Any of you have modified the rules?

has anyone tried to incorperate any of the Iron Heroes rule. I like the stunt mechanic but it needs to be toned down for Conan.
 
The final word on corruption is...The GM should use the rules provided in the book as a guidline.

Meaning, run corruption in a way that feels right for your campaign, and let the players know, at the start what they are in for. Just be fair and consistent.

In my campaign its difficult to get corruption, some acts however can earn the players a point. When a player is treading these grounds I warn him. Leaving the choice to him as to what he will do. so far the players have remained heroic and not done anything that would cause such problems.

Also I consider the sorce of the corruption, dark magic and evil forces lead to mutation while cruel and evil acts will often lead madness. (This for the most part is my way of defining really evil NPCs.) If a PC were to do anything realy horrific, the other PCs would step in.
 
I don't know if this is gonna help you guys out, but the "other" Conan RPG handles magic in this way.
You need certain prerequisite Talents.
You have to study for some time just to add a Magic Talent. Two years for Summoning.
You get an "Obsession" Talent that can cause the PC to want more magic, regardless of the cost. And the more magic you use or aquire the higher the Obsession gets. Kind of a downward spiral.
You also have to pick a "Magical" Weakness: Animal aversion, Disfigurement, Distrusted, Endurance loss, Madness, Nocturnal, and whatever else the referee or player would like to hobble his PC with. Some of the magics are so powerful, such as Summoning, that you have to pick another Magical Weakness each time you get a new spell. Alchemy just requires one Magical Weakness and 3 months study.
This "corruption" sounds like it will make an interesting Magical Weakness, but I think it is a little harsh on many of the priests that were good, and even many of the scholars Conan befriended.
Perhaps my reading of REH's Conan stories is skewed, I hope not.
 
Not so much a rule change or house rule just a 'the wayI play it' comment that I was going to put on a new thread but think might fit here.

Starting character levels, The very first rpg I ran didn't go to well I had three First level D&d characters and one adventure module (I still have it 'Journey to the rock') I threw in a first -go random encounter with some orcs (rolled on the wandering monster table) folowed the rules for number encountered and their hp. It took about three quarters of an hour to run the fight since we were all working out what to do, what to roll and then who won and lost.

While the players worked up a new set of characters I sat and tried to figure out how to play the game without killing everybodys character during the first figh, which while it might be a realistic and gritty portrayal of the dangerous world would rapidly become a boring and tedious 'game' that never got anywhere.

Now I am in the habit of starting Characters at about level 3 or with enough skill/hit points and ability to smite that they survive long enough to actualy realise a plot exists. Reading this and other RPG related forums and mail lists I read things like 'Hey this a great game my Level 19 Barbarian/16 Thief/12 Noble/14 Solider' really kicks ass with his +114 massive sword of the gods' Now I must be a miser with xp as at 1 game session a week I would expect the characters to get into double figure levels in say mid 2007. Given that it gets harder and longer to reach higher levels progressivly are some people playing three times a week or something ?

Do any other GMs start people off with a few levels just because those level 1 characters are so pants ?

Do any GM's give away loads of XP each session so that the characters go up levels more often (I aim for 1 level every two months or thereabouts) for the lower levels ?

In giving XP how much do you give on the 'Sixty four goblins @2xp each" and how much on the Roleplaying ? I tend to give more for a convincing bit of roleplaying or a clever idea that means the player is following the plot and setting. For the 'I hit DC18 for 12 using my +4' I tend to give nothing.

When either I get new players or Someone dies and has to generate a new character I start them at a level is the same as the majority of the other players are at not at the level of their previous character neccessarily how do others play this one ?

In some games (particularly horror) I sometimes run 'Dreamscape' where the characters are in a dream-like reality as portrayed in 'A nightmare on elm street' and I give them 'Dreamscape' character sheets which are heavily modified sometimes to the players advantage, at others to their disadvantage. Any wounds recieved are transfered to thier 'normal' character sheet when they awake. Have any other GMs, for any reason, done something like this (modified a char sheet) for a scene or plot ?

Is there anything you wouldn't do to players characters (in terms of the above) when running a game ?
 
Evil_Trevor said:
Do any other GMs start people off with a few levels just because those level 1 characters are so pants ?

Yep.

Do any GM's give away loads of XP each session so that the characters go up levels more often (I aim for 1 level every two months or thereabouts) for the lower levels ?

Nope.

In giving XP how much do you give on the 'Sixty four goblins @2xp each" and how much on the Roleplaying ? I tend to give more for a convincing bit of roleplaying or a clever idea that means the player is following the plot and setting. For the 'I hit DC18 for 12 using my +4' I tend to give nothing.

All roleplaying. I don't encourage rewarding meaningless combat- a process that often had characters leveling entire towns in search of EPs ala old school D&D and more recently the characters of Knights of the Dinner Table.

When either I get new players or Someone dies and has to generate a new character I start them at a level is the same as the majority of the other players are at not at the level of their previous character neccessarily how do others play this one ?

Start them at the level everione else is at. Otherwise they become the expendable torchbearer pretty quick.

In some games (particularly horror) I sometimes run 'Dreamscape' where the characters are in a dream-like reality as portrayed in 'A nightmare on elm street' and I give them 'Dreamscape' character sheets which are heavily modified sometimes to the players advantage, at others to their disadvantage. Any wounds recieved are transfered to thier 'normal' character sheet when they awake. Have any other GMs, for any reason, done something like this (modified a char sheet) for a scene or plot ?

Nope.

Is there anything you wouldn't do to players characters (in terms of the above) when running a game ?

Nope. Like most GMs I am closet sadist. :twisted:
 
Evil_Trevor said:
Now I am in the habit of starting Characters at about level 3 or with enough skill/hit points and ability to smite that they survive long enough to actualy realise a plot exists. Reading this and other RPG related forums and mail lists I read things like 'Hey this a great game my Level 19 Barbarian/16 Thief/12 Noble/14 Solider' really kicks ass with his +114 massive sword of the gods' Now I must be a miser with xp as at 1 game session a week I would expect the characters to get into double figure levels in say mid 2007. Given that it gets harder and longer to reach higher levels progressivly are some people playing three times a week or something ?
Actually this tendancy developped from AD&D (1 version), progrably using the old D&D concept with the basic, expert, master, companion and immortal sets where you could reach god status.
Though this is quite laughable and ridiculous if you keep the same setting it is also the only way to play really powerful heroes (like those of the greek myth).
The HeroQuest game (with the Glorantha setting) gives such an approach and possibility.

Do any GM's give away loads of XP each session so that the characters go up levels more often (I aim for 1 level every two months or thereabouts) for the lower levels ?
IMO Warhammer (as well as the German RPG the Dark Eye) has the best method to give XPs: per scenario session and per goals (this mean thus XP for good questions and communication with fictive persons, investigations, etc.).

To give only XPs for monster killing and looting is truly silly because this mean that your games will always be the same with the scenarios just replaced by more powerful monsters and greater treasures.
 
I like non class level RPGs. Also, like the previous post mentioned, I give out XP for goals and role-play. The game I play now (TSR Conan) where the PC is made up of only Talents, no characteristics, XP goes directly to the purchase of Talent levels. Sometimes, I have them add levels immediatly to the Talent they had just used, like on the job training. Otherwise, they get to store them up a bit, so they can add a new Talent, which costs 5 points for the first level.
Besides, I never give out XP for the value of the treasure, only for how tough it was to get the treasure. Like Conan, the players might end up with a few coins out of a sack of gold, that might burst open in a crowded tavern.
To tell the truth, when I played D&D, I didn't bother much with XP, I awarded a level if I thought the player did real well during the game. A lot of my players learned that the treasure or slaughtering a bunch of creatures did nothing for them, doing something clever usually did.
But I was lucky by having players that were pretty unfamiliar with the game mechanics, I guess that was why I liked Paranoia also. :twisted:
 
Some of the modifications I use in our campaign:

1. Steely Gaze: the prereq CHA 13 can be substituted with STR 13 or DEX 13 according to Vincent Darlage's new take on Intimidation (Hyborai's Fiercest).

2. Bluff could also be based on DEX instead of CHA. Look for the thread on this forum.

3. Fighting Madness could also be taken by every Hyborian. REH's heroes saw the world through a red veil even if they didn't came from a barbarian culture: Compare the Puritan Solomon Kane and the various crusader stories. It is more a personal than a racial issue.

4. Every class is illiterate. There is no reason why a Kothian Soldier should be able to read and write. Even the medieval nobility was often illiterate. The famous monks who duplicated books in medieval monasteries, often didn't write, but painted the letters without understanding them (hence the often funny mistakes in the remaining copies of old books).
So every character has to invest two skill points if he wants to be literate.

There is also a thread on this forum: Literacy / Illiteracy.

5. Languages are learned if the PCs had intensive contact with it, not every few levels. If there isn't some sound explanation for other languages, they start with only their mother tongue.


6. MAB: Some spells calaculate their effect according to the Scholar level of the caster, which looks on the first very logical, e.g Calm of the Adept: one hour / Scholar level.

But what do you do, when you have a Khitan Noble 8 / Scholar 1 casting the spell? To give him the 1 hour-duration as the rules demand doesn't look realistic, so I changed the rules:

Substitute "Scholar level" with "2x base Magic Attack Bonus"

This leaves pure Scholars as they are (10th level Scholar has base MAB +5), but also reflects the magical ability the other classes have according to their progression.

7. Nordheimer have Soldier as Favoured Class instead of Barbarian.
Why? Look at the racial entry at p.30 AE. Is this description fiitng to the class advancement of the Barbarian? The Barbarian is a master of dodging, the Nordheimer is not; the Mobility and the Uncanny Dodge chains seem to be also out of place. Same for the Track feat.
On the other hand goes the Nordheimer into battle with a heavy armour if he can lay hands on one - the Barbarian hasn't this feat, the Soldier has.
So I houseruled to change the Favoured Class. Being a Soldier doesn't mean you can't be barbaric, e.g. Fighting Madness is still allowed. Look at REH's Viking stories, e.g. Marchers of Valhalla or the Cormac Mac Art cycle, I think you'll find this houserule affirmed.
 
So, our GM has used Hackmaster Rules for Botches... And it was sometimes a little funny seeing his own borderer ruining the axe on the cave wall. But otherwise I think the rules are pretty good and don't need much tweaking.

@teutonic
Wie identifiziere ich jemanden? Ich stelle fest, das er mit jemanden, der seine Posts mir Marcel unterschreibt über einen Cornelius redet. Und dann schreibt derjenige auch noch über die bekloppte Idee mit dem Hackmaster... Hab dich! MfG, Jerry
 
One modification I use on my current campaign:

I have always disliked the way how Fate points become kind of 'extra lives' for character. In a system where character could get permanently injured that would be OK (character would have to use points now and then to avoid become crippled etc), but in conan even at 1 hp left you have no reason to use your points but save them until you need to save your a** with 'left for dead'. This makes Fate points quite precious for players, and they are usen only as 'extra lives' for character.

My modification for rules is that FP:s cannot be used to save your life if you are at -10 hp. Instead you can use then for "heroic act", so you can instead of rolling a dice make _any_ test roll as an automatic success. Even fortitude roll against massive damage (prevents you become killed because of one lucky critical) or stabilizing yourself after you have less than 0 hp. But after you are at -10 hp there are no any test rolls needed, so you are dead.
IMO this makes characters with FP:s more 'heroic' than average NPC; they are now and then able to success in situations where odds seem to be seriously against them, they could also now and then ve able to cheat death. But they are unlikely to be survive at least 3-4 times per character times just because their opponent thought thought they are dead...
 
I use a modification to the armour becoming damaged rules.

Every time a character is hit any damage taken by the armour is recorded. For every 15 points of damage the armour takes it is reduced by 1 DR.

So a bit like stoneskin; armour has a max amount of damage it can take before it is rubbish.

Superior qualities of armour can have 20, or even 25 points per DR.

This means that if you have a plated up Warrior he can be wittled down with lots of less effective attacks, and the armour will get pounded and pounded as it takes all the damage.

The rule applies to any natural armour like a bear (but not to a barbarian's DR)
 
We play with an "active" defense. In other words, instead of 10+Parry/Dodge/Class Defense modifiers, we play D20+Parry, etc...

A little more dynamic and allows for low level thugs to avoid hits and make them against high level PC's.

I love the massive damage rule only being 20. It has really made my PC's think hard about combat situations. I've already rolled a 20-20-hit against a PC, which in our D&D games was an "instakill". Fortunately the PC had a fate point left.
 
I've allowed a Fate point to be used a bit more liberally, e.g., to recover from a failed Terror check. It really sucks for an entire party of low level adventurers to fail the check and swoon. Note, you could just let the beast ravage them, triggering a Fate point use to be left for dead, but that seemed silly to me, so instead I'd rather see them still standing and doing battle (if they so choose), and either just swoon for a round or be shaken or whatnot for the duration of combat.
 
The characters have too may Hit Points (Or so it seems!). Healing IS a big problem, that can bog down the game with the PC's spending half a game session avoiding Everything (Incl. Bad Tavern food!) and doing little else.

The Massive Damage rule is obviously a 'patch up' to rebalance this, but ... Recently in a game my Player (Lone Scenario) Dan's Kusanite Archer 'pinged' a Turanian Captain 5 times with his bow and the Turanian happily rode off with five shafts in him ... (He was wearing lamillar armour, helm, etc ...)!!!

Maybe greater chances at doing terrible blows that multiply the damage or wound effects out (Non-Lethal Criticals that cause cripples, and other penalties typical to martial combat?).

The Sorcery section needs a dramatic update - and Yes, I prefer Ravens Rules upgrades. It does not necessarily mean more spellcasting and blasting, but maybe more variety and choice ??? Especially if your Scholar has few magic points (and nobody handy to sacrifice)(I like the Power Rituals and suchlike, that raise variable points through other means like cabals, covens, worhippers, believers, etc).

Also ... None of my Players have EVER used the Combat Options that provide colourful ways to deal with opponents. They just seem to be 'too far away'.

The hardest thing to do in the game is:

To create a Sorceror, complete with spell lists and 'ready to go' (Like an NPC)

Compiling and sorting through the combined net effects of the multitudinal Feats, esp. with Character Creation (PC's) or (fully stated) NPC Creation.

I will be "having a go" at creating an alternate (but intercompatable!) Combat System, that embodies the "feel" of flowing combat without the technical bog-down that can occur. (Like looking up the combined net effects of Feats. Sorry, I just can't memorize ALL of them together!!!)

Maybe based upon the Quick-Play like system used in Gardasiyal (A World of Tekumel game) and/or like the 'old' West End games StarWars RPG (But for manual combat only - expanded). I like using the concept of 'Wound Levels' that are 'repairable' instead of hit Points.

Don't worry - I'll find some more to mention, but I DO love the setting.
 
LokiOne said:
Also ... None of my Players have EVER used the Combat Options that provide colourful ways to deal with opponents. They just seem to be 'too far away'.

Well in the campaign I'm in we just got to 11th level. It seems for the last four levels or so that combat maneuvers started to be used. But before six level most are hard to get. I played tonight and I ended up using them once for each fight I got into, and the Knockback move in fiercist saved me.
 
*bump*
Time to have hold a new referendum, maybe, after over a year since the last post.

Here are the changes I have made to the rules (that are not setting-related):

- Ability generation: for this campaign, I allow a whopping 41 point buy.

- Hit Points: for the first 3 levels, PCs get full hit points (i.e. 10+CON for any d10 class). At levels 4-10 they will get a reduced but above-average number of HP, like maybe 7HP for d10 classes, not decided yet. Then levels 11+ the reduced HP as per RAW.

- Sunder: optional Parry/Sunder rule applies. Moreover, ANY Sunder attempt works _both_ ways, i.e. the weapons damage each other.
Reason: reality check.

- Two-Weapon Combat: anyone with the TWF ability (by class or feat) can choose to perform a Two Weapon Strike. Using the Full Attack mode, you use up Main and Off-hand attacks of equal BAB simultaneously. You only make a single attack roll. If you hit, the total damage from both weapons (including the total 1.5 Str modifier) is used to overcome Damage Reduction. Combining this with Power Attack lets you add x2 Str.

This mechanism is supposed to bring TWF to par with THF. Note that TWS is not an extra feat in my game, you just need TWC Proficiency. I find it wrong having to spend extra feats just to get close to something someone else gets for free. So now you finally have a realistic chance to overcome DR with TWF.
With these changes, I feel that TWF and THF are finally balanced. THF still gives you a greater punch, since 2d10 are still greater than, say, d10+d8, and TWS always requires a Full Attack action, but with TWF you are more flexible and can do more single attacks as well.

That's about it, can't think of any other changes right now.

EDIT: a right... I'm also considering to change the weapon damage... either nerf Two-handers one step (from 2d10 to 2d8) or up everything else one step (d10 -> d2, d12 -> 2d8, etc.). There's been a discussion about this matter ever since.
 
Clovenhoof said:
EDIT: a right... I'm also considering to change the weapon damage... either nerf Two-handers one step (from 2d10 to 2d8) or up everything else one step (d10 -> d12, d12 -> 2d8, etc.). There's been a discussion about this matter ever since.
IMO only a few two-handed weapons (the greatsword, tulwar, bardiche and two or three others) are overpowered. From the SRD or D&D 3.5 to Conan, most weapons had a one die increase (all light and one-handed weapons, some two-handed weapons). IMO the war spear (1d10) or the greatclub should not be made weaker, but only the few two-handed weapons who were increased by two steps (that's what I did). Or, like you suggested it, increase all light, one-handed but also the weakest two-handed weapons if you want more mortality in your games. In REH's Conan stories, our favorite barbarian doesn't fight often two-handed and IMO the emphasis made on some two-handed weapons was unbalancing and not in-genre. I will post later the list of weapons I've altered if you're interested (I don't have my RPG stuff at hand right now).
 
Back
Top