What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Open Discussion on all things C&C from new product to general questions to the rules, the laws, and the chaos.

But first, a question. I feel the ranger's prime should be:

Keep it Strength!
11
52%
Wisdom, of course!
7
33%
No, it should be Dexterity!
2
10%
How about another option?
1
5%
 
Total votes: 21

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Lord Dynel »

I'm always interested seeing what other's have done with the prime system. Anywhere from switching primes around, to dropping them altogether, or changing the CB's of the primes, it's always an interesting thread when the topic comes up. I thought that a thread where we talk about what we've done - or not done - would be a good topic of discussion.

I've spoke of my issues with the Prime system in the past. For those who don't know, I have only one problem with the prime system - the ranger. I don't feel he's accurately represented with strength prime. After deliberating on it for a while, changing a few things around, changing them back, leaving them alone, and finally making another change, I've come to something that I'm happy with. I've decided to switch the paladin from a charisma prime to a strength prime, then moving ranger from strength to wisdom. I think the repeated mention of the paladin being a holy "warrior" and the overall feel of the paladin as more a combat-oriented class, I think it's a much better fit, in my opinion. I definitely feel paladin is more suited for strength prime than the ranger is. As for ranger, I debated for the longest time whether or not to make their prime wisdom or dexterity. A couple of reasons I settled with wisdom was the perception issue (and now they're not inferior to clerics in that regard, if you use the wisdom check) and, more importantly, looking over their abilities they seem to be more reliant on wisdom than dexterity. Being able to figure out what plants are edible, which one's aren't, and which ones will help draw out snake venom takes a fair amount of common sense. Recognizing tracks and being able to follow them takes come common sense, too. Those are easy examples, of course, those abilities being coded as wisdom abilities in PHB. Knowing how to survive - and thrive - in the wild, to me, is more about common sense than anything else.

So let me know what you think. Good reasoning, or some kind of flawed judgement on my part? Is there a better choice/suggestion? I've really reverted in a lot of my "house rules" and "fixes" to C&C as the years have gone by, as I see the system better now and see the elegance in some things that I didn't see before. That said, however, the ranger thing has been the only thing to have consistently bothered me all along. I tried to bury it, but it keeps coming back. :)

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my ranger dilemma. Also, I'd love to hear what changes you made Prime system. I've been reading a lot of them lately, here and there, but since they're spread across a half-dozen threads I thought getting them in one place would be a good idea. :)
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by serleran »

I simply do not often require a ranger to make a roll. For example, conceal... the ranger does it. The monster makes a roll to notice the ranger. Making it "proactive" tends to eliminate the disparity in "not enough Primes."

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

Since I went the "Iconic" class route, and treat all class skills as if the relevant ability is Prime, I don't have to worry about the Ranger. Besides, despite all of his class skills, he is still Primarily a fighter, and he focus' fighting on strong creatures, so I agree with STR being Prime.

As far as changing the Prime system, the only change I have made is allowing all Class Skills to have the related attribute be treated as Prime.

I use the SIEGE engine in a lot of ways I have yet to see anyone else use it, but that would be another thread.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Arduin »

I too like Wis for the Ranger. He relies more on wisdom than brute str.

The Paladin on the other hand MUST be proficient (prime) with Charisma. It isn't just being charismatic in C&C. It is the ability to channel raw, divine power. (see turning undead & how Char is used) Without Char being a Prime, the Paladin would not be able to use all those "channeling" abilities...
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Gundoggy
Ungern
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Gundoggy »

I keep strength as prime. But I use the tertiary attribute option in the CKG, 12-15-18. That helps out a lot, yet players still must make choices.

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Lord Dynel »

Arduin wrote:I too like Wis for the Ranger. He relies more on wisdom than brute str.

The Paladin on the other hand MUST be proficient (prime) with Charisma. It isn't just being charismatic in C&C. It is the ability to channel raw, divine power. (see turning undead & how Char is used) Without Char being a Prime, the Paladin would not be able to use all those "channeling" abilities...
Emphasis mine.

If you mean the ones from the CKG, Arduin, only one relies on a Cha check (Cleanse Soul) and the paladin doesn't get that until 24th level (Divine Will requires the foe to make the Cha check). As far as turning undead goes, that's a Wisdom check. So I'm missing "all those 'channeling' abilities" you refer to. I see what you mean, though. I'm not 100% sold on the paladin being strength prime. I just know that I don't want the ranger to be! :)
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Arduin »

Lord Dynel wrote:
Arduin wrote:I too like Wis for the Ranger. He relies more on wisdom than brute str.

The Paladin on the other hand MUST be proficient (prime) with Charisma. It isn't just being charismatic in C&C. It is the ability to channel raw, divine power. (see turning undead & how Char is used) Without Char being a Prime, the Paladin would not be able to use all those "channeling" abilities...
Emphasis mine.

If you mean the ones from the CKG, Arduin, only one relies on a Cha check (Cleanse Soul)
Actually turn undead uses Cha also. But, I'm talking about what Prime attribute is in play. A Paladin is supposed to be the charismatic leader. Influencing people to fight evil, intimidating evil, etc. That REQUIRES Cha as a prime. Otherwise, he's just a fighter that has some divine magic ability. That is why the designers made a Cha the Prime. It is also why G.G. required a Cha of 17 for the class in D&D...
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
csperkins1970
Ulthal
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Staten Island, NY
Contact:

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by csperkins1970 »

I ditched primes, set the Challenge Base to 15 across the board, and gave humans a +1 bonus to all attribute checks. It works really well.
I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am... a god.

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Lord Dynel »

Arduin wrote:Actually turn undead uses Cha also.
Ah, that's right. But it uses Cha modifier, which has no bearing on prime or not.

But, I'm talking about what Prime attribute is in play. A Paladin is supposed to be the charismatic leader. Influencing people to fight evil, intimidating evil, etc. That REQUIRES Cha as a prime.
I disagree. I don't think you have to have Cha prime to be a charismatic leader. And, you have an additional prime, so you can still have Cha be one if you desire. I can see the grim, undaunted, loner paladin who would probably have a Charisma in the toilet but the strength of his swordarm and his faith are the weapons he carries. And I see the knight as a more charismatic leader. If nothing else, moving paladin away from Charisma makes that a more clear distinction for the knight.

Otherwise, he's just a fighter that has some divine magic ability.


It's pretty funny you say that:
C&C PHB, page 30, 4th printing wrote:Their belief in the tenets of their deity gives them strength and divine powers beyond those of other warriors.
So yeah, they are just fighters with some divine magic abilities! :P

I'm just giving you a hard time, Arduin, so I hope I don't get you too worked up. I just get a different message from reading the description of the paladin in the PHB. Sure, they "inspire others to greater good," but there are far more references to them being combatants than there is to them being any kind of charismatic leaders. In fact, it could be inferred that they aren't very charismatic at all, being rigid, bound by code, and often unwavering and inflexible in their beliefs. Charismatic in their devotion to slaying evil and protecting innocents, sure, but not really in any other social regard. Oh well, that's my viewpoint at least.

That is why the designers made a Cha the Prime.


And that's the only reason I would consider leaving it as-is, truthfully. I have great respect for the Trolls, and respect their judgement.

It is also why G.G. required a Cha of 17 for the class in D&D...
He also required descending armor classes and weapon speeds, too. ;)
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

I'll be honest LD, I have a love/hate relationship with you on this one.

I hate it because, previously, I was pretty ok with the Ranger. Initially, I felt the STR prime was a bit off but in thinking about it I came to be ok with it. My conclusions were:

1. They were a fighter subclass and and would have to be very tough to survive in the wilderness. Toughness feel right tying into STR.
2. They removed the spell casting ability from AD&D which seems to make WIS less mandatory.
3. I was ok with the idea that humans would make better rangers (beings that their extra prime would allow them natural coverage of all the areas that Rangers should excel at STR/WIS/DEX)

However, I love it because now that you've given voice to what I think I felt in my gut initially (that STR wasn't quite right), I feel I have to agree with you. I didn't even notice until you mentioned it that none of the Rangers abilities relied on STR. Nothing that made the Ranger special were STR based skills. So how, in the story, does that lead to characters who have developed a well trained attribute? It can, but it's a leap. Initially I was leaning towards DEX for this thinking that yes, the Ranger IS a fighter, but one that uses guile and range to his advantage (bows, thrown axes, and spears felt good with a DEX prime class) and I felt like perhaps the Bow Ranger would make a really good iconic class when you think that Fighters have melee very well covered.

So, yeah, I hate that you've now ruined the by the book Ranger for me, but I love that you've opened my eyes to what now may be a slightly better version of the class. Throw in a little druidic spell ability at high level and it might just be perfect. :)

On a side note, I'm in agreement with Arduin, although with much less forceful presentation. I think that Paladins feel much more natural with CHA as prime.

You said " I disagree. I don't think you have to have Cha prime to be a charismatic leader." And while I also think this is true, that you don't have to have CHA prime to be a leader, I think that eventually, charismatic leaders WOULD have it prime. Basically, it's chicken and the egg. Do classes have a prime so they can do their job? (metagame theory) Or do they have their prime precisely because of the job they're already doing? (in game rationalization). More and more, my thinking is leaning towards the latter. Case in point: Rangers don't need WIS prime to do their job. But rather, in doing their job, they would naturally become very wise. :)
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Arduin »

Lord Dynel wrote: I disagree. I don't think you have to have Cha prime to be a charismatic leader. And, you have an additional prime, so you can still have Cha be one if you desire. I can see the grim, undaunted, loner paladin who would probably have a Charisma in the toilet but the strength of his swordarm and his faith are the weapons he carries. And I see the knight as a more charismatic leader. If nothing else, moving paladin away from Charisma makes that a more clear distinction for the knight.
I can see that. Just two different views of the class.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Lord Dynel »

mbeacom wrote:I'll be honest LD, I have a love/hate relationship with you on this one.

I hate it because, previously, I was pretty ok with the Ranger. Initially, I felt the STR prime was a bit off but in thinking about it I came to be ok with it. My conclusions were:

1. They were a fighter subclass and and would have to be very tough to survive in the wilderness. Toughness feel right tying into STR.
2. They removed the spell casting ability from AD&D which seems to make WIS less mandatory.
3. I was ok with the idea that humans would make better rangers (beings that their extra prime would allow them natural coverage of all the areas that Rangers should excel at STR/WIS/DEX)

However, I love it because now that you've given voice to what I think I felt in my gut initially (that STR wasn't quite right), I feel I have to agree with you. I didn't even notice until you mentioned it that none of the Rangers abilities relied on STR. Nothing that made the Ranger special were STR based skills. So how, in the story, does that lead to characters who have developed a well trained attribute? It can, but it's a leap. Initially I was leaning towards DEX for this thinking that yes, the Ranger IS a fighter, but one that uses guile and range to his advantage (bows, thrown axes, and spears felt good with a DEX prime class) and I felt like perhaps the Bow Ranger would make a really good iconic class when you think that Fighters have melee very well covered.

So, yeah, I hate that you've now ruined the by the book Ranger for me, but I love that you've opened my eyes to what now may be a slightly better version of the class. Throw in a little druidic spell ability at high level and it might just be perfect. :)
I'll just say that I usually don't try to change anyone's mind. I like to present a different opinion, or a different way to look at something, and if I change the way someone views a particular topic, great! If I don't, then that's great, too. I've been definitely given a lot to think about over the years and some of it made me look at things differently while others, not so much.

That being said, thanks! I now know that I'm not completely off base in my reasoning for the ranger with you and Arduin both liking my opinion of it. At least I know I'm not alone in that thinking. And while I know not everyone agrees, it's nice to know my rationalization has some merit. :)
On a side note, I'm in agreement with Arduin, although with much less forceful presentation. I think that Paladins feel much more natural with CHA as prime.

You said " I disagree. I don't think you have to have Cha prime to be a charismatic leader." And while I also think this is true, that you don't have to have CHA prime to be a leader, I think that eventually, charismatic leaders WOULD have it prime. Basically, it's chicken and the egg. Do classes have a prime so they can do their job? (metagame theory) Or do they have their prime precisely because of the job they're already doing? (in game rationalization). More and more, my thinking is leaning towards the latter. Case in point: Rangers don't need WIS prime to do their job. But rather, in doing their job, they would naturally become very wise. :)
Heh, Arduin's presentation's never bothered me. Some people are a little more vehement than others with their views. It's all good. ;)

And I began to regret that statement about leaders not having to have Cha prime shortly after I posted it, but I didn't retract it. I guess this is more my desire to have balance with primes (every attribute having two classes - Cha having three) than it is anything else. I guess if I can tear myself away from that line of thinking, I can keep the paladin with Cha. While I agree with the mandatory prime mentality, I've often wondered why the Troll tried to balance them evenly among the attributes. I don't see the harm with some attributes having one class while others have three, etc.
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Lord Dynel »

Arduin wrote:
Lord Dynel wrote: I disagree. I don't think you have to have Cha prime to be a charismatic leader. And, you have an additional prime, so you can still have Cha be one if you desire. I can see the grim, undaunted, loner paladin who would probably have a Charisma in the toilet but the strength of his swordarm and his faith are the weapons he carries. And I see the knight as a more charismatic leader. If nothing else, moving paladin away from Charisma makes that a more clear distinction for the knight.
I can see that. Just two different views of the class.
True, though yours is definitely a good, valid one, too.
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

Also, I forgot to mention. With regard to the Paladin and Knight occupying some of the same iconic/design space both being charismatic leaders. While I agree, the issue exists, I never had a problem with it because I view the underlying themes, while being tied to CHA, as being different.

I see the Knight as a charismatic leader of a mans actions. One who can urge men on to greater heights, inspiring bravery in the face of defeat. It is through his personality and deeds that he moves others to act.

I see the Paladin as a charismatic leader of a mans heart and soul. It is through his charismatic personality and his own personal sacrifice and conviction that he demonstrates the path to righteousness.

Basically, the Knight inspires acts of bravery and courage while the Paladin inspires acts of selflessness and generosity. They both utilize CHA but to different ends.

Or something like that.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

As for the Ranger:

"The Ranger is an extraordinary woodsman and warrior." Page 7.

"STRENGTH: This attribute reflects physical strength, including the
ability to lift or move heavy objects and make powerful attacks. The
modifier affects melee combat and damage, and all checks involving
strength. Characters can military press 10 times their strength and
dead lift 15 times their strength score." Page 8.

"Rangers are a lonely breed, expert at surviving in the untrammeled places
of the world and devoting themselves to protecting civilization from the
depredations and incursions of creatures of evil intent." p. 9.

"The ranger is a warrior skilled at combating particular creatures which
pose the greatest threats to the lands they protect. They have honed their
skills at combating these foes through years of constant surveillance and
combat – their knowledge extending well beyond fighting their enemies.
Rangers can track their enemies, speak their tongues when possible, and
learn their ways. The ranger’s distance from cities and towns requires them
to be dependent upon the land for sustenance and excellent outdoorsmen
and are capable of living off land others may find barren or empty." p. 12

So I think this is being "over thought". It is pretty clear the Ranger is first and foremost a "Warrior". Plus being so self reliant for survival, and fighting strong creatures like Ogres, Trolls, Giants, Bugbears, etc... being strong is pretty darn critical. Not only in combat, but outside of it. The more gear you can carry, the more likely you are to have what you need to make a difference in survival. Setting up a deadfall trap for an Ogre? The stronger you are, the heavier that trap is going to be, and the more likely it is going to hurt that Ogre.

In a fight, what is going to be more important when that Ogre grapples you, Strength or Wisdom? What is going to help you most if you need to "Over bear" that Bugbear to get to someone in danger of dying?

When you are fighting Ogres, Trolls, and Giants, what is going to help you hit them more often and for more damage, strength or Wisdom?

So I think it is extremely clear that Rangers are first and foremost a "Warrior", who fights numerous foes that have great inherent strength. A strength that a Ranger needs to be able to counter as much as possible. A Ranger who grapples an Ogre without Strength as Prime is going to be a dead Ranger very soon.

So requiring Strength as the Rangers Prime is very justified.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

First, I'm not saying the Ranger absolutely shouldn't be a STR prime class. I'm just saying that I can see the reasons to support it being WIS, or even DEX.

But for the sake of devils advocate, I'll do this:

"The Ranger is an extraordinary woodsman and warrior." Page 7.

Notice warrior is placed second, almost subordinate to the fact they are a woodsman.

"Rangers are a lonely breed, expert at surviving in the untrammeled places
of the world and devoting themselves to protecting civilization from the
depredations and incursions of creatures of evil intent." p. 9.

Again, their survival ability is mentioned first, prior to them being protectors.

"The ranger is a warrior skilled at combating particular creatures which
pose the greatest threats to the lands they protect. They have honed their
skills
at combating these foes through years of constant surveillance and
combat – their knowledge extending well beyond fighting their enemies.
Rangers can track their enemies, speak their tongues when possible, and
learn their ways. The ranger’s distance from cities and towns requires them
to be dependent upon the land for sustenance and excellent outdoorsmen
and are capable of living off land others may find barren or empty." p. 12

So, yes, they are warriors, but being a warrior isn't what makes a Ranger a Ranger. Lots of classes are warriors really. There's an awful lot that makes the class special that is not tied to being a warrior, or perhaps, is tied to HOW they are go about being a warrior. I would say that what makes them a Ranger is probably less tied to STR than to WIS, but that's just my opinion.

Also, I'd point out that while warriors need STR to hit and do damage, they don't need a prime stat for that. Their primes are more useful for out of combat actions, and I would say that a Rangers out of combat capability is less tied to STR than WIS. As with Lord Dynel, I'm not trying to change anyones mind, just give my perspective.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

As for Paladins:

"CHARISMA: This attribute represents strength of attractiveness,
willpower, personality, and leadership. It is the degree to which a
character is able to influence others. The modifier affects a creature’s
loyalty and reactions to the character, the number of undead the
character can turn and all checks involving charisma." p. 8

"In the constant battle between good and evil, a select few, through their
selfless devotion, courage, nobility of spirit and unyielding faith, rise
to the forefront of the struggle.
These holy warriors strike terror in the
hearts of evil creatures, and inspire others to greater good. The paladins
consistency and strength knows only the limits of their deity and code." p.30

"Aura Of Courage: At 6th level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or
otherwise). Allies within 10 feet of the paladin gain a +4 bonus on saving
throws against fear effects." p. 30

"CHARISMA
Feats of will between two creatures along with situations involving
leadership, reaction, loyalty and negotiation are areas governed by
charisma." p. 125

"Fear (charisma): Spells, magic items and certain monsters can affect
characters with fear. The character facing a monster who emanates fear
or who has a spell cast upon him makes a charisma saving throw to resist
the effect. A failed roll means that the character is affected by the fear, as
detailed in the spell or monster description." p. 126

I think it is pretty clear that a Paladin is not only a leader, but a representative of their god and religion. They are also meant to be fearless, and resisting, let alone outright ignoring it, is based on Charisma. So I think requiring Charisma as their "Prime" is very clearly justified, especially if a Paladin is to become immune to fear by 6th level, let alone inspire those near him to resist it as well.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

mbeacom wrote:First, I'm not saying the Ranger absolutely shouldn't be a STR prime class. I'm just saying that I can see the reasons to support it being WIS, or even DEX.

But for the sake of devils advocate, I'll do this:

"The Ranger is an extraordinary woodsman and warrior." Page 7.

"Rangers are a lonely breed, expert at surviving in the untrammeled places
of the world and devoting themselves to protecting civilization from the
depredations and incursions of creatures of evil intent." p. 9.

"The ranger is a warrior skilled at combating particular creatures which
pose the greatest threats to the lands they protect. They have honed their
skills
at combating these foes through years of constant surveillance and
combat – their knowledge extending well beyond fighting their enemies.
Rangers can track their enemies, speak their tongues when possible, and
learn their ways. The ranger’s distance from cities and towns requires them
to be dependent upon the land for sustenance and excellent outdoorsmen
and are capable of living off land others may find barren or empty." p. 12

So, yes, they are warriors, being a warrior isn't what makes a Ranger a Ranger. There's an awful lot that makes the class special that is not tied to being a warrior. I would say that what makes them a Ranger is probably less tied to STR than to WIS, but that's just my opinion.

Also, I'd point out that while warriors need STR to hit and do damage, they don't need a prime stat for that. Their primes are more useful for out of combat actions, and I would say that a Rangers out of combat capability is less tied to STR than WIS. As with Lord Dynel, I'm not trying to change anyones mind, just give my perspective.

All you have done is justify why the Ranger has the class skills that it does, which are all secondary to its primary purpose of being a warrior that defends civilization. The bottom line is, they are first and foremost a warrior, all else is secondary to that role. Of course, if you really want to be an outstanding Ranger, it would be a good idea to have your other Primes, assuming your human, be Wisdom and Dexterity. To fulfill your Primary role, though, you need to have Strength as Prime. At least without WIS or DEX as a Prime, you will at least have some knowledge in other important areas, and get to add your level to any checks related to them. Don't take STR as Prime you will be significantly weaker versus very strong opponents, who all do have Strength as Prime.

So as you have pointed out, Wisdom, and Dex, are important to a Ranger, so having WIS and DEX as Prime would be advisable, but they are not core to the Rangers role of being a Warrior against Humanoids such as Ogres, Trolls, and giants.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Arduin »

Lord Dynel wrote: True, though yours is definitely a good, valid one, too.
What I like about C&C is the ability to be flexible. You could even run both angles on this class in the same game. The zealous crusading preaching warrior or, the stoic holy warrior. Both are workable, fun choices.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

Treebore wrote:
mbeacom wrote:First, I'm not saying the Ranger absolutely shouldn't be a STR prime class. I'm just saying that I can see the reasons to support it being WIS, or even DEX.

But for the sake of devils advocate, I'll do this:

"The Ranger is an extraordinary woodsman and warrior." Page 7.

"Rangers are a lonely breed, expert at surviving in the untrammeled places
of the world and devoting themselves to protecting civilization from the
depredations and incursions of creatures of evil intent." p. 9.

"The ranger is a warrior skilled at combating particular creatures which
pose the greatest threats to the lands they protect. They have honed their
skills
at combating these foes through years of constant surveillance and
combat – their knowledge extending well beyond fighting their enemies.
Rangers can track their enemies, speak their tongues when possible, and
learn their ways. The ranger’s distance from cities and towns requires them
to be dependent upon the land for sustenance and excellent outdoorsmen
and are capable of living off land others may find barren or empty." p. 12

So, yes, they are warriors, being a warrior isn't what makes a Ranger a Ranger. There's an awful lot that makes the class special that is not tied to being a warrior. I would say that what makes them a Ranger is probably less tied to STR than to WIS, but that's just my opinion.

Also, I'd point out that while warriors need STR to hit and do damage, they don't need a prime stat for that. Their primes are more useful for out of combat actions, and I would say that a Rangers out of combat capability is less tied to STR than WIS. As with Lord Dynel, I'm not trying to change anyones mind, just give my perspective.

All you have done is justify why the Ranger has the class skills that it does, which are all secondary to its primary purpose of being a warrior that defends civilization. The bottom line is, they are first and foremost a warrior, all else is secondary to that role. Of course, if you really want to be an outstanding Ranger, it would be a good idea to have your other Primes, assuming your human, be Wisdom and Dexterity. To fulfill your Primary role, though, you need to have Strength as Prime. At least without WIS or DEX as a Prime, you will at least have some knowledge in other important areas, and get to add your level to any checks related to them. Don't take STR as Prime you will be significantly weaker versus very strong opponents, who all do have Strength as Prime.

So as you have pointed out, Wisdom, and Dex, are important to a Ranger, so having WIS and DEX as Prime would be advisable, but they are not core to the Rangers role of being a Warrior against Humanoids such as Ogres, Trolls, and giants.
How so? What is it about their primary role that requires STR as prime? I would say that I didn't simply justify the class skills. You say they are first and foremost a warrior, but the book actually says differently. It says they are first and foremost an "an extraordinary woodsman". Warrior is only tacked on after that fact.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Lord Dynel »

Re: Tree's and mbeacom's posts.

Tree, I can't, or won't, argue with you on those examples you pointed out for rangers. What you pointed out is sound reasoning. I'd never argue that the Ranger isn't a warrior. Nor would I argue that paladins, barbarians, knights, and monks aren't warriors, either. I feel they all are. My thoughts revolve around the notion that, for rangers, wisdom is more important to them than strength is. Using the same points that have you defending paladins and charisma I could use for wisdom and rangers. Aren't paladins primarily warriors against evil and protectors of innocents? But yet they're still charisma prime instead of strength?
C&C PHB, page 12, 5th print wrote:The ranger’s ability in combat is renowned. They take up armor and shield to stride stone battlements and fight alongside the best of warriors. However, a ranger’s true expertise lies elsewhere and requires skills of a nature wholly unknown to others; hunting, interdiction, escape and evasion are often the ranger’s most powerful weapons. Compound this with a ranger’s focus on their foe’s weaknesses, and it makes them a truly fearsome enemy.
To me, this screams wisdom. But is this is strength prime,
C&C PHB, page 30, 5th print wrote:The paladin is a holy warrior chosen for adherence and absolute devotion to a deity or similar holy cause. Some are trained in all the arts of combat, serving in the vanguard of many wars and movements. Their belief in the tenets of their deity gives them strength and divine powers beyond those of other warriors. A paladin’s code requires them to respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need and punish those that harm or threaten innocents. They can serve priests, temples, religious houses or other religious authorities, but obey only one calling.

The paladins serve their code alone. They are defined by their actions, and their actions are dictated by their code. These holy warriors are driven by virtue, courage, nobility and the quest to combat evil in all forms. They ride for no master but their deity or cause. The greater good guides their actions, and victory is its own honor. Paladins fight on lonely battlefields and protect the weak. These warriors, fight and die for the greater good; often unsung, alone and beyond the reach of succor.
then I'd say this is, too. :)

And yes, I'm almost totally convinced that paladins should stay charisma. :)

But in the end, as Arduin just stated, C&C is quite flexible. It allows us to make changes we, as CK's, feel is necessary. Or make more sense. Or makes for a more fun game. We're all different, and I love hearing opposing views, because it allows me to think my decisions through and look at them from different angles.
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

I'm not debating what you can and cannot do in your own game. I have something like a 7 page house rules document that shows I am not a "by the book" CK. I am just showing that what is in the book pretty clearly illustrates why the Ranger requires STR Prime and why a Paladin is CHA based.

I an see people making an argument for a Fighter who should be DEX based.

I bet I could make a decent argument for a WIS based Wizard (And in fact, my Runemark class is precisely that) and for INT based Clerics.

All I am doing is showing why the Trolls are justified in their decisions by what they put in the books.

That said, by all means, change away, make C&C what you want it to be. It's what I do.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. And I agree the Trolls are perfectly justified. I just think these kinds of back and forth are instructive. You can really learn alot. And as I said in my first post, I'm a little bothered that LD brought this up because I was pretty content with the Ranger as STR prime until he went and challenged my assumptions. How dare you! ;)

As I sit here and think about Rangers requiring STR to fulfill their primary role, I just come up short. Mostly because I frequently play bow rangers, something I think is pretty viable, both mechanically and narratively and literally, STR almost never comes into play in the course of me fulfilling my role. Not in combat, and not in skill use. (Treebore gives an example of overbearing and grappling ogres and bugbears and I have to think a seasoned Ranger would know better than to try to match physical strength with such creatures, regardless of how strong he might be). So while I think some Rangers might benefit in some cases from strength, I don't see it as mandatory for fulfilling the role. On the other hand, I try to think of a brash, unthoughtful character (someone with low wisdom ability) and I have a really hard time fitting them into the mold of what I personally see as a Ranger.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

I think you need to play a Ranger in my games. I bet I will only need to have an Ogre grapple your non STR Prime Ranger just once. After he owns you I think you will see why. Of course, with the 4th and 5th printings, establishing a Grapple has become much harder (A good thing for PC's), so I'd have to throw 4 to 6 ogres at just you to show how ugly it gets. Or better yet, Monk classed Ogres.

I'm getting chills just thinking about how ugly that would be.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

Treebore wrote:I think you need to play a Ranger in my games. I bet I will only need to have an Ogre grapple your non STR Prime Ranger just once. After he owns you I think you will see why. Of course, with the 4th and 5th printings, establishing a Grapple has become much harder (A good thing for PC's), so I'd have to throw 4 to 6 ogres at just you to show how ugly it gets. Or better yet, Monk classed Ogres.

I'm getting chills just thinking about how ugly that would be.
That actually sounds fun in a twisted sort of way. I'd have to hope my WIS prime Ranger was able to avoid the ambush though. ;)

Edit: And, in taking a look at the 5th printing of the PHB, I see that they still haven't corrected the reference to overbearing AC in the paragraph referring to grappling.

4th Print
"Grappling involves grabbing and holding a defender, as with classical
wrestling or a snake constricting its body around its prey. Grappling is
directed at holding an opponent and subduing them. The attacker rolls a
d20 and adds any strength modifier and his BtH.
The armor class of a defender in an overbearing attack is different than
normal. "

5th Print
"Grappling involves grabbing and holding a defender, as with classical
wrestling or a snake constricting its body around its prey. Grappling is
directed at holding an opponent and subduing them. The attacker rolls a
d20 and adds any strength modifier and his Bonus to hit (BtH).
The armor class of a defender in an overbearing attack is different than
normal. "
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

mbeacom wrote:
Treebore wrote:I think you need to play a Ranger in my games. I bet I will only need to have an Ogre grapple your non STR Prime Ranger just once. After he owns you I think you will see why. Of course, with the 4th and 5th printings, establishing a Grapple has become much harder (A good thing for PC's), so I'd have to throw 4 to 6 ogres at just you to show how ugly it gets. Or better yet, Monk classed Ogres.

I'm getting chills just thinking about how ugly that would be.
That actually sounds fun in a twisted sort of way. I'd have to hope my WIS prime Ranger was able to avoid the ambush though. ;)
I wouldn't expect to pull off an Ambush against a Ranger, especially with their specific enemies. I'd just count on straight out brutal combat. Plus Monk abilities. That is truly scary. Then I started thinking of an order of Lawful Evil Fire Giant Monks. *SHUDDERS*
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

Treebore wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Treebore wrote:I think you need to play a Ranger in my games. I bet I will only need to have an Ogre grapple your non STR Prime Ranger just once. After he owns you I think you will see why. Of course, with the 4th and 5th printings, establishing a Grapple has become much harder (A good thing for PC's), so I'd have to throw 4 to 6 ogres at just you to show how ugly it gets. Or better yet, Monk classed Ogres.

I'm getting chills just thinking about how ugly that would be.
That actually sounds fun in a twisted sort of way. I'd have to hope my WIS prime Ranger was able to avoid the ambush though. ;)
I wouldn't expect to pull off an Ambush against a Ranger, especially with their specific enemies. I'd just count on straight out brutal combat. Plus Monk abilities. That is truly scary. Then I started thinking of an order of Lawful Evil Fire Giant Monks. *SHUDDERS*
I assumed it had to be an ambush because I can't think of why any Ranger would willingly walk into a group of 6 Ogre Monks and engage in Melee. Are you saying that a STR prime Ranger would be safe in such a circumstance? Because it seems to me that any class would pretty much be hurting, regardless of prime.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Treebore »

mbeacom wrote:
Treebore wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Treebore wrote:I think you need to play a Ranger in my games. I bet I will only need to have an Ogre grapple your non STR Prime Ranger just once. After he owns you I think you will see why. Of course, with the 4th and 5th printings, establishing a Grapple has become much harder (A good thing for PC's), so I'd have to throw 4 to 6 ogres at just you to show how ugly it gets. Or better yet, Monk classed Ogres.

I'm getting chills just thinking about how ugly that would be.
That actually sounds fun in a twisted sort of way. I'd have to hope my WIS prime Ranger was able to avoid the ambush though. ;)
I wouldn't expect to pull off an Ambush against a Ranger, especially with their specific enemies. I'd just count on straight out brutal combat. Plus Monk abilities. That is truly scary. Then I started thinking of an order of Lawful Evil Fire Giant Monks. *SHUDDERS*
I assumed it had to be an ambush because I can't think of why any Ranger would willingly walk into a group of 6 Ogre Monks and engage in Melee. Are you saying that a STR prime Ranger would be safe in such a circumstance? Because it seems to me that any class would pretty much be hurting, regardless of prime.
I am saying the Grapple check would start with a base of 12, instead of 18. That is a 30% difference in your favor. Plus you seem to think a Ranger can outrun a Monk. Nope. At least not after they get that first bonus to their move rate. You'd only have a chance as long as your on your horse.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by mbeacom »

Treebore wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Treebore wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Treebore wrote:I think you need to play a Ranger in my games. I bet I will only need to have an Ogre grapple your non STR Prime Ranger just once. After he owns you I think you will see why. Of course, with the 4th and 5th printings, establishing a Grapple has become much harder (A good thing for PC's), so I'd have to throw 4 to 6 ogres at just you to show how ugly it gets. Or better yet, Monk classed Ogres.

I'm getting chills just thinking about how ugly that would be.
That actually sounds fun in a twisted sort of way. I'd have to hope my WIS prime Ranger was able to avoid the ambush though. ;)
I wouldn't expect to pull off an Ambush against a Ranger, especially with their specific enemies. I'd just count on straight out brutal combat. Plus Monk abilities. That is truly scary. Then I started thinking of an order of Lawful Evil Fire Giant Monks. *SHUDDERS*
I assumed it had to be an ambush because I can't think of why any Ranger would willingly walk into a group of 6 Ogre Monks and engage in Melee. Are you saying that a STR prime Ranger would be safe in such a circumstance? Because it seems to me that any class would pretty much be hurting, regardless of prime.
I am saying the Grapple check would start with a base of 12, instead of 18. That is a 30% difference in your favor. Plus you seem to think a Ranger can outrun a Monk. Nope. At least not after they get that first bonus to their move rate. You'd only have a chance as long as your on your horse.
No, I think an Ogre would never see a WIS prime Ranger to chase him to begin with. Rather, the ogre would walk into a pit trap or feel the burning of an arrow as it pierces his throat. I get it that you like STR for Rangers but even so I think you'd do your best to avoid the situations you're creating. The reason is because I think Rangers would know that you don't defeat Ogres/Giants/Trolls by being stronger than they are regardless of prime. You defeat them by your wits and your use of the environment to your advantage. You defeat them because you've watched them and know all their tricks. There are no surprises when Rangers go up against their natural enemies. Sure, a Monk Ogre could outgrapple and outrun a Ranger. But surely the Ranger would know this instinctively and avoid situations where he has to grapple or outrun them right? If you're grappling a Monk ogre as a Ranger, you've kind of already failed somewhere along the line.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What changes have you made to the Prime system?

Post by Lord Dynel »

Treebore wrote:I'm not debating what you can and cannot do in your own game. I have something like a 7 page house rules document that shows I am not a "by the book" CK. I am just showing that what is in the book pretty clearly illustrates why the Ranger requires STR Prime and why a Paladin is CHA based.

I an see people making an argument for a Fighter who should be DEX based.

I bet I could make a decent argument for a WIS based Wizard (And in fact, my Runemark class is precisely that) and for INT based Clerics.

All I am doing is showing why the Trolls are justified in their decisions by what they put in the books.

That said, by all means, change away, make C&C what you want it to be. It's what I do.
Actually, I see a Cha-based Illusionist and Int-based Bard to be totally honest. ;)
mbeacom wrote:Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. And I agree the Trolls are perfectly justified. I just think these kinds of back and forth are instructive. You can really learn alot. And as I said in my first post, I'm a little bothered that LD brought this up because I was pretty content with the Ranger as STR prime until he went and challenged my assumptions. How dare you!
Whoops, sorry! :oops:
mbeacom wrote:As I sit here and think about Rangers requiring STR to fulfill their primary role, I just come up short. Mostly because I frequently play bow rangers, something I think is pretty viable, both mechanically and narratively and literally, STR almost never comes into play in the course of me fulfilling my role. Not in combat, and not in skill use. (Treebore gives an example of overbearing and grappling ogres and bugbears and I have to think a seasoned Ranger would know better than to try to match physical strength with such creatures, regardless of how strong he might be). So while I think some Rangers might benefit in some cases from strength, I don't see it as mandatory for fulfilling the role. On the other hand, I try to think of a brash, unthoughtful character (someone with low wisdom ability) and I have a really hard time fitting them into the mold of what I personally see as a Ranger.
That's how it started for me, four years ago. I looked over the class primes and I really didn't have a problem with any of them, save one. And "problem" may be too strong a word, truthfully. But this passage you've written, mbeacom, nails it for me. This is exactly how I feel about the ranger. To me, without wisdom, he's a thug, a bandit, or highwayman. He gets along outside of an urban setting, but he's no ranger. At least in my mind.
Treebore wrote:I think you need to play a Ranger in my games. I bet I will only need to have an Ogre grapple your non STR Prime Ranger just once. After he owns you I think you will see why. Of course, with the 4th and 5th printings, establishing a Grapple has become much harder (A good thing for PC's), so I'd have to throw 4 to 6 ogres at just you to show how ugly it gets. Or better yet, Monk classed Ogres.

I'm getting chills just thinking about how ugly that would be.
But wouldn't this be the case for anyone who doesn't have strength prime?
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Post Reply