Supplement Four
Mongoose
Style said:
:shock: lol!
Except...I'm only allowing Borderers, Soldiers, and Thieves at this juncture of the campaign.
You'd have to pick one of those three. :?
Conan 321
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
:shock: lol!
Except...I'm only allowing Borderers, Soldiers, and Thieves at this juncture of the campaign.
You'd have to pick one of those three. :?
Supplement Four
Mongoose
Ichabod said:
You have to balance it with Hit Die and Feats.
Remember, the Soldier gets more Feats than any other class, and his choice of Feat is wide indeed.
The thief suffers from the d8 hit die (vs d10 with many others), but makes up for it with skills.
Etc.
You can't just look at skills an call the game unbalanced.
I just wonder why every D20 player seems to hold Game Balance as a sacro saint holy relic. I mean you all tell you like Conan because it's "grim and gritty". So play it that way! The world isn't "balanced". For every Brad Pitt around there's thousand of people who are ugly, poor, sick and weak! And I guess inequalities are even worse in the Hyborian age. That's why I'm against point buy systems which create politically correct worlds where everybody has the same chance.
I let my players arrange their stats the way they want and I use their dump stat as a weakness against them. For instance, I will harass the low Con character more than the others on a desert travel. No one will ever listen to the low Cha guy and he'll have big problems dealing with wenches! Force your players to roleplay their dump stat and you'll find a way to get around the problem! :wink:
I let my players arrange their stats the way they want and I use their dump stat as a weakness against them. For instance, I will harass the low Con character more than the others on a desert travel. No one will ever listen to the low Cha guy and he'll have big problems dealing with wenches! Force your players to roleplay their dump stat and you'll find a way to get around the problem! :wink:
Sutek
Mongoose
Praise Herve!
Dude! I hate the concept of "game balance" becuse it's rediculous. It alwasy falls to the hands of the players anyway, no matter how much you even things out, but more to the point, things should be imballanced to enhance drama and facilitate conflict.
I have absolutely no issue with the fact that, as most 3.X detractors claim, there's not something for every class to do in every round of combat. Thieves can't sneek attack undead; Wizards are weak until later levels whereas Fighters are awesome early on but level off to be weak compared to other classes.
Well "boo-freakin-hoo".
The whole CR thing is ther for ballance, but logically, Conan designers decided not to rely on it. Who cares if it isn't a ballance fight between an average 3rd level party of four vesus, say...a dragon. Isn't it supposed to be? Adding CR into it simply gives the players an excuse to whine about how the encounter was "unfair".
Life is unfair, folks. That's not a cliche, it's the bleedin truth. I have friends who are just flat stronger, smarter or more skilled than me at things, and that's just the way it it, but it takes nothing away from what I consider my assets. My "character" is not undermined because others are better in some ways be default. I just roll with it and keep on playing the game, so to speak.
Now, in heroic fantasy, Frodo is not as good as Aragorn, but so what? It makes for a good character relationship, and Frodo is still the star. he doesn't become a king, but he actually gets to go to the Undying Lands, and that sounds better anyway. Not ballanced, but definitely better...
Dude! I hate the concept of "game balance" becuse it's rediculous. It alwasy falls to the hands of the players anyway, no matter how much you even things out, but more to the point, things should be imballanced to enhance drama and facilitate conflict.
I have absolutely no issue with the fact that, as most 3.X detractors claim, there's not something for every class to do in every round of combat. Thieves can't sneek attack undead; Wizards are weak until later levels whereas Fighters are awesome early on but level off to be weak compared to other classes.
Well "boo-freakin-hoo".
The whole CR thing is ther for ballance, but logically, Conan designers decided not to rely on it. Who cares if it isn't a ballance fight between an average 3rd level party of four vesus, say...a dragon. Isn't it supposed to be? Adding CR into it simply gives the players an excuse to whine about how the encounter was "unfair".
Life is unfair, folks. That's not a cliche, it's the bleedin truth. I have friends who are just flat stronger, smarter or more skilled than me at things, and that's just the way it it, but it takes nothing away from what I consider my assets. My "character" is not undermined because others are better in some ways be default. I just roll with it and keep on playing the game, so to speak.
Now, in heroic fantasy, Frodo is not as good as Aragorn, but so what? It makes for a good character relationship, and Frodo is still the star. he doesn't become a king, but he actually gets to go to the Undying Lands, and that sounds better anyway. Not ballanced, but definitely better...
Supplement Four said:
You're missing the whole 4 times the number of starting skill points thing. Do me a favor, and quickly create two 10th level characters. Have one be 10 levels of soldier, and the other start with a level of thief, and then add 9 levels of soldier. Tell me which one you like better?
Ichabod said:
Right, here's an even better example. Create 2 characters, both second level. The first took one level of soldier and then added a level of thief. The second started with thief, and then added a level of soldier. Which one do you like better?
Do you get it yet S4? If you don't, seriously, do the exercise above, create the two 2nd level characters. It should be obvious.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
Style said:
I understand what you're saying. You're saying the multiclassing is so easy, and you see an imbalance when a character starts with a Thief at first level vs. starting with anything else.
One thing you're missing, though, is the encouragement to stick with one class for 10 levels for the bonus feats.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
Style said:
@Style and Ichabod
I see your point, but I'm not sure it bothers me the way it bothers you. Not at this point, anyway.
But...I will mention that there is an option in the 2E Rules you may consider if this really bothers you.
It seems that the problem, as you see it, is the starting skills for the different classes, no?
Well, there's a neat suggestion in 2E (and it may be in other Conan editions...I don't know) that suggests starting all characters off as Commoners using the Commoner character class usually reserved for NPCs. There's enough information (including a level chart) to run a Commoner as a Character Class, though (at least up to 10th level).
If you take the suggestion (which I think is kinda neat...even considering it for my campaign), you'll rule that all characters have to start the game as "Commoners". They'll be apprentice wine makers, or boyers, or smiths, or barkeeps, or whatever.
Then, as the game begins, the players are free to multi-class into whatever class the GM allows.
THIS WAY, every PC starts out the same (as a Commoner), and the only way to become a Thief or a Borderer or a Soldier or whatever is to multi-class into that class at 2nd level or later.
Thus...your problem, as you see it, is averted.
Sutek
Mongoose
That's a suggestion in D&D 3.5 DMG, and not other editions of Conan, but it is a decent one. However, the scenario of 1THF/9SOL is a way of a player maximizing Skill points, but losing bonus feats for not sticking to one class. However, there's nothing inherently wrong on unbalancing about it since there's only so many Ranks per level that the player can assign. However, all it means is a few more Ranks.
Assuming the absurd for the sake of argument, a Soldier with INT18(+5) going straight through 10 levels and adding Stat Bonuses to INT too along the way (I did say absurd) would acumulate an INT21(+6). That results in 200 skill ranks to allocate over all levels (80 that can be spent only on Class Skills and another 120 that are INT based and thus unrestricted.
Now, the same character starting off as a Thief for just 1 lvl and then taking 9 consecutive Soldier lvls would acumulate (8+5)x4 at first level (32 Class Skill ranks plus 20 derived from INT that can be used without penalty on Cross Class skills), and then another 180 skill points as a Soldier, 72 for Class Skills only and 108 unrestricted. This totals 200 for the straight Soldier versus 238 for the multiclassed character. An 8% gain.
Big deal.
(check my math, it's 2am here, but I think that's right)
Assuming the absurd for the sake of argument, a Soldier with INT18(+5) going straight through 10 levels and adding Stat Bonuses to INT too along the way (I did say absurd) would acumulate an INT21(+6). That results in 200 skill ranks to allocate over all levels (80 that can be spent only on Class Skills and another 120 that are INT based and thus unrestricted.
Now, the same character starting off as a Thief for just 1 lvl and then taking 9 consecutive Soldier lvls would acumulate (8+5)x4 at first level (32 Class Skill ranks plus 20 derived from INT that can be used without penalty on Cross Class skills), and then another 180 skill points as a Soldier, 72 for Class Skills only and 108 unrestricted. This totals 200 for the straight Soldier versus 238 for the multiclassed character. An 8% gain.
Big deal.
(check my math, it's 2am here, but I think that's right)
Soldier 10, 18 Int, 20 at 6th level:
1 - 24
2 - 30
3 - 36
4 - 42
5 - 48
6 - 54
7 - 61
8 - 68
9 - 75
10 - 82
T1/S9 ...:
1 - 48
2 - 54
3 - 60
4 - 66
5 - 72
6 - 78
7 - 85
8 - 92
9 - 99
10 - 106
29% more skill ranks if you want to think of it that way or you could say you gave up a BAB, had some changes in saves, gave up a feat for a die of sneak attack, lost 2 HP, and whatever else to gain 24 skill ranks.
At 6th level, it's 44% more if you care about such things.
BTW, I have no idea why someone would bring in favored class rules as those only affect certain characters and shouldn't affect any min/maxed character anyway or, at most, see a one or two level delay in getting them which is a pretty trivial cost. Given the Zamoran campaign mentioned, it would be even worse to be a borderer or soldier using the favored class rules.
But, whatever. If people don't care, they don't care. Our players don't care, which is why we haven't house ruled anything different. I just find it perplexing how people don't care about rules that tend to reduce the variety of characters that are desirable to play mechanically.
As for commoner or any of the numerous other suggestions you, Supplement Four, have made on the forums recently, it seems clear enough that you really want to play low fantasy. I don't have a problem with that, I don't care what people do with their games. I, however, vastly prefer sword and sorcery, thus I'm inclined to ignore suggestions that move the game down from that. I already have in mind quite a few fixes I'd make to the game, but since the majority in our group want to play RAW (ignoring that they don't know what the RAW are and that we play with rules outside of RAW), we aren't likely to implement them.
1 - 24
2 - 30
3 - 36
4 - 42
5 - 48
6 - 54
7 - 61
8 - 68
9 - 75
10 - 82
T1/S9 ...:
1 - 48
2 - 54
3 - 60
4 - 66
5 - 72
6 - 78
7 - 85
8 - 92
9 - 99
10 - 106
29% more skill ranks if you want to think of it that way or you could say you gave up a BAB, had some changes in saves, gave up a feat for a die of sneak attack, lost 2 HP, and whatever else to gain 24 skill ranks.
At 6th level, it's 44% more if you care about such things.
BTW, I have no idea why someone would bring in favored class rules as those only affect certain characters and shouldn't affect any min/maxed character anyway or, at most, see a one or two level delay in getting them which is a pretty trivial cost. Given the Zamoran campaign mentioned, it would be even worse to be a borderer or soldier using the favored class rules.
But, whatever. If people don't care, they don't care. Our players don't care, which is why we haven't house ruled anything different. I just find it perplexing how people don't care about rules that tend to reduce the variety of characters that are desirable to play mechanically.
As for commoner or any of the numerous other suggestions you, Supplement Four, have made on the forums recently, it seems clear enough that you really want to play low fantasy. I don't have a problem with that, I don't care what people do with their games. I, however, vastly prefer sword and sorcery, thus I'm inclined to ignore suggestions that move the game down from that. I already have in mind quite a few fixes I'd make to the game, but since the majority in our group want to play RAW (ignoring that they don't know what the RAW are and that we play with rules outside of RAW), we aren't likely to implement them.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
Ichabod said:
I'd call it gritty high fantasy, low magic. But, yeah, I think we're on the same page as to my tastes with respect to the Conan universe.
Absolutely! Thus, the disagreements in taste. I'd say that's a very fair comment.
Not sure I know what "RAW" is.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
I'm now cosidering giving my players three options when they roll their stats at our first game session coming up in two weeks.
Method 1 - Straight out of the book. Roll 4D6, drop lowest (no-arrangement, just roll for each stat, and that's your score).
Method 2 - is Conan 321, which the players can have limited arrange to taste capabilties.
Method 3 - is the arrange-to-taste method from the book, with a twist. I'll roll 1d6. This is the number of stats that will be rolled "straight", unelligible for arrange-to-taste. If I roll a 6, then this method is just like Method 1 above. If I roll a 1, I'll roll randomly and tell the player which stat is not elligible for arrange-to-taste, but the other five are. And, so on.
This last method leaves it all up to chance. At best, the player will have 5 stats he can arrange to taste, with one that can't be. At worst, the player will have no choice at all (because I rolled a 6).
Method 3 is for the gambler. Method 2 still gives the players the most control.
Method 1 - Straight out of the book. Roll 4D6, drop lowest (no-arrangement, just roll for each stat, and that's your score).
Method 2 - is Conan 321, which the players can have limited arrange to taste capabilties.
Method 3 - is the arrange-to-taste method from the book, with a twist. I'll roll 1d6. This is the number of stats that will be rolled "straight", unelligible for arrange-to-taste. If I roll a 6, then this method is just like Method 1 above. If I roll a 1, I'll roll randomly and tell the player which stat is not elligible for arrange-to-taste, but the other five are. And, so on.
This last method leaves it all up to chance. At best, the player will have 5 stats he can arrange to taste, with one that can't be. At worst, the player will have no choice at all (because I rolled a 6).
Method 3 is for the gambler. Method 2 still gives the players the most control.
Realistic? In what reality?
If you are playing "farm boys overrun by events" then sure. But that's not what Conan or any other RPG is designed for. They assume that you are playing adventurers. And what are adventurers? Small groups who use superior quality and tactics to overcome enemies who are often numerically larger, and/or people who investigate and deal with occurances too serious for local authorities to handle. n other words, depending on your campaign they operate as somewhere on the spectrum between a special forces unit and the FBI.
The people who you call in when normal people have failed do not, I suspect, have many stat penalties. Not many Royal Marine Commandos have sub 10 stats, I suspect. Not many 6s in an FBI field agent's array I reckon.
If he's read Intircate Swordplay he might. But that, too, is realistic. Given any degree of choice, people tend to select the careers for which they feel themselves best suited. And for a soldier that does NOT involve putting his lowest stat in CHA, unless he want's to spend twenty years as a private.
I thought you wanted realism?
I SUPPOSE, with Cha 18, he might have concealed the fact that he is a total klutz from the recruiting sergeant. But how on Earth did he make it through basic training? Did not one single drill sergeant notice that handing this guy anything with points or edges is the act of a madman? I hope he has a backstory of coming from a kingdom in a thirty year war that is dredging the bottom of its manpower pool, because that's the only way this guy made it into an army!
I realise that you have a desire for randomness in character generation. I don't understand it, but if it works for you, go ahead. But don't pretend it's more realistic. Realistically, recruiters for armies pick people who are strong, fast and tough. Scholars choose apprentices who are smart, and teach sorcery to those who have the will and personality to make doing so worthwhile. Thieves recruit sidekicks who have the potential to become useful, not liabilities. And Pirates, Nomads and Barbarians face the even harsher natural selection. Realistically, it is NOT random what career you end up in, and design methods produce more realistic results, not less.
Well, guys its because, while you seem to view games as an test of will, a struggle against the odds, a test of your character to the very limits, we are inclined to view it as a way to have some fun with our friends. And being unable to contribute to the game is boring, and boredom isn't fun.#
And the argument that in ten levels time, you'll be having fun and all the other players will be bored slightly misses the point...
The point about balance is not balance against the monsters, but balance within the party. If the dragon gives the party a hard fight, that's not a problem. If the dragon gives the party wizard a hard fight while the rest of the party sits around with nothing to do for two hours, that IS.
You do know that first method has the choice of being either straight down the line or arrange to taste in the book. personally i like random generated stats and i use the heroic method for my players, ensures they have a high minimum so none of them are ridiculously crippled and that they can attain the high end stats without sacrifificing all their other stats like alot of point buys do. my players are meant to be heroes, exceptional individuals who will face many challenges most average mortals will find next to impossible and they may even succeed cause i dont hold back on them with their opponents.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
kintire said:
That would be this reality.
People don't get to choose much about themselves in real life. They are born and grow fat, tall, bald, with a certain color skin, whatever.
As the person grows, he has more choice in how he turns out (he works out to get strong, for example).
In game terms, that's a random roll on original stats, and then the character's choice (working out and other life pusuit choices) as stats are improved (+1 stat point at 4th, +1 to all stats at 6th, etc.).
So...yes...random roll is much, much more realistic than point buy.
And, again, point buy tends to deliver generic characters--those perfect for thier chosen line of work (character class).
Life isn't always like that, and a random generated character that is groomed for a specific career by skill and feat picks is much, much more realistic than the specially designed-for-the-character-class character that is the result of point-buy generation.
No, I'm afraid you've missed the point. Random roll is probably more realistic for producing a random member of the population. But random members of the population are mostly farmers, tradesmen, craftsmen and so on. When creating a PC in Conan you are creating an adventurer. In other words, you have already decided a number of things about the character, and one of those things is that (s)he is a member of an elite. The people born into the world have random stats. The people recruited into the SAS do not.
DigitalMage
Mongoose
I think we will have to agree to disagree. In the real world some people try to overcome their weaknesses as you suggested by working out, getting more help via a tutor etc. But this conscious development can start before the point of starting play, even as a level 1 character.Supplement Four said:
If anything, a cross between random and point buy would be more realistic, but even then I hate using that word to describe any roleplay mechanic.
E.g. have all stats be 4 + 2d6 rolled and assigned straight. Then allow a player to have 6 points to spend as they like one those stats (I am picking numbers out of the air so bear with me). Then if a player rolled a 6 for Strength he could improve it, but still couldn't get beyond 12 for example.
In the end, people play RPGs to have fun, and if a player will get that fun by being allowed to play a certain concept I don't feel it is a helpful move to potentially undermine that concept by restricting their Abilities - especially as some feats have pre-requisites.
If you are sick of optimised characters tell your players and offer incentives to play characters that buck the trend. But personally I would welcome a player playing a mechanically optimised character with an interesting background and realistic motivations, than someone playing a soldier with Strength of 8 but no personality and background.
DigitalMage said:
Not really relevant to the argument, but I think I'd be quite happy with a system along these lines, except the part about assigning straight. Note, to get the same average as the heroic system, it would be 5+2d6 +9.
Just rolled: 7, 8, 9, 8, 3, 6. 12, 13, 14, 13, 8, 11, +9. Of course, this system blatantly highlights the stupidity that is d20 stats where an odd number is the same as an even number and someone would always choose to even up immediately or as quickly as feasible. Conan's system does change this slightly with the all stat increases.
On another tangent, I really don't get why people care if PCs have high stats. Sure, characters should vary to where everyone being all 18's is not desirable, but PC power vs. opposition power is meaningless. GM just adjusts the strength of opposition to the power level of the party. Meanwhile, I will always believe that PCs should completely outclass nobodies.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
QFT.Ichabod said:
That PCs are a cut above in all respects is a concept as old as roleplaying games. Just give a look at all the biased random PC generation methods in the 1e DMG.
