, I know from personal experience. Sometimes its better to know that the character has already established some of the cool stuff he/she is likely to do and capable of and let them have their moment in the sun. This makes for a happy gaming group. I try to only use rolls when there truly is an immediate consequence for failure or when it directly adds to a dramatic moment. Good gaming!

[AGNKim]

First off, welcome aboard. Glad you joined us.

Second, bingo:

Coming from AD&D, 3rd Edition, and Pathfinder, I'm probably way over-thinking this

Third, love the avatar. It made me chuckle.

[zarathustra]

Helmets= will be sorely missed if a Green Slime drops from above, likewise a Piercer (or whatever the C&C equivalent is).

Or if a clever opponent notices a whole helmetless party they may decide to target that area with called shots & the like (still easier than hitting a heavily armoured party even with the penalties).

CKG- you don't need the CKG to be up to speed on the SIEGE Engine, C&C was played for many years without the CKG, nothing in it is essential.

[ArgoForg]

Hey there! Late in welcoming you, but it's always good to see new Crusaders!

(snip)....One thing that really drew me to check out C&C in the first place is how bogged down our game play has become due to rule complexities, and the dozens of meaningless "abilities" Pathfinder characters have. I run a table of 6 players, and it can take upwards of 5 minutes to run a single round of combat (often upwards of 10). With the exception of, say, our fighter, pretty much everyone has to reference their spells, talents, abilities, feats, and break out calculators to evaluate their hit because of all the "tests" that have to be passed (am I within 30 feet? Am I in a "dungeon" or outside, and if I'm in a dungeon, what is defined as a dungeon exactly? Is this my favorite enemy? Did the Bard's inspiration run out this round or last round? What about the Wizard's Haste spell?)...it goes on and on.

This was such a huge bonus for me, coming from Pathfinder/3.5E. We were playing sessions in which characters had 6+ attacks (3+ for themselves, 3 for a companion), and even when they were all rolled at once, it was time consuming to add /subtract and figure which buffs/bonuses held true. Big combats lasted easily half our sessions in some cases.

When I first ran us through our first C&C combat-- which was a fairly large contingent of orcs with a 3rd level leader against my players' 6 PCs-- we were flat stunned by how quickly and smoothly combat flowed. The whole thing was done in less than 15 minutes... 10 rounds of combat!

That's one of things that made me a hardcore C&Cer... As a GM, I stopped having to painfully construct stat blocks with Fiendish Dire Spectral Dragonbrood Bloodcaster templates to ensure that I challenged all the players' powers and feats, and instead I could start focus on grabbing them with story and plot. And I knew that if combat came around, it wasn't going to necessarily be the only thing we did that night.

[redwullf]

CKG- you don't need the CKG to be up to speed on the SIEGE Engine, C&C was played for many years without the CKG, nothing in it is essential.

Thanks for the tips. I ordered the CKG anyway, most people rave about it.

[redwullf]

Hey there! Late in welcoming you, but it's always good to see new Crusaders!

This was such a huge bonus for me, coming from Pathfinder/3.5E. We were playing sessions in which characters had 6+ attacks (3+ for themselves, 3 for a companion), and even when they were all rolled at once, it was time consuming to add /subtract and figure which buffs/bonuses held true. Big combats lasted easily half our sessions in some cases.

When I first ran us through our first C&C combat-- which was a fairly large contingent of orcs with a 3rd level leader against my players' 6 PCs-- we were flat stunned by how quickly and smoothly combat flowed. The whole thing was done in less than 15 minutes... 10 rounds of combat!

That's one of things that made me a hardcore C&Cer... As a GM, I stopped having to painfully construct stat blocks with Fiendish Dire Spectral Dragonbrood Bloodcaster templates to ensure that I challenged all the players' powers and feats, and instead I could start focus on grabbing them with story and plot. And I knew that if combat came around, it wasn't going to necessarily be the only thing we did that night.

Yes, absolutely! Prep time for C&C appears to be amazing, with most components of AD&D or even 3x/Pathfinder modules easily adjudicated on the fly. I love the short, simple stat blocks and the ability to easily "hand wave" changes to monsters and NPCs (quickly adding some class levels, additional hit dice, whatever). Everything has been whittled down to only the basics needed to simply play and focus on the story. Now, if I can just convince my hardcore Pathfinders to give it a try...

[Rikitiki]

Yep, C&C (to me) is so akin to my first love - AD&D 1e; but without all the warts! Covers everything you need and streamlined so, yes, we can PLAY again .vs rules lawyering.

As far as convincing your Pathfinder group: Don't! The next time you're up to DM, toss some pre-gen C&C characters at 'em and run them through something -- SHOW them how fast, fun, and exciting C&C is. I think that'd be the best convincing.

[koralas]

Okay...giving this a bit more thought. The rogue would indeed use the base+HD as the CC to hide from the ogre. IMO The ogre would be allowed a Search check if actively looking for the rogue using its mental base+level of the rogue as its CC, but would not necessarily get a spot roll since the rogue successfully hid. As for lighting and other ogres, any lighting modifier will be up to the CK to establish as I'm unaware of any hard rules for it.

RAW, deep shadows count as concealment for purposes of hiding without further modifier, so this has been factored into the process. In total darkness, in terms of ogres, there would be no added concealment of modifiers due to the ogres possessing dark vision. Against opponents without dark vision, darkness would simply allow the rogue to hide since they would be unable to be observed by the enemy. In terms of the enemy searching for the rogue in total darkness, I'd likely treat the rogue as being invisible in relation to a Search check with a modifier to match since the Hide ability allows them to be nearly invisible RAW.

For multiple ogres, I would simply give each ogre its own roll without modifier for their being more than one.

Google, the problem I have with using the HD of the Ogre as a mod to the CL is quite simply, since the rogue cannot be under observation while attempting to hide, the Ogre is at that point out of the equation and his mod would not apply. Plus, what if the ogre misses him, but right behind him is something with more HD?

The way I have done this is have the rogue make his hide roll with any environmental modifiers modifying the CL. Thus a 5th level rogue with a dex of 16 attempts to hide in an area with little to actually hide behind, perhaps only one or two low bushes or crates in an otherwise open area, so the CL is +4. Prime score check is 12 + 4 = 16 for the target number. The rogue rolls a 12 +2 (dex) +5 (level) = 19. He succeeds at hiding, the level of success, that is the amount the check succeeded by, is now the CL of any attempt to find him, so in this instance the CL is 3. The ogre now enters the area, and gets no chance to detect the rogue unless the ogre has some other indicator making him suspicious, or is actively searching. For a passive roll, where the ogre is just suspicious, you do not get to add the HD, so for just walking in while on alert, the ogre needs a roll of 21, since it is a physical "prime", and without any further modifiers (or the CK allowing a natural 20 to be a success always), will not be able to detect the rogue. If the Ogre is actually searching the area, it gets to add it's HD, thus needing a roll of 17+ to find the rogue.

Doing this, the rogue can hide (or hide something) and then any number of creatures can go by, and you have a set method to determine if the rogue (or object) can be found, regardless of the Prime or Level/HD of the potential searcher.

Also, there is a flat -10 modifier when attempting to hide if the creature you are hiding from is distracted and looks away from the rogue.

Finally, the last argument against using the creature's HD as a modifier to the CL for a Hide attempt, is the example given on page 8 of the PHB does not apply the kobold's HD as a penalty to the tracking roll of the ranger, but rather a CL of 3 for the tracks being a few days old. While not exactly the same as Hide the abilities are similar in that it is something that the character is doing that does not directly affect the "target". Though I must note that Trolls didn't include the +1 for the ranger tracking a humanoid!!! Errata Alert!!

One other note, the Hide ability states that it is the CK's discretion as to whether or not deep shadows are sufficient to hide within. As a CK (and an old curmudgeon at that), I do allow them to attempt such, however it does incur add 2 the CL if there is no other means of aiding the hide attempt, as well as increasing the CL based on the color of clothing and any exposed metals, and even skin tone if not masked.

[Go0gleplex]

Both good points.

I could see just giving a CL based on whatever cover is available to hide behind/in and omit the creature HD.

Conversely though, I would still use the monster HD for the search, though use 1/2 the inverse of the situational cover modifiers to Combat noted in the PHB. Thus 1/4 concealment = CL+1, 1/2= CL+2, 3/4= CL+3, Full concealment = CL+5. Certain creatures may also get bonuses for, or use in lieu of, scent.

[Just Jeff]

Google, the problem I have with using the HD of the Ogre as a mod to the CL is quite simply, since the rogue cannot be under observation while attempting to hide, the Ogre is at that point out of the equation and his mod would not apply.

Hiding isn't a solo activity. (Well, it can be, but as a long-time hider, I can tell you it's not nearly as much fun.) You hide from someone or something. If a high-level wizard and his inexperienced apprentice walk through a room where our rogue is hiding, I'll usually want it to be more likely that the wizard will spot the rogue. And since we generally equate a monster's hit dice with experience, I'd use the ogre's HD bonus too.

[koralas]

Google, agreed, if the Ogre is actively searching, HD would play a part in it, if not actively searching directly, but on a higher level of alert, it is mostly dumb luck that would find the Rogue. However, I would not give the Cover modifier as an adjustment, since that was already applied to the Rogue's roll. That is if you do use the level of success as the CL vs. the search. If you don't want to use the level of success for the rogue, then I would use a cover modifier as you state.

Just Jeff, actually Hiding is a solo activity, finding someone that is hidden is a different story. Hiding here isn't against just one potential adversary, but a general activity. Otherwise, if you hid from the Ogre, you are available to be seen normally by something else... Ok that is a taking the statement to the extreme, but it is basically the point. The Rogue isn't just hiding from one being, but is just hiding and is either successful or not... If the wize old wizard is searching along with his apprentice, he would have a better chance of locating the Rogue because of his experience (level). If they are aware something is afoot, they get a chance to spot him without level playing a roll. And, as I stated before, if they do not even have an inkling the rogue is about, they wouldn't even get a chance to spot him without other extenuating circumstance. This follows the same scenario I outlined for the Ogre.

[Go0gleplex]

I would not use the level of success as a CL because that starts taking it back to an opposed roll situation, which it is not. I'd use the cover CL since that directly affects how much concealment the rogue actually has when being searched for, but even that would be nothing more than a rule of thumb approach. But again, we get back to the golden rule. CK's call.

[Just Jeff]

Google, agreed, if the Ogre is actively searching, HD would play a part in it, if not actively searching directly, but on a higher level of alert, it is mostly dumb luck that would find the Rogue.

That last bit is probably why we disagree. Although people can be found (or fail to hide, if you prefer) by dumb luck, I think awareness of environment plays a much bigger role, and it comes with experience.

When he was a teen, my son would often try to ambush me. He never succeed, but I was glad he tried. It kept me on my toes and made me that much more likely to spot a rogue trying to hide.

Just Jeff, actually Hiding is a solo activity, finding someone that is hidden is a different story.

Nah. You're always trying to hide from someone (or many someones or all someones). When do you find out if you're successful? When someone comes along and sees you or doesn't. And if the first one doesn't, the next one might, even though you haven't moved an inch or otherwise had your circumstances change. (I require only one roll, but I keep that number in mind as people/critters paraded by. If someone or something that's high enough level happens by, all those successes are punctuated by a failure.)

[redwullf]

Google, the problem I have with using the HD of the Ogre as a mod to the CL is quite simply, since the rogue cannot be under observation while attempting to hide, the Ogre is at that point out of the equation and his mod would not apply. Plus, what if the ogre misses him, but right behind him is something with more HD?

I think the Ogre's HD should count if the rogue is attempting to move silently or hide in relation to the Ogre. Sneaking past, or up to, the Ogre should (IMO) include the Ogre's HD in the CL. I see it as not just being able to initially Hide or Move Silently, but to continue to remain hidden and silent when there's a chance the Ogre might notice.

[concobar]

Yep, C&C (to me) is so akin to my first love - AD&D 1e; but without all the warts!

Well said.
I have always felt C&C was like AD&D mixed with a bit of D&D3e.
In my home games i even throw a bit of D&D4e in.(skills and defenses)