Armor Check Penalty & Encumbrance

Coroleer

Mongoose
In various places it mentions that skills suffer armor check penalties for armor and also for weight carried (-1 per five pounds). As I recall, they got rid of the weight carried part of that for D&D 3.5. Is the Conan book in an "in between" state with regard to that rule change from 3.0 to 3.5? In other words, it seems like it should be either armor or weight, but not both.

I hope that makes some sense...
 

Coroleer

Mongoose
You're right, of course... I need to rephrase my question.

In D&D/SRD3.0, that was the way it worked for swim. In D&D/SRD3.5, swim checks suffer double the armor check penalty. D&D/SRD3.5 also has the notion of an armor check penalty for encumbrance (-3 for medium, -6 for heavy), but they got rid of the -1 per 5 pounds thing. Simpler and less realistic, I'll grant. But I still wonder if the Conan developers meant to keep the old mode as a deliberate design decision or if they meant to use the 3.5 architecture there but didn't. The more I think about it, it was probably deliberate -- swimming around in armor and carrying a bunch of stuff should be hard -- maybe not for a D&D cleric, but certainly for a ConanRPG thief... :wink:

Thanks...
-= Stefan =-
 

argo

Mongoose
I do not understand your confusion. :? AFAIK Conan is completly in line with 3.5 on encumberance rules. The description of the swim skill on p106 says to apply double the armor check penalty (not -1/5lb) and carry loads chart on p12 lists a check penalty of -3 for medium and -6 for heavy. All that is the same as 3.5


Oh wait! I see the problem now. Under the Weapon and Armor Proficiendy: listing in each class description it has the old -1/5lb Must be another typo :roll: I woud say to go with the rules listed under the Swim skill description as that should trump a tagential refrence elsewhere in the book.

And yet another Conan error has been discovered! :p
 

Coroleer

Mongoose
Yep, that's my confusion. It did sort of seem like some version confusion to me. We were going to house-rule that anyway. Now we might not have to... :)
 
Top