What changes would YOU make to Conan Second Edition?

Discuss Mongoose RPGs here, such as the OGL rulebooks, Jeremiah, Armageddon 2089 and Macho Women with Guns
User avatar
Trodax
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Sweden

What changes would YOU make to Conan Second Edition?

Postby Trodax » Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:30 pm

With Conan 2nd Edition coming out this summer, I reckon it's time for us fans to start raising our voices about what we would like to see. Maybe if we're lucky the Mongoose guys will listen to our ideas and use one or two of them.
If I were to do an overhaul of Conan the RPG, I would probably do it using some of the ideas I posted in this thread. I'm pretty sure we won't see any extreme changes in the second edition, though, and I'll try to keep it a bit more realistic. So, if I was employed by Mongoose to produce Conan 2nd Edition, these are a couple of changes I'd make:

* Include the Temptress class. This is a no-brainer really; if the Temptress is one of the nine core classes, it should be in the core rulebook.

* Fine-tune the classes slightly. A lot of people seem to think that for example the Noble is underpowered (which I sort of agree with) and the Barbarian overpowered (which I really only agree with if you're looking at levels 10-20). Anyway, I would go through the classes carefully and tweak where needed; sticking in a little bonus feat here and there perhaps.

* Change the dodge/parry progression of the Barbarian class to that of the Borderer/Nomad/Thief. For the King of Versatility, I think this is a better fit than the current super-dodge/crap-parry. It would also make it possible to have more efficient Nordheimer Barbarians that are clad in heavy armor and not just naked whopping Picts and Kushites.

* Expand the available spells at low levels somewhat. As it is now, it can be hard to create a low-level sorcerer if you start with certain sorcery styles. There might not be a spell that's possible for you to choose at certain levels, or there might just be one to "choose" from (Nature Magic and Prestigiation are the most flexible, IIRC). If you have Scrolls of Skelos or any other spell-containing supplements it gets better, but I think it should be possible with just the core book. Just a couple more low-level spells would do the trick I think.

* Make it so that an Initiative roll is really a straight up roll with your entire Reflex save. This makes the most sense to me and would also make things clearer for newcomers. "Do I add Lightning Reflexes to my Initiative?" is a question that's come up repeatedly on these boards.

* Slightly reduce the damage of the big two-handed weapons (perhaps from 2d10 to 2d8 for a greatsword, for example). This seems to be one of the main complaints people have regarding combat; that big two-handed weapons are simply too powerful. I kind of agree with this, and I think their damage could be reduced slightly without them becoming underpowered when compared to other fighting styles (shield, two weapons).

* I'd also remove the Thief's sneak attack style ability so that sneak attacks are restricted to d6's, to somewhat cut down on those huge piles of sneak damage at medium to high levels. Another very common complaint: "Sneak attack is overpowered!!! OMG WTF, this is so broken!!!" While I don't agree 100% with those statements, I do think that the damage could be restricted a little bit (the Thief class would have to be compensated in some way, of course).

* Make it clear once and for all how the Monster Slayer feat is supposed to work. There was errata for this, but it wasn't clear either. Or, an easier solution, just remove the feat entirely; I'm not a big fan of it anyway.

* Restrict Energy Drain (or remove it) so that it is not a much better option than sacrificing people. I'd probably do it using some version of thulsa's houserules.

* Last but not least; redo Defensive Blast so that it has explicitly stated rules that make it impossible to use it in an offensive "charge in and blow stuff up"-mode. Or perhaps just remove it entirely.

* Oh, one more. The only change I would like to see regarding the otherwise excellent setting is this; put in elves and dwarves. It's really not a fantasy RPG without them.

What changes would YOU make to Conan Second Edition?

(I should add also that this thread is for posting stuff that you would like to see in the 2nd edition. If all you want to say is "We don't need a 2nd edition! All my old books will become useless! Why is Mongoose the devil!!!" then please don't post that here. :) )
VincentDarlage
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2145
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Postby VincentDarlage » Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:47 pm

I'd like to see the poison and venom rules revamped. I don't think the OGL rules reflect how poisons and venoms really work.
slaughterj
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:19 pm

Postby slaughterj » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:09 pm

I would avoid making too many big changes, and instead focus on smaller tweaks to fix what we have. Some examples include:

1. Make the bonus from Shields a Defense Bonus that applies even when flatfooted/feinted, like the bonuses from Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively/Total Defense. Shields are merely mobile cover, and you don't lose a cover bonus when flatfooted/feinted, so you shouldn't lose the shield bonus then either.

2. Make the STR bonus apply as a straight bonus to damage for all weapons, no 1.5x for 2-handed and no .5x for off-hand weapons, and even out power attack so that there is no 2x for 2-handed and allow power attack for light weapons. These changes would make it more reasonable to play 2-weapon fighters as they are closer balanced to 2-handed weapon fighters. Two-handed weapon fighters still would get greater damage (e.g., Greatsword versus Arming Sword), better able to overcome DR through their damage and AP (compared with two separate attacks having lower AP usually and lower damage and having DR applied against each attack), and could still get in their full damage on a charge or action in which they moved (unlike 2-weapon fighters, who could only get in 1 attack at lesser damage). So even with dialing back the STR bonus and power attack for 2-handed weapon fighters and enabling power attack on light weapons, 2-handed weapon fighters still have plenty of benefits.

3. Make the expenditure of a Fate Point remove the swoon/flee aspect of a failed Terror of the Unknown check (still apply the shaken effects though). Most if not all Conan stories had an element that could trigger a Terror check, and if you are running a small low level party, they all could fail and swoon, which isn't exactly heroic fantasy at its best.

4. Modify To The Hilt so that it works on things with DR. It makes no sense to be unable to jam a dagger into a horse using the To The Hilt maneuver. Maybe make it work similar to a Finesse attack if need be.

5. Modify energy drain so that only a sorceror can touch and drain another sorceror, not just anybody, e.g., along the line of Thulsa's fixes.

6. Modify sacrifices along the line of Thulsa's fixes, except don't make it quite so complicated, make it simple so that a chart doesn't need to be consulted always, e.g., PP gained = HD of sacrifice +2 for every basic level special characteristic (such as full moon, in a temple, rare animal, noble, or virgin, and maybe another +2 if of the same race or species of the sacrificer) and +4 for every superior level special characteristic (such legendary animal, constellations in rare alignment, top temple of a religion, etc.).

7. Modify alchemical preparations to make them easier to make/buy for the scholar to get better use of them.

8. Clarify that a "donning a shield" action includes switching a shield from one position to another, e.g., moving a large shield from being strapped to the shoulder to regular position, moving a shield from one's back to active use, etc.

Much of the above are my house rules.
kintire
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 967
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:48 pm

Postby kintire » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:10 pm

Include the Temptress class. This is a no-brainer really; if the Temptress is one of the nine core classes, it should be in the core rulebook.
Absolutly. And Iranistan as a a racial type.

*
Fine-tune the classes slightly. A lot of people seem to think that for example the Noble is underpowered (which I sort of agree with) and the Barbarian overpowered (which I really only agree with if you're looking at levels 10-20). Anyway, I would go through the classes carefully and tweak where needed; sticking in a little bonus feat here and there perhaps.
I'm not sure about the Barbarian. Its better than the borderer, but that's a problem with the borderer I think. I honestly think the Noble's fine.
Change the dodge/parry progression of the Barbarian class to that of the Borderer/Nomad/Thief. For the King of Versatility, I think this is a better fit than the current super-dodge/crap-parry. It would also make it possible to have more efficient Nordheimer Barbarians that are clad in heavy armor and not just naked whopping Picts and Kushites.
Maybe. Why do the Nordheimers have to be Barbarians though? They make very good soldiers. I always viewed the barbarian as your naked whopping Picts and Kushites (and Cimmerians) and the armour wearing Shield wall using Nordheimers as soldiers.
Expand the available spells at low levels somewhat.


I think the spell list needs a serious look. The spell schools are wildly different in power and availiability.

* Make it so that an Initiative roll is really a straight up roll with your entire Reflex save. This makes the most sense to me and would also make things clearer for newcomers. "Do I add Lightning Reflexes to my Initiative?" is a question that's come up repeatedly on these boards.
Fair enough. I havent really seen that problem myself.
* Slightly reduce the damage of the big two-handed weapons (perhaps from 2d10 to 2d8 for a greatsword, for example). This seems to be one of the main complaints people have regarding combat; that big two-handed weapons are simply too powerful. I kind of agree with this, and I think their damage could be reduced slightly without them becoming underpowered when compared to other fighting styles (shield, two weapons).
I agree, although shields are much more useful in Conan, and sword and board is a viable option. TWF is madness though, unless you are a thief or pirate. Mind you, that may well be deliberate.
* I'd also remove the Thief's sneak attack style ability so that sneak attacks are restricted to d6's, to somewhat cut down on those huge piles of sneak damage at medium to high levels. Another very common complaint: "Sneak attack is overpowered!!! OMG WTF, this is so broken!!!" While I don't agree 100% with those statements, I do think that the damage could be restricted a little bit (the Thief class would have to be compensated in some way, of course).
I agree 0% with those statements. Sneak attack allows thieves to participate meaningfully in combat... it is not over powered in the slightest.
* Make it clear once and for all how the Monster Slayer feat is supposed to work. There was errata for this, but it wasn't clear either. Or, an easier solution, just remove the feat entirely; I'm not a big fan of it anyway.
Agreed
* Restrict Energy Drain (or remove it) so that it is not a much better option than sacrificing people. I'd probably do it using some version of thulsa's houserules.
Restrict rather than remove I think.
* Last but not least; redo Defensive Blast so that it has explicitly stated rules that make it impossible to use it in an offensive "charge in and blow stuff up"-mode. Or perhaps just remove it entirely.
I vote for "remove it".
* Oh, one more. The only change I would like to see regarding the otherwise excellent setting is this; put in elves and dwarves. It's really not a fantasy RPG without them.
You will all drown in lakes of blood...


I'd like to see the favoured terrain from the borderer class removed and added to races as appropriate, and the Borderer class abolished. Its superfluous with the Barbarian already there.
User avatar
MGBM
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:06 pm

Postby MGBM » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:17 pm

VincentDarlage wrote:I'd like to see the poison and venom rules revamped. I don't think the OGL rules reflect how poisons and venoms really work.
Vincent, a question if I may and if you are allowed to answer.

Do you have an active role in the development of Conan 2nd?
"When I cannot stand alone, it will be time to die," he mumbled, through mashed lips. "But I'd like a flagon of wine."
- Robert E. Howard "Rogues In The House"
slaughterj
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:19 pm

Postby slaughterj » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:25 pm

VincentDarlage wrote:I'd like to see the poison and venom rules revamped. I don't think the OGL rules reflect how poisons and venoms really work.
I agree. They should have the potential to debilitate (e.g., cause sickness, nauseated conditions) and kill (i.e., if they are allegedly the most deadly poisons, then the #s should work out that way), but also be balanced to minimize overuse by players such as by difficulty in obtaining (more of how a campaign is run rather than rules necessarily, other than collection rules), difficulty in using (go stale easily, and risk of harming self), etc.
VincentDarlage
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2145
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Postby VincentDarlage » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:44 pm

MGBM wrote:Vincent, a question if I may and if you are allowed to answer.

Do you have an active role in the development of Conan 2nd?
No, I do not have an active role in its development. Right now I am in the same boat as the rest of you - anxiously awaiting. While I admit that I was hoping for the assignment (I have been with the game since the playtest, so I am extremely familiar with the good and bad of the game), I also have to admit Mongoose made a good decision; I think I am a better cultural researcher than a game designer (which is why most of my books are fairly rules-light). So for now, I am but a huge fan of the game, just as you are.

I am still hoping Mongoose will let me write sourcebooks for Hyrkania/Turan and Vendhya, though! I guess that remains to be seen.
User avatar
Trodax
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Trodax » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:49 pm

slaughterj wrote:1. Make the bonus from Shields a Defense Bonus that applies even when flatfooted/feinted, like the bonuses from Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively/Total Defense. Shields are merely mobile cover, and you don't lose a cover bonus when flatfooted/feinted, so you shouldn't lose the shield bonus then either.

I like this idea too, this is how it was done in Iron Heroes. There is one slight "problem" (this is no biggie), though, since Conan basically uses the following formula:

Base Defense = 10
Dodge = Base Defense + Dex + Dodge
Parry = Base Defense + Str + Parry + Shield

Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively/Total Defense give a bonus to Base Defense, which means that they modify Dodge, Parry, and you get to use it while flat-footed. The rules are nice and clear there. If you wanted the shield bonus to also apply to Base Defense (so that you can use it while flat-footed), you'd have to rewrite the formula above or you would end up with shields also modifying Dodge. Not saying it couldn't be done, but you would have to write the rules slightly differently to avoid confusion.
2. Make the STR bonus apply as a straight bonus to damage for all weapons, no 1.5x for 2-handed and no .5x for off-hand weapons, and even out power attack so that there is no 2x for 2-handed and allow power attack for light weapons. These changes would make it more reasonable to play 2-weapon fighters as they are closer balanced to 2-handed weapon fighters. Two-handed weapon fighters still would get greater damage (e.g., Greatsword versus Arming Sword), better able to overcome DR through their damage and AP (compared with two separate attacks having lower AP usually and lower damage and having DR applied against each attack), and could still get in their full damage on a charge or action in which they moved (unlike 2-weapon fighters, who could only get in 1 attack at lesser damage). So even with dialing back the STR bonus and power attack for 2-handed weapon fighters and enabling power attack on light weapons, 2-handed weapon fighters still have plenty of benefits.
Interesting idea. I think I like it. :)
3. Make the expenditure of a Fate Point remove the swoon/flee aspect of a failed Terror of the Unknown check (still apply the shaken effects though). Most if not all Conan stories had an element that could trigger a Terror check, and if you are running a small low level party, they all could fail and swoon, which isn't exactly heroic fantasy at its best.

Agreed. The Terror rules as written are a bit to harsh for badass Conan heroes.
6. Modify sacrifices along the line of Thulsa's fixes, except don't make it quite so complicated, make it simple so that a chart doesn't need to be consulted always, e.g., PP gained = HD of sacrifice +2 for every basic level special characteristic (such as full moon, in a temple, rare animal, noble, or virgin, and maybe another +2 if of the same race or species of the sacrificer) and +4 for every superior level special characteristic (such legendary animal, constellations in rare alignment, top temple of a religion, etc.).
I agree on this too.
VincentDarlage
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2145
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Postby VincentDarlage » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:53 pm

The change I would MOST like to see is a well-researched map (incorporating Dale Rippke's recent essays and research, of course).
Oly
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: London

Postby Oly » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:56 pm

I think the direction to take the game in is to make it simpler and smoother. Thus care should be taken with rules changes so as to not burden down the game too much. Rather then see lots of new rules I'd rather see less but have them tight, well edited (get the AoO rules printed right for once) and tidy.

As an example I think that the grappling rules are too complicated, they really could do with being streamlined.

What might be an idea though is adding some optional rules so that those that want a more detailed and "accurate" combat system can plug some things in but those of us that don't can skip them.

Picking up on a few points....
Trodax wrote:Change the dodge/parry progression of the Barbarian class to that of the Borderer/Nomad/Thief. For the King of Versatility, I think this is a better fit than the current super-dodge/crap-parry. It would also make it possible to have more efficient Nordheimer Barbarians that are clad in heavy armor and not just naked whopping Picts and Kushites.
I have a hard time actually thinking of armoured Barbarians, to me the idea of unarmoured ones just seems "right". Soldiers wear armour, Barbarians make do with whatever comes to hand.

Trodax wrote:I'd also remove the Thief's sneak attack style ability so that sneak attacks are restricted to d6's, to somewhat cut down on those huge piles of sneak damage at medium to high levels.
I'm OK with sneak attack damage, it doesn't happen that often in a combat so as to be a problem.
Trodax wrote:Last but not least; redo Defensive Blast so that it has explicitly stated rules that make it impossible to use it in an offensive "charge in and blow stuff up"-mode. Or perhaps just remove it entirely.
I don't have any PC scholars and I've never had my NPC ones use it, I'll be happy to see the back of it.
slaughterj wrote:Make the bonus from Shields a Defense Bonus that applies even when flatfooted/feinted, like the bonuses from Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively/Total Defense. Shields are merely mobile cover, and you don't lose a cover bonus when flatfooted/feinted, so you shouldn't lose the shield bonus then either.
To me at least part of the defence that a shield provides is putting it in the right place at the right time, it's partly a reactive measure like dodging or parrying. If it's slung on your back or casually by your side then it won't be as effective. To keep it simple I'm happy to say that it doesn't apply when you're flat footed.
slaughterj wrote:Make the expenditure of a Fate Point remove the swoon/flee aspect of a failed Terror of the Unknown check (still apply the shaken effects though). Most if not all Conan stories had an element that could trigger a Terror check, and if you are running a small low level party, they all could fail and swoon, which isn't exactly heroic fantasy at its best.
Sounds good. Heroes are likely to save up their fate points for the climatic encounter and having them be able to avoid fleeing when the big demon shows up fits in.
User avatar
Trodax
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Trodax » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:07 pm

kintire wrote:Why do the Nordheimers have to be Barbarians though? They make very good soldiers. I always viewed the barbarian as your naked whopping Picts and Kushites (and Cimmerians) and the armour wearing Shield wall using Nordheimers as soldiers.
Yup, Nordheimer in armor do indeed make better Soldiers than Barbarians. But I don't think that's the perfect fit for the reavers of the north either; Formation Combat seems odd, and why no Survival or Tracking abilities?
kintire wrote:I'd like to see the favoured terrain from the borderer class removed and added to races as appropriate, and the Borderer class abolished. Its superfluous with the Barbarian already there.
Interesting, I've also thought about redoing the Borderer in the past. I like the concept of the Borderer; a man right between civilisation and the wild barbarism. What I'm not to fond of is the fighting style stuff that the class gets, that seems just like a carry-over from the D&D Ranger.
I think I'd prefer it if the Borderer got some more bonus feats (like a half-Soldier) and maybe some extra tracking ability at lower levels. Or something.
VincentDarlage wrote:I am still hoping Mongoose will let me write sourcebooks for Hyrkania/Turan and Vendhya, though! I guess that remains to be seen.
They'd be mad not to have you do those sourcebooks. And Black Kingdoms. Don't forget about the Black Kingdoms.
VincentDarlage wrote:The change I would MOST like to see is a well-researched map (incorporating Dale Rippke's recent essays and research, of course).
God yes! This is my number one wish too, don't know how I could not think about that!
Daz
Mongoose
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: South Korea
Contact:

Postby Daz » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:17 pm

-Make there by less situational bonuses to keep track of and generally streamline the rules.
-Make borderers and soldiers less D&D holdovers.
-Give the nobles more things that give simple to keep track of mechanical benefits rather than more nebulous RP benefits.
-Have grappling not give me headaches.
-Do some thorough play-testing to balance things better.
-Rework the magic system. I like how its set up but there needs to be more of a variety of fun low-powered spells to use for low-level scholars and some better balancing.
-No defensive blasts. They be silly.
-Have poisons give various status conditions as well as/instead of ability point damage.
-Try to make mental ability scores more useful in non-magical combat, at the very leastprovide feats that allow people to make sure of them in the core books.
User avatar
Sutek
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Location: Houston Texas

Postby Sutek » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:39 pm

* Make it so that an Initiative roll is really a straight up roll with your entire Reflex save. This makes the most sense to me and would also make things clearer for newcomers. "Do I add Lightning Reflexes to my Initiative?" is a question that's come up repeatedly on these boards.
It does come up a lot on the boards, but the answer is simple: Some feats and other factors affect REF save, others do not. I think the current INIT equation is fine as it stands, and I don't really see the problem people have with it. Compare it to straigh D&D 3.5 where all the feats pour the same direction and we might as well all go play that instead.
1. Make the bonus from Shields a Defense Bonus that applies even when flatfooted/feinted, like the bonuses from Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively/Total Defense. Shields are merely mobile cover, and you don't lose a cover bonus when flatfooted/feinted, so you shouldn't lose the shield bonus then either.
I think this is on the right track, but I also feel that shields work pretty well as they are. Perhaps if shields merely confered varrying Cover properties instead of DV bonuses at all then that would make them function during Flat Footed instances more realistically. Frankly though, I think it's just too easy to get targets Flat Footed and having a Cover miss chance would add to survivability.
2. Make the STR bonus apply as a straight bonus to damage for all weapons, no 1.5x for 2-handed and no .5x for off-hand weapons, and even out power attack so that there is no 2x for 2-handed and allow power attack for light weapons.
Nah, this is basic OGL rules and not likely to change. The effect it has in Conan is to make Bardiche damage horrendous.

I think it'd be far better to disallow Sneak Attack with any weapons other than Finesseable types. This would prevent the 2-handed Bardiche sneak attack from existing.
3. Make the expenditure of a Fate Point remove the swoon/flee aspect of a failed Terror of the Unknown check (still apply the shaken effects though). Most if not all Conan stories had an element that could trigger a Terror check, and if you are running a small low level party, they all could fail and swoon, which isn't exactly heroic fantasy at its best.
I'd like to see FPs expanded all the way around. Give more legal options. As it is now, I can do max damage or keep myself from dying as active game expenditures, and that's a bizzare range. Since FPs can be gained rather easily over the course of campaigns, more uses for them would be great.
5. Modify energy drain so that only a sorceror can touch and drain another sorceror, not just anybody, e.g., along the line of Thulsa's fixes.

6. Modify sacrifices along the line of Thulsa's fixes, except don't make it quite so complicated, make it simple so that a chart doesn't need to be consulted always, e.g., PP gained = HD of sacrifice +2 for every basic level special characteristic (such as full moon, in a temple, rare animal, noble, or virgin, and maybe another +2 if of the same race or species of the sacrificer) and +4 for every superior level special characteristic (such legendary animal, constellations in rare alignment, top temple of a religion, etc.).
Haven't looked at Thulsa's fixes, but neither of these appeal to me. Sorcerer's should be able to drain from anywhere (including any life around them, like old Dark Sun defilers!) and the sacrifice thing seems to linear and predictable.

No one has mentioned doing something to Defensive Blast, so along with better Toxin rules, I'd say those two are my top two.

There's other things like the fact that Fatigue is only spelled in odd places, and similar rules are equally hard to locate.

I think Nobles are fine, as are all of the other classes. People looking for everything to be equal are living in more of a fantsy world than Hyboria (lol). This isn't politically correct to say, but ther is no equality - get used to it. (LOL)

Layout: Make headers and sub-heads more distinctive and use a smaller typeface on sub-heads to conserve page space. Look at the skills and feats sections; that's a lot of wasted space because the titles of each skill and feat are HUGE! I'd also suggest closer attention in layout be paid to keeping things aligned. Tables and, particularly illustrations, overlap into gutters and neighboring collumns in odd ways. Developing a font size rule as mentioned above may conserve page space to allow for larger images instead of working them in at odd configurations. Also, if a table takes up nearly all of a page - let it take the whole page. Having text wrap to four sentances below a huge table is strange and, again, can be recovered by adjusting font size elsewhere.

The only major rule alteration I'd visit is Grappling too. It doesn't really illustrate the wrestling and holds that I imagine in Conan, and don't follow the more realistic combat feel the rest of the rules present. As written, the grappler can't subsequently Sneak Attack, and we see it all the time in movies - grab from behind, slit the throat. Simply wrestling someone to the ground isn't even covered in the rules because the objective is to immobilize rather than subdue or make prone a target. It just doesn't feel very Conan, and that should be the metric for making any drastic changes in a new edition more than anything.

Plus, isn't this technically a third edition? Wasn't the AE really the second pass?
AE Errata Thread
"Occam's razor makes the cutting clean..."
kintire
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 967
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:48 pm

Postby kintire » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:53 pm

The change I would MOST like to see is a well-researched map (incorporating Dale Rippke's recent essays and research, of course).
But it isn't a Mongoose sourcebook if we can't mock the maps... :D
Yup, Nordheimer in armor do indeed make better Soldiers than Barbarians. But I don't think that's the perfect fit for the reavers of the north either; Formation Combat seems odd, and why no Survival or Tracking abilities?
I dunno. They are basically Vikings, and Vikings were right up for formation combat. Shield Walls, Shield Rings, Swine's Head arrays. And under my overarching Cunning Plan they would get survival skills from their race.
Interesting, I've also thought about redoing the Borderer in the past. I like the concept of the Borderer; a man right between civilisation and the wild barbarism. What I'm not to fond of is the fighting style stuff that the class gets, that seems just like a carry-over from the D&D Ranger.
Well yes... but why not just take Barbarian?

The problem I have is that the Conan rules seem to be taking REH's racial/cultural theories and applying them as profession theories. REH was very clear on what civilisation and barbarism meant, and it wasn't your job. Specifically wasn't. Conan has only a few levels of Barbarian; he's a thief, pirate, soldier and a bit of noble if I remember right. But he is a Barbarian Whatever skills he gets, whatever jobs he takes his people have been barbarians for milennia, his assumptions and character are formed by barbarism, and a barbarian he will remain until the day he dies. It isn't a class thing, its a racial heritage thing. The Aquilonian "borderers" are people who are relearning the skills of the barbarian to fight the Picts, but they don't have the heritage, so, with perhaps the occasional atavistic exception, they won't ever be quite barbarians. But again, thats a race heritage thing, not class. The Borderer/Barbarian split is trying to introduce the wrong split.
User avatar
Sutek
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Location: Houston Texas

Postby Sutek » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:24 pm

Trodax wrote:
kintire wrote:I'd like to see the favoured terrain from the borderer class removed and added to races as appropriate, and the Borderer class abolished. Its superfluous with the Barbarian already there.
Interesting, I've also thought about redoing the Borderer in the past. I like the concept of the Borderer; a man right between civilisation and the wild barbarism. What I'm not to fond of is the fighting style stuff that the class gets, that seems just like a carry-over from the D&D Ranger.
I think I'd prefer it if the Borderer got some more bonus feats (like a half-Soldier) and maybe some extra tracking ability at lower levels. Or something.
Never considered that, but disolving the Borderer (which is really just a Hyborian D&D Ranger anyway) and incorporating aspects of that class back into Barbarian and, especially, Nomad would be a fantastic idea. I could really see Nomads taking on much of the Borderer class across the board and being the fantastic horsemen as well as the weapons masters in the way that Barbarians are the ferocious fighters and Soldiers are the highly trained warriors.
AE Errata Thread
"Occam's razor makes the cutting clean..."
User avatar
Foxworthy
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:06 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA

Postby Foxworthy » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:29 pm

Here's my ideas.
  • Remove Defensive Blast
  • Redo Toxins to make them deadlier/realistic
  • Add some of the "missing" SRD RUles
  • Expnaded Combat Maneuvers Section
  • Revise Ranged Finesse so that it's either useful or gone
  • Make Vincent Darlage Line Developer (Even though he said he's not good at developing games, all he needs to do is revise the game.)
  • Remove The Swoon Effect from Terror Of The Unknown
  • Better Character Sheet
  • Change Formation Combat into a feat and replace it with a bonus feat or something
  • Add a glossary to the back of the book like the DnD 3.5 Rulebook has
I support inequality (or precieved inequaility) of the classes. I like the way shields are handled since d20 is an absract system and making shields cover require you to add facing into a system that doesn't have facing. It also puts emphasis minatures which while helpful shouldn't be required for combat.

I support all the little bonuses in the races section and I don't find it bothersome at all. Situational Bonuses are easily noted by the players.

No fantasy races.... just no...
www.myspace.com/fox257

This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit
quigs
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:21 pm

Postby quigs » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:35 pm

Not use d20 :) Or at least don't change the rules so much from regular d20 fantasy (or D&D) that the game gets too clunky and redundant.

Personally, I don't really see any need for new d20 rules in order to play Conan. Thulsa proved this on his site, where he uses the regular D&D rules with a Conan twist but doesn't change too much about the system.

I'd personally like to see a Campaign Setting book with some new feats, equipment, and spells, similar to what was done for settings like Eberron or Forgotten Realms but with the obvious un-Conan rules elements removed. Something like a book combining the Road of Kings, Tito's Trading Post, and the Atlantean Edition content, but with all the new d20 tweaks and rules removed. Things like manouevres, AP, armour as DR, dodge, parry, new classes, magic system, etc. did not really need to be done. All of these things can easily be handled using the existing d20 rules and giving the DM some advice on how to describe such things.

But that is just my experience with the game :)
User avatar
Trodax
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Trodax » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:59 pm

Foxworthy wrote:Add some of the "missing" SRD RUles
Good point.
Foxworthy wrote:Expnaded Combat Maneuvers Section
I would actually go in the opposite direction and say that the Combat Maneuvers could be removed as far as I'm concerned (don't use em).
Foxworthy wrote:Revise Ranged Finesse so that it's either useful or gone
Agreed.
Foxworthy wrote:I like the way shields are handled since d20 is an absract system and making shields cover require you to add facing into a system that doesn't have facing.

Yup, having shields grant cover would be very cumbersome and not a good idea.
Foxworthy wrote:No fantasy races.... just no...
Come on... just a couple of elves...? Or maybe some ducks? :wink:
User avatar
Sutek
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Location: Houston Texas

Postby Sutek » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:35 pm

Foxworthy wrote:I like the way shields are handled since d20 is an absract system and making shields cover require you to add facing into a system that doesn't have facing. It also puts emphasis minatures which while helpful shouldn't be required for combat.
Not to try and hijack the thread here, but I don't think making shields provide cover has anything to do with facing; you either get the Cover bonus or you don't.

But I will admit to suggesting the wrong rule (lol). I think shields should provide varrying degrees of concealment where a failed miss chance hits the shield. 8)
AE Errata Thread
"Occam's razor makes the cutting clean..."
User avatar
thulsa
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:43 am
Contact:

Re: What changes would YOU make to Conan Second Edition?

Postby thulsa » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:43 pm

Trodax wrote:With Conan 2nd Edition coming out this summer
When & where was this announced?

- thulsa
Image

The Hyborian Age d20 Campaign Site
http://hyboria.xoth.net/

The Spider-God's Bride and Other Tales
http://xoth.net/publishing/xp1/

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests